The hunt for the patron saint of MGTOW is over: Meet St. Jerome!

Apparently, there is no limit to the depths of insanity to which I will sink :-)

Mea culpas aside, I must however keep to the 'feminine imperative' narrative and blame a man :-)

*Someone put me up to this. He set me a task I had never sought to undertake before, but which I relish because it is precisely the sort of daytime reverie I like to indulge in in my own personal time and space.

So, ahoy, descent into utter Madness we go (with a capital M)!



But first, a confession of sorts...

At Mass on 'Christi Himmelfahrt' or 'Auffahrt' as 'Ascension' is now known to me, the priest asked what I took at first to be a rhetorical question: 'Which period in The Church's calendar is the holiest of all?'
I smugly sat there thinking, 'but of course, 'Easter', when else?'

Turns out I was wrong. Apparently, the correct answer is....the ten days between Ascension and Pentecost!
Who'dda thunk? The holiest period in the Christian 'timetable' is now...
And here I am, a Christian woman, about to take a saint, a Doctor of the Church no less(!) to task about what he wrote 1700 years ago which offends my feminine sensibilities. :P

I feel a 'forgive me Father for I have sinned' coming on shortly...



With respect to the task at hand, I had been racking my brains for a few weeks now as to how to tackle my 'mission impossible'.
My brief was simply... a conversation with St. Jerome on his views on MGTOW.

Yes, St. Jerome, a saint of The Church thought 1700 years ago that men should not marry. That women were nothing but trouble.

And here I was thinking this was a modern problem :-)

I didn't get anywhere with this project until a plaque (of a poem by Christophe Plantin) hanging above my old piano startled me a few weeks ago. I have had this plaque ever since an old french-speaking relative of mine gave it to me around 15 years ago. Years of piano practice, and I never even so much as glanced at it. Now that I no longer live in my childhood home, I saw it as though for the first time, with fresh eyes, so to speak.


I provide the french version, because I think it is beautiful: I highlight the part which gripped me the most:

 Le bonheur de ce monde

 

Avoir une maison commode, propre et belle,
Un jardin tapissé d'espaliers odorans,
Des fruits, d'excellent vin, peu de train, peu d'enfans,
Posseder seul sans bruit une femme fidèle,

N'avoir dettes, amour, ni procès, ni querelle,
Ni de partage à faire avecque ses parens,
Se contenter de peu, n'espérer rien des Grands,
Régler tous ses desseins sur un juste modèle,

Vivre avecque franchise et sans ambition,
S'adonner sans scrupule à la dévotion,
Dompter ses passions, les rendre obéissantes,

Conserver l'esprit libre, et le jugement fort,
Dire son chapelet en cultivant ses entes,
C'est attendre chez soi bien doucement la mort.



And in English:

The happiness of this world

To have a comfortable house, clean and fair;
A walled garden lined with fragrant trees;
Fruit and fine wine, few servants and few children;
The only lover of a faithful wife;

No debts, no love-affairs, lawsuits nor feuds,
No wills to haggle out with relatives,
Simply content, dependent on no magnate,
And by a righteous rule to rule one's life;

To live in frankness, from ambition far;
With conscience clear devoted to devotion,
To tame one's passions until they obey,

To keep the spirit free and judgement strong,
Saying one's prayers while looking to one's pear-trees:
A kindly way at home to wait for Death.


I keep finding 'rules for a happy man to live by' everywhere I look these days...I even found one in Beethoven's music a while back, but this one seems to be the best blueprint of all.
So who was this Christophe Plantin?

According to Wikipedia, he was a french printer, a Catholic with humanistic tendencies (go figure). Significantly, he was intrumental in printing a lot of The Church's works, notably, those of St. Jerome.

I started to get excited when I noticed this.

After having read St. Jerome's 'Anti-Marriage rant' known as Adversus Jovinianus, Chapter 48, I suddenly got a sense of déjà vu on seeing Christophe Plantin's  words again after so many years.

And I think the reason the words in bold struck me so much was the very real sense that they seemed 'out of place' in a 'Manosphere' anthem such as this seemed to be. It seemed to me that Christophe Plantin (born in 1520), had taken these words out of the mouth of St. Jerome, but had added his own little twist. Afterall, Plantin was a married man with six kids!



So what could I possibly say to The Venerable St. Jerome?

Here is a transcript of our conversation, which admitttedly took place only in my head.



ST: St. Jerome, I come before you with a sincere request.

SJ: (Polishes halo, strokes beard, squints at me).

ST: I would like to understand your work 'Against Jovinianus', especially Chapter 48. There is plenty in there that I do not understand. I wish to understand more.

SJ: (Picks up feather pen, adjusts robe): What I wrote in 'Against Jovinianus' is not meant to be understood by mere mortals of the female kind. It is what it is.

ST: (Retains composure, frantically fishing for an alternaive approach): It is by listening to what the elders of The Church teach that the rest of God's flock may be saved. I have no-one to turn to but you on this specialist matter. No other saint, it seems to me, understands this particular issue more than you. Hear me! Engage with me!

SJ: (Picks nose and flicks residue in direction of a dove, who dodges): I am hearing you. Speak, my child.

ST: I thank you, Your Holiness.

SJ: Call me Jerome. Or Jerry.

ST: (smiles). Jerome. Nice to meet you. (Shakes hand. Surprisingly warm hands for someone who has been dead a few hundred years).

SJ: Speak!

ST: Why do you wish to deprive your fellow man of a companion 'in this vale of tears' in the manner in which God ordained? Why do you only see women as evil, unclean, unworthy?

SJ: (Irritated): I do not!

ST: This is what you say, Jerome. Right here - 'We read of a certain Roman noble who, when his friends found fault with him for having divorced a wife, beautiful, chaste, and rich, put out his foot and said to them, "And the shoe before you looks new and elegant, yet no one but myself knows where it pinches." '

Another example: 'Whole tragedies of Euripides are censures on women. Hence Hermione says, "The counsels of evil women have beguiled me." '

Yet another: 'In all the bombast of tragedy and the overthrow of houses, cities, and kingdoms, it is the wives and concubines who stir up strife. Parents take up arms against their children; unspeakable banquets are served; and on account of the rape of one wretched woman Europe and Asia are involved in a ten years' war.'

Why do you only see the bad in women?


SJ: I only report what I see, ST.

ST: Yes, fair is thine word. But were there no better examples than the ones you chronicle in this book of yours? Were there no good women around you?

SJ: (Shakes head, sighs): You miss the point of my book!

ST: (Incredulous): But how? I quote back to you what you yourself say!

SJ: Yes, and what you quote back to me is taken out of context!

ST: (Inhales): So, explain me...this is precisely why I come to you.

SJ: There is a reason I wrote this book for men. A man would have understood what I wrote. Chapter 48 is merely a prelude to Chapter 49, in which I outline the rules for both men and women, in which can be found marital happiness if indeed a man must marry. In the instruction of a man, he must understand the risks of this undertaking that marriage is. The language I use is severe, yes. But it is the language that a man understands. For it is he who takes on the burden of a wife and family. I soften not my words for him, for in so doing, I fail him. I tell him what he needs to know. If after everything he hears from me he chooses to marry, be it on his head the consequences of his actions. A man must be responsible for the decisions of his own self and his household. This is  not something I expect a woman however intelligent to understand.

ST: Forgive me, Jerome. I do not intend to belittle your advice to men. If it is not contrary to your principles, I still seek to understand. Is it bad for me to try to understand you?

SJ: Not at all. But you tread on dangerous ground. This path is not flowery. It is not pretty. It may not be safe for a woman. Do you wish to proceed nonetheless?

ST: By all means if it is not sinful so to do!

SJ: (Laughs): No, not sinful, no. Foolhardy, yes.

ST: Then so be it. I shall be a fool in the quest for knowledge!

SJ: So be it, then. Your wish is my command.

ST: Thank you. May we shake hands on that again?

SJ: (Waves a way my hand): No more handskaes. Once was enough.

ST: (Sharp intake of breath, mournful look): OK. I get it. This won't be pretty.

SJ: Exactly. Let's keep to the script. A man must get over his petty joys and pleasures and see the world as it is, before he takes on the responsibility of wife and child(ren). It is the essence of masculinity. Even with faith, this is a pre-requisite, for to do otherwise is a recipe for failure. From whence I get my various examples outlined in Chapter 48. Capisci?

ST: You are Italian-speaking, St. Jerome!

SJ: (Shakes head): Did you not know I lived in Rome, ST?

ST: (Smiles, then lightbulb moment): Ah! I see! So you are giving examples of where men can go wrong!

SJ: Exactly! See? You can be intelligent when you want to be.

ST: I see your line of thinking now. But I have to admit, it wasn't so clear reading Chapter 48.

SJ: You were never meant to read Chapter 48 in isolation.

ST: True.

SJ: In Chapter 49, I give advice to young women to be chaste. This is the best way to persuade men to marry them. Do you know what chastity in a young woman leads to for a man who marries, ST?

ST: (Pause, pause, pause, another lightbulb moment): Une femme fidèle!

SJ: (Mock bow): Exactement! Well done, ST. This is the point your married friend Christophe Plantin was making when he lists the characteristics of a happy life for a man. Christophe found a femme fidèle. If he hadn't, he would have written his own 'Against Jovinianus'.

ST: (Mock surprise): How did you know about Plantin?

SJ: Come on now...I am a saint. I am immortal. Honestly, you mortals!

ST: (Laughs).

SJ: I am not against marriage, ST. I am very much for holy marriages. It is precisely because I see that many men are not yet ready for marriage, and indeed many women are chronically unsuitable for marriage that I give the next best advice: do not marry: seek an alternative path to salvation. The next generation is dependent on the sanctity of marriage. Done wrong, an unholy marriage is a breeding ground for devil's troops. I say it clearly in the first paragraph of Chapter 48: 'And shall he desire children and delight himself in a long line of descendants, who will perhaps fall into the clutches of Antichrist, when we read that Moses and Samuel preferred other men to their own sons, and did not count as their children those whom they saw to be displeasing to God?'
A good marriage produces 'soldiers for christ'.

ST: (Nodding): Because a holy marriage is a sacrament. An unholy marriage is just another path to hell...

SJ: Well, put that way, it seems harsh, but yes. You are beginning to get the hang of this.

ST: You are a good teacher.

SJ: They didn't elect me 'Doctor of The Church' for nothing, you know!

ST: True dat!

SJ: So, now do you understand? I teach what is right, for men. You women can also learn something from me. The details you can learn from the virtuous women of The Church. Of which there are many.

ST: Yes, like Our Lady.

SJ: Well, she is the best. But there are others. Saintly women dead or alive are everywhere.

ST: I know...

SJ: Good. Follow them. Listen to them. Watch what they do. You can't go wrong by doing that.

ST: Thank you Jerome.

SJ: (Yawns): Anytime. Now I must get some shut-eye. Not a bed of roses being a saint you know. Everyday, I get some mortal upstart calling me up to interrogate me about one of my books...

ST: (Downcast): But I already apologised....I didn't mean to...!

SJ: Relax, ST. Just teasing. You need to toughen up. (Winks).

ST: (Smiles, puts hands up in air): Ok, Ok, I get it.

SJ: Over and out, ST. Go in peace. Have faith.

ST: Thank you, Jerome. Greetings to your fellow saints.

SJ: Thumbs up.


End of conversation.



So there we have it. My conversation with the patron saint of MGTOW.

Turns out he may not be as misogynistic as I first thought. He is an alright dude, really. Maybe he could have made a great husband for some chick back in 370 AD?

Who knows?










*Someone may or may not choose to identify himself in the comments.

He went his own way

I promised John Lord B3 a post...

And I realise now that it coincides beautifully with another thought that has been on my mind a lot recently.
Amen.

True confession: this Lent has been a poor one for me. I just couldn't 'settle' into the spirit of Lent as I usually do.
But it seems I peaked sharply in the last week or so.

Better late than never :-)

Tonight, the 'night of impending death' as I like to call it, otherwise known as 'Maundy' or 'Holy' Thursday, my thoughts turn to ... death.

Many years ago, on this night, Our Lord was pacing up and down the Garden of Olives, otherwise known as the Garden of Gethsemane, thinking about his impending death. He had just had a meal, washed the feet of a few of his closest friends...knowing one of them was going to condemn him to death, death by a kiss, the kiss of betrayal. He was imploring his friends to stay with him, watch with him, pray with him.
They were falling asleep, human as they were :-)

Death.

Some of my most introspective moments came at moments where I witnessed impending death. I have witnessed a few.

A number of them stick in my mind like a sore thumb.

It strikes me that the reason I have such vivid memories of these impending death situations is that they are moments of great honesty.
It all hangs out.
No holding back.

It is both beautiful and ugly.
It is both fascinating and frightening.
It is both strong and vulnerable.

A few months ago, I was chatting to an 89 year old man. I won't go into details, but he was near death. He knew it. I knew it.
With this particular man, the hilarious thing about his feelings about his illness/impending death was that it would interfere with his routine. It bothered him that the set-up he had carefully laid out all his life was about to be disrupted - not so much death itself but the bothersome illness and the 'caring' that would be foisted upon him against his will. It is not an exaggeration to state that he was more than a little peeved by it all. His attitude was only hilarious because it appeared that others cared more for his life than he did.


But I know different. At least now I do.
Thanks to my understanding of the MGTOW movement and its nuances, I am more open-minded than ever on the variations of life.


This man was a never-married man. He had a few siblings but his favourite of all was his 85 year old little sister who had several children and grandchildren. One of these grandchildren was a young man in his 20s with whom he was particularly close. This young man was his. He was his lad.
Of all his relatives, this was the one he felt the closest to. As he told me about this young guy, his eyes lit up and he was as animated as you could ever see an 89 year old be.

I remember distinctly the moment he told me he was a single man. He expected me to somehow show surprise that he had never married. I know this because he told me so.
It seems he had had a certain response (especially from women) all his life. He was used to it. He expected it so much that when I didn't react in this way, he felt the need to tell me.

He, of course was not to know that I had, um, had a 'special' education in this subject over the last few years, by way of strangers on the internet, lol.

He almost became apologetic. "I love my own company too much", he said to me by way of explanation. An explanation I really didn't need, but he wasn't to know this.
"I never felt close to any woman throughout my life. I was happy without one all these years. I had my garden, I like to read, potter about, you know..."
I knew.

"But there was always this pressure to find a wife and settle down."

Sigh.

"I was happy on my own, this is what no-one understands. I could have made some woman miserable."
Um, well, who knows...

"I have never felt lonely. I have loved my life. Now I am ill, they will force someone on me to 'care' for me. That is my worst nightmare."

I really understand this sentiment. This really is the introvert's worst nightmare.


"I have my lad. He comes round to see me. He is like a son to me. He is enough".

Good lad.

It is inexplicably important to me that I did not 'judge' this man in his last days...



So, John Lord B3, whilst I would not choose this man's lifetime solitude, I get why he chose his. And I bet he loved every minute of it.

There are people who do not choose a life of solitude - it is foisted upon them against their will, but they adapt to it.
Others have their own reasons for choosing what they choose.

I have thought and thought about the MGTOW movement since the moment I first heard of it. It has fascinated me and I have indulged my unquenchable curiosity ad nauseum.

But it takes someone's moment of impending death for me to see the humanity involved. So when you ask if I have a personal view of MGTOW, this is it.
A dying man's honest description of how he lived it.

I am not sure it can get any personal than that.

I have similar stories of two women who also lived the GTOW life until death. The nuances of their stories differ slightly, but there we are.

In the end, life will be lived. With or without our consent the moment we are born kicking and screaming into an unforgiving world.

The details of said life?
The devil is in the detail, as they say.

And with that, I bid everyone the holiest and happiest Easter ever.



The ultimate MGHOW?

Addendum 19/04/2014:

Spacetraveller's law

Aherm!

The above is by no means akin to Newton's laws of motion or anything :-)

Just an observation that I have never seen broken, yet, although I expect there are exceptions that prove the rule...

About rules/laws/mandates, I find I quite like them. They are general 'guidelines' by which, when lived out, simplify life, rather than complicate it, which is what we do best as human beings. But I accept that there are limitations beyond which even the most useful rule does not help. Such is life.

I go off at a tangent again, but I think it is a good time to remind myself that sometimes, what we don't know, we mustn't fret about... because God knows. And somehow, He imparts the necessary detail to us should he choose to, and at the right time when we are most likely to be receptive to it.

This is my 'lesson of the day', LOL.

I just got back home from a walk. I came across a park which is also a cemetery for lost soldiers from the Second World War.

All the soldiers buried here are 'unknown'.
But what a great way this is expressed:

'Known to God'.

I was blown over by that description. On every single gravestone, there is a distinct absence of a name, rank, birthdate and deathdate. But all of these men (I presume they were men but of course it is just possible a few may have been women?) are 'known to God'.

'Unknown' to us, 'known to God'.
How lovely...

I somehow got the message that although it would have been lovely for us (and especially their grieving families and friends) to know who exactly these men were, somehow it is not crucial anymore - God knows their identities. That's enough. Case closed.




I have been back and forth to the UK in the last few months. I did promise John Lord B3 a post about a personal encounter regarding MGTOW, but as usual, my thoughts were derailed by something else I would like to share, and possibly discuss ad nauseum :-)

A new dating show in the UK, by the title 'Take me out' has been a source of great insights into todays' SMP for me. In many ways, it directly replicates a longstanding older one known as 'Blind date' presented by a lovely elderly lady known as Cilla Black.

I think the spirit of 'Take me out' is very different from 'Blind date' however, just by removing the element of 'parental presence' in the form of a woman who could jolly well be your mother :-). The presenter of 'Take me out' is a young man. Different and interesting vibe, but interesting all the same.

Yesterday, the 'old school' were temporarily back in town. A young Scottish man came on 'Take me out' not just with his Mum, but his ex-nursery school teacher (Mrs. H)! Why, you may ask...

His Mum thought his ex-nursery school teacher had the wisest opinion on girls, so each time it was time to 'vet' a girlfriend, he not only brought her to his Mum, he also took her to meet Mrs. H.

Hahahahahaha!
I think it's sweet, but I get why some may be annoyed that not just one woman but two women are meddling in this young man's business.
It should be mentioned that this man was complicit in Mum and Mrs. H's meddling though, just so you are aware :-).

Early on in the show, Mrs. H was asked which of the 30 girls she thought would be good for the young man. She picked a girl. He ended up picking that girl. And she made herself available to be picked by him.

I immediately got why Mrs. H picked the girl. She is the kind of girl that is perfect. Beautiful, little make-up (not 'glaring' like some of the other girls), nicely dressed, and very nice in personality. She was very likeable, and I hope she and the guy hit it off.

The whole episode reminded me of a saying I have mentioned here before.
Mrs. H may or may not be right about this girl. I really hope she is right, of course.

But choosing a wife is very much a man's business. And usually requires a male opinion, preferably an older male's, but also a contemporary, or even a younger man's would do. But of course, I now know that many men do not seek advice from anyone at all in matters that are private. I get that. I think women are much more 'help-seeking' than men in this regard. Fair enough - we are different creatures afterall...

But...if an opinion is welcome from a woman...
I have seen how a woman that the man trusts and respects can help a lot in this process. A mother, sister, aunt, grandmother, even a female friend.

This is what I am about to hijack as 'Spacetraveller's law': (um, excuse my delusions of grandeur...what I meant to write was 'an observation ST seems to make over and over again :-)

Where a trusted female who has a man's best interest at heart repeatedly declares that a woman he is romantically interested in is bad for him, she is almost always right.'

The collorary is, that where she says a woman is good for him, there is a 50/50 chance of her being right.

The importance of my observation is where she says she is bad for him.

Women seem to be really good at smelling out bad women where their sons/brothers/friends are concerned.
But perhaps not as accurate when deciding about a good woman.

In statistical terms, I think this is best expressed as 'negative predictive value'.
:-)

Has anyone come across instances where a mother says to her son: this woman is bad for you, son!' and she turns out to be the opposite?

(Note: I am not talking about a nasty mother - I mean a mother who really does love her son and wants the best for him - of which there are many more than not...).




As an aside, here is a little gem from a film: I am keeping up with a previous assignment of watching as many of the old films as I can get my hands on, and I enjoyed this one very much:

Here is an MGTOW from 1951's thoughts on marriage:

Marriage is slavery for the woman and prison for the man.

Hahahahahahahaha!

Where have I heard this before, especially the second part?
;-P

Interestingly, in this film, it was the father of the girl deciding that the man she was interested in was bad for her.
Girls should of course always listen to Daddy...
He is always right - about everything! That's ST's second law...

The humanity of Man

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


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

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

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

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

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

Patience, patience :-)

The quote above refers to...hospital patients!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Why is this relevant to this post?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

This is why I retain hope...

Behold a new breed of Woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Virginity is not enough."

How true.

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

So what's the problem?

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


Here is my take on the problem:

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

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

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

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

But it is not heresy.

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

Anything wrong with this picture?

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


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

Why?

I have two theories on this.

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

Deplorable and regrettable, yes.


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

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

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


How can this problem be solved?

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

We need a new breed of 'super woman'.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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


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

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

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

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








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

About 'All but one'...

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

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



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



"The others will not come back.

Women only want heroes on their parade.

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

All but one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All but one…

***

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

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

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


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

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




All but one.


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

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

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

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

But it is not what makes her a woman.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

:-)


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

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

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




Thank you for your story.

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

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

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

And yet, the wider society expects much of you.

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

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

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

That is what this whole blog is about.



And now I feel compelled to ask you men:

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

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

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

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

On doing the right thing...and making friends

Someone over at Dalrock's made the important point that doing the right thing is never going to win you friends or make you attractive to the opposite sex (read: 'get you laid').

This is largely true. But I think hidden in here lies another ...gasp....paradox!

I shall explore this paradox later.

The reason I added 'get you laid' in the first sentence is that pure attraction (which is largely um...physical) doesn't really care whether the object of the attraction is 'good' or 'nice'.
This is a cruel twist of Nature.

If mating is all about passing on great qualities to the next generation, then it is a shame that the instinct to mate is clouded by only what is physically appealing and nothing else.

Does Nature not care about values?

Apparently not.

It seems like we have to 'fill in the gap' left by Nature ourselves.
:-)

Thank you Nature... not. :-)

Metak brought up an uncomfortable paradox in the last post.

'The first shall be the last' -> Nice guys finish last.

I thought about this one for a while.

It seems to me that a lot of MGTOW are Nice Guys (TM) who got burned. I have a lot of sympathy for them, as I do for the Nice Girls who are chronically 'left on the shelf' because they won't 'put out'.

But these Nice guys and girls... they have the assurance that they have done the right thing.
They know that they are 'cool with God' or 'cool with the Universe' or what have you.

They are at peace with themselves, no?

In the MGTOW post, I got this sense of 'I have made my peace with myself and I am happy with that' from a lot of men who were 'left on the shelf' because they were 'Nice Guys' and now are being ardently chased by those same women who rejected them and who are now being rejected for the first time in their lives.

I wish I had heard from women who are also GTOW (although perhaps this is not the way  a Nice Girl who is just not having any luck in tody's SMP will label herself - hmm, need a better title for her. Can anyone help on this score?).
I am certain they too will say something similar to what the men are saying, albeit using slightly different language - as men and women see things slightly differently from each other, even if they are both on the same page.

These people may not have friends (of the opposite sex) but who needs friends who will only distract you from your path of peace?
Really, who needs that? (Genuine question!)



Anyhow, there is one way to make friends...
:-)

Let this British chef show you how (at the 3:55 mark).
:-)

Cheeky question:
If you found yourself drooling watching this video, ask yourself:

Was the source of my salivary gland stimulation the....

1. Chef (hint: former model, lol).
2. The British accent (she is from Oxford, so she has as near to the perfect English 'Queen's English' as possible :-)
3. The millefeuille (ahuh, I believe you :-)


Answers on a postcard please!

:-)

Be good, and make millefeuilles to your heart's content.
You will make good friends :-)



Joking aside, there are people who will make good decisions no matter what the consequences of those decisions will be.
This is 'Outcome Independence' at its finest...
:-)

I admire this trait because this kind of attitude can indeed do more damage than lose you friends or simply not help you make friends: it can even get you killed.

But as someone I know keeps saying ad nauseum...
An honourable death is better than a dishonourable life.



I think he has a point, no? Nowhere is this more important than in the SMP, for both men and women.

It takes a brave soul to live like this.
It takes a crazy kind of 'fearless' to live one's life this way.

But I think people who do are more at peace with themselves than those who circumvent the hardships of life in exchange for an easy ride.

Life always comes back at one with 'payback' in mind.

So the questions is: would you rather pay now or payback later?
This should be a rhetorical question, but feel free to answer it if you want.



Friends are wonderful to have, but only if they are the right ones...no?

Manhaters

Following on from the last post, we continue to identify the specific problems resulting in the breakdown of male-female relationships which have led to the dissatisfaction of men with women and of women with men.

It has always been the point of this blog to seek those problems out, and to allow frank discussion of said problems.
Because I recognise that this is the first (of many!) steps in finding the solution.
I don't make assertions that a solution will be found on a global scale. Of course not.
But at least in our own little corner of the world, perhaps we can change something.

Beginning with ourselves.

I think Bellita, in her guest post here has entered head first into the crux of the problem.
This is not a blame game.
Neither is it a pest fest.

It is simply presenting the facts of the case before the Grand Jury.

In this case, the opinions of one man (or a few men) count as 'facts'.
Why do we do it this way and not present the woes of one woman or a few women?
Because we are women. We already know the woes of women.
And the media tell us everyday the shortcomings of men.
We are already familiar with that concept.
We want to hear something different. Because hearing the same thing over and over again does not change anything in our lives.

So here we are.
This is the case against Woman Inc.

What say you, Woman Inc.?
(And not just American Catholic Woman Inc. either, it must be said. I think this can be extrapolated to women all over the world who subscribe to the features of personality being bemoaned here).



Thank you Bellita, for an excellent post.
Certainly made me think.
And cry (figuratively speaking!) all at the same time.
Well, at least I can still 'multi-task' ;)



Jokes aside, I think this post hits an important milestone in the life of The Sanctuary.
It marks the time we 'hit the spot' in terms of identifying a major problem.
If I had a younger sister, she would be force-read this post every night for two weeks until she regurgitated it back to me verbatim.
:-)

Not out of malice, but love, of course. And knowing my imaginary little sister, she wouldn't thank me until her wedding day :-)



Bellita says:


From "Lucy Simmonds":  I blame men. Unmanly, unfocused men . . . I am an observant Catholic, as are most of the men in my immediate social circle. Most of them have stable, high incomes, and I would say with some degree of certainty, they do not engage in pre-marital sex. It would seem that these men are not doing anything wrong. My complaint is that they aren’t doing anything right, either.

A few months ago, an old friend from my religious blogging days shocked me when he said that mine was the only religious blog written by a woman that he had regularly read. Without going into the details of that blogosphere, it's safe to say that it is highly unusual for someone very active in that community to read only one blog by a woman . . . or only one blog by a man. That's hard to do unless you make a deliberate decision. It's a little like choosing to patronize only businesses owned by people of the same sex (already an odd--and impractical--thing to do), and then making one special exception.

When I asked him why I had been the special exception, he said simply: "You don't hate men."

I rushed to argue that I could name many women religious bloggers who didn't hate men either, but he refused to engage me, saying only: "I know some of them are your friends, so I won't give you any names or examples."

But the topic came up again in a later conversation. I had just mentioned a neighbor's dog that had sent me mixed signals--padding over to where I was seated, flopping against me, putting its head in my lap, and then growling and trying to bite me when I patted him--and my friend replied, "Sounds like a lot of those women bloggers I can't read."

He seemed more chatty, so I pressed him on the matter . . . and although he still refused to name any bloggers or give examples of specific posts, he explained that he defines a "manhater" as a woman who thinks that men have to make certain choices, or perform certain actions, before she considers them to be "real men" . . . and that those choices and actions usually involve them serving women in ways that advantage women but disadvantage men.

And then I remembered a dear female friend of mine who, a couple of years ago, wrote one of those "Where are all the good men in the Catholic Church?" posts. I didn't mind it at the time it came out, and even defended my friend when the link went viral and her blog attracted many angry comments . . . but suddenly I could see the same post through my male friend's eyes. And it looked very different. Without divulging any details about my female friend's life, I can see why someone like her might make a man ask, "What right does a woman with her history have to dictate to a man about his future?"

Having seen it once, I was able to see it anywhere I looked. For a whole week, it was as if my life had turned into The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. At the end of it, when I saw my male friend online again, I lamented: "'Manhaters' are everywhere!"

"Yes, they are," he agreed.

"And they have no idea that they're 'manhaters'!"

"Most men have no idea how much they're hated either."

That was a month ago. Now I want to tell him he doesn't give other men enough credit. From the increasingly dissatisfied (and increasingly shrill) posts by women in the religious blogosphere about men who aren't "manning up," I'd say that men have figured out what is going on and are refusing to have any part in it. But I'll concede to my friend that, for many men, Going Their Own Way is more subconscious than strategic . . . more passive than active. They know something is wrong, but they're not admitting what it is even to themselves. So (to use the imagery of a famous cliche) they quietly spend their time and money on video games rather than on dates, letting the world make fun of them as arrested adolescents, but remaining too "chivalrous" to admit openly that the women they meet don't measure up to a good game at the end of a long day.

But there are some men who try to explain themselves. The post I linked above drew the following comment from "Jeff in Sacramento":

"I read a bunch of comments and none seemed to hit the nail on the head. Here it is and although this is common knowledge and talk amongst us men, I am sure it will make some women crazy with hate and a sense of injury and injustice. Sorry.

In short, the problem is most Catholic American men do not like the personality of the American woman, the personality she received growing up in the US from her feminist culture.

Don't get us guys wrong. You may be a beautiful, successful, and smart woman. But we are looking for something different, especially many of us traditional Catholic men. Guys have an almost impossible time finding an American woman that acts like a lady and who appreciates a gentleman."

"From a guys perspective, we are looking for that perfect wife. The lady that has charm. (Charm , Charm, Charm - that is so important, can an American woman just give a nice, pleasant, sincere smile when we say hi?) . . ."


I'm quoting only the first part of his comment because I don't agree with the other points he makes, which are peripheral anyway, and I want to shoot straight to what I think is the heart of the matter . . . which is that women who want to get married but can't seem to bring men "up to scratch" should probably ask themselves whether they're women worth marrying.

It's true that Jeff does not speak for all men . . . or even for all traditionalist Catholic men. But I've read the same message over and over again, from other men, for over a year, and so don't think it is one to dismiss as merely one person's opinion. It's also true that those other men are mostly Manosphere denizens, who aren't representative of the entire adult male population either. Yet even the women who tune them out cannot ignore the caterwauling from our own corner. The fact is that the men we want to marry can no longer be bothered to marry us. I happen to think it's worth asking them why. Especially when they admit, like Jeff, that they really would like to be married.

The first reaction to Jeff's comment was from a woman who said: "I think it's actually cowardly and unmanly to blame women . . ." I wonder what that makes women like Lucy Simmonds, who state very explicitly, "I blame men." Lazy and unwomanly? But it's not a good idea to play the blame game. Let's just state the problem and figure out the best possible solution.

I think it's fair to say that the problem is that men don't feel motivated to woo women who aren't "charming," while women don't care to be "charming" for men who have no motivation.

And the solution is the part that women will not like . . . In this staring contest between the sexes, it is we who will have to blink first.

Inasmuch as women are the ones who want to be married (and are facing unprecedented competition from rivals as ridiculous as video games), we will have to turn on the charm--what I have called "Fascination"--and be attractive again. Otherwise we will lose.

And the argument that we don't really want to win such booby prizes as those unmotivated men we complain about rings really hollow against the chorus of blame and hate that demands that they "man up" and be "real men."

Is that really something that a "real woman" would do?





Back to ST:

Whilst all of these following defifnitions of "real women" may have some aspect of humourous 'truth' to them, they are nonetheless all missing the point...

If she conforms to all of the above definitions of 'Real Woman', but lacks a certain 'X-factor' (or if you like, XX factor!), has she already lost the war perhaps?
Me thinks yes...
No-one is perfect. But part of that XX-factor is to seek to be as near to that as possible, and yet with the humility to recognise that perfection is only to be found in celestial circles.

:-)

If a man like 'Jeff in Sacramento' has done his bit to 'be a better man' and from his own description of how he envisages the good American Catholic male (assuming this is true), then I think it is a shame if he cannot find an equivalent American Catholic female. If each party does their bit to 'be a better version of themselves', the war is won.

For quality attracts quality.

And guess what?
Manhaters attract womanhaters.

It only stands to reason, no?

He wants to be a priest

This one is for the ladies. (But you are of course welcome to chime in gentlemen :-)
Has anyone pulled this one on you?

I suppose this post really outght to be entitled 'In defence of Catholic priests' to pair off nicely with this post.
But somehow, I prefer to spin it differently this time.



I am friends with many Catholic priests, young and old. I guess it comes with the territory of being a Catholic.
Priests are people too :-)

But it is precisely this thinking on my part which could lead to all kinds of problems. I am reminded of a comment Bellita made in one of her posts ages ago, where she describes making cookies for her local Catholic priest. In this case it turns out he is diabetic and doesn't actually like/want the cookies for this reason...but I sympathise with Bellita's goodwill.

Many women, at least in traditional Catholic circles are brought up to keep in mind that they have a duty to their local clergy, not just to their immediate family. When I was small, it was not unusual to have priests over at my childhood home, for Sunday lunch or a little picnic especially as catechism classes for all the local children by the seminarians from the local 'priest school' were sometimes held at my house.
You could say I kinda grew up with priests (and nuns).


In many traditional societies, there is always a woman (young or old) whose (usually but not exclusively, unpaid) job is to look after the local priest - be a kind of housemaid for him. This is a noble job. This woman could be single or married, no matter.
Families take it in turns to host the priest, like my family did throughout my childhood.
Because otherwise, it can be a pretty lonely life for a priest, especially if he is posted to a remote place.
Yes I am aware that this arrangement went horribly wrong in many instances with the whole abuse scandal. It is not the focus of this post however.

Fast forward several years and I continue my habit of hanging around priests. It is quite the culture shock to see that one young priest I know is very good at keeping women at arms' length, quite literally. If you go to kiss him on the cheek, he will bow his head in such a way as to thwart you. I know this is automatic with him. I get it. I see it as a kind of 'b*tch shield' for priests :-)

It fascinates me. Because of course it makes me realise that priests are men too.
And these men are special in that they are called to remain celibate for life.
A nun would kiss or hug anyone, I notice. But then again a nun may not have quite the same problem as a priest.

A woman, whether she likes it or not is a 'distraction' to a man - whoever he is, priest or pauper, prince or philosopher.
Islam is obviously not oblivious to this :-)
But I am not sure shrouding women in total body cover is quite the best solution :-)
Although I think Danny would have preferred this option had it been available in the situation he describes here where he is distracted by a female patient's attire.
Whilst my priest friend is not made to suffer to this degree, at least not by me nor the women in his social circle, I understand his and other priests' predicament. At least I can imagine what it must be like for them.

I guess no-one is born a priest. I have not and will never ask, but I am sure all my priest friends would have romantic stories to tell from their pasts. It is known that Pope John Paul II had a girl he was in love with before he became a priest.
Which brings me nicely to the essence of this post.

How does a woman feel when her ex-boyfriend one day becomes the Pope?
I mean, how does one deal with the fact that your guy cheated on you with God?
I am being deliberately provocative here, of course. It's one thing to see God as the ultimate practitioner of Game, but it is another entirely to see him as a woman's rival for the affections of a man :-)

It is said that nuns are 'brides of Christ'.
But so are priests in a way. Not to see tham as 'feminine' in normal terms, but just in relation to God.

How hurtful is it for a woman to know that her man has been 'stolen' from her by God?
Is this situation livable?
I would dearly love to hear from any woman who has been in this situation. I am conscious of the fact that this might be a painful story to tell however.

But men can be 'taken away' from women in other ways, of course.

In some ways, it is 'personal'.
Like when you find out your husband is gay on your wedding night, or after ten years of marriage.
Like he died (in which case, we are back to God being 'the accused' in a way).
Like the guy you've been dating for six months turns out to be your long-lost brother.
Like your husband cheated on you and he is now making plans to leave you and stay with the other woman.

Or it could be 'general'.
Like the whole MGTOW movement :-)

OK, OK, I couldn't resist throwing that in...

:-)


The point is, how does a woman deal with her greatest fear - to be abandoned by a man, in whatever form that may take?

For that matter how does a man deal with his girlfriend leaving him to go become a nun? I am sure this is rarer than a man leaving for the priesthood.

Before I get the obvious retort, might I pre-empt by sympathising with those men whose wives suddenly become 'nuns' whilst still in the marriage, for no apparent reason.
I guess this situation is not funny either.

 Pope JP II - rest in peace

Ladies: How would you feel if this was your ex-fiancé or ex-boyfriend...

This priest (Fr Alberto Cutie) of course did it the other way round :-)

I know what y'all are thinking: With looks like that and a surname like that, what was he thinking going into the priesthood in the first place? :-)

Related question for you ladies: does it ever get 'distracting' to have a young attractive priest at church? Or does it actually help the faith along nicely?

I ask because one of my aunts jokingly says that she only goes to church because the priest is 'cute'. And she is married! Ha ha :-)