Saturday, November 9, 2013

Are we in a double bind?

Oh the shattering soul-destroying and wretched sound of abject failure ! I can hear it now as it rings out in every conceivable corner of the room!

After years of 'the search for the truth' I really cannot believe I am back to Square One. Indeed Square zero.

But such is life. I am where I am. What can I say?

Is it normal? Is this the 'who said the path to progress was smooth'? playing itself out?

I had intended to write a post about father figures, but suddenly, there appears this emergency that I cannot ignore for much longer :-)

I honestly thought I'd got it licked in posts like 'What's a woman for' and such like.

But I guess asking 'what's a woman for' is a very different question from 'what do men want'.

Is it just that there is a continuum and every man has his own little 'niche' (unhelpful for the individual woman who needs some concrete advice) or is there a block of basic traits that men want (helpful!) that would enlighten the fairer sex?

I know I am chronically confused about most things, but this particulat question is starting to take the proverbial biscuit :-)


Do men actually know? Or are they 'waiting till they see it' sort of thing...

Is part of the problem in the SMP that men are 'undecided' and will take what they can get until the next best thing comes along? Is it as random as that? Or are there definite, solid, unwavering criteria that men will adhere to, no matter what?

In this sense, only MGTOW (and of course happily married men) are doing the 'stoic' thing - for they have 'opted out' until they get what they want, and only what they want, no detours, no compromises. The full shebang, or nothing. But they are absolutely clear on what it is they are looking for, and do get what they are looking for. Are these guys 'luckier' than other men, or do they have a formula that we beseech them to share with the rest of us?

To date, only Grasshopper has been totally honest (as far as I can tell) on this issue.

I tassled with Grasshopper when he declared that he wanted a woman with a job, because he needed his woman to share the financial responsibility of the household. He seemed undeterred that her attention would be divided threeways as a result: childcare (and this may well take priority when the children are young - as it should be), him, and her job.

Other men declare that they want a woman who wants to be 'pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen' but go all shy and refuse to answer the question as to whether they therefore expect to shoulder the full finacial responsibility for the household for as long as it is needed.

Others, like John Galt have choice words for the stay at home mother (SAHM). 'Entitled traditionalist' is the best of them, I suppose.
Is he right in believing that women like that are 'entitled'? Am I missing something in John Galt's message?
If John is right, are we falling for the feminist message that unless a woman is doing paid work, her contribution is useless? We women as a group have generally fallen for that porker, but have men too? Are we wrongly judging women as men, and if so, is it because women have 'asked for it' with the whole 'equality' thing?

No problem if that is the answer. I would just like to know. Yes, the truth hurts, and I am not averse to hearing it :-)
I really do prefer the pain of hearing the 'troof' to the pain of eternal ignorance.

Some men like hardworking women as a rule. M3 recently posted about medical (and dental) women. It was an ode of sorts to the working woman.

I was however at odds with this statement:
I should have asked M3 to elaborate! Perhaps I shall invite him here to do so.

"To the female cardiologist, (who was much older than my image might indicate, as in grey hairs old) who showed a dedication to her profession by not leaving it in order to have children, or if she did have children, stuck it out in medicine, made a career out of it and gave back to the people what she got educated to do."

M3 is praising a woman for abandoning maternity in favour of her job?

Is it any wonder I am confused, when all over the Manosphere 'careerist femc*nts' are being mocked and shamed everyday?
Or again, am I missing something here? Do I misunderstand M3?

If every woman followed Deti's advice of

1) Be pretty

2) Be thin (and preferably young, as in, younger than  your intended love interest)

3) Be nice

4) Be available

I still suspect that this alone would not be enough.

Is there something my esteemed male readers are not telling me?
Are they hiding something crucial from me?

Or am I just listening to the wrong guys on this? Is John Galt so far out in his own world that I should not take his message at face value, even though he does have a valid point to make?

We discussed the 4 Fs in the post about what a woman is for.

None of these include a 'w' (as in work). And yet, men go in for working women all the time. And certain non-working women are in fact excluded from the dating pool.

This man caused a series of controversies with his 'list'. The bit about the 'woman with a job' went under the radar, but that is the one that interests me on this post. (He caused the biggest controversy when he excluded a certain race from his list of desirables. I am not interested (for the moment) in that racial aspect - just the bit about 'work').

"I will not date a girl that does not have a job or career."

To be fair, most of this list sounds reasonable. The only comment to make about it, in a negative sense, is that it is unusually long for a man's list. It is a bit too prescriptive. It is we women that usually have such lofty aspirations in the dating world :-)
Also, some of the items in the list are rather inconsistent, eg. he wants a feminine and young woman (i.e. in the childbearing age group) but he does not want her to have had children before, or to have children with him. Most feminine women do want children, so this contradiction in the list of desirable qualities may prove fruitless for this man.

Is this man also an outlier?

If the argument is, well we go in for 'women with jobs' because they are all working now! then fair enough. But do you prefer women with more homemaking tendencies?

Or would you rather denigrate them and call them 'entitled b*tches' because they are not out there earning their own money?

It is not that simple, I know. But the inconsistencies make me wonder if men are just as confused about what they want as women are, but are too proud to let on.

Is John Galt an extreme outlier (having arrived there as a consequence of events beyond his control) or is he plum in the centre when it comes to the breadth of preferences professed by men in general?

I am still in the dark here.

I had expected to have progressed beyond this point after 2 years of blogging, but this is a sign for me that I need to be more patient with myself.

In the meantime, if you all don't mind dragging yourselves back to rehash this subject, hopefully you could get me out of the dark abyss of confusion that I find myself in.

Much appreciated.
And please feel free to colour me confused until we thrash this one out until it is clear as glass.

Explain it to me like I am a six year old :-)



Anonymous said...

I would prefer the mother of my children to take care of them at home, assuming she is happy to do so. If we didn't have any children I see no reason why she should not work unless we were wealthy enough to not have to.

The impression I get from women who claim to want the traditional role is that they simply would rather have someone else earn the money to pay for their lifestyle, can't say I blame them, but this is parasitic behavior. If you aren't taking care of children how can you justify staying at home whilst your husband works? Some men don't mind this, but it is still exploitation.

I also find some of these "traditional" women become very feminist and modern when it favors them, they want to have the best of both worlds, complaining about the "wage gap" but feeling entitled to free meals and drinks at men's expense.

I think most women in the west embrace this best of both worlds philosophy and the white knights happily go along with it. It's one of the reasons why many men are MGTOW, the hypocrisy and resultant cognitive dissonance is too much to bear.

I don't believe the traditional women want to submit to me any more than I believe the career women does not want the option to quit her job and segue into the traditional role when she feels like it.

The traditional women sees herself as superior to men, she feigns inferiority, whilst secretly believing she is more important than men, how else could she justify her husband sacrificing his life for her.

The feminist women sees herself as inferior to men, she feigns superiority but tries to emulate men, she looks down on the traditional role and doesn't see being a mother as anything worthy to aspire to. Plus, since women can "have it all", she can always have a family in her mid thirties.

The question of what type of woman a man wants seems to be somewhat irrelevant to me, considering the state of the family courts and the overwhelming bias towards women in every sphere of western culture. The question should be, Since men can't afford to deal with women anymore, what should women do to fix this and what should men do in the mean time?

- Peter, mghow, 31 years old

Cadders said...

IMO what men want from women is simple; Respect.

That's it.

For from respect comes everything else - everything that every man wants from a woman.

A respectful women will - automatically - give her man the sex, the family, the work that he needs her to provide, and the behavior he requires. Don't get hung up on the specifics of what 'men' want. The needs of 'men' are unique to every man as an individual - we are not herd creatures. And those needs will change over time.

All women have to do is find a man worthy of her respect. That doesn't mean a 495 point checklist - just consider if his general behavior (not just to you, the woman, but in general) is worthy of respect. If it is then commit to him and stay respectful even when there are times when he may be unworthy of it - in these times help him to improve - do not simply bail. The respect of a good woman is a powerful motivator to most men. Women do not understand that a good women expressing disappointment in a good man cuts much deeper than nagging or a hissy fit.

Of course the problem we have today is that women are not screening for worthy men. They chase the gina tingles that the bad boys and thugs provide. And they are taught never to show respect to men as this is a form of 'oppression'. To any young women struggling with this a suggestion; If you find a worthy guy that you are interested in, figure out something that you respect him for (genuinely respect him for - men's respect radars are finely tuned - if you try to bullshit him he will detect it) and tell him. Use the word 'respect' i.e. 'You know, I really respect the way you.....' Then stand back (and after he has come back to his senses - it will shock him to hear a woman verbalise her respect) and feel the lurve.

Anonymous said...

I agree Cadders, love comes and goes but respect only goes if the person is not worthy of it anymore. Respect means everything to men.

- Peter

Anonymous said...

Maybe the difference is in the type of job. M3 sang his ode to women in caring, feminine-like occupations that would allow for the other parts of what we, as men, ask for.

Cardiologist, EMT, dental hygienist. Those could all be male jobs but could also attract feminine, compassionate, caring, loveable types, no?

Spacetraveller said...

Thank you Gentlemen,

I am encouraged that there have been consistently almost the same message throughout the comments so far!

This really helps...

I shall try and summarise the salient points - please check if I have got it right.

From Peter,

(Welcome, by the way, Peter!)

The main message is ..."I want a woman who will submit to me..."
So basically, we will work out the fine details later, but start by submitting to me.

It seems to me that you have the same mistrust of the so-called 'traditional woman' as John Galt does, but the difference between you and him is that you give a good reason why - and that is, because she is not really submitting to her husband - she is (as you perceive it - correct me if I am wrong) just doing what she wants, ie. she is pleasing herself, possibly at the expense of the husband she professes to love.

And this is where I pick up this vibe from:

"I don't believe the traditional women want to submit to me any more than I believe the career women does not want the option to quit her job and segue into the traditional role when she feels like it."

In other words, she is in it for herself. Her 'traditionalism' is fabricated to cover another trait such as laziness, perhaps.
Unlike the truly submissive woman who may have given up a career she loves because her husband requests it, or they come to a decision together for the sake of their children, this 'traditional woman' wants to just sit at home because she tired of her career and from now on, she just wants someone to take care of her.

Is this right?

If so, then I actually don't see anything wrong with this argument. I agree with it.

If this is a universal argument amongst the MGTOW, then I can see they have a point.

SAHMotherhood can be a sacrifice if done for the right reasons, i.e. for the sake of the child. And for that matter, I for the life of me don't see why a woman without small children shouldn't be occupying herself, (by working) either, Peter. Unless of course it is a joint decision between her and her significant other, in which case, fair enough - who are we to judge...
Whenever I mentioned SAHM, it was with the understanding that she has small children to look after, i.e. that she is actually a mother.

So yes, the picture is definitely clearer, thank you :-)

From Cadders,

"IMO what men want from women is simple; Respect.

That's it."

And you go on to say,

"Don't get hung up on the specifics of what 'men' want."

For sure, Cadders, I think I was tripping myself up on 'specifics'. I think I was in some sort of tailspin over this, in fact :-)

So it's good, that you point me away from 'specifics'.

Again you make a very similar point to Peter.

Submission comes from respect. So you and Peter are basically saying, treat him as the boss of the household, and whatever follows next is 'sorted'.

These are very consistent answers. Thanks, guys.

I think they are helpful responses not just for me, but also for any lady that wanders here.

Spacetraveller said...


Back to you, you ask...

"The question should be, Since men can't afford to deal with women anymore, what should women do to fix this and what should men do in the mean time?"

Um, in trying to 'fix' the problem, the most effective way, I find, is to...ask men!

Hahahaha, this is not a ploy to simply throw the ball back in your court, it is a real attempt to solve the problem at hand.

Given that feminism has ruled for the last 50 or so years, it is no longer the case that listening to other women is a good idea, because, frankly, how does one know if this source of 'intelligence' on men is 'kosher' anymore? The well is poisoned, so find another well, I say!

This is why I ask questions (of men), sometimes over and over agian, lol, to make absolutely sure each subject has been dissected to its very core.

My curiosity knows no bounds, as you might have guessed. And the issue of 'men', though supposedly simple, is a difficult one to grasp (for us women) on a practical basis. So we need every help we can get.

What can men do in the meantime? Just tell us stuff like you are doing right now. Just 'civilise' us! Educate us!
Some of us are willing students of the University of Men :-)

Sean Carnegie,

Welcome to you too!

You make an interesting point. Yes, all the professions M3 mentions are very much 'caring' professions.
But they are still work/careers, and apart from M3 and a few like him, I got the impression that 'career' (no matter what type of 'career') was a bit of a dirty word where women were concerned...

So it appears to be little comfort if some careers are deemed 'OK' because of the nature of the career.

But I see what you mean.

I have never seen a kind post in the Manosphere about female lawyers, for example.

So yes, I guess M3's post should be of much comfort!

Live Free or Die said...

I'm in my 20s and I was going my own way before the MGTOW acronym was even formed.

In high school, a girl ASKED ME to the senior prom and I said no. Why would I want to do something I don't want to in order to appease others? If you take a survey on guys, what percentage would answer that they want to dress up and go dancing on a weekend? 2%? But like a bunch of sheep, most of the guys went to the prom with their dates even though they didn't want to.

In order to relate this to women, how would you ladies like it if for the high school prom, you had to ask guys to the prom, pay all the expenses, go nude, have a big sex party with your date, and then get pictures taken of it. All of this is socially encouraged behavior that the school, friends, and family try to get you to engage in even if you reluctant to. Does that sound like fun for you?

Well this is the equivalent of what "dating" is for guys. Dating for women is all fun and games and prizes, while dating for guys is just obligations, burdens, expectations, and expenses. To top it off, dating is just a test for all of the much bigger obligations, burdens, expectations, and expenses a man can expect in a relationship and especially marriage.

This is why I am Going My Own Way. I haven't been screwed over by women or had any bad experiences with them. I refuse to be a cash-cow for someone else and for society in general. I don't want to get married or have children. I don't to compromise on anything for anyone.

So what do I want from a woman?

Not pushing for marriage or co-habitation
Has a job
Good with money
Not looking for a cash-cow

Too picky?

That is too bad, because I can function just fine on my own and have no need to compromise.

Like my username says:

Live Free or Die!

Anonymous said...

Out in the real work world, there are various ways to assess whether someone is doing their job. Most people get fired if they slack off or act like idiots.

How does a husband who is working all day assess whether his SAHW is doing a proper job of raising the children and running the household? If she isn't, what can he do about it?

I was "raised" by a bad SAHM. So I can't help but view such women with suspicion.

Mike (non-MGTOW)

Spacetraveller said...


I know it doesn't matter what I think.
As you say, you are not going to accept any compromise from any woman you date.

That's fair enough.

What I would point out though, is that unless you are only looking a short-term relationship from each woman, then your list may contain mutually exclusive components, as does the list of the guy in Texas.

As you already know, at some point in most women's lives, childern would be on the agenda...

So perhaps you get to be with her when she is not 'ready for kids'. And then when she is, you would have to part ways...

Well, some women would be happy with that, so no, you are not being picky by today's standards.

About being MGTOW, you know I am NOT going to comment on that!

I respect that decision, more so because as you say, you have arrived at it as a result of rational thought and not some knee-jerk reaction to a bad experience (which, of course some might argue IS a rational decision :-)


A hearty welcome to The Sanctuary!
Hey, did you say NON-MGTOW?!
I did a double-take with that one!
Hahahahahaha, are you just keeping me sweet or something?

Or are you just trying to get me to say the some sort of reverse psychology:
It's OK to be MGTOW!!!!


Just teasing... :-)

Out of interest, what was the real reason you chose to identify yourself as non-MGTOW? Are you already married/have a gf/etc.?
Just curious...

It is heartbreaking to hear you say you were raised by a bad mother.
In many ways, that is so much worse than someone saying they had a bad wife.
I am really sorry.

I am not sure whther your question is a rhetorical question or not...

I guess it is easy enough to know if the woman is not doing the job right, no?

I mean, if when the man comes home the house is dirty, the dinner is not ready and the kids are soiled/hungry/badly behaved EVERY or MOST days, then that would be a clue, no?

I guess everyone is allowed an 'off day' every so often.

I tell you a funny anecdote. I do sometimes peruse blogs of SAHMs.
Every now and again, an exhausted mother of young kids (I often have real sympathy with these women, I have to admit) would write in and say something to the tune of 'my husband does not appreciate all I do in the home. Just because I am not out there earning money, he is starting to disrespect me. When we were dating/pre-children and I was earning my own money, he showed me so much more respect...what can I do to regain his respect?"

And the answer from the blog-owner/mentor would almost always be a variant of..."Woman up!"

Does this sound familiar?

You men are not the only ones hearing this phrase!

Have you noticed how it is certain groups of people who are recipients of this "Man/woman up!" put-down?

The good brethren who have kept their noses clean throughout their young days, have worked their way up with no help from any woman (except close relatives)who are now 'ripe for marriage', so to speak: Man up and marry the ex-party-girls!

The young, decent women who are holding up their end of the bargain and who have married and are going through the hard child-rearing phase of their lives (toddler country!) and who are exhausted beyond what they have ever experienced in their lives: Woman up and suck it up!

No-one is asking the playas and the party-girls to do anything that ends in 'up'.

Such is life, eh?

Admittedly not fair, but what can one do?

Carry on as though one is one's own Judge, jury and executioner.
Police yourself even if no-one else will... especially when no-one else will.

Anonymous said...

I'm in a long-term relationship since University. As I'm quite happy sharing my life with a woman, I can't legitimately say I'm MGTOW. However, I agree with a lot of what they have to say.

I understand why many men prefer to GTOW, and will never shame them.

My brother is a total Beta who has never really had a GF, so I wonder what will happen to him. He is very damaged due to being the Golden Child, still tangled in the apron strings.

RE: Momster
I had social anxiety and abused various substances as a teenager. Teenage boys aren't equipped to deal with a crazy mother alongside all other stresses at that age. I chose to cope by numbing myself whatever way I could. I know it wasn't the best way.

Somehow I made it into University, and graduated.

The most important task of a SAHM would be raising the children. A lot of housework is automated, compared to previous generations. All of my friends' mothers worked and did at least as good a job with housework.

My mother was OK with housework but was a disaster as a caregiver. She had angry meltdowns all the time, and I took the brunt of it as the eldest child.

As a general rule, I'm more doubtful about natural parenting skills these days. I guess I can't trust modern woman to mother effectively. I know I'm tainted by my past, but I'm sure there are many women who abuse SAHM status to hide from society and not treat their mental problems.

If you are not easily employable, SAHM sounds like an easy way to dodge your problems.

Playas don't turn out well, in my opinion. One of my best friends in highschool was a total Playa, and he died a few years later from a drug overdose. Lots of Playas suffer for their crap in the end.

I don't see the modern sexual life getting any better. What I've heard about the upcoming generation is worse than ever. This will not end well.


Ceer said...


Check your e-mail.

PVW said...

Hi, ST, I can understand the bind that men think they are in because of this, since the reality is that there are plenty of women who make a pretense of wanting to stay-at-home because it is really all about them.

What is the best way for a woman who is bored with her job or bad with finances to get out of that bind? Get married, have a child and stay home.

So I can understand why some men are suspicious. A woman might think, here he is, to rescue me, pay my bills, take care of the credit card debt I racked up, and so forth.

It is interesting, but there are a number of financial literacy books out there that cater to this group, primarily white American middle class women who have a princess syndrome: Suze Orman and her cottage industry; Jean Chatzky, Make Money, Not Excuses; and Liz Perle, Money, A memoir.

These authors provided evidence from their interviews with women, and it was just breathtaking: "money is boring, shouldn't my husband take care of that?, etc." In the meantime, these were single women who acted lackadaisical about their own finances. The authors tell them to grow up, manage their money better, and stop waiting for the prince to save them.

I recall some time ago, my college had a graduate school fair to which the undergraduate students were invited. I saw a t-shirt from the women law students' group: "Be the lawyer your mother always wanted you to marry."

Very interesting; women's hypergamous instincts push them towards the high earning lawyer. But what if the high earning lawyer has no intention of rescuing you? Perhaps the young woman should think about becoming a high earner herself, and if she can't, manage her finances as best she can, without wailing and moaning about "fairness" or what she feels "entitled to."

Yet, for many manospherians, women lawyers are seen as evil witches. I know enough of them to realize that the story is more nuanced. These are women who are lawyers when they go out to work, but when they are home, they are wives and mothers, that is their priority.

Spacetraveller said...


Sorry about the troubles you had as a teenager/child.

"...but I'm sure there are many women who abuse SAHM status to hide from society and not treat their mental problems."

This is interesting. I guess my crime is to idealise SAHM because I really do see it as the best way for small children to develop normally. But I see where you are coming from, and it seems PVW also sees your point.

Yes, there is no way for a woman who should NOT be a SAHM to be 'barred' from doing so. In fact, there is no way to legislate against anyone becoming a parent!
But you need a licence to have a gun, etc. It's crazy.

"If you are not easily employable, SAHM sounds like an easy way to dodge your problems."

Yes. This makes sense in light of what you said before. I understand this.

But remember that most women will want a family one day. It is natural. So even the most 'career-minded' woman will start to 'fall behind' at her work at some point because
1) her desire for children may push her to devote more time to pursuits that will lead to this (dating, relationship, marriage). This usually means that her work will suffer because women naturally put more time into relationships than men, or you might say, women obsess more about relationships than men. This is natural, because she really needs that relationship, unlike men who don't, necessarily.

2) The whole process of chilbearing can affect women's mental states in ways that can be shocking/scary. Some women go completely loopy and never quite recover. This is one of the 'risks' of childbirth, and is never really talked about. Sure, we talk about the loss of form, the hair falling out, the saggy mammaries :-), the stretch marks...
But I think there might be a lot of undiagnosed postnatal depression out there.

I am not making excuses, I am just theorising here. I am definitely no expert in this field...

Excellent analysis. Thank you.
Very interesting!

How to tell a woman's motives then? If she is keen on SAHM, she could be just a lazy so-and-so who wants to leach off her man. On the other hand if she is rather too keen on her career, she is could be the unhealthy kind of 'careerist'.

I suppose there IS a way to find someone's true motives. As the bible says, by their fruit ye shall know them...

Unknown said...

Gratitude...appreciation...those those are what is meant by "respect."

Spacetraveller said...


Thank you. In theory, it is easy. In practice, it is easy sometimes to forget how you men need this, like oxygen.
Thank you for the stark reminder.

Anonymous said...

This is easy, and while I do not have a 'list' anymore, I can tell you exactly what I watched for, in every woman I met while I was single.

Engage me mentally, physically, spiritually and totally. Or go away.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...



Sounds like your strategy worked beautifully for you!


Anonymous said...

The thing you need to remember, Miss ST, is that I was completely and utterly capable of letting ALL women just 'go away'. As I have told you before, my wife and I came to the common understanding that we were on the same Path, and to travel that Path together would be good for both of us.

But, as you have pointed out many times before, it is the very rare woman who can completely live without SOME sort of male companionship. Men can do without women far more easily than the reverse, even if that woman has money, power and prestige.

The world is full of men who live alone, by choice. The world is not so full of women who live alone, by choice or by other reason.


Because that is human nature. Men, of any culture, MUST learn to live alone and depend on no one else to survive, regardless of the Stone Age or the Computer Age. Women, on the other hand, cannot long survive either Age, unless they are childless, or the society itself (usually in the form of government intercession) helps out. Do not misunderstand me, there are women who raised children alone, and done well at it... but I cannot name more than ten in my own experience.

The other reason men can live alone, is that they cannot have a child, either by accident or by design. Purely biological, and probably far more reason than any other I could come up with.

And in the end, Miss ST, this is your conundrum. This is your riddle wrapped in enigma bound by a puzzle. Feminists claim women do not need a man, but men KNOW they do not need a woman. Men might WANT a woman, for a night or for a lifetime, but the history of humanity is the history of men who couldn't get a woman.

Or enough women. Whatever.

By pure biology and by cruel reality, human males evolved instinctive understanding of self-reliance, independence and perhaps most important, self-defense. Some of this is learned from others, some is force-fed by strangers, and some is pure instinct.

And after all, it is women who cannot stand to be ignored by men, whereas men, at least by the time they're 21, are quite used to being ignored by women.

Now, millions of women are being ignored, even actively rejected from the company of men.

Men aren't even laughing in schadenfraude, at least not most of them. They've gone into full-bore survival mode.

Mission: Survival of Me.

Amazing how that 'fragile male ego' can be a powerful force to not only survive, but thrive.

Freud would be proud.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...


Get out of my head!


You capture my thoughts on this topic brilliantly.

In fact, just TODAY, I met a man who embodies what you say. I shall elaborate in a new post shortly.

It is great to hear your views. Sometimes echo chmabers are not such a bad thing. I think repetition is indeed the mother of learning, as they say!