Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Out, out, out!

They say one should clean out the hard disk of one's computer every now and again to get the best of out it.

You know...all those viruses, worms, trojans, boogeys, what have you, they take their toll on your computer, don't they?

But then I took it one step further :-)

I thought to clear out junk from the computer in my head.

Might be a pointless exercise though - I may successfully get rid of viruses, bacteria, indeed all forms of fauna one can find in the zoology disctionary.

But alas, my hamsters remain :-)

Anyhow, the following words and phrases should not be part of my vocabulary from henceforth.
These words are too closely alligned with feminism. It's a case of 'too close for comfort'.

But even more annoying is that they are concocted words, meaning, they were words with good meaning before they were hijacked and repackaged into the 'loaded guns' they are today.

Do you have words like this you want to purge from your life?

Feel free to add to this list!

1. Empowerment


If I hear this word one more time....!

I think I have alluded to the effect this word has on me, before.

It is the singular most destructive word to escape from Planet Feminism, and I think it is poisoning so many young lives.

To 'empower' someone is to 'invest with power', or to 'enable' or to 'endow with ability'.
I get that.

I think it's a great thing to do for someone who would otherwise be taken advantage of, or crumbled by someone who doesn't understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'. (Again, we touched on this in an earlier post where we discussed the difference between 'mercy' and 'pity').

But why has this word been hijacked for an ignoble cause?

Any Tonia, Delia or Harriet is 'empowered' when she does something wrong and unsavoury.
This is the wrong use of such a noble word.

And for this reason, the word has to go.



I don't like this one either.

Having never believed AMALT, I am not inclined to think AWALT either.

What's more, I see this as  the perfect endgame to feminism.

Here is the internal dialogue:

"We are women who have failed in our womanhood, our feminity. We have failed miserably against men. Only a few of us are still what we should be. Why not muddy the waters for everyone, men in particular? Why don't we present all womanhood as tainted, so that it would be hard for these men to distinguish between us?"

These same women, somewhere along the way, bought into the 'all men are pigs' lullaby. Now they want the AWALT tune to be played on every jukebox in the world.

This scenario was brought home to me in a stark way when last weekend I was 'waitressing' for a group of women who were meeting up for an official 'women's group' meeting. Totally accidental that I ended up serving up refreshments (long story), but I became a silent observer in what turned out to be a slow decline into a whinging session about men.

It turned out most of those women were divorced. I knew some of them. Some of them had had serious transgression against them by their ex-husbands. Some of the others were the transgressors themselves in their dealings with their ex-husbands.
Like I say, I knew some of them.
What was interesting is that both groups homogenised so effortlessly that it was hard to see who was the 'good guy' and who was the 'bad guy', so to speak.
It was absolutely stupefying to watch the 'bad guys' play the victim so shamelessly, and the 'good guys' were none the wiser - or perhaps they were aware of what was happening but were powerless to challenge it.

It certainly suited the 'bad guys' to shield themselves under the halo of the 'good guys'.
And yet, *I* knew there was a world of difference between these groups.

I am sure the same can be said for different varieties of men too.

So AMALT/AWALT - deleted.

3. I am worth it/ I deserve...

Like 'empowerment', this phrase is not at all helpful.
Whilst in theory, everyone deserves X or Y, in reality, no-one deserves X or Y.
X or Y is best earned.

It is a disservice to persistently give a child (male or female) the impression that they deserve something.

It leads to shooting sprees.
It leads to a painful life.
It leads to misery which sadly, turns out to be self-induced.

If a good reason cannot be given for why X or Y is deserved, then it is not deserved.


4. I am concerned/I am uncomfortable...

I have learned to run - very fast - whenever I hear these words. It usually implies that something very bad is about to happen.

I can't fully explain this one, except to say it is a loaded gun that is often used to instantly silence one.
It comes from the 'politically correct' brigade, and with the law behind it, can be used against anyone at anytime. I have seen it in action (from afar, mind) and it is not too pretty to watch.

You guys ( and some ladies) know what I am talking about.
I feel your pain.


5. My feeling is...

This one is the cousin of 'I am concerned...'

I am ambivalent about this because this one is just a precursor to 'I am concerned...'

I am not sure if it should be deleted.
Feelings are great - I swim in them.

But they should never be a substitute for reality.
The problem is, some of us (aherm!) rely too heavily on this.

Maybe this one should go in the 'draft' folder, for further analysis :-)

6. Creepy/pervy

As I said to Metak in the last post, this is just a 'below the belt' insult directed at undesirable men. It has no real meaning, other than 'whatever you want it to mean'.

For this reason, it too goes into the 'delete' box.

7. Embrace...

Funny how before 1997, this word only meant 'to hug' to me :-)

Now we have to 'embrace our fears', 'embrace our sexuality', 'embrace our failings'...

What is it really a code word for?
What do these words mean?
Why are they in use?
Who is 'releasing' them one at a time?
Why are we accepting them?


Any grievences against words that should not be in common usgae in the public domain?

Let's bring 'em out and crush 'em in the village square!

Um, does that sound a bit too militant?
Disempower me...


Saturday, July 19, 2014

A woman's word

I think this post should have a different  title. But I am clinging to this one for dear life because I really want to highlight a particular thought. It is a specific concept that I don't want to lose sight of. Knowing myself, I am wont to go off on a tangent, but I musn't let myself do this in this post.


La Spacetraveller was just sitting here minding her own business when a commenter posted something which made her jump, metaphorically speaking...

Are there any German- or Italian-speaking people here at The Sanctuary?
I love the use of the definite article in both these languages.

It's never just 'Rainer'. It is der Rainer.
It's never just 'Little Giovanna'. It is La Giovannina.


Anonymous said to me in this post:

"All I have is a "Woman's word." That's not good enough for me.  ..."


And then I immediately discovered that I had two hamsters rather than the usual furry lone ranger :-)

One of them is the one I was born with, and is distinctly female.
The other one I am not sure where it came from, but its gender is indeterminate, or perhaps more relevant to this post, may be a hybrid and can switch from male to female on a whim. It is perhaps a 'higher order' hamster or something, but I think I trust it more than my original hamster. Well, I don't know.
Judge for yourself, for I was able to record a conversation between these two hamsters once. No video, just audio :-)

Just so you know, the female hamster (which I shall call 'Hamster 1') has a french accent. The 'indeterminate sex' hamster ('Hamster 2') for some reason has a Cockney British accent and is distinctly a Londoner. It likes to play 'devil's advocate' and has definitely got trousers on today, so it is male today. It however has a definite feminine side on other occasions depending on what Hamster 1 says.
Hamster 2 never starts conversations. It leaves that to Hamster 1 :-)

Hamster 1: Mais, c'est pas vrai! Mais non, vat is ze veld coming to? C'est pas possible! (sigh). Quoi faire...Mon Dieu, c'est franchement une catastrophe!

Hamster 2: Oi, cupcake, keep yer hair on. What's happened that's getting yer knickers in a twist, love?

Hamster 1: Mais, mon ami, haven't you heard? Zese men are now vanting les femmes to give zem zeir verd, like zese vimen, zey are men! Mais, c'est quoi ├ža, ce truc! C'est vraiment incroyable!

Hamster 2: Eh? What? Yer having a strop because some bloke wants wimmin to be held to their word, just like blokes? Cor blimey! What are ya like? If you ask me, it's about time an' all!

Hamster 1: But zat is not ze point! It is not about making les femmes more accountable, it is more about making les femmes into les hommes! It is not naturel! C'est dingue! Eet ees crazy! Quite wrong!

Hamster 2: Calm down dear! Not the end of the world...

Hamster 1: Mais it is, mon ami! Vee take away the nature of les hommes et les femmes, and it vill be ze end of ze world! I don't vant to be forced to be giving people 'gentleman's agreement'. Je suis une femme! Je suis une femme! JE SUIS UNE FEMME!!!!!

Hamster 2: Jeez, get a grip, Darlin'! It ain't that bad! I bloody knew I shouldn' a' got out of bed this morning...I knew my day weren't gonna go like I dreamed, like. First ya get some hysterical bird getting up yer grill, then before ya know it, it's all gone dan sath from here. It's all gone Pete Tong on ya. Bang out of order, if yer ask me!

See what you started, Anonymous?

Bad enough for one hamster to spin out of control. Now you've gone and upset both of me hamsters and now we've got World War 3 in me hamster wheel.
Spare a thought for me :-)

Do you see Hamster 1's point of view, by the way?

I fully realise that you and I are actually on the same side of the table here, and this is quite confusing for me. (I feel I shouldn't be on the same side as you on this particular issue). You have spun me into a state of cognitive dissonance, and I am not sure how to get myself out of this rabbit-hole.
Make sense?
It doesn't make sense to me either, but I shall try to explain myself better below...

About 2 or 3 years ago, I remember walking down to the city centre of my city on a Saturday afternoon. It was crowded as I headed for the shops. I was walking behind two young men. They were probably in their late teens. One was animatedly showing a photo on his i-phone to the other. I was so close behind them that I could see the photo.

The one who was being shown the photo said, " That is so gay". I craned my neck to see what was so 'gay'. The photo on the i-phone was of a woman wearing a dress. That's it.

I was intrigued by the episode, and got curious about it, but there was no way I could make any sense of it until I understood the SMP better a year or two after that episode.

I have heard more than one person declare that the result of the shenanigans of the SMP/feminism/modernism, whatever we want to call it, is that in response to the masculinisation of women (cause or effect of thesexual revolution?), men have become more masculinised, not feminised.


In response to feminism and masculine women, men have become hypermasculinised.

But, you say: women everywhere are declaring that they can't find masculine men anymore. Men remain 'little boys' well into their thirties now. They are all 'mama's boys' living in Mama's basement playing computer games, with no masculine skills, hence 'women need men like fish need bicycles', etc...

Cause or effect?

A well-known Manosphere blog (I shall leave it to you to guess which one :-) published a post a few months ago about the state of men and women today. The blogger correctly pointed out that women have taken on masculine values - for better or worse. I guess he meant it in the wider sense than just physical (i.e. in the realm of workforce, relationship roles, etc.) but the picture he posted to depict this picture was of a young physically fit woman with a 'six pack' abdomen.

This blogger was quite pleased with this development within the SMP. He noted that fifty years ago, it wasn't usual to find such toned, fine specimens of women. That men were happy with women as they were in the 50's sans 'six pack' was conveniently brushed aside :-)

But that's not the point I want to draw your attenttion to.

In describing 'modern man', this blogger posted a picture of a man suffering from a disease known as 'Klinefelter syndrome'.

For those who need a visual, this is what a Klinefelter patient looks like:

He is a man with an extra complement of female chromosome X. He looks like a woman (wide hips, breast tissue, female type body distribution of fat). He is learning disabled and is usually infertile.

Quite rightly, this blogger was challenged on his perception of his fellow men by his, well, fellow men.

I see everyday that the blogger is incorrect in his assertion that modern men are feminised. At least I sincerely believe that feminised men are a minority in the general male population.

Those that are indeed feminised in their physical appearance or their thinking, are quickly eliminated from the gene pool, sometimes in the most swift and brutal way possible, sometimes at their own hand.

I don't have to look too far or too far back to provide an example of this swift elimination. A young man who believed himself to be a victim of women's rejection of him despite his fabulousness (he used this very feminine word a lot in his manifesto) despite never approaching women like men usually have to do, and who gives the impression of being entitled to something he need not earn, recently brutally and tragically ended his own and others' lives.

Yes, he had serious problems stemming from a long way back in his life. But the result was an extremely feminised way of thinking which, as a woman he would have got away with, but as a man, it killed him. Literally.

I mention no names because I would not like to focus not on the man himself, but his story, which is relevant to what I am trying desperately to tease out of my confused brain.

It is confusing.

Many would say that this guy was acting like a man. Brutal murder and suicide? That's traditionally associated with (abnormal, of course) masculinity.
But this chap got to where he got to by way of highly feminised thinking. Not necessarily feminine, but feminised, for sure.

But he is in the minority.

Most men, as an adaptation to the modern world, I think, have become more masculine in their dealings with women, not less.
I have no issue with this, because I can see that this is a logical approach, something that men are wired to do.
I merely make the observation.

Is this something akin to the internal monologue?? (Correct me if I am way off base, gentlemen!)

They want equality in the workplace?
Then they must work as hard and ss long as us to get equal pay to us.

They want sexual freedom?
Then they must be made to face the sexual realities of men, including rejection.

They want to kill their own snakes?
Why, let them!

And so on.

And now I get closer to my 'crux of the matter'.

They want men to be held accountable for everything?
Then they too should be held to their 'word'.

A gentleman's word is his bond. This is a well-established social convention, no?

A woman used to have her own (feminine) way of arriving at her 'destination' of honour and accountability. And men allowed that 'wriggle room' because women used to honour this flexibility accorded them by men. Like chivlary, it is a concept of men honouring (good) women because they know that said women will not kick them where it hurts.

Now that it is clear that women have waged a war on men where no man was actually prepared for such a  war, the sleeping giant has woken up and is now upset that Gulliver pinched his little finger.

'Anonymous' is such a giant.

Now he wants a woman's word to count like a man's does.

He wants a woman to be a man, and yet remain a woman.

Bellita once said that when women were real women, they did a good job of it. Now that women have exposed themselves not to be trustworthy, the ask of them has only grown.
Now you have to be both a woman in every sense, and a man to de deserving of a man's respect.

We spoke once of the 'masculine woman'.

I found a perfect visual of this concept...

I know this woman is a comedienne...
I know she is parodying women...and perhaps men too. (Is she Hamster 2-like? :-)
I know this is some kind of joke...
And I actually like this kind of woman (but does this say something about my own - perhaps flawed - brand of femininity, I wonder? :-)

And yet...
I keep thinking something's wrong when I look at this woman :-)

Anyone care to explain to me why I might be feeling this way? Why do I feel something akin to Catholic guilt if I admit I like her, as though I am colluding with some sort of gender enemy, betraying my oath to the gender police to uphold traditional gender roles? Why am I so bothered with this? As Hamster 2 would say, why am I getting my knickers in a twist about something that really might not be so important in the grand scheme of things?

More importantly, how do you (if you are a man) react to this all-feminine but also weirdly masculine woman? Perfect balance of the masculnie and feminine, or a gender experiment gone wrong?

Please share! I am genuinely intrigued by this.

I have two conflicting views on the hypermasculinisation of society.

On the one hand, I am pleased that guys like Anonymous expect more of women. I think it's great that for the first time in history, women as a group are called to 'show their mettle' in this way. I see this as an opportunity rather than a failing.
This is largely because I have never seen women as lacking 'moral' or any other kind of agency. It did surprise me somewhat to see that so many men in the Manosphere have this view. My humble opinion is that while men may (in general) have more capacity for moral aptitude than women (except sexual, perhaps, in the younger years where women are intrinsically biologically wired to have more capability in this regard) this does in no way indicate that women are not endowed with this capacity intrinsically.
That many women have demonstrated a rather alarming departure from expectation does not equate to a biological ineptitude. It has to be a social programming issue.

So I think women should be just as accountable as men. I am not one to shirk away from the accountability issue.

So I am cool with Anonymous' way of thinking.

But here's the problem...

Other than for Nadia G, and a few other women like her, forcing women into 'a man's world' could be painful for both men and women.

The rise in masculine-style 'dating' may have been started by women, yes. The 'let's hang out' lifestyle is never ideal for women, whether we know it or not. If men continue to perpetuate it, and punish femininity with insults like 'gay', a whole lot of otherwise feminine-inclined women will end up as confused as I am :-)

My issue with the unintended consequences of hypermasculinity is that the meandering, indirect, 'scenic route' that femininity has always entailed will be dealt one last fatal blow.

And then what?

Femininity has taken many near-fatal blows in the last few decades.
Anonymous' words are the equivalent of a chilling 'do not resuscitate' order to an already flagging casualty.
This is what made me jump.

It is what it is. A runaway train. We all helplessly watch it leave the railtracks.
It would be interesting to see where it ends up.
Nowhere good, I suspect.

But I wonder if we women can turn this around?

Will this convo be the internal talk of many a woman in the future?

They want us to shake their hands and give them our word?
No problem! A lady's word is her bonde!
And it is sacred.
We will wear our dresses and do what is correctly asked of us, with no fuss.
We are not gay! We are women!


I look forward to the day when this thinking is commonplace.
Not least because I shall have to pick Anonymous' jaw off the floor :-)

I know this post is long enough already :-) but I am curious about something else!

Anonymous, who are these women who are promising you stuff?

Is this the new way in the SMP? I never heard of any woman giving their 'word' on their future behaviour within a relationship. Have I missed a trend?

I have always believed that you men are visual, not just with your attraction cues when 'assessing' a woman, but also when you 'judge' her as wife or girlfriend potential or not, as the case may be.

It is women who 'listen' out for promises. We are auditory!

You men just watch for clues, don't you? So why does a woman's word matter to you?

Do I need re-educating on this?
Perhaps I do!

Maybe you could help me with this...

In the film 'Out of Africa', Denis and Karen are having an argument.

Curiously he says to her mid-argument: "You have no idea of the effect language has on me..."

This around the 8.10 mark in this video:

I have never understood this... What does he mean?

Are you and Denis a different breed of man? Are you 'new age men' or is this a regular thing with men in general? In which case, why am I soo misinformed?
Why do words have such a powerful effect on you? Or are you very much in the middle of the Gaussian distribution on this, and poor old Spacetraveller just needs to go back to school on the subject of men...?

I am afraid my confusion reigns supreme. Perhaps I could use this post to clear the muddy waters...