To whom does she belong?

A belated Happy Easter to all.

I wish I could say I was absent from the blog because I wanted to concentrate on Lent, bla bla bla.
:-)

But that wouldn't be true. In fact I could say that unusually for me this year, my spiritual approach to Lent was far from ideal. But, and I think my Guardian angel must have had something to do with this (thank you, Guardian Angel!) it was a Grace-filled end to the Lenten season for me.

Isn't it interesting that when we need it the most, we get Grace?

Speaking of Guardian angels, I was at a wedding recently, and the celebrant priest made this joke:

A man was walking through his neighbourhood when he came to a bridge over a river. Suddenly, a voice said to him: 'Stop! Don't step onto the bridge!' He looked around - no-one was there. But he stopped.  All of a sudden, the bridge collapsed. He breathed a sigh of relief as he realised his life had just been saved.
He carried on walking. When he got to the foot of a mountain still with snow on it, again a voice said to him, 'Stop! Don't take another step!' He stood still. Then a mighty avalanche came crashing down just ahead of him. Again he breathed a sigh of relief as he realised that once again, his life had been saved. He carried on walking through the woods. Again the voice warned him just as he was walking under a particular tree. Seconds later, the tree fell down missing him by inches.

At this point, he wondered who was talking to him and saving his life. He said out loud, 'who are you? Identify yourself!'

The voice replied, 'I am your Guardian angel. I am always here for you.'

The man replied, 'You are my Guardian angel? Always here for me? Where were you when I got married?'

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Very drole :-)

Not quite sure why men feel that marriage/relationship is such a  trial for them only. Where did they get that idea?
:)

Just heard this morning that Percy Sledge died. May he rest in peace.

Percy Sledge is of course famous for this song - all about how men suffer when in love:
:)

Aw, poor Darlings/lovable rogues :-)



Today's post is about a curious phenomenon I have been thinking about for a while. The impetus for this come from two separate incidents. The first is a commenter on another blog who linked to a Heartiste post about a black man (this is relevant) who when confronted and indeed inappropriately and unjustifiably assaulted by a woman (she happened to be white - not relevant), exclaimed, 'Who bitch dis is?!'

Translation into normal English: Whose woman is this?

Now, for many modern women, this display of 'territorialism' may be unpalatable, but I have to say that I am very familiar with this phenomenon - more than is usual for a woman of my era and location.

The notion that every woman belongs to a man is something I have been immersed in from childhood, and I very much took it for granted. But I am surprised to learn that it is not necessarily a positive concept in our western culture.

This is undoubtedly a problem when it comes to male-female interaction.

It is significant that the man in question in this scenario is black. I have many links to West Africa, and I know that this is very much the mindset there. Actually, this is the mindset any where in the world other than Caucasian America. Even in Europe - especially in Europe.

A girl belongs to her father until she marries, at which point she belongs to her husband.

But in our present culture where a father is not around/has been removed from the household, this sense of belonging is not imprinted in a girl's mind from birth. What a shame!
For she will seek this, by hook or by crook, in much the same way some boys seek a father-figure through gang culture.

All sorts of psychological complications ensue when a girl does not get her fair share of this 'sense of belonging', I have discovered. This leads to potential mayhem in her life. Not only is this sequence of events well documented, but also more and more of us are witnessing this in front of our very eyes, are we not?

And yet, Africans and other 'backward people', including southern Europeans have had this covered, for literally ages.

I have seen this play out in hilarious encounters when I have witnessed old African women try to work out who a stranger female is by linking her to some man that they themselves know. This is how they compute that this stranger female is 'welcome' into the herd. :-)

I live in the mountains of Eastern Switzerland. Where I live is a mainly German-speaking area, but there are many old Italian mountain families here too.

Their customs are delightful to behold, especially when seen 'in the wild', untainted by feminism. It is wonderful to see.

I was hanging out with a friend of mine when we bumped into an old lady she knows from her village in another mountainous region of Switzerland which is exclusively Italian-speaking. The old lady was curious about me, as I am relatively newly-established here.

She regarded my friend with a curious look, and regarding me sideways, she asked my friend who I was.
My friend answered with my first name, stating I was a friend.

The old lady was far from satisfied with the answer my friend had given. In a move reminiscent of similarly aged women in any african country, she asked the heavily-loaded question:
To whom does she belong?
Meaning, to which man does she belong? My first name on its own was meaningless to this woman.
:-)

I silently stood there as my friend gave the necessary genealogy to finally satisfy this old lady. In a hilarious five minutes where I felt like I was in a court for some wrong-doing, my friend first tried giving my surname.
Nope, this woman did not know the particular family to which I belonged, although she knew several other families with the same surname, which happens to be a common surname round here.

She didn't know my husband, although she came from his village.

With the skills of someone used to this sort of interrogation, my friend name-dropped my brother-in-law , who is a generally well-known figure.

Nope, didn't know him either.

My chances of acceptance into the 'clan' were looking bleak.

My friend, in an expert move normally associated with Russian chess players, finally made the link that gave the winning strike.

It turns out that Old Lady was friends with the wife of the brother of the wife of  the brother of my husband.

Hallelujah, I was IN!!!
It took many links to finally 'place' me, but finally, I was IN!!!
;-)

Now she had a 'box' in her mind in which to categorise me. I was now officially 'recognised'.
:)

It was an interesting experience for me, in that I felt like I had come through some sort of 'initiation' ceremony.
I (I regret this, lol) relayed this story to a friend, who doesn't hold the rigidly traditional values I hold, and she was absolutely horrified.

I did not and do not understand her horror. She saw this incident as 'oppression' for me (for had I been a man, I wouldn't have been scrutinised so much. My surname would have been enough, for a man is valued on his own name only), but I disagree with her.

What my friend fails to realise is that a man must make his name (read: reputation) on which he and his family rely, to advance in society. A woman need only associate herself with a good family, and she is safe. Her own reputation is judged differently, and in a traditional society like this, a woman is mainly judged on her sexual reputation.
If 'so-and-so' was caught in a compromising position with a man to whom she was not married, the gossip alone would drive her out of town and three generations later, they would still be talking about her - that sort of thing.

The relevance of all this for me, is that fatherhood (and therefore this 'sense of belonging' felt by young unmarried women) is indeed sacred. And the relevance specifically to the SMP is that indeed it is impossible to 'belong' to a husband when one never experienced the 'belonging' to a father. The latter is 'practice' for the former.
In many such traditional entities, it is said that a father is the source of the soul of his child, and the mother is the source of the heart.

A fatherless child is therefore akin to a soul-less person.

Harsh? Oh yes. Which is why deliberately denying fatherhood to a child, by his own mother is indeed a cruel thing. A man who also denies his child access to his mother is also creating a child who is missing his heart. That can't be good either.

It is also why I think in these same traditional societies, the 'taking on of the name of the father' (in the event of a child's parents not being married) is so important. It is a great insult to the child if his father does not give him his name in many african cultures, for example.

Similarly, the taking on of the name of a husband is fundamental to marriage, in my opinion. This is why I am dead against wives not taking on their husband's surname. It screams 'division' as opposed to 'harmony' from the get-go and is a signal this will not be a fulfilled/constructive union. It also signifies an absence of 'belonging'. In the example above with the old lady, my maiden name would have been just as useless to Old Lady as my first name. A woman's maiden name is no longer relevant, except in rare circumstances where it needs to be 'dug' out for a specific purpose, eg. a paternal legacy that wasn't dealt with pre-marriage.

What an eye-opening experience for me. Old Lady taught me a big lesson which I think is getting lost more and more in our modern culture. A shame, because it is quite a beautiful lesson.
I think those who adhere to these general principles are more 'settled' in their skins than those who choose to reinvent the wheel at every opportunity.

I have said many times before. I am not fussy from whence cometh my lessons. 'To whom does she belong?' is so much more refined than 'Who bitch dis is?' but to me, the lesson is more important than the grammar.

Interesting that shortly after I came across that blog post by Heartiste, I actually came face -to-face with the phenomenon he described. Art imitating life, or the other way round. :-)
Interesting indeed.

The tragedy of St.Valentine's Day

It is not really clear to me why this is, but it seems to be very much the case:
Introverted people are often perceived not to have feelings. To be devoid of emotion.


So when once in a blue moon, an introverted person shows some emotion, everyone gets a surprise. :-)
Yes, the problem is, when Mr.or Ms. Introversion decides to let rip, it is usually akin to a volcanic eruption. :-)


I remember when I was a child, a teacher at school asked me, 'why are you Catholic?'
Given that it was a Catholic school, I felt justified in answering, 'cos everyone around me is'.
Looking back, that was quite a lame answer.


Why a religion?
Nowadays, in accordance with my new-found Red Pill faith, I would answer differently:


'Religion provides a good infrastructure for 'reframing'.'
'Cos this is one of the skills of life. One we all badly need in this modern world, I believe.


Over the course of blogging, I have come to notice that some commenters take on certain personas which is unique to them, and forge a relationship with the blogger based on this unique persona. It is quite an entertaining phenomenon. :-)
I notice this sort of interaction between blogger and commenter on almost every blog I visit, so I know this is of course not unique to this blog.


Speaking of commenters, I would just like to say that newcomer Mortan has brought me many great insights via his visit to the MGTOW post. In particular, his words about the phenomenon that is 'contentment' has prompted me to look into this further. I was going to post about this...


But as is usual with me, I got distraced by a comment from someone else.
This someone else is 'Live Free or Die'.


LFOD has, I think, assumed the role of 'court jester' here. My reaction to his comments tend to range from something between 'yeah, whatever, mate' in response to his boundary-pushing hyperbole, to 'oh no, he didn't just say that!' in response to his more outlandishly outrageous posts (Answer being, of course, yes he did just say that). :-)


Exchanging friendly fire is good for the soul, or something to that effect. :-)
I welcome commenters like LFOD, because I realise that I learn a lot from them. Not to talk of incredibly entertaining.


This latest comment, however, from LFOD, unleashed an emotion in me that I did not really expect to feel.


"Happy MGTOW Day everyone!

No dinners bought today.
No jewelry bought today.
No flowers bought today.
No chocolate bought today.
No wine bought today.
No cards bought today.

No obligations to anyone or anything.

Live Free or Die!"


I was just about to (robot-style) respond (with my usual attitude) to him:
'Happy MGTOW Day to you too, LFOD. Enjoy.'
But something stopped me.
I thought, not this time.


This whole post is of course unsolicited.
But that's just it. No-one wants to ask for this sort of rant from a stranger. :-)


This is not personal to LFOD. In fact, from this point onwards, let's all have a frank discussion about this, only referring to LFOD where absolutely necessary.


Back to childhood...
Back to the playground:
Boy A has a scuffle with Boy B and ends up 'winning' Boy B's shirt. Boy A tries on Boy B's shirt and finds it doesn't fit. Boy A then sulks off to another child, let's say, a girl, and complains to her that Boy B's shirt doesn't fit.
She doesn't get it. To his constant reminders that he won the shirt 'fair and square', all she can say is, 'but it's not yours! Wouldn't it be better if you returned Boy B's shirt to Boy B and you just wear your own shirt?'
The girl does not get it because perhaps she is not meant to. She doesn't understand the complex rules by which Boy A and Boy B are playing.


But this girl does. Which is why she feels the raw emotion of deep sadness. In typical exaggerated hyperbole (to resort to tautology!) she would call it a tragedy.


Yes, Boy B is analogous to mainsteam media/current culture/feminism/whatever. Boy A and the girl need no introduction, I hope.


Why would anyone take on the views of someone else and whine to a third party that it does not sit well with them?
Who told LFOD that Valentine's Day is all about wining and dining a lady and bringing her flowers, chocolate and diamonds?


And more importantly, why did he buy into this harmful piece of information?
To conform?
To comply?
Because he had no other solution?


But there is always another solution.


Some people know when the are being taken for a ride. They shrug their shoulders and go along for the ride anyway. Others in the same boat have no idea what's happening...until...they finally wake up... when the vehicle they are in...crashes.


Someone won the booby prize (considering it was won from Mama Feminism, this is not a bad pun!) and now doesn't like his winnings.
Someone should give back the shirt that doesn't fit. It is not his. It will never fit.




St. Valentine's Day is a religious festival. Like Christmas, or Easter, or the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul.
It was never meant to be hijacked by our materialistic society for the gains of chocolate makers or florists.


If we buy that lie, that it is a day to give women cards or seven course meals, it is our fault for absorbing bad information.


St. Valentine was a Catholic priest who sought to take a stance against a cruel emperor who was so keen to win wars that he made it a law that no man should marry in order not to 'distract' them from fighting. Emperor Caludias wanted to make every man a MGTOW whether he liked it or not. :-)


St. Valentine knew there were men and women in his diocese who wanted to marry. So he married them, in secret. For this cime, he was imprisoned, tortured and eventually decapitated.
But before dying, he healed the (blind) daughter of one of his jailors, and his very last words were to her, in a note he signed off with the words, 'from your Valentine'.
Cue the association with romantic love. :-)




St. Valentine, much like St. Jerome must be turning over in his grave by now. He made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that the young people of his era received one of the most enriching sacraments of life. St. Jerome warned against marriage, of course - but only for those who were not ready for it, I conclude. These two saints teach us a lot about real love, and not the 'fairies in a cloud' variety that is sold to the general public in bucket-loads on one day in mid-February.




Instead of absorbing what is routinely sold to us in the mainstream media, and then moan about it, why don't we see things for what they really are? Why don't we 're-frame'?


Why don't we stop this rot by re-framing in our own minds what is right?


What is wrong with going to a lecture on St. Valentine, on St. Valentine's Day?
What is wrong with going to Mass on St. Valentine's Day and praying that the love which St. Valentine had for his fellow man would be bestowed on us too?
What is wrong with asking a girl to 'be your Valentine' without giving her a truckload of shiny objects?
What is wrong with a woman giving a man something, no matter how small, on St. Valentine's Day?
What is wrong with a kind act towards a stranger because it is for the love of St. Valentine, on St. Valentine's Day?


Answer: nothing.




Gentlemen, feminism may have taken over in a big way, but it is still your duty to...
Civilise us!


Honestly, we implore you...
You show the way, you decide how an important feast day is to be celebrated, you lead the way.
I promise you, we women will follow.


If you fail to take the lead, we ladies are left scratching our heads and wondering where all the good men went...
:-)


Important note:
This post is not, I hope the violation of Nature that one might conclude it is. I am not telling you men what to do, really...and certainly not how to do it...I am just throwing a favourite catch-phrase of mine around...:-)
My hamster spins it thus: I am reacting emotionally to what LFOD may see as a triumphant 'throwing down of the gauntlet', but which I (being of the feminine persuasion) see oh so very differently.


I mean well though. I hope that much is clear.
Sometimes, (I think), it is better to show someone why he is not a victim, than to commiserate with his perceived victimhood. I hope this post achieves the former and not the latter.

Don't cha wish your girlfriend was…

Hot like this?
Cool like this?
Freak like this?
Fun like this?
Fly like this?
Fine like this?
Raw like this?




The pussycat dolls ask an important question…(I added some of my own adjectives by the way:-)
(May be NSFW)

Modest like this?

Chaste like this?

Feminine like this?

Huh?

This post will be a short one, and is really a 'film review'.


I came across this delightful film recently, and liked it very much. In the aftermath of the 'Charlie Hebdo' massacres, it is a very important confirmation to me that it is one of the tasks of women (not men) to 'socialize' the world.

If two women from very different (and indeed opposing) cultures can get together like this, and unite just two families, imagine what could happen when larger groups of women form friendships like this.

But alas, it could be a more complicated issue than I make it out to be…

The full movie is here.

I like these two young women. They make my heart sing :-)

Each is beautiful in her own way, but neither feels the need to flaunt her beauty. It is there for all to see despite the modest clothing.

The pussy cat dolls are also beautiful. But their beauty seems to be 'in yer face'. I am sure men don't mind this :-) but this aggressive display of one's assets detracts from femininity somewhat, in my opinion.

In my search for examples of young women who 'make my heart sing', it seems a shame that I am yet to find a Catholic/Christian one who ain't already a nun...or a Duggan :-).

I shall keep looking, and in the meantime delight in my Jewish and Muslim sisters doing a good job of upholding the feminine standard. :-)

(If anyone has good examples of Christian girls behaving well, please send them my way. Go on, make my heart sing!)



The other point about this movie is that it shows my idea of 'hypergamy' to a tee. These two young ladies are from cultures where a marriage has to be approved by Dad, as a rule. Often arranged by Dad, (and Mum and the jenta, with the input of various aunties, lol) with some (read: only a little!) choice on the part of the girl.
And yet, neither of these two was going to settle for just anyone :-)
Poor old Nasira was sickened to come to the realisation that that old guy from Syria who had come to dinner was actually a suitor...for her. He was even older than her father!
I sympathise...Sure, that man would have been a good provider and all...but is provision all there is to marriage?

In the case of Rochel, it really was getting to the point where her parents were beginning to think it would be impossible to get her married off. Fussy? Understatement. This girl was the queen of fastidiousness :-)

Both girls wanted the best for themselves. Perfectly normal. As indeed should any person, male or female.

But…this 'quest for the best' stopped when they got married. This is how it should be.





Ceer came to my rescue in this post when I was trying to sell Game to a (latent) Game practitioner. Kind of like selling ice to an eskimo who doesn't see the value of ice :-)



Ceer said this:
When a woman says "I want a nice man", what she is really saying is:
"I want a man I find attractive who might also be nice from time to time." 




I had previously said this:
[Re 'wanting a 'nice man'] What this means is, when she no longer has anything worthy to offer, she'll settle for the 'nice man' who has waited his turn patiently for years.





The reason we are both right is that, it depends on the woman who is talking.

If it is a woman like these two in the video above, then Ceer's statement applies.

If it is a woman like the woman below, then my statement applies, and even then, she won't treat him (nice man) well, as this video shows. I therefore agree with men who advise other men thus: Never ever be the 'nice man' for this type of woman.
It is of course perfectly OK to be a 'nice man' for the first type of woman, to whom Ceer's statement applies. Because you know she is already truly attracted to you, as opposed to 'settling' for you.



I shall let the narrator explain below just how unbelievably spoilt, and silly, the woman below is…

The mind truly boggles, as the judge demonstrates…

Heavens above, some people just do not know they are born.

Incredible...to the nth degree!

Misogyny, I tell you!

Edit: Happy New Year, everyone!
I had this post ready well before Christmas, but decided it was way too dark for the spirit of 'yuletide' which officially ended yesterday with the celebration of 'Epiphany'.
So now I feel comfortable discussing this rather unpleasant topic.




A long time ago, I wondered why it never says anywhere in the The Good Book , "Thou shalt not hate".
Now, I am no bible scholar. I don't actually know if it doesn't say "Thou shalt not hate", but I am pretty sure those exact words are not stated anywhere in the Bible.
But what I do know, is that we are invited not to hate, in many instances in the Bible.
From the Fifth Commandment on, we are an invited not to hate.


5. Honor your father and your mother (don't hate on your parents).
6.You shall not murder (don't hate on your fellow man).
7.You shall not commit adultery (don't hate on your spouse).
8.You shall not steal (don't hate on your fellow man).
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (don't hate on your neighbour).
10.You shall not covet (don't hate on your neighbour).


And the first 4 commandments?
All about 'don't hate God'.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me, for I am a jealous God (don't hate on Me)
2. You shall not make idols (don't hate on Me).
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain (don't hate on Me).
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (don't hate on My special day).

:-)
In other words, you better not de-friend Him on Facebook. Or else!


And the greatest commandment of all?
"Love thy neighour as yourself".
Read: don't hate on your neighbour=don't hate on yourself.


With the above in mind, I have come to the conclusion that any hate is all about a degree of self-hate.
Yes, there are indeed people who truly hate themselves, with all the gravity that this serious affliction comes with.
But they are rare.


I hereby postulate that any word that begins with 'mis-' is actually a rarity, and includes a measure of self-hate, or at least an absence of self-love.


Nothing below can be proved. But with my own pitiful level of reasoning (as much as I can muster anyway!), I believe this makes sense.


Misogyny is rare (and certainly it is not as prevalent that feminists would have us believe).
And while I am about it, I shall touch on why I think it is in the interests of certain people (cough, cough, feminists) to give women the impression that misogyny is rampant in our culture, and worse, that it is on the rise. Other than to feed the 'victim culture' troll, that is.


My first task in this post is to be clear what I mean by 'misogyny'.


As I hope will become clearer and clearer, I do not use the common definition of 'hatred of women' because I think it is a deeper matter than that.


For me, misogyny is really about an absence of love, or hate, of the feminine.


This is crucially important, and is the clue as to why 1) Misogyny is rare, and 2) it makes perfect sense to me as to why this agenda has to be pushed in order to annihilate male-female relations.
So, throughout this post, even when I say 'woman' or 'women', I still mean the feminine.
(Female logic for you! :-)








1. To hate women, (which is what true misogynists do) you have to hate women. So, Man X who hates a particular woman Y, is not a misogynist. It is the plurality of it that counts.


So I disagree that, for example, men who have 'complaints' about particular women in their lives are necessarily misogynistic. Sure, they have the potential to become misogynistic, but that's a story of 'further down the road'.




2. Consider the following two scenarios:


a. The good-looking and rich young man looked on as the lovebirds shared a smooch in the open-top sportscar by the beach. He felt it again, this annoying feat of Nature that always reminded him that he was a failure. This physiological reaction beyond his control that always ensured that his yearning for feminine comforts will never be sated unless he literally takes things into his own hands. He thought once again, and surely, this would be the last time: 'what is it that that guy has and I don't? Why am I a virgin and he is clearly not?'


The next day he drove around town shooting anyone who crossed his path. Then he shot himself in the head.


b. A man in his 40s looked around him. Material things abound, he thought. He looked at his bank statement. Not bad at all. He could feed a family of six on what he earned, no problem. He stood up and went to the mirror, shirt off. A tall,  toned physique looked back at him. He shook his head. What had he done wrong in his life? Or more to the point, 'what is it with these stupid b*tches that none of them would take up the incredibly good deal that he had to offer?'


The next day he walked into a female-only gym and fatally wounded as many women as he could. Then he fatally wounded himself.


The life-stories of both of these men were plastered all over the press after they committed their heinous acts of hate. Both of these men demonstrated a high level of self-hate, yes. They lacked a basic level of self-love required to stay alive, sure.
But, I ask you: were they misogynists?
I say no.


But they killed women! (And men, in the case of the former).


I take you on a little diversion...


There are many things that make feminism deplorable to me. And for this reason, it annoys me no end when I find myself agreeing with things feminists say, even if for different reasons from them.


For instance, I am in favour of education for women, and yes, even college education (but for entirely different reasons from why feminists want the same thing).
I agree entirely with feminists that rape is worse than death (but for entirely different reasons from why feminists say this).
In this vein, (and now my Catholic head comes up for air, lol), I have also always believed that divorce is also worse than death (hmm, strangley enough, I am yet to lock horns with a feminist on this issue - interesting!).


It wasn't until I saw the following video (the first 15 minutes or so) that I was able to see why my initial hunch was the right one.
This pastor goes into the etymology of the word 'divorce' in military terms. This man is after my own heart! for it is surely no secret that etymology is a guilty pleasure of mine :-).
May he rest in peace. He died (along with his dear wife of thirty years) in a helicopter crash a couple of months ago.

The point I am trying so hard to make is that in the context of 'hate', there are things much much worse than death. No innocent bystander should lose their life because Mr. X can't get laid, of course, don't get me wrong.


The reason the above two men are not misogynists are two-fold. And both of these points are based around 'knowledge'.


To be a misogynist, one must know women. It is for this reason that I think a virginal man cannot be a misogynist. It is not enough to know a woman 'from a distance'. The men who can say for sure that they know women are those men who have spent a lot of time in close proximity with women. These men are usually not virgins :-)
The Don Juans and Casanovas of this world are much more capable of truly hurting women than the average 'beta' man on the street. And these men (and frankly the rest of us come to think of it) know that living life when you would rather be dead is worse than dying. That our collective fear of death is negligible compared with our collective fear of living a living death. That for years, victims of heinous crimes have petitioned against the death penalty for a reason.
Death (depending on the context, of course) is not the 'bad guy' it is billed to be. This is precisely why the two men above had to end their lives. Dying is easier when you have a pain that won't go away. Inflicting death on the objects of their displeasure was an opportunistic by-product that they must have known would not eliminate their own feelings of torment. Death, to them, was a way out for themselves. Death could not have been a suitable 'punishment' for someone innocent who doesn't even know the cause for which they lose their life.
People who die in this way, at the hands of others, so innocently, actually die in a state of grace, in the 'Catholic' sense. This means, they die blessed. It is said that whatever sins they may stand judgment for, are erased, such that their murderer takes on these sins.
(This is what I have heard in this context - if someone in the know on such doctrine wants to elaborate on this, they are very welcome to do so).
So, these men, although tragically prematurely ended the lives of others, in the grand scheme of things, if what I heard is correct, have done them (personally) an eternal favour rather than 'punish' them in any way. In this way, they both resemble petulant children (I will do 'X' even though I know that 'X' won't make me feel better, won't solve my problem or make things whole again, but I will do 'X' because I can't or won't find a better solution').


A true misogynist wants his victim alive. So these two unfortunate men were not misogynists. They were gravely misguided in their thinking. As in fatally misguided. Their crime was not misogyny because they were not in a position to know women. And in fact, both sought this, with no success. That was the problem. One could say that they died of ignorance. Literally.


Am I saying that it follows that a knowledge of women (which in effect is really what 'Game' is) could (at least in theory) increase the chances of a man becoming truly misogynistic?


But yes, of course!


But I have two thoughts on this:
i. Having 'plurality' and 'knowledge' does not a sandwich make, or something to that effect.
There is a third element necessary to create a misogynist.


ii. It is a risk we have to take. Everyone is endowed with free will, courtesy of God. It is up to us what we do with our 'knowledge'. It is for this reason that I a still an advocate of Game even though I know what the (unintended or undesirable) consequences could be. (I see you, Metak, stop rolling your eyes :-)


Before I embark on the final element required for misogyny, I hope it is already all-too-clear that the best candidate for misogyny therefore is....women!


I know you know this, but as it is part of the topic at hand, I shall mention it nonetheless. The average woman is more capable of being a misogynist than the average man.
This is not to say of course that she will. Element number three needs to be in place before she will.


As men relate well to one another's experiences, and therefore to one another, so women relate to one another. As I alluded to 'M' here, two women (even strangers) can immediately 'see into each other's souls'. It's not that difficult. It's a human thing. In particular, every woman can see the dark side of another woman very well.
This, by the way is why I assert that 'Spacetraveller's law' must be true:
In general, men don't listen to what a woman has to say.
*Shrug*. There are sound reasons for this. Admittedly...
But there is one huge exception: if you, as a man, bring home a woman and your mother/sister/female cousin/ aunt/ any woman who has your best interests at heart says to you: 'I have a bad feeling about this one...' she is almost certainly right. She is not nearly so accurate if she is saying 'Ah, this one is a good one, marry her immediately!' Here, the chances of her being right are exactly the same as if left to chance alone - around 50-50.
But if this woman who cares about you says, 'watch out, there is something about this one I can't put my finger on, but things ain't right with her'... this is the best warning you will ever get. This is one occasion your ears (and eyes) must be wide open.
Women know each other well, especially each other's dark side.


And every woman knows what's good for her fellow woman. Or at least, should know.
So what is good for a woman?
The preacher above, in one of his videos describes this beautifully. He made my heart sing :-).


He said that women are 'incubators' by nature.
Huh? Isn't that what they put premature babies in for a few weeks until they can breathe unaided?
:-)


Absolutely. A device that gives life/nourishes/nurtures/develops another.
Beautiful description of the essence of femininity, if you ask me...


The preacher went on to give examples.
"You give her ingredients, she gives you back a meal".
"You give her a house, she gives you back a home".
You give her your seed, she gives you back a baby".
:-)


Most women want to have a chance to be incubators, with all of the above functions, in a safe and secure environment, which a man provides.
There are several ways she can be deflected from this end-point.
A true misogynist will make sure that as many women as possible are deflected from the end-point that God intended for them.
A true female misogynist was likely a bad 'incubator' herself. And now she wants younger women to be the same.
Bad incubators got a house - they trashed it literally and metaphorically.
Instead of a (life-giving) meal, they will feed you poison. (Another small digression here, but I kid you not when I say that I once watched a documentary about divorced people wreaking 'cold revenge' havoc on their ex-souses. Some were somewhat funny, like the woman who cut off the sleeves off her ex-husband's exclusive collection of high-end suits, and this man.
But the one that left me cold was the woman who invited her ex-husband to a dinner-party for one, and served him one of her special pies, which he had apparently loved throughout their fairly long marriage. Except on this occasion, it was full of dog excrement. The man ate it all and thanked his ex-wife profusely for what he called 'a lovely trip down memory lane'.
No.
If you cannot give food to someone you have come to hate so much, don't offer them food.
Food is supposed to be life-giving.
The whole point about an incubator is that it helps you to 'get back on your feet'. It is life-giving.




 'Knowledge' is important here.
This is why I think young, enthusiastically vigorous feminists are so much less harmless than their older counterparts.
Young Germaine Greer wannabe, harmless troublemaker.
Old Germaine Greer has-been, dangerous woman.


Why?
Because the young one doesn't yet know the ill-effects of feminism. She bought the by-line and is mindlessly following suit.
By the time she is old and finds out that all her campaigning has led to nothing more than a regretable situation for herself personally, and for society at large, if she continues to peddle what she is now regretting, she is a true misogynist.
There are good women out there who warn others:
"I had an abortion and I live to regret it every day. Don't do what I did."
"I divorced my (good) husband for frivolous reasons, and now I see the error of my ways."
"I was very promiscuous as a young woman, and now I feel shame every time I look at the man I married (who 'waited')."
I have actually read stories like these. No joke.


These women are good souls, and are doing a good thing. Long may they continue.


Element three is, in addition to having plurality and knowledge under one's belt, one also has the wilful intent to hurt.


So, in this sense, even if old Germaine Greer does not intend to cause harm by spreading harmful rubbish around, even she is not a misogynist.


Seasoned woman-haters know what they are doing. And they can be extremely effective at what they do. They are to be feared.


And at the same time they are to be pitied.


Because they show an appalling level of self-hate.
Remember that I insist that misogyny really means 'hatred of 'the feminine'?


In each of us, there is masculine and feminine, the 'anima' or 'energy' or 'ying and yang'. Normal women have much more of the feminine than the masculine. Normal men have much more of the masculine than the feminine.


True misogynists hate everything that reminds them of 'the feminine', including the part of themselves that they recognise as 'the feminine'.
I hereby postulate (by this logic) that a true misogynist would not be able to abide phenomena that we all recognise as 'feminine' for sustained periods of time, if at all.
For instance, Nature is widely believed to have feminine qualities (and not just because Nature tends to be cyclical, eg. in the sense of The Seasons, lol), hence 'Mother Nature'.
For this reason, everything about these people must be 'artificial'. They are heavily invested in 'Science and Technology' and have an unreasonable and unhealthy desire to overrule Nature at all cost.
True misogynists, I postulate, do not like other men, for to destroy women is to destroy what other men might find pleasurable/useful/enjoyable/likeable - potentially.
(Yes, I know that this last statement is laughable without the last key word - potentially).




Thankfully, (I believe) that the numbers of these people are low, and will remain low because their lives are literally not compatible with life.




Misandry? That's another post, but I feel unqualified to discuss it somehow. But I will ponder that subject and post my thoughts on it if there is enough interest.

She makes my heart sing

Ah, don't you just love consumerism :-)
With Christmas coming up, this beast rears its ugly head once again :-)

From the first day I saw the following advert, an unfortunate association occurred...

Now I cannot hear this musical…

or a documentary like this...

without thinking about...chocolate!


Ticked off as I am that I have encumbered myself with a Pavlovian response that I cannot seem to stave off other than to not book an African safari anytime soon, it begs the question: just how do they do it? (The 'programming', I mean).
Or is this something that one does to oneself, aided and abetted by the materialistic society we live in?
How does one wean oneself off from such unwholesome 'conditioning' whilst simultaneously living in the West?

Weird associations aside, the silver lining is that it is from this same advert that I acquired a favourite catchphrase of mine.
Whenever something pleases me immensely, I express this with the phrase 'it makes my heart sing'.


I found a reason for my heart to sing recently.
A reason to have hope in the current SMP.


All is not lost.
At least not yet.

I have mentioned before that I do find gems in unusual places. This is no exception.

I came across a new blog recently. It is not the blog per se which interests me (although it is interesting for sure!) but a particular video I saw on that blog.

The blog is called 'Goldmund Unleashed', and is run by an American man who practises Game - a lot.
Goldmund is a man who is clearly confident in himself and is successful in the SMP.

I am happy for Goldmund, of course.

But it is not Goldmund I am interested in, for this post. In his latest post, he interviews a woman who used to be his room-mate. He and this woman clearly have a beautiful friendship and he describes her as 'family' in the post.
The warmth between them does come across very well in the interview (which spans two short videos - here).

Why would this woman 'make my heart sing'?

Several reasons:

1) She is clearly a very smart woman. By this, I mean that she is a sensible woman. This woman is the very embodiment of what every young woman should be, in my humble opinion. She thinks deeply, and has a very clear insight into a lot of issues which matter. Frighteningly for Goldmund (and I think this is - paradoxically - one of the reasons he may be fond of her), she has a great deal of insight into him.


2) She is a pleasant woman. Sweet, but not soppily so. It occurs to me now watching the video how rare this feature is becoming, so it really warms the cockles of my heart whe I see this in action.
Even though she is (unsurprisingly!) 'disgusted' with his private life, she is still pleasant about it, because a) she recognises that it is his life and not hers, and he is free to live his life as he so chooses, and b) I think she also accept that men are wired differently, so she refuses to judge him even though his lifestyle is not what she would choose for herself. I really like this 'live and let live' attitude she adopts towards him. She is not a prude, but that does not mean that she 'high-fives' him about his lifestyle, falsely. She is refreshingly honest, but within boundaries that respect his autonomy for his own life. I like that very much, and I can see that he respects her for it.


3) I already touched on this. But it should be repeated.
Whilst she is 'nice' she is also 'not too nice'.


'Niceness' is a bit of a two-edged sword, for both men and women. It is a good thing, until it is not. I think you all know what I mean. This woman is nice, which is why Goldmund likes her. But she is (brutally) honest as well. She is not a supplicating, 'pleaser'. Very important quality in a woman.


One might argue that she does not need to be nice to Goldmund, because she is not romantically linked to Goldmund.
Fair point.
But traits are traits. In the end, we treat everyone the same whether or not we are trying to impress them, because old habits die hard, as they say. It is therefore almost certain that she is just as honest with her boyfriend (or husband?) as she is being with Goldmund here.


4) Her mannerisms are very feminine.  She is a naturally pretty woman (if she is wearing make-up, it is light and not 'heavy' in a way that I see all too commonly) and her 'inner beauty' shines through to the outside. She smiles a lot, and she engages well with Goldmund to whom she is speaking. She may not be necessarily a 'people person' (is this shorthand for 'extrovert?) but she has this je ne sais quoi quality which makes people feel welcome in her presence. I know that introverts seek this quality in anyone they approach, and extroverts thrive on it :-)
She could talk to anyone, this woman. I wonder if she is a teacher? Teachers often has this quality in abundance...


5) I like how this woman is free of what I have now come  to recognise as 'low-level misandry'. Bellita and I discuss this 'man-hate' a lot, particularly in this post.
This woman cares about Goldmund in a way that is unusual for non-siblings/non-romantically-involved. This point is perhaps related to point 2 above, but only marginally, I think. She is genuinely happy for him that he seems to have 'found himself' in the time-period that she has known him.
This is gold - for Goldmund (excuse the pun, lol).
So many women are poisoned with 'man-hate' from the crib onwards that this genuine type of friendship - let alone love - is really not possible between the sexes anymore. Tragic.


So Goldmund's ex-room-mate makes my heart sing for her genuine love for another human being, who happens to be male.
This reminds me of a phrase in italian. 'Ti voglio bene' which literally means 'I wish you well' is one way to say 'I love you'. Isn't that beautiful? This takes me back to a previous post on this blog, about love, in particular the 'caritas' kind. Love, or caritas, requires a certain generosity of spirit, which I can see this woman possesses in abundance.
By implication, I can bet with certainty that she has a genuine love for women too. The clue for this, I pick up when she mentions that she feels sorry for one of the women Goldmund had a fling with (?one night stand?).


And here I take a short diversion and vent my frustration at those people (aherm, looking squarely at feminists, cough cough) who fling the word 'misogyny' about like a frisbee.


Misogyny is a word that has come to mean anything and everything these days.
But what it is not, is denying women their 'empowerment'.
It is not taking away their 'freedom'.
It is most certainly not thwarting their desire for 'adventure'.


If all of the above desires leads to her (self-) destruction, and someone has enough love for a woman to divert her from said path to doom, let us not call this 'pulled back from the brink manoeuvre' - misogyny.


There is such a thing as misogyny. Oh yes. But it is presented as a 'friend' of womanhood, until it becomes all too clear it is not.
I do not want to detract too much from the positive tone of this post, but I have definite ideas about what misogyny is and isn't.
Perhaps a post for another day?


Our mystery woman, in feeling sorry for women who don't know what's in their own best interests, is showing compassion. That is philogyny right there.


6) She is clearly not American. There is a hint of 'foreign' in her diction. The relevance of this point is that I hear so many men lament the 'fall from Grace' of the American woman. This is a shame, of course. And a double-shame for me because I would love nothing better than to debunk this ubiquitous observation. But alas, not with this example.
So my search continues...
:-)
Is this woman a 'unicorn' of sorts?


I would argue...not.
I think there are many women like this who are normal, feminine women. But they live normal, quiet lives. They are not all in a video on a blog. They are not 'out there', so it seems like they do not exist.


How lovely when they are recognised for who they are by friends (like Goldmund), spouses, family members.


I think we should 'name and praise' these exemplary women when we see them (as in, opposite to 'naming and shaming' the bad ones, lol) for 2 important reasons:
1) That these lovely ladies are encouraged to continue their exemplary behaviour for which they are being commended.
2) That other ladies take note (we ladies are 'herd' creatures, lol).
3) That observers are reminded that these women still exist. Keeps hope alive, you see.
:-)


Whoever this lovely lady is, can I just say to you - well done for your wonderful demeanour. Props to you, more grease to your elbow and long may you continue!

Game and the Girl: Mystery

A series of events have got me thinking a lot about Game lately.
I mean, more than usual.
:-)


I have never made a secret of liking the concept of Game. Rightly or wrongly, I instinctively understand that there needs to be a redress of the imbalance between the sexes.


What exactly do I mean?


You can be sure that even the stupidest female is well-educated about how to 'get' a man. It is not hard, as biology dictates :-).
At the most basic level, a woman is more equipped than a man, to 'get what she wants'.
But here lies the first problem: 'getting what she wants' may not be in her best interests, but let's stick with this argument for now, because it is an important part of the point I am trying to make.


That many women in this day and age severely lack a certain wisdom that came easily to our grandmothers is self-evident, yes. But there is still a general (in my opinion) level of 'education' that ensures that men are forever at the mercy of women.
This current era is showing the degree to which this can be achieved, without a doubt.
And sadly, men in general are really none the wiser, (except for those who have 'taken the Red Pill' as it were), until it is way too late.


This thought reminds me of a medical analogy. There are some unfortunate individuals whose underlying medical problem (usually heart disease) is only diagnosed at their death. These people, carriers of genes that cause sudden death have no idea what lies ahead. They literally present to their doctor (in this case, a pathologist, of course), with sudden death. This is exactly what should not happen: that one's first symptom of a disease is death.


But (and sorry to be so morbid), this is exactly what is happening to many men who get the shock of their lives when they are hit with an (unexpected) divorce, complete with loss of their children, loss of their earnings, and a rapid decline from the lifestyle to which they were accustomed, to a life they would hardly recognise as theirs in years to come.


This is why I like the concept of Game. Not particularly the ugly 'revenge' type of PUA activity that sees an otherwise good girl get into the kind of trouble that ensures her life is ruined forever, but the type of Inner Game that an older, wiser man can pass on to a younger man (whether it is his son or not, no matter) to ensure that his life is not only more enjoyable, but is congruent with masculine principles that he needs for a more satisfactory life, with or without women in it.


I really respect the latter, and hope more young men get this type of education.


And I daresay, St. Jerome is right with his 'don't marry, until you are ready!' message.


The difference between growing girls and growing boys is that whilst both get educated in the ways of the world equally well, girls get an education about the nature of boys much more than boys get an education about the nature of girls (other than boys finding out that 'they are hot!' lol), the education of boys being more focussed on getting them safely into manhood - and responsibility and the burden of keeping civilisation running smoothly.  Girls are not burdened with this type of responsibility, so have all the time to study men in a way that men simply cannot compete with.


So the education is skewed somewhat.


There are several reasons for this, I think:


1) It is cultural - girls really need the education on boys because this is vital to prevent her making a horrible mistake at the every beginning of her life (and these 'mistakes' are usually irreversible and permanent, if you see what I mean).


(This of course does not eliminate the problem because we hear everyday (nowadays) of horrible life choices by young women. However, the principle remains that vital information for a girl is crucial to her life). This equivalent need in boys is only now becoming apparent. But it has taken a generation or two of misery at the hands of divorcing women for this to become evident.


2) Again - cultural - femininity is shrouded in a certain 'protective veil of mystery' which is present in almost all cultures. This 'privilege' is steadily being worn away by feminism.
One of the (many) reasons feminism has not done women any favours is that this shroud of the perceived 'inherent goodness' of women has been pulled away, for the naked truth to be exposed (warts and all) to men.
:-(
This is a real shame, because although this 'inherent goodness' is not strictly speaking accurate, it was necessary for it to be in place as an 'aesthetic' quality (highlighting femininity in even the least feminine of women) and also as a protection for men who are the 'buyers' of femininity and some of them just don't do well when confronted with shocks :-)


3) Nature: in the absence of corrupting influences, girls do have certain inherent self-preservation traits that biology endows them with. I have noticed this in young girls pre-puberty. They really are more modest (i.e. shy/coy about their bodies, for example), than boys of the same age. They are risk averse (a good thing in a woman, can be unfortunate in a man - within reason).


If a girl is lacking in information, Nature itself will push her to get this information. Exceptions exist, of course, but there are usually grave reasons for these exceptions.


4) Boys are just too busy figuring out the burdens of how to be a man, and are also (unfortunately in this case) too misled by testosterone to fully understand women when young. This is why many advise young men to wait until older before making a commitment to a woman.


Some say it is not wise for a man to be married before the age of 30-35.


I see the sense in this.


But, if he burns with passion as St. Paul says, what to do? (Assuming he is a principled, moral, religious - eg. Christian - person).


Anyway, I digress.


In this and the next few posts about Game, I explore the origins of some Game principles.


One of the stalwarts of Game is the notion of 'mystery'.
Where does it come from?


In fact, where does ALL of Game come from?


Historically, of course, no amount of 'Game' would have worked on the majority of young women pre-marriage. Save for a few who 'fell prey' to 'Don Juans', every woman was 'off limits' to all but one man, who would marry her, if not presently, then eventually.


So any 'Game' a man needed was ....to ensure he was 'marriage material'.
Which in simple terms meant having a sustainable source of income, and a roughly masculine appearance. That's it.
For it was women who were the buyers in the marriage market. It was up to women to attract men for marriage. And they generally did, with great success. Until now.


So to recap, there was no 'action' in the SMP :-)
And in the MMP, only women needed to 'woman up'.
So no need for the type of 'Game' we have today in times past, for most men.


So, it makes sense that the principles of 'Game' as we know it, necessarily had to come from 'Girl Game', because the girls had perfected this skill for decades and centuries...because they needed to!


:-)


Let's take a look at 'mystery'.


In number 2) of my list above, it is clear that 'mystery' was not really something that women 'claimed' for themselves. This was a feature that was accorded women by society at large.
It came with the territory (of being a woman).


This is not to say that it was a right.
Not really.
It came with a great deal of responsibility.
Afterall, it was up to individual women to keep it going, to work hard to maintain this illusion.
Like I allude to above, feminism has caused this illusion to come crashing down - hard.
What a shame. It was good for women, this illusion. But like all good things, we only miss it once it is gone forever.


'Mystery' allowed women to become 'interesting' in the eyes of men. A good thing, if he was to sign his life away for her :-)
'Mystery' allowed women to become alluring to men. A good thing if he was to venture forth to 'get to know her better'.


'Mystery' is something that all old-fashioned dating books speak highly of. From experience (of the authors).


From Helen Andelin's 'The Fascinating Girl' to 'The Rules' - they all mention 'mystery' in one form or another. This is no accident.


So now that the tables have been turned, it is not surprising that men have 'borrowed' this concept.
Even in the 'olden' days, the Casanovas and the Don Juans used this to good effect :-)




Now, paradoxically, whilst women needed to be taught to become 'mysterious' in the dating dance, this trait is actually not a feature of womanhood. I think women, by their feminine, inclusive, bonding, nurturing natures, are prone to 'share' of themselves sooner than men would. Just look at today's 'selfie' culture dominated by women!


Interestingly, 'mystery' is actually a more common feature of masculinity, for men are the ones who by dint of their masculinity 'make themselves scarce' and 'disappear for long periods' whilst they (quite legitimately) get on with the business of being men. And it is we women who lament this feature in men (whilst strangely enough also cannot help but be attracted by it!
(Oh the cruelty of life, lol).


So whilst 'mystery' is a priciple of Game, it strikes me as a little odd that men need to be taught it, my logic being that it should already be an inherent feature of manhood anyway (which takes me right back to the argument that Game is nothing but a tool for men to be ....men!).


Which circular thinking brings me right back to another recent thought of mine.


Which is....even when men and women appear to be diametrically opposite to each other, we are in many ways very similar, which is why 'Boy Game' and 'Girl Game' can so easily 'borrow' principles from each other.


This is the biggest paradox of all - the paradox that refutes the existence of a paradox!
:-)


I need to go to sleep.
:-)

Ich bin bereit! Ich bin bereit! Ich bin bereit!

Having lived in a Jewish quarter of London for many years (but I am  not Jewish myself), I got to learn a few of the Jewish customs.


I got used to being 'waylaid', for example, on Friday evenings by a Jewish man or woman standing on the porch of their home and asking me to come in and turn on or off a light because it is not allowed for them to do any 'work' on the Sabbath (which begins on Friday evening).


I also got to know that if a non-Jew wants to convert to Judaism, they must be turned away three times by the Rabbi before they are finally allowed to start the process of conversion.


It seems we have our own version of this in Christianity :-)


As mentioned in the previous post, exciting times have hit the Swiss mountains!


We had a big event.
An ordination, or 'Priesterweihe' in German.
This one was special, because we hadn't had one in this parish for over a decade.


We the choir have been working on putting on a spectacular show for our brand new Father A_______ at his 'prima messa' or 'Primiz', his inaugural Mass, the day after his ordination.


But we weren't going to stop at just belting out high notes (or low notes as the case may be :-) for Father A_______ at his Primiz.


Heavens no.


We were all going to take the trip to the Big City to watch him take the (big) step from mere Deacon to esteemed Priest. (Hm, my hypergamy is showing, lol).


Why am I blogging about a priestly ordination on a website dedicated to the SMP?


Well, there are several reasons. The most important reason is that, an ordination is actually awfully similar to a wedding. It really is! In the former case, a man makes a commitment directly to God. In the latter, a man and a woman make a commitment to each other, with God as the chief witness, and they are actually also making a commitment to Him.




Come with me on a journey through an ordination....




I have been to an ordination or two before. When I was a child, it was customary in my parish for catechism to be taught by trainee priests. I went to their ordinations. One of these priests is now a Bishop.


As an adult, I have also been to at least one ordination before. I have also witnessed the profession of vows by nuns.


But all pale in comparison to the event I witnessed on Saturday.


It was a 2 hour bus-ride on a rainy/snowy morning to the Big City. Friends and family of A_________ dressed in our finest attire :-)


The cathedral in the Big City seemed grander than our little church in the mountains, of course. The ceremony itself was a very grand affair.


Other than our Father A__________, there were 2 other young men to be ordained. Here lies the first similarity with a wedding: at the apéro (light aperitif) afterwards, as all the guests mingled, a common question was, 'who are you here for'? invoking memories of wedding guests asking each other, 'are you here for the bride or groom'?


Second, I notice these three young men were aged 31-35. Our Father A_________ is 32.


I wondered, on hearing their life-stories read out by their chief 'trainers', is the age at ordination rising in much the same way as the age at marriage?
These guys had had careers before turning to the priesthood. Our regular priest, for example, had been a banker for many years before becoming a priest...
When I was a child, it was normal to see priests in their early twenties...


The entrance procession alone lasted about twenty minutes. With 70 priests and 3 Bishops in attendance (I counted them), we certainly weren't short of celebrants at that Mass, lol.


And the organist was suitably trigger-happy, to say the least. His (aherm) enthusiastic organ-playing certainly made this old Catholic Church joke spring sharply to mind:


From one bewildered church-goer to another: "Church is a dangerous place to be, you know...there was a canon in the pulpit, the choir murdered the hymns and the organist drowned the choir!"


LOL.




I had met the Bishop once before. Two years ago he had officiated at the confirmation of my then 12 year old future niece-in-law, but in Italian.
Now, the same Bishop was celebrating the ordination Mass in German.


Switzerland is a funny old country, lol.




His speech to the 3 soon-to-be priests before him was very moving. He spoke to them like a father would speak to his sons. He looked at them with pride, as though to say, 'my boys done good'.


I kind of liken it to a father who has been training his child to ride a bike for weeks, and it is finally time to take off the 'training wheels' and the child can now 'two-wheel' with confidence for the first time, similar to this:
(I am sure we can all imagine just how proud 'Goose's' father feels in this moment).

In this case, this Bishop had good reason to be proud of 'his boys': (I was told later by a guest of one of the other two priests), there were originally ten men who registered at the seminary 7 years ago, and only 3 of them emerged as priests.


So the pre-ceremony failure rate is high.
But the post-ceremony failure rate?
What is this percentage? How many priests (and nuns and monks) 'drop out' after taking their vows?


Is it anywhere near 50%?
I doubt it, but I don't know for sure. Anyone know?


The Bishop laid his fatherly hands on the 3 young men shortly after they were instructed, no, commanded, military style! to 'step before the Bishop!' (I suppose it sounded like a command because it was said in German, lol).


These men knelt down as they were 'taken through their paces'. Kneeling, heads bowed, eyes closed, they were read a sort of litany, and at regular intervals, were asked, 'Are you ready?' several times. I counted six, but it could have been more times.


To each of these questions, they would reply out loud, 'Ich bin bereit!' ('I am ready!')


I thought long and hard about this.


At a (Catholic) wedding, you also say 'I do' six times, if proper protocol is followed. Every Easter, we also 'profess our faith' and say 'I do' six times.


God gives us free will when we are born. It seems that whatever path we choose in life, He really wants to make sure we mean it. Are we as committed as we say we are?
At one point in the Bible, Jesus asks Peter 'do you love me?' three times before he accepts that he does.


Is this aspect of God a sign of His beta neediness or is this a sign of His supreme Alphaness where he wants to establish that we mean what we say and say what we mean?
What do you all think?


All 70 priests and the other 2 Bishops in attendance laid their hands on the deacons one by one, each praying silently over them, as they knelt, eyes remaining closed. It was very moving to watch.


Once the deed was done, and these men had become priests, their clothes were instantly changed. They were brought 'priest clothes', by their trainers, and were dressed in their new clothes right there and then, whilst we all clapped proudly.


And then all 70 priests and the other 2 Bishops, again, one by one all came to the new priests to greet them in a manner I have now come to recognise as a 'priestly greeting'. I alluded to it in this post where I was greeted in this fashion by a priest, and I just thought it was because I was a woman which is why he avoided hugging me (because even though I see him as my 'brother', I am still a woman, and not his sister - and I understand his need to literally keep his distance from me and all other women, except his actual mother and sisters).


But it seems this is how priests greet each other too! I was wrong to perceive it as a kind of 'b*tch shield' for priests. Turns out I was projecting :-)


Fascinating to see this greeting done 72 times by each new priest.


They touch the sides of each other's heads with each other's heads or cheeks, starting on each other's right side. Sometimes they simply touch the other's shoulder with their forehead.
It kind of reminded me of this other way men greet each other, lol.

Not quite the same solemnity as one would expect in an ordination associated with this way of greeting, but still.... it's the 'brotherliness' of it all that counts...
:-)
In this case below, it went awry, but you get the picture...

Some of the priests ignored 'protocol' and went for a full-on hug and pat on the back when it was their turn to congratulate the new priests. I guess this is true 'brotherly' and 'fatherly' love being expressed right here. Quite emotional when one of the priests hugged one of the new priests so long, the next priest in line started looking at his watch and the audience burst out laughing.


:-)


As a sign that these men were now accepted into the 'club', they were transferred from the front row of the pews onto the altar to be with the other priests as the rest of the Mass was celebrated by the Bishop


At one point, ALL the Bishops and priests left the altar, leaving the 3 to say the final blessing. I thought that was lovely. It was as if they were saying: 'Now you are priests. We entrust the salvation of the flock to you. Go on and bless them. You will be doing this everyday for the rest of your lives so you might as well start now.' :-)






At the apéro, I bumped into the mother of our current regular priest. She is British :-) so let's just say she and I have a certain bond.


I asked her: 'So how did you feel watching the ordination?'
I could tell it would have been an emotional experience for her. Fifteen years ago, she had watched her own son take this step.


She told me that as she had 15 years ago, she had felt (with a pang of guilt) that it was 'such a waste' to see these handsome, wonderful young men take this step.


As she had felt about her own son, she was somewhat saddened by the realisation that their mothers and fathers would never get grandchildren from these sons (in her case, she had other children, so she does have grandchildren :-), that they would never know what it is like to have a wife, have a (secular) home, live a 'normal' life.


Interestingly, I had had those thoughts pass through my own mind, and I am not even related to any of these guys. I asked the father if he had had similar thoughts.
'Nope' was his reply :-)


Is this a woman thing?


Interestingly, I feel the same way when I see a nun take her vows. She will never be the wife of some man, bear his children, keep his home. I am at least fair to both sexes on this issue.
But am I wrong to think this way? Afterall, if a handsome young man or a beautiful young woman has been 'taken' by God, should I lament that an earthly woman or man is missing out? Is it not good that God takes the best of humanity for himself, so to speak?




I asked the mother if it was wrong of us to think this way. She said 'no, we are only human', but maybe that's just her hamster talking :-)




Each of the new priests had his 'Primiz' lined up for the next day (Sunday).
I discovered that 14 of those 70 priests had accompanied Father A_________ to the mountains in order to be at his Primiz. Again, very touching. Throughout this whole process, I got this strong impression of 'brotherhood' among these priests.
It is a truly mesmerising process for a woman to experience.
Are you men aware of this 'feature' or 'bug' of womanhood, I wonder?




Needless to say, Father A__________'s Primiz was the celestial highlight it was billed to be. Let's just say we the choir exceeded our own expectations and gave him the concert of his life. Hey, these are not my words, that's what he himself said in his 'thank you' speech at the end. No we didn't pay him to say that, lol.


We are so very proud of him and wish him immense success and all the Graces of our Heavenly Father in his life and mission as priest.




I would like to leave you with some of the music we sang for him at this very special of occasions.




Just to mention, we may be a Swiss mountain parish choir, but our choirmaster has a bit of a penchant for British composers, I have to say :-) Nothing to do with me :P


We had previously performed Karl Jenkins' 'Mass for Peace'.


This time, he picked Karl Jenkins' 'Te Deum' as our introduction for the very first Mass of Father A_____________.


Here is a taster:


http://www.boosey.com/cr/sample_detail/Karl-Jenkins-Te-Deum-2008/12968












I only vaguely knew of John Rutter prior to this choral preparation. But I had certainly never heard of his so very beautiful 'Für die Schönheit dieser Welt' before we started practising it.
It is simply stunning.


Here I have it in English and German: (We, of course, sang it in German).

At the very end, we sang the 'Hallelujah Chorus' from Handel:
We brought the roof down, if I may say so myself :-) !!!