The humanity of Man

"Take away his clothes and belongings. Put him in a bed. Remove his glasses and/or hearing aids or whatever else he needs to function as a human being. Then you have a man well and truly minimised."


I have been on a rather extended summer break. Which was wonderful. I hope yours was just as nice.

Now that the summer is drawing to a close (sob), I return to my beloved sanctuary.

I have been thinking about writing this post for a very long time. I just never had the time to sit down and formulate it properly, until now.

And the prompt for it came from an unusual place:
Someone made me laugh.
And I realised, in the midst of my laughter that that person had somehow managed to break past a barrier that most people don't even realise is there :-)
So I say 'bravo' to that person.
He may not even be aware that he had achieved a major 'victory'. But all the more fascinating to me, the silent observer...

So, before I confuse you any further, 4 questions:
Who am I talking about in the quote above?
Who is the utterer of the quote above that I am quoting?
Who made me laugh and why?
And (most important!) why does all this have any relevance to this post or this blog?

Patience, patience :-)

The quote above refers to...hospital patients!

Have you ever been an in-patient yourself? Do you visit friends and relatives in hospital?
Have you ever thought about why an in-patient needs to be in a simple, unattractive, mostly immodest hospital gown?

Is it because doctors and nurses need access to their bodies and these shapeless gowns are the only way possible for this to be facilitated?
False, for the most part.

Is it because it improves the care of the patient in any way?
False again.

So why...?
I don't know...
But someone made a point earlier (in another post) about some monkeys in a lift...and that certainly comes to mind here :-)

To put the above quote in context, I attend a lecture a long time ago when I was a student (um, yes, in my geeky days, lol). This lecture has stuck in my mind ever since. It was entitled 'The dignity of man' or some such, and was actually part of a wider set of lectures about Catholic teaching. The speaker was a brilliant woman whose explanantions as to why contraceptives exponentially reduce the dignity of women will stay with me forever...but let's not get sidetracked...

Her point was that it is oh so easy to strip someone of their dignity or humanity. In the case of a sick person, the vulnerability is already present. All you have to do to reduce his humanity further is to remove him from the familiar and plunge him further into the unknown. Take away his everyday clothes. Lock his wallet and keys away in 'a safe place' and take away his dentures...
And hospitals do this routinely, with no evidence that it improves the quality of care. In many ways, it reduces it, no?

The man who made me laugh was a hospital patient I saw walking around in his jeans and cotton shirt. He simply refused to change into hospital gear and the nurses were fed up trying to persuade him. So he was prancing about the ward not looking like a hospital in-patient whilst everyone else looked like they were.
I laughed when I saw him because he had somehow managed to retain his humanity in an environment where it is exceedingly easy to lose it.


Why is this relevant to this post?


I had a conversation with a fellow woman a while back which disturbed me. I hesitated to reproduce our conversation here as a 'field report' of some sort but I still may in the future, in which case I shall cross-reference this post.

The conclusion I came away with from that conversation is that the humanity of Man as opposed to Woman is in a level of jeopardy I hadn't quite grasped.

The woman I was speaking to is a Brit of Indian origin. She is one of the sweetest people I know. We were discussing an issue of a personal nature to her.
Which involved a man :-)

She had started out the discussion with a complaint against him. At the end of the discussion she made the insightful declaration that she had not in fact seen him as a human being, with his own needs, desires and choices. I was startled by how quickly she had made this turn-around, given that I had not really prompted it, but simply stood by as she came to this conclusion herself after her rant in which I was just a sound-board. But her admission pleased me, for her sake.

But thinking widely around the subject, I see something which I know is already obvious to you Sanctuaryites :-)

We as women are systematically trained to elevate the needs of ourselves over those of others.
Yes, I think feminism is a large part of this mechanism. But it is only a social engineer, and like all social engineers, it (in this regard at least) can be easily overcome.

Women are naturally nurturers. Someone has to be, and it might as well be the one who carries forth the progeny :-)

This means that women are naturally happiest when in service to others.
Which means that the 'self' of women is more easily and is naturally downplayed, in the interests of serving others.

This is in major contrast to the 'service' of men which requires that he elevate himself over those he serves, because his service is of the nature of protection and provision, which requires a sense of magnitude over those being served. I wonder if this makes sense?

To give an example, I imagine when Prince William said recently that Kate and George were his priority now, he did not mean he puts them 'over himself' because he needs to be able to protect them. He couldn't possibly protect people who he sees as 'bigger than him', which is just as well, given he is refrring to a woman and a baby :-)

A woman's servitude is much more 'indirect'. I see why this needs to be so. And I also see why today's 'empowerment brigade' is incompatible with female happiness.

The biggest problem in today's world is the elevation of the female 'self'. Which negates and woefully contradicts the notion of 'service' in a way that is truly deleterious to society.

It is easier for a woman to 'see' the humanity of people when this self-elevation is absent.
This is true.

I run the risk here of offending Ceer in the same way I did in the 'Mercy and Pity' post when I appeared to indicate that women are more 'merciful' than men. Someone came to my rescue and pointed out that a man is actually more capable of mercy the more magnanimous he is. Which sounds counterintuitive to a woman, but there we are...


A woman who is truly self-absorbed is shooting herself in the foot, whether or not she has a family to be 'serving'. The happiest women I know are in service to someone, or some people (anyone!) whether or not they are linked to her in a socially arranged way or not.

The unhappiest women are those who have checked out of this 'obligation' in the pursuit of 'freedom'.
The problem is, these women are the ones least likely to 'see' anyone's humanity but their own.

I watched an interview given by an ex-model with a chaotic and complicated life-story - complete with a history of self-harm, hard drugs, etc.
It was so clear to me that the solution to her problems would be for her to be a little less self-absorbed. For the entire interview, she talked about herself. Even when the interviewer tried to draw her away from the topic of herself, she somehow managed to drag the topic back to her.

It was fascinating.
Men are naturally self-serving, (um, no offence Ceer! but this is intrinsically true, for reasons I now 'get') and I think the french have a better word for this - egoïste, because the link to the masculine ego is expressed in this word.

I think the female mind is not the best to analyse why a man needs his self-importance to be at his highest in his dealings with others, so I won't sweat it :-)

But I understand that it is somehow necessary, in men.
Good men use their 'selfishness' to achieve great things for themselves and those they love. Bad men do the opposite. But in both cases, the self-elevation is an important factor.

This post suddenly makes me realise that whilst there is something such as 'the servant king' there is actually no female equivalent! At least not in the same way...

It also explains why it is entirely possible for huge numbers of men to GTOW, but it is much harder for a woman to GHOW. Intrinsic nature simply does not allow it, unless there is a fundamental reason why this needs to be so. Exceptions do exist of course - but here, I am referring to the general population.

For women, things are different. Self-elevation is destructive beyond the teens and at latest, early 20s. When it was socially (almost) compulsory for women to be self-effacing, it was easier for women to be truly woman-like. When this mechanism broke down, it became harder for women to 'see' men's humanity... and men responded with the expected masculine response - with displays of domination hardened with anger.



Life in the modern world is not mutually exclusive with a return to the virtues that made it easier for women to be women. In fact, women could evolve into something absolutely beautiful, with the right values, despite modern influences.

Thanks to my friend for helping me to understand this issue. And kudos to her for pointing out her error of judgment when she realised it, long before I even saw the problem. And especially important for me to witness is the ease with which she dropped the false teaching she had (unknowingly) absorbed, when she needed to.

See? All is not lost.
We find comfort in unusal places.

This is why I retain hope...

The new breed explained

NC asks (in response to my declaration that the system needs changing):
"How should the system change?"


That is not a hard question at all, NC!
It is shockingly simple from where I am standing :-)


We can't stay as we are...that is clear enough.
We can't go back to 1950s model either. That model belonged to an age of innocence which we no longer have. Although in general, it was quite a good deal for women, it was largely rejected by women themselves.
Either women got it really wrong (should have stuck to what works, dear) or there were too many flaws in that system anyway, so it had to go.


Either way, a NEW system is required.
My recommendation is that since we have the benefit of hindsight and can see which bits worked and which bits didn't, we are in the rather privileged position of picking and choosing the traits we would like to project forth, and the ones we would like to drop.

Much like agricultural breeders. Animal breeders weed out unfavourable characteristics in favour of good ones.

Yes, I am venturing into the ugly territory of 'social eugenics' so to speak.


You gentlemen, I am sure will confirm that there are some attractive traits to the modern woman.
Let's be fair.

Many of you would soon grow tired of the perpetual child who cannot do anything for herself unless there is a man holding her hand.

That, gentlemen, was the woman from the 1950s, in general.
Vulnerable is one thing. I am sure you chaps dig that, in a woman :-)
I get that.

But helplessness is another. And I am sure knowing that the little lady wouldn't be able to handle anything unless you were there to guide her is quite the burden!

Many modern women don't have this problem. That has got to be quite a relief to you men.
The problem however, is that women are now so 'empowered' that they are hardly recognisable as 'women' anymore.
This is a question of degree, though.
It can be corrected once women take on more of the mantle of vulnerability that we were keen to shed in the days of 'bra burning'.



Another issue is that of 'the full package'.

Um...how shall I put this delicately, Lord help us, lol.

I think women have never really unleashed 'the full package' ever, in history.
We could be the first era to achieve this.

Bellita once mentioned the notion of women having 3 phases of life (in direct comparison to those of men, namely the page, the knave and the prince) i.e. the maiden, the mother and the crone.

In all previous ages, men had to live with the biological fact that a woman could not possibly be all three at once. If you were lucky, she could be two at once.

This is one aspect where Mother Nature would not allow multi-tasking', lol.

Once a woman was past the 'maiden' stage, that was it. In many non-Western societies, the difference between a 'mother' and a 'maiden' is sometimes alarmingly stark.
She is totally unrecognisable - physicaly, psychologically, mentally...

But these societies remain stable because men are given free reign to replace the 'lost maiden' with a new one, whilst retaining the services of the mother and the crone.
Polygamy for the win, I hear you guys say...
:-)

But in the West, there is at least an attempt of women to retain wifely allure, which is not totally blighted by maternal (matronly?) demeanour and appearance.

But I hear you scream: But this is exactly what is missing! As soon as she pops out her 2.2 kids, it's goodbye sexy!

Well, one of the by-products of 'wayward womanhood' if I may coin a potentially unpopular phrase, is that more and more women are revealing themselves to be capable of a 'crone' stage mimicking the maiden stage quite well...at least better than previous generations of women managed it.

Of course, the results are not always totally successful or indeed desirable, but this is because these women are trying too hard, and in the wrong 'frame'.

I would hazard a guess that a woman is much more attractive to the man she has been yoked to for years, rather than a new man who is himself perhaps unimpressed with women in general.

Here is a suggestion: wouldn't it be great if thse cougars who were trying to catch the toyboys reserved their cougardom for the men they have vowed to honour, love and obey forever?
See where I am going?

The 1950s woman had no such extensive experience of observing cougar wildlife at play, as much as we do today's SMP.
Yes, we can learn from the cougars.
Some of us are not too fussy where our education comes from :-)

The cougar of today could teach the frumpy wife of the 50s a lesson or two in 'sexiness'.
Whilst the latter was probably more of a 'lady' than the former, the two combined would be quite a formidable 'package' of femininity, no?


What about the young 'uns?
What could change about them?



One of you gentlemen complained recently here that all women bring to the table is sex and kids, and 'no, thanks Ma'am, I don't need neither'.

I responded dismissively that sex and kids were already quite the gift, why can't you see this, Sir.

But I missed an important starting point for a whole new debate :-)

Women are providing one or the other at any given time, ain't it the problem :-)

Before commitment, you men get all sex and no kids.
After commitment you get all kids and no sex :-)

Would you prefer neither pre-Commitment and both post-Commitment, maybe?
Your call.

I think it would be nice (but is it pie in the sky?) if you blokes got 'the full package', but that requires a degree of defying Nature, by women.
In any case, it takes a great deal of hard work on the part of women, who naturally, have a lot of demand on their bodies in ways that you gentlemen will never experience :-)




And there is a third aspect to this 'full package' thing. I ain't finished yet :-)

Studies upon studies say women are not having enough babies...
Nonsense.
Women are having lots of babies alright. They are just not legitimate babies, half the time, um... literally.
Hence the dissatisfaction.

The evidence is that um, sex is in short supply, at least for married men.
And yet, the hook-up culture is ubiquitous.
The point is that legitimate sex is in short supply.




It is not enough to simply provide a commodity.
The commodity must be 'kosher'.
If not, its value is nil.

It must be the 'full package', otherwise it might as well be an empty package.

A right 'jack-in-the-box'.

So that's how the system should change, NC.

We should look at the evidence before us and act accordingly, weeding out the highlighted unwanted traits and inserting new and desirable traits into the female collective DNA.

The result would be a womanhood that for once in history, delivers the 'full package'.
The means are there, but is the spirit?
That is the question...

The Servant King

What an oxymoron this is!
It's got me thinking all day.



At Mass this morning, I was struck by the words of this hymn.
The lyrics kept playing themselves in my mind all day.
Flicking through channels in the hope of an update about a certain royal baby :-) I came across a church service where the congregation were singing a hymn.

You wouldn't believe which hymn...


I promised to pray for a young lady.
She is on the cusp of womanhood.
That means she will soon enter into the SMP.
Her father is educating her well. But he is quite rightly worried about her romantic future.

Cadders, this one is for your young daughter.
May she be the kind of woman that one day you would be immensely proud of.

The Servant King.
A servant who is also a king, or a king who serves?

This reminds me of a french phrase that a close family member uses a lot:

Noblesse oblige.
With nobility comes a lot of responsibility.

Kind of puts paid to the modern 'princess' who has all the rights and no responsibility, doesn't it?




The last verse of this hymn is the one that got most of my attention.

"So let us learn now to serve,
And in our lives enthrone Him
Each other's needs to prefer
For it is Christ we're serving."


I am not versed in Scripture. I can't quote Bible passages at will. Google is my friend when I need to find something in a hurry :-)
So for me it is nice to get a little titbit of wisdom handed to me on a plate, for free.
This hymn was one such gift for which I am grateful.

The last post about 'a new breed of woman' is a way to elevate my own ideals. But I realise it won't be possible without a supreme being's help.

In my world, I call this being 'God'.
Others may have a different word for Him.
It doesn't matter what we call Him.

If we learn how to serve, like Him, if we prefer each other's needs like Him, we would be well on the way to be what He designed for our eternal happiness, I am sure.

There are people who serve everyday, without even thinking about it. Kudos to these people. They are selfless and self-sacrificing, and they are a great example to follow.

This servant King, he has a number one fan.
She is his mother, the Servant Queen.
And she is like me, female.
But there endeth the similarity :-)


She is a cool role model to have, for every young woman.
If one has a difficult choice to make, one could try asking, 'would she do that?'
If the answer is yes, cool.
If it is no...



For sure, we would all never quite be like her.
For she was born without sin, and we were.

But our lives can be lived trying to imitate her, and other women like her.

Cadders, may your daughter strive to be like the mother of the Servant King all the days of her life.

At this point in her life when she is about to enter into an important phase, may she get all the good guidance that you (and her mother) have to offer.




The rest of us will support her with our good wishes, positive thoughts and prayers.

Behold a new breed of Woman

Lonely Himalayan Bear made a brilliant point in several guises.
I am afraid I missed the point many times, which is why he had to present the same point to me in several takes before I finally caught on.

LHB, I never said I was a bright spark ;-)

The point he makes is essentially this: that MGTOW is not necessarily a reaction to women's bad behaviour. Men have reached a state of play where it is rational - a choice (Hey, what's good for feminism is also good for 'masculinism') to GTOW which is absolutely nothing to do with women.

I guess my first reaction to this notion is, 'Hm, this is one almighty coincidence, isn't it, that when woman go AWOL, men decide to GTOW. Interesting'.

Well that's a simplistic view of a very pertinent point, I know.

I missed what LHB was really trying to say, but he was patient enough to try, try, try again until I could see his point finally :-)

The following helped my understanding of where he was coming from:

"Women NOT marrying is not the problem; often women that DO MARRY are the biggest deterrents :-) Everything I needed to learn about marriage and female psychology (outside of books, that is), I learnt by observing heterosexual couples around me. Many of them were traditional, religious Hindu couples wedded under Marriage 1.0 laws in the "culturally deep-rooted" Indian nation. It was all like a never-ending play where I saw Briffault's law, Weininger's thoughts, Schopenhauer's opinions, Manu's teachings (Hinduism), Menckenian philosophy and Esther Vilar's book being played out several times before I actually even encountered those literary works."

Well, this made me sit up, because I was under the impression that the current state of play (women hooking up with the bad boys instead of rewarding the good boys) was enough to derail an already failing system.

But oh no. As LHB points out, there is more that is undermining the good name of marriage.

I think I see what he means. Let's try and smoke out this new monster (actually, a very old monster).

And now I am reminded of a phrase I used to use a lot months ago. I used to say a lot of this:

"Virginity is not enough."

How true.

LHB is describing a phenomenon which is being played out by women who would have been the archetypal perfect brides. Tarditional Hindu women? There are no better women than traditional Hindu women!
(Hey, not even traditional Catholic women, lol).

So what's the problem?

And it is important to say, this problem predates feminism, but certainly has been updated, upgraded and rebooted big time by feminism.


Here is my take on the problem:

First of all, this problem seems to be distinct from the ills of the contemporary SMP because as LHB points out ad nauseum until I 'got it', it involves women who should have been perfect wives, from a bygone age.

Who are these women... who should have made for excellent wives, but who caused generations of men to want to curl up and die whilst simultaneously sucking it up and manning up because they felt compelled to?

Who are these women who rode on the coat-tails of other women of their generation and hopped onto the 1950s 'kept woman' bus but who didn't deserve to be on that bus?

You see, there were lovely, beautiful (in every way) honourable women of that era. So for LHB to pinpoint this errant minority (um, I hope this was indeed a minority but I have no way of knowing for certain) sounds rather like heresy.

But it is not heresy.

On the surface of things, these women possessed at least two of the following positive characteristics: they were virgin brides, good-looking, demure, charming women with some but not excessive education who were sought after by many men but settled for the men of her choice, men who satisfied their 'lists'.

Anything wrong with this picture?

Absolutely not. So far so good. Things should be exactly like this.


But these woman were hell to live with.
I think this is what LHB was getting at.

Why?

I have two theories on this.

The first is that I think there is a natural tendency for women's 'tolerance' levels for men to drop as they get older. This is not a criticism of women as such. It is but an observation.
I described this phenomenon here (link - hourglass device). Whilst I think there are many factors that cause a rapid decline in the sand within this 'hourglass devce', I think perhaps it is prudent to accept that there will be some decline, unless the woman in question is making a concerted effort to be a saint. Many men notice this decline in the form of denial of certain privileges :-), getting roughed up by law enforcement on the whim of 'er indoors, or getting downright kicked out of the home when she is well and truly done with him.

Deplorable and regrettable, yes.


My second theory is that women evolve much faster than men on an emotional level. Men largely stay the same emotionally. Women swing a lot from day to day, month to month, year to year.
Maybe it is the hormonal changes associated with lunar phases :-) childbirth, etc.

The point is that a woman who seems to have 'changed a lot' may appear to have 'tricked' a man because he 'didn't see it coming'. This is a common response amongst stunned and shocked recently divorced men.

I make no excuses - I am just trying to understand what may be going on.


How can this problem be solved?

The first thing to say is that for sure, feminism is not helping the situation, because the woman (even if she is not the type) is egged on by laws which enable her to do as she pleases to the detriment of everyone else. These laws are the woman's enemy in the long run, but at the time she is busy taking advantage of them, she is blinded to this possibility.

We need a new breed of 'super woman'.

Bellita and I made (independently of each other!) the point that at this stage of the game in the current SMP, a woman needs to really show that she is the bees' knees before she will be taken seriously by any man as a good prospect for marriage, whoever she is.
She needs to be far better than what a 1950s woman had to be, to be 'wifed up'. This is the price ALL women have to pay now.
Voilà, we are where we are now.

And the tragedy is that many men won't just say, 'well I am MGTOW because there are skanky young women about'.

No, they are also saying 'well, my mother was seemingly the perfect wife and mother, but my father still wants to kill himself every three months'...



There is one thing that feminism has gifted women: the proximity to men at the workplace for large numbers of women may be seen as a bad thing in general, but I say, why don't we put it to good use?

The 1950s housewife had no way of knowing what it would be like for a man to be out all day 'slaying dragons'.
The modern woman does, by default. She has had to slay a few dragons herself.
When she empathises with a man who has just gotten grief from his boss, her words of empathy carry far more weight than those of her grandmother.

A modern woman may lack the understanding of men that the 1950s woman naturally got from her own mother, but the modern woman has the proximity that the 1950s woman was simply not allowed for fear of adverse consequences for her :-)

If only the modern woman can still avoid those 'adverse consequences', she can take full advantage of this proximity to really study men 'in the wild' as it were, with little need for top-up 'second-hand information from third parties:-)


 All the other rules of femininity apply. The modern woman can only add to the repertoire. There is potential for a fulfilling life as a woman, with all the strides made to provide women with 'choices'. The key is to know that choices are not endless, and that each choice has a consequence down the line.

What we need is a new breed of woman who has the ability to use the quirks of modern life to her actual advantage rather than capitulate under all these 'choices' that Mama Feminism brought her.
Modern woman needs to be the Cinderella whose feet fit whatever shoe modern life throws at her.

It begins with a certain empathy and understanding of men and a refusal to succumb to the 'all men are bastards' chorus.

This, I think is what was lacking in those pretty, slim, virginal 1950s women who somehow despite all their apparent gifts still managed to wreak havoc for their unsuspecting entourage.

They somehow managed to give marriage a bad name in an era when this should have been impossible.

But they managed it, because there was a critical mass of excellent women around, so much like all children benefit from the herd immunity that immunised children provide (if theay are the majority), these unfit women were carried along on the tidal wave of the goodwill of their good sisters, much to the eventual pain of the 1950s man who could not tell the difference between a 'good one' and a 'bad one' because 'well, they all look the same to me'.

But now, modern woman stands very much alone, as she is judged not with the positive reflection of her critical mass of good sisters ('cos there ain't a critical mass of good sisters no more :-) she is judged as a stand-alone entity (if she is lucky).

Worst case scenario - she is judged with the negative reflection of the increasingly critical mass of her not-so-great sisters.
This is the unintended consequence of the legacy of our errant female ancestors, yes.
We are where we are now...


Modern man has much more than the unlucky 1950s man: he has the ability to study modern woman. This same proximity thing works both ways :-)



So, LHB, the problem you describe should never be the modern man's prolem in this current era.
For you guys have a tool your fathers did not have.


Whilst modern woman is more than capable of restoring the good name of marriage,

1. It would take a great deal of personal effort, prayer, guidance, divine intervention :-)

2. It may not make any difference to the atrtitude of men, because the die has already been cast.

3. But she really does need to do something. Because she needs marriage. Even if she doesn't know she does.








Wouldn't it be fun to beat the 1950s woman at something... just so we could say we could...
:-)

About 'All but one'...

I had an answer for Lonely Himalayan Bear that I was going to post up today.

And then someone else pitched up and blew my mind :-)
Ezriel says something that I have heard before. But not quite like this :-)



Ezriel is a MGHOW and a storyteller. And I like this story he tells:



"The others will not come back.

Women only want heroes on their parade.

The women rejoice at their returning heroes. A great celebration is held for the new members of the village. They feel the love, admiration and respect of everyone around them.

All but one.

Quietly a father searches the perimeter for his son. “He’ll make it”, he says to himself. But as the hours pass, he is forced to return home and comfort his mate over what is increasingly obvious even if he won’t admit it to himself. His mate is sad, but resolute. “It had to be done”, she remarks. “Only the strong have the right to survive.” As the night falls and his mate drifts off to sleep the father cries for his son.

When the morning comes, the father’s mate rolls over and finds a cold, empty bed. Sure that he is hunting she busies herself with her daily tasks. As the day goes by, more and more of the hunters return to smiling families, marveling at bounty they provide. A niggling doubt creeps into her thoughts, her mate has yet to return and night has fallen. She asks the other hunters if they had seen her mate to no avail. No one has seen him since the celebration.

Deep in the jungle, a father hunts not for food but for his son. He uses every trick his father taught him but it fails him. No blood, no body, no trace whatsoever. Sure that his son survived after all he rushes to the village expecting to find his smiling son, now a man!

Nothing but emptiness greets him. He knew then that it will never be the same.

Time passes: days become months, months become years but the father never forgot. Couldn’t, no matter how hard he tried. Everyone’s life continued as nothing has happened. Sick of it all, he drifts off to the jungle never to be heard of again.

Even without one of their hunters, the village prospered and grew. Their time honored tradition has served them well. The strong live, the weak are culled. The women prepare for that night’s celebration and as the boys, now men, return. The celebration is held and the men can feel the love, admiration and respect of everyone around them.

All but one…

***

I hope you don’t mind Spacetraveller, I took your narrative and made one of my own. It’s shorter than I wanted it to be but I’ve a limited space. I apologize in advance as English is not my primary language. What I’m trying to illustrate here is that, at least for me, the system becomes unsustainable. It works for a while but it will implode at some point. More and more men are drifting away from the village, if they make it back to begin with.

I turned 30 last month and it has turned my sight inward. I look back at the roads I’ve traveled; that my father traveled and his father before him. The beaten path is familiar to me, but no longer fulfilling. Somewhere along the line, something fell off and broke. Whatever it was, I couldn’t fix it. I had to make something new to replace it with but that something, that elusive thing, is now tugging at me towards a new path. One away from what is expected of me. But I don’t see it as a loss, more and more I see what awaits me at the end. It is not without its peril, to walk this path I must discard everything that has led me this far and remake myself anew. But what awaits me at the end is more precious than diamonds, more beautiful than your child’s first word, sweeter than a woman’s first kiss.

What awaits me at the end is freedom, and I like it."


Ezriel's story is easily recognisable to any man, I am sure.
I know this is every man's story.
I also know that many modern women do not know this story.
I know this story because I was fortunate enough to find it 'by accident'.

I post all of Ezriel's comment here in the hope that women will find it and read it. Again and again.




All but one.


If I didn't know this before, I can categorically say this now:

As a woman, I have never feared being that 'one'.

The one who never comes back.
The one who is 'missing in action'.
The one who is 'lost at sea'.
The one who is just 'lost'.
The one who is no more.

This is not a woman's reality. It just isn't.
Sure, there are women who are truly heroic, but this characteristic is not intrinsic to womanhood. If it happens to a woman, it does add extra depth to her character, to her fortitude and to her sense of self, yes.

But it is not what makes her a woman.

The 'All but one' phenomenon is unique to men, as well you know, Ezriel.
So I cannot pretend to know all about it. But what I can say about it is what it looks like from the other side of the fence. Which is all I can offer on this subject. And I hope it is of some value to you.

Yes, women want heroes. I agree, Ezriel.
It is an essential part of our make-up.
And what's more, we cannot lose this aspect of our wiring.
Because the minute we do, we are no longer women.

You already know the score: nothing new here.
You don't want the 'Strong and Independent' types who don't need men.


So we agree that men actually want women who want men. And to an individal woman, that man has to be something more than a man, to be special. He has to be somewhere between a man and a god. (No exaggeration :-)

And what's more, you do want to be a hero - not necessarily for a woman, but for yourself.

We women do not need to be heroes. Of course we can be, if the situation calls for it. But no-one expects it of us. So we don't seek to be anyone's hero.

But you, you need to be. Because your sense of manhood depends on this. In an outcome-independent kind of way.
But hey, you wouldn't complain if erm, you get some 'perks' along the way :-)

Unfortunately, not everyone can be a hero.
Indeed in chasing 'herodom' as you are wired to do - and society eggs you on to do it if your own Nature doesn't - you run the risk of losing life or limb, yes.

This is not woman's fault. But woman is designed to take advantage of this need of yours.

So if you come back from your sojourn, life and limb intact, you should be a hero to some woman, somewhere.
If you don't come back, you are the 'All but one'.

It is sad, and I lament this fact of life.
Which is why I think women should be more aware of the natural plight of men and not add to their troubles with unpleasantness, deceit, divorce rape and cuckoldry.

But no-one can help the 'All but one' phenomenon. Not men (who must compete fair and square to avoid being the 'one' and certainly not women who must definitely not meddle in the business of man-ness :-)

So I receive your heartfelt lament in the spirit of shared friendship ("good on you for revealing your inner pain - I sympathise with you, my friend") as opposed to a wistful attempt to circumnavigate an essential pillar of male upbringing.

There must be a reason why all successful societies put their young males through brutal rigorous rituals such as that which you describe.

Once again, it is not women's fault that these harsh sojourns of mind and body are in place for young men like you.

But I agree that at some point, you ought to be rewarded for not being the 'one who didn't come back'.

That is what is missing in today's world for the men who did 'make it back'.
They are not getting any sort of recompense for their fear, their pain, their sweat, their toil.
In fact, very often they are punished for coming back!

This is wrong. This is unfair. This will and is coming back to haunt womanhood...




In my view, before you are 'tested', you shouldn't be asking any woman, 'Will you cry if I don't come back?'
The answer will be 'no'. You already know that.

:-)


But once you are back, you shouldn't have to ask too many women if they will watch your back until the day you die.
The answer to that rhetorical question should be 'yes'.

In fact, it should be a given that you are shown the basic respect and possible affection reserved for someone who is 'back'.

But this part is missing in today's SMP.
I understand that...




Thank you for your story.

But I think your lament should be less about your fears about someone not coming back, and more about what should be your rightful bounty for actually coming back.

Which you do. Over and over again. Day in day out.

In your mind at least, you are a hero. Which means you made it back.
To your close family and friends, you are a hero too, perhaps.
But not so much to the wider society.

And yet, the wider society expects much of you.

This is where I see a disconnect.
And this is where I rejoice with you that you see freedom somewhere in this awful mix.
And I admire you for this, because I find it very difficult to see anything good in this sort of situation, as it currently stands for men.

But in all honesty, Ezriel, I cannot do anything for the man who didn't make it back.

But I think society can definitely do more for those who did.
That is where I focus my energies.

That is what this whole blog is about.



And now I feel compelled to ask you men:

What do you make of the man who didn't come back?

Do you share Ezriel's compassion for him?
Do you have the loyalty of Snoopy?

Or do you see him as a fallen rival, and therefore 'good riddance'?
Or do you, like socety in general, feel that his Worth is in his making it back?

Is this locker-room stuff that I should keep away from?
I shall understand if the answer to this not-so-rhetorical question is a firm 'yes'.

Self-policing

There seems to be a new trend that I missed before.
But now I see it everywhere I look.
And using my 'retrospectoscope', I realise now that in fact I have been seeing this trend for a long time.

Don't suck in your breath expecting the worst. This is a good trend :-)

Consider these words:

 "They have brought shame to the family and the entire community."
"They are losers".
" If you are alive, turn yourself in and ask for forgiveness."

The words of a (loving) uncle?
Actually yes.



And this picture?

 

The killing was committed by a Nigerian (in the UK).

 

 

 

Both of these examples demonstrate what I call 'self-policing'.

 

The family of the Tsarnaev brothers showed their disapproval of their bombing of the Boston marathon.

The Nigerian community of the UK came out strongly to condemn the actions of one of their own.

 

 

 

Do you come from a self-policing family or community? Are you a part of the self-policing mechanism of your community?

 

Will your brother or sister or mother 'tell it as it is' when you do something not so honourable?

Or will they defend you to the bitter end, knowing you are wrong?

 

 

I have been impressed lately by all the self-policing I see around me. Which reminds me of the self-policing I witnessed a long time ago when I failed to see its significance.

 

I attended a wedding a while ago where the groom's brother (the best man) said to the bride:

 

"If he (the groom) misbehaves, don't get your Dad, call me instead. I'll whip him into shape for ya."

 

Whiteknighting?

 

Maybe.

(Um, for some reason the bride's father, in his speech didn't feel inclined to reassure the groom that he would 'whip his daughter into shape' if she misbehaved, lol.

But hey, who said this world was supposed to be a fair world :-)

 

 

 

 

 

The point about self-policing?

It gets the next generation thinking. Hard.

 

The Tsarnaev brothers were dubbed 'losers' by their own uncle.

What a tuly shameful position to be in.

 

Michael Adebolayo was effectively disowned by his own community.

A fate worse than death to a previously 'family-orientated' and 'community-orientated' man.

 

 

The next generation of would-be bombers and axe-murderers would surely take note of the public shaming of these outcasts by their own families, and rethink their next move.

At least one would sincerely hope so.

 

 

 

I had really thought self-policing was out of fashion.

But it looks like it's back in big time :-)

 

 

 

A person who is from a self-policing community soon learns to self-police himself or herself.

Those who are not 'policed' in this way are left to their own devices and continue on their wayward path to destruction.

 

So it is with bated breath that I watch to see if this old but renewed trend will continue.

It is brutal shaming from one's nearest and dearest, on the most public of stages (the worldwide media), but perhaps it happens all too often when the damage is already done.

 

Hopefully it starts when the toddler starts stealing jam tarts from the cookie jar :-)

 

 

 

 

And what about parallels with the SMP?

 

I don't know what happens on the other (male) side of the fence, but I notice that feminism is a potent disabler of self-policing among women.

 

A woman cannot be 'policed' by anyone around her, lest she be 'offended'.

In many ways, she is left to her own devices against her own best interests.

Which puts extra pressure on her own conscience and moral character, both of which are by default 'underdeveloped' under the jurisdiction of feminism.

 

A vicious cycle which is difficult to break.

 

Sometimes 'free rein' is a bad thing.

But under the right conditions, it can be a wonderful thing.

 

The only way to create the 'right conditions' is to shoot for an ambience of ubiquitous self-policing.

 

Is this achievable?

I think so.

Somehow yes, it must be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Awww, how beautiful...

For those who are dying to know, last Sunday was the feast of Corpus Christi.

Beautiful enough...for afterall, the body of Christ saved us all from eternal damnation (if you believe in that sort of thing :-)

But, this feast is also bang in the middle of First Holy Communion season around these parts.

So I walk into Mass, and it looks like there is a wedding in Lilliput :-)

Why are the brides and grooms so small? I wonder to myself.
LOL.

No, not brides and grooms, silly Spacetraveller.
Boys and girls aged 8 and over receiving the Body and Blood of Christ for the first time.

Something like this:

 

 

 

 



Now, the Church has changed the rules regarding First Holy Communion, I hear.

I did this at age 7, and a year later I was confirmed.
Now I hear you can't do FHC until you are 8 at least, and you can't be confirmed until age 11 or 12.

I think this is good.
The Church is making progress.

Why?

In my opinion, these sacraments are the start to the whole process of building up a person (who in this case is Catholic).

These kids haven't dressed up in their finest clothes for nothing.
They need to be at an age where the symbolism of the ceremony can be grasped by them.

Starting with the girls, (and I remember this distinctly aged 7), it is drummed into you that you dress up in the same white clothes you were dressed in to be baptised (usually) as a baby, to be confirmed, to be married and to be buried. There is a certain continuity to these ceremonies they keep enforcing on you :-)

You go through rigorous preparation for each sacrament (except in baptism where your parents do it for you).

You maintain the same virtue you had at FHC and Confirmation through till the next sacrament in your life journey whether it be the sacrament of Matrimony, Holy Orders (or Consecrated Single life).
The colour white is significant in all these sacraments.

For the boys, the colour white is of course not mandatory, but I notice that a lot of the boys in last week's ceremony were wearing white.
Is this 'projection'?
:-)

But the message is clear for the boys too.
Your moral responsibilty begins at this age. You (and your female counterparts) are the future of your families, your communities and society at large. You have a great responsibility as the men of the future - the protectors of civilisation, the husbands, fathers and mentors of the future.

The Church will support you. Your parents will support you. The community at large will support you. Until we can't.
Because we died.

And then it's over to you.


I love symbolic ceremonies of this sort.
Because they fulfil an important role in a young person's life.

I recently talked  about 'giving a positive', in this case to a young girl.
First Holy Communion is a classic representation of that.

These children have worked hard to get to their FHC day. Some parishes even have exams for these kids to take!

The pretty dress is nice, yes. But you MUST understand the meaning of why you are wearing the dress.

So you must also for any other ceremony where you stand before God wearing a white dress :-)
Do you understand why you are standing there in front of people you know reciting words?

The good of humanity depends on the answer to this question.

*

 

 



My mother was one of those preparing the kids of our parish for their big day.
So guess who was roped in to help with the party for the kids?

Let's keep this one rhetorical, shall we?

:-)


I pray for all the young persons all over the world going through this big step in their lives.

Sacraments are afterall, a channel of grace.

May they receive graciously, the beautiful channel of Grace that is First Holy Communion, Amen.
The same sentiment to the participants of other 'coming of age' ceremonies of this type - Bar Mitzvah, Bat Mitzvah, Traditional Initiation rights, etc.





This was played at our ceremony.
Ave Verum Corpus is a favourite of mine anyway. But in the context of the feast of Corpus Christi and a beautiful First Holy Communion Mass, emotional Spacetraveller was choking up :-)

I know....



Gay.


:-)




Take it away, chaps:

And a grand 'Exultate Justi' from John Williams by way of congratulations to the citizens of the future.
Alleluia!