The tragedy of St.Valentine's Day

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


"Happy MGTOW Day everyone!

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

No obligations to anyone or anything.

Live Free or Die!"


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


But there is always another solution.


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


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




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


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


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


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




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




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


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


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


Answer: nothing.




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


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


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


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


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

The case against 'Go get a surrogate!'

This post is a knee-jerk reaction to a horrible image that popped into my head a few days ago.
You can blame PVW for this one.
(LOL, it is always someone else's fault, don'tcha know!).


PVW sent me this link:

I became fixated on one idea, and now I really cannot get it out of my mind.

Here is the source of my latest problem:


In that article the case of the fatherless daughter is put before us. And how unfair it is that she is barred from a father-daughter dance. Fair enough. It is not the daughter's fault for not having a  father. Perhaps Mum kicked him out. Perhaps Father was a dead-beat who walked. Perhaps he died tragically. But make no mistake - she will pay for this lack in her life. More on her later.

In that same article, the concept of mother-son events are also mentioned. But what of the boy with no mother? He would undoubtedly be barred from such events too! Again, not his fault he has no mother. He too will surely pay.

And in my overactive imagination I got to thinking...what happens when we have a world consisting solely of children missing one parent? What would it look like?

We already have plentiful fatherless children. No problem there...we could throw a lot overboard and we wouldn't miss them.

Don't understand that reference? It comes from a joke an Indian friend of mine made. Only an Indian could have made this joke, by the way. Anyone else would be 'racist', of course:

A British man, a Norwegian, a Swiss man and an American were on a boat with cargo representing their respective countries on board. Soon the boat started to capsize.
In an attempt to solve this problem, the men decided to offload the boat, starting wih the merchandise that was most common in each of their countries.

The British guy stepped up and said: 'Well, in my country, we have loads of tea, so let's throw all the tea on board out into the sea'. So they did. Things got a bit better, but they were still in trouble.

Then the Norwegian said, 'OK, in my country we have a lot of snow, so let's throw the snow overboard'. So they did, and thngs improved, but not by much.

Then the Swiss guy got up and said, 'we have lots of expensive watches, so we can afford to throw all the watches overboard'. So they did. Again an improvement, but something else had to go.

Then the American stood up and said, 'in the States, we have Indian computer engineers coming out of our ears, we can sure lose a few, no sweat'. So they threw into the sea the computer engineers.

Terrible joke, I know...but you get the picture...


And now, with all the negative consequences of feminism rapidly coming to light, men are responding quite logically with their own solutions...in an attempt not just to 'hurt' or punish women, but in some instances to nullify them. Indeed annihilate them.

I won't rehash John Galt's words here. A few posts back, I recounted my reaction to them. Chilling and disturbing.

The reason I found his words disturbing is not so much that I want to see women destroy society with no consequences. Being a woman myself, I do love other women, (because I love myself). But alas, not that much.

It's not all about us women. I hope that much is clear.

I do firmly believe that some women are just not suited to marriage, because they really are incapable of giving a man what he wants and needs. Such women should not be given the time of day by men. I fully believe that. The same goes for men who really are not cut out for relationships of any sort with women.

But the (right) solution to feminism and 'choice motherhood' is not surrogate mothers for single fathers, or worse, artificial wombs and the like.
Two wrongs definitely don't make a right.

In much the same manner as I felt strongly against the mother in this post, I think Cristiano Ronaldo's dodgy parenthood is also questionable...


We all accept that where one parent is missing, the child suffers in some way, even if there is a 'substitute' parent. Where is that substitute at 3am? The substitute is never as good as the original, as we all know. So why do we pacify ourselves with poor alternatives? (Rhetorical question).

We can spot the child of a singe mother (at least the worst kind) by now. Here comes the generalisation: usually narcissistic, they lack the drive that fathered children have. The women are poor examples of femininity and the men are overly supplicative, something which hurts their chances of success with women. These people are sorted as far as social skills go though, in the sense that they are usually extrovert. They identify strongly with the feminine, which explains why perhaps some of the men turn out to be 'manginas'.

But what about motherless children? This sample population is small, granted. But I think there are accurate characerisations of them in some films. Take 'Firelight' for example. Both Eliazbeth Laurier and Louise Godwin are motherless children, the former more than the latter, who gets a break when her mother shows up.
The kid in this movie is also a classic example.
Introverted, insular, generally highly principled, very disciplined, but alas, they have deep emotional issues.
These people identify strongly with the masculine: in Elizabeth's case, she very nobly decided to pay off her father's debts. In her era, the only option available to her was the 'surrogate mother' route. Have a baby for a strange man and give up said baby? No problem.
Ms. Laurier was thinking like a man. Nature taught her a feminine lesson she would never forget. She spends the next seven years searching for Charles Godwin and Louisa...
I daresay, a woman with a mother in her life from a young age would never do what she did.

In both cases of an absent parent, there is an imbalance in the child. Emotionally, psychologically, financially, whatever.

Life is sometimes unfair to some of us: sometimes a parent dies when a child is very young. Sometimes there are very serious reasons where a parent must be removed from a child's life. Barring these legitimate cases...

So, 'Children of women', meet 'Children of men'.

Trainwreck...

Do we really want this future? Aren't things already bad enough for us yet in the SMP? Do we really want to reduce parenthood into yet another 'his and hers' war?



The use of the phrase 'Children of men' was no accident on my part. The film with the same name is a truly chilling experience. Do we really want to go there?
(Rhetorical question).

So the feminists banished men from the home front and now there are long queues at the sperm bank.
And the response from men?
Get a surrogate!
Get an artificial womb!

Do you really mean this? Have you thought this through, all the way to the ugly and bitter conclusion?

Is anyone thinking about the children?
(Not a rhetorical question).

Are we in a double bind?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


WHAT DO MEN WANT?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


If every woman followed Deti's advice of

1) Be pretty

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

3) Be nice

4) Be available


I still suspect that this alone would not be enough.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this man also an outlier?

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

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

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

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

I am still in the dark here.

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

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

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

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

Please.

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...
:-)

Self-policing

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

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

Consider these words:

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

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



And this picture?

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Whiteknighting?

 

Maybe.

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

The point about self-policing?

It gets the next generation thinking. Hard.

 

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

What a tuly shameful position to be in.

 

Michael Adebolayo was effectively disowned by his own community.

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

 

 

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

At least one would sincerely hope so.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

And what about parallels with the SMP?

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

A vicious cycle which is difficult to break.

 

Sometimes 'free rein' is a bad thing.

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

 

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

 

Is this achievable?

I think so.

Somehow yes, it must be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Re-inventing the wheel

I thought the sartorial excellence displayed in this video had gone somewhere to die.
Never to be resurrected again.
Ever.
:-)

But it seems I was wrong.


These trousers are back with a vengeance.
With a few modifications.

For example, only a certain type of shoe goes with it.

 

 

Ladies' version...

 

 

:-)


As part of my 'homework' on feminism, I wondered if there has truly been a matriarchal society.

Yes, there were the Amazons, and other communities with the same all-female blueprint...but did these societies really prosper?


There are lots of matrilineal societies in the world, in which the feminine holds a great deal of power. But these societies are not matriarchal as such, except where there is also a Patriarch, in which case the Matriarch is Queen to the Patriarch's King.
And these societies continue to prosper quite nicely till today.


If third wave (Third Reich?) feminism seeks to create a mariarchy of the modern world, are there not enough lessons in history to dissuade it?

Or perhaps I missed something.

I really need someone to point out  a truly matriarchal socety that prospered for more than a century, and whose legacy still exists today.

It would be nice to know, in order to adjust my thinking on why third wave feminism is bound to fail unless its metamorphosis into fourth wave feminism (which I am told is a whole new beast with society-friendly properties :-) is swift and decisive.


It looks like we are stuck with the word 'feminism' in any case.

Whether or not we are referring to 'the good kind' or 'the bad kind' of feminism, one big question remains:

Can we ever re-invent the wheel?

Hasn't it ...um.... all been done before?

Multi-tasking

I am really curious about this, and have been for ages.

I am actually surprised that I haven't tackled this topic earlier.

As someone whose capabilities of 'multi-tasking' extend no further than talking and driving at the same time, I admit that I feel incredibly inadequate sometimes.

Why?

Because women are supposed to be these queens of multi-tasking.
And I am not.

So naturally, to appease my hamster, I have to ask two questions:

1. Is multi-tasking not simply a myth created by people with a vested interest? (I'll explain!)

2. Is multi-tasking actually necessary?


Yes, I am knocking something I am no good at.
Predctable.
:-)

But...jokes aside, I am really interested in this.

What is actually meant by multi-tasking?
Men can also drive and talk, so does that mean that men can multi-task too?
(I am not being intentionally dense - I honestly do not understand this term very well).



In one sense, I can see that (in answer to question 2) it is useful for carers of small children to 'have eyes at the back of their heads', so to speak. This is one realm where I think 'multi-tasking' is indeed a necessary evil.
And given that in most cases, the care of small children is a task of women (mothers, nannies, elementary school teachers, au pairs, etc.), I can see that one needs to be able to somehow give attention to several things at once, including keeping a watchful eye.

'It only takes a second'...where small children are concerned...

The case of 3 year old Jamie Bulger who was kidnepped and later tortured and killed by two ten year olds many years ago. The biggest and scariest lesson I learned from that case was....It only takes a second.

A child drowning in the family swimming pool. A frantic mother repeating over and over again: my back was turned for literally one second...

And so on...



But aside from dealing with (unpredictable) small children, what are the other benefits of 'multi-tasking'?


And now I am back to question 1.

Why has multi-tasking in the last few decades become such a big deal?
Is this a sideways attempt at re-inforcing the notion that 'women can do it all, have it all'?
Forgive me if this is a bit of a stretch. I have grown predictably suspicious of anything that might have 'feminism' associated with it.

As I build towards formulating my own thoughts on the evoltuion of feminism, as commissioned by PVW, I am learning to recognise certain lamp-posts and red flags along the way.

'What a man can do, a woman can do better'. I grew up with this phrase in mainstream media.
Is muti-tasking a cousin of this statement?


But something else bothers me.

If multi-tasking is so necessary, why aren't men clamouring to contest the idea that women can multi-task better than them?

Are men not bothered?
Or do men accept this as 'women's work' and therefore not contesting this notion?
Is this a form of chivalry that says, 'let them have this one'?

I really don't know.
But I am curious enough about it.

There is some science to suggest that multi-tasking could indeed be 'women's work'.
Men may have bigger brains per square metre of body surface area, but women have more 'connections' or synapses which ensure that several activities can be performed all at the same time.
I don't contest this.

But...is it necessary to do several things at once? Indeed, is it desirable other than for the above - care of small children at risk of coming to grief if someone does not have their eye on them?

Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on one thing at a time?
In the case of driving, I guess it would, if we were talking about driving and texting, for instance...


Also, is there a benefit to the 'multi-tasker'?
Or just stress and hassle as the picture below seems to suggest?



Is this whole post just sour grapes on my part because I can't do two things at once?
:-)

Enlighten me.

Loose terminology: a question of semantics? Or a concerted effort?

My first instinct was to give this post the title 'the loose terminology is killing us!'

Then I calmed down.
:-)

Then I picked what I believe is a better title, because it addresses wider issues.

I love to dissect 'language'. As is probably evident from my posts.
I spend hours looking for word associations and seeking the emotion underlying words.

I am not unique. I know that words mean a lot to women. We are indeed 'word-sensitive' creatures.
There is a  reason that many women are 'auditory'.
There is a reason that 'sweet nothings' work.
:-)

But the following is anything but 'sweet nothings'.

Because it is not 'sweet'.
And it is certainly not 'nothing'.

It is so much of a 'something', it is killing us.



Metak pre-empted me a little when he made this comment in a recent post:

From what I can see around me, most of those men enjoy sex and casual relationship while women believe it's a "relationship".

Even worse, there is a category on Facebook called 'it's complicated'.

The men who comment here might well say this is just hamster-spinning by women.
This may or may not be true.
But if this is true, then these hamsters are getting an awful lot of help.

This 'loose terminology' is institutionalised.

A change of definition is all it takes to allow a woman to destroy herself.

In the style of Metak when he is in advice-giving mode, here is an all too common dialogue:



The powers-that-be: Woman, press here on this button that says 'touch me and your head will explode in 50 seconds'.
Woman: Of course, not! I am not in favour of suicide.
The powers-that-be: Oh alright, why don't we call it 'touch me and see what happens'?
Woman: Oooooh, I am not sure...
The powers-that-be: Hey! It's a button that says 'touch me - complications might ensue...'
Woman: Complications?
The powers-that-be: 'Touch me and there will be fireworks...'
Woman: OK.
The powers-that-be: '...of the unpleasant kind...
Oops, too late.


Is this a conspiracy of some kind?

Fudge the edges so that the hidden dangers are smoked out of view for millions of unsuspecting people, especially women?

Is this something of our own creation or was this the legacy we inherited with feminism, I wonder?



In the UK, it is almost a crime to mention the word 'husband' or 'wife' anymore. Everyone is a 'partner'.
In the french-speaking world, everyone is a 'compagnon'.

Is this political correctness on speed?


Slowly but surely, the definitions of everything is loosened around the edges to give things of lesser value a status equal to the gold standard.
Which lets in practices that were deemed unacceptable a half-century ago into the mainstream via the back door when no-one was looking.

With the result that everyone gets confused, especially children.
And soon, the confusion is forgotten and the new status quo is accepted and assimilated.
And soon no-one feels the need to question the smokey atmosphere...



Are we being 'gaslighted' into accepting fuzzy definitions?

There is nowhere worse than in the SMP to do this.

There used to be clear distinctions of marital status. One was either single, married, divorced or widowed.

Some accepted 'courting' or 'engaged' as acceptable additional categories.

But now, the choices are endless.
But also more vague.

No-one has a standard definition of the term 'hooking up'.
I used to wonder why.

Then it became clear to me that there is an incentive to keep this expression deliberately vague.

But who does this benefit?
In the longterm, certainly not the women who get caught up in it.


So why is this happening?
In a feminism-ised state, why are there counterproductive strategies seemingly designed to harm the very women that feminism apparently wants to protect?

Who is saying, 'keep the language vague and the definitions broad'?

Anyone have a clever answer to explain this beguiling smokescreen puzzle?

Does this go beyond 'inclusivism'? Are we legislating well-defined terms out of existence on purpose?

If so, why?
I really don't understand this phenomenon.

It would be cool to get to the bottom of this...

Misandry? Not half!

When Danny asked me to write a post on 'misandry in the media', I said to him 'you don't half give a girl a herculean task, do you, mate!'

I tbelieved it would be very difficult.
Turns out I was right.
But not for the usual reasons.



There are millions of examples of what I have now come to accept as 'misandry' everywhere around me. You all and I know the score.
It is really quite astonishing that it has come to this.


Life in general has taken on this seemingly 'female-friendly' allure.
Unfortunately, it is actually far from female-friendly. It is just pseudo-female-friendly. But some of us apparently don't know the difference...


We all (um, the Royal 'we' that is!) boarded this shiny new train so eagerly, the old ladies were being elbowed out the way.
But now that the train is at its final destination, we've turned all shy about getting out and going sightseeing in the pretty new city...

How did it come to this?



Anyhow, Danny himself knows more than me about misandry.
As do you all.
It won't be even remotely interesting for me to rehash all the examples we all know of.
TV, schools, films from Hollywood (but strangely not Bollywood or Nollywood), even the workplace and certainly the SMP.
Misandry everywhere if we open our eyes and see.


This article helps me make my point though.
The author of the article is however not the one who is displaying misandry.
She is merely reporting what she sees.
And she has clearly seen a lot.
And it sounds like she has had enough of it all...

And I shall behave myself and not go off on one regarding poor little William...



And I won't even allow myself to be distracted by a singer's use of the term 'idiot blokes' when referring to men...



I shall save my coolheadedness for a woman I have been thinking about for quite a while now.
Ever since she entered into my conscious zone a few months ago.


For a long, long time I couldn't really work out why I was always a little more than perturbed by the following video.
Then I realised it wasn't actually Sandra Fluke herself who bothers me. It was all that she represents that freaks me out.
Although I use her as an illustration, this post is not really about Sandra Fluke. It is the rise of womanhood of this shade (one of fifty, I presume) that is the problem.

This speech is dripping with covert misandry.

And the really clever part is that it is disguised as an attempt to overcome misogyny.
If it weren't so manipulative, (and therefore destructive to any woman who subscribes to it), it would be cool.

Ms. Fluke first came to prominence when she demanded that contraceptive costs be covered by health insurance providers.
Not a negligible coincidence that she underwent 'feminist, gender and sexuality studies'.


Unfortunately for us all, she emerged smelling of roses after Rush Limbaugh used some choice words to describe her... erm... social life.
He fanned the flame was to become the forest fire.

He should not have been so imprudent as to go off on one like he did, that's for sure.
Especially as he is not an angel either.

But now Ms. Fluke's war against the 'big bad boys who won't give her free Pills' has gone global.
And a sympathetic president is being used as a weapon in her little war.
How fortuitous that President Obama happens to be a father of daughters! Sandra Fluke is milking this little fact for all it's worth. And the president finds himself...trapped by his own goodwill.


I don't think this is about free contraceptives...at least not anymore.

It is now about...
How men are oppressing women.
How women's bodies are no longer their own.
How women are not allowed to speak up about injustices done to them.
How it is so unfair that the prevention of pregnancy, which should be a concern for women, is in the hands of men.
How women are being taken back in time, like a hundred years, back to grandma's days.
How our foremothers are being made to turn in their graves as their daughters are being made to fight the same old battles they had fought a 100+ years ago.

How...

This is a battle with Rush Limbaugh.
It is an emotional tirade against a man who was a little bit too harsh in his critique of her.
He was the little light breeze that flicked on her switch of misandry which had been building up for years thanks to her choice of academic pursuits, without the backup of natural or even learned restraint against the tornado of feminism.

Sandra Fluke is a normal woman. Her actions are well within the Gaussian distribution.
But she hasn't connected the dots yet.

No woman likes to be called a word rhyming with 'rut'.
Even those who ask for free contraceptives in public.

And when she is, in such a public manner, the dam falls apart and the backlash is relentless.
This train won't stop until it crashes into Limbaughville. Literally.


It might seem like it didn't take much for Sandra Fluke to unveil her disdain for men and the resentment she feels at not being allowed the 'feedom' and the 'liberation' (at least of the sexual variety) the latter are accorded in this life.

But it did.
The curious reality is that every woman wants to be respected in one very important way. Otherwise we don't really give two hoots about respect - that's a man's headache.

And yet, some women just don't know, or just don't care to garner that respect.
And when it is not forthcoming, the demands and the rants start.
And then the slowly boiling-over contempt and rage gushes forth.

What happens if a Sandra Fluke-a-like is an advertising executive?
You guessed right.
What happens if  a Sandra Fluke-a-like is a teacher in a school?
You guessed it.
A film director?
A lawyer?

Sandra Fluke is a lawyer.
And heaven help you if you meet her in a family court...


Sandra Fluke is not blameless in her obvious dislike of the perceived power of men over women, but what is apparent is that this did not develop in a vacuum.
The fertile soil was there in her case for sure.
And so was the catalyst in the form of overly critical men, at least in her eyes.

Somewhere along the line, someone should have applied the brakes.
The best person to do this would have been... Sandra Fluke.

But it is clear she won't.
And the nth wave feminism train continues its journey into miserable oblivion. It is well past Misandryville now...


The best solution, according to what I am hearing from men is that women drop the whole misandry thing first, before they would let up on the harsh critique.

The problem is, I am not even sure if women like Ms. Fluke would drop the misandry poison if all men were to be 'gentle' in a manner typical of...women.

Perhaps the 'return to femininity' would have to be executed with some of our sisters 'missing in action'.
Anyone whose torso is more than halfway in (head first) down the rabbit hole is perhaps not going to feature in the comeback campaign to normality.

There will always probably be a background level of misandry around, I guess, even if things do look up in the near future.
It will probably stay at the same level as 'background misogyny'...

How's that for 'equality'...

What's a woman for?

This may sound like a very simple question.
Like, one that a child might ask. A slow one at that.
But as I am finding out, nothing in this world is simple. At least not anymore.

I ask again: what is a woman for?
Perhaps the ladies who have been married may be best placed to answer this question for me.
Of course, I would be pleased to hear the opinions of any men who wish to help me out with my 'explain it like I am a 6 year old' type question.
:-)

I ask this in all seriousness.
I want to clear something up in my mind once and for all...


The inspiration for this post came from...work.

At work, things break down once in a while. Nothing to do with me :-)
We have to call in engineers to fix the problem.
It is always a hilarious occasion for me for several reasons.
(Another of my guilty pleasures).

The first is that for some bizarre reason, their presence always reminds me of this ad:

Which is odd, because our engineers look nothing like this hunk.
Rotten luck :-)

The other reason is that when they arrive, my male colleagues ask the guys relevant intelligent questions.
The women pick up random tools from their boxes and ask, 'what's this for'?
OK, I speak for myself here.

Occasionally, my question turns out to be a good question.
Although my function is not in a technical capacity, it helps me to understand what I do better if I understand a little bit of the engineering side.
More often than not though, the tool I thought was unfamiliar and really 'high tech' just turns out to be a spanner or something.
Um.
Yes.
*facepalm X2*


But the point is, everything has a use.

I have never felt the need to ask this question: 'What's a man for?'
Ever.

Because it is pretty clear to me what men do.

I do not think anything's changed for centuries.
Men have built civilisation and continue to do so. No doubt on that one.

But, now I am not so sure what women are for.
Its a bit confusing, actually.
Because according to what I see around, and also what I read on Manosphere blogs, it is not clear ...
Now, I include myself here of course.



I am going to forget everything society tells us about what a woman is for, just for a minute whilst I listen to what our little community has to say on this matter.

And I am thinking aloud here. These thoughts are mostly unedited and may appear 'sexist' at first glance. But I don't believe they should be, at least at second glance.

A man who comments here (you know who you are!) recently said this to me:
And I paraphrase:

A man only needs 4 things from a woman (in no particular order):

(And I am guessing by this he meant, if he is to commit and therefore give up his freedom to one woman):
Food, Faithfulness (i.e. loyalty and respect all rolled into one), Family (this means children) and ...there was fourth 'F' too...

Do the men here concur?

If so, why are women being systematically trained to reject these attributes?
Whilst men are still expected to be...men?
There may be a gross mismatch here...



Food
In a recent conversation with a male friend, I was informed that it is no longer expected in society that a woman cook for her family.
He had an eerily neutral (and therefore scary) facial expression as he said this to me.
It was scary to me because I thought it was something that ought to be a joke.
But unfortunately it wasn't.
This particular man had come to accept this situation as a status quo in his country.
And his lack of reaction to this made my hair stand on end for some inexplicable reason.

But is this situation even feasible longterm?
Can a family live on microwave dinners or restarant food for years on end with no adverse consequences?
Where did childhood obesity come from?
Whose responsibility is it to ensure that everyone eats a nutrional home-cooked meal?



In some communities, if a girl cannot cook a meal independently past the age of 12, she is considered a failure whatever her future career aspirations might be.
Fact.

In some communities, a new bride can be returned to her family of origin if it is discovered she cannot cook.
Fact.

Sure, both of these examples are not from 'Western' society. These communities are considered 'backward' in many ways.

But...do they have a point?

Who is best placed to cater to the gastronomic needs of a growing family?
It's a woman, no?

I think there are many reasons for this.

I am sure the married women here will chime in here, but cooking for a family is not a simple matter of putting ingredients together in a pot, on a fire.
It is an act which has other unseen consequences.

They do say that the family that eats together stays together (or was it prays together? I forget :-)
Family eating time is about 'family time'. In the hustle and bustle of daily life, even if both parties work, someone has to coordinate 'eating time'.
Maybe this is heresy, but I think as a married woman, I would feel some level of shame if this were not me.
There is a biological drive in women to do this sort of thing.
Feminism tries to drive this out of us, but it is nonetheless there.

It is like the female drive to create things of beauty. A man's bachelor pad may be 'minimalist' until a woman moves in...
Cake decoration is another example. We are not content just to have an edible cake. It should look nice too.

Women are supposed to be decorative too, no?
In settings where men are men and women are women, men wear suits, usually all of one colour.
:-)
And ladies wear a variety of colours and fabrics. Like at weddings.
This is  normal.


Faithfulness

I understand now when men go on and on about high 'N' and how it translates into a diminished ability to bond with subsequent men in their lives.
I think I see this play out quite a lot in the modern hook-up culture.

But I also think that a woman can be faithful even with a high 'N'. Many women from previous generations were. And they weren't all virgins at marriage, I am pretty sure.
But I guess it is one of those things that would be hard to demonstrate to a man.
He either has to believe in her, or go for a long 'trial period'. I think more and more, the latter option is becoming the strategy of choice. So commitment is delayed...
Is this good or bad?


Family

If I am not mistaken, an important reason why a man might choose not to GHOW would be if he wanted children...

The best person to carry children is a young, fertile woman.

But what if the young fertile woman doesn't want to carry children even when she is in a positon to, i.e. is in a committed relationship, and all things being equal, has no other biological impediments?


But, in fact, there are usually bioloical impediments.
It takes a while for a woman who has been on The Pill to become fertile again once she stops taking The Pill. Like years, in some cases.
Some women never recover their fertility.
The Pill is also potentially fatal. This is rare, but not negligible.

And if it is true that 90% of Catholic women are on The Pill, then I would expect a higher percentage of non-Catholic women to be on it.
That's a lot of women who are preventing what their bodies are designed for...

Then there are the social constraints:
Work, hobbies, financial matters...

Yes, some of these are male-driven or at least jointly driven by both parties.

A man who says to his wife: 'We are not having children for five years after we marry until I have X job, or X amount of money coming in every month...'
This same man, if his wish to have children is not fulfilled by his wife, if her acquiescing to his will leads to problems later, will have no problem finding another who could give him children.

But it is usually a woman's choice. It is her body, afterall. And this is not a bad thing...
But...as with everything in life, there should be limits. Everyone has their 'place' where they draw their own line...



The last F is self-explanatory.

But why do so many fail at this....er... marital obligation? Including all that comes before - such as simply being attractive to the one who matters?
There has to be a universal reason.
I don't think 'life got in the way' is an acceptable answer.
There has to be a better answer than that.
I would love to hear it.

Now, I ask this particular question specifically with the woman who had no problem complying before commitment, in mind.
What happened?
Why is this scenario so common?


If a woman cannot provide each of, at least some of the above, is a man to be blamed if he doesn't take her on?
Manosphere men are trained to think, on encountering a woman: 'What does she bring to the table?'

That is the same question as 'What is a woman for', no?


My thoughts:
If there is anything interfering with 'what a woman is for', it should be sought out and eliminated by that woman, such that the woman can function as a woman.
You know, like the 'if your eye causes you to sin, take it out' bible verse.
But this may be a bit drastic, I admit :-)

Perhaps my thoughts here could induce seizures in people who are used to hearing things like this:

It's about me and my life. (Nevermind the needs of the family).

I didn't spend ten years in college and post grad to become a housewife.

Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen was for my grandma's time. I am way better than that.

He and I should be equals...in everything...

What did my grandma and her friends fight for when they burned their bras? So that I could end up as some man's slave?


Why are we so hell-bent on defeminising ourselves?
Who told us that men wanted men as wives and girlfriends?
Why do we take every opportunity to take a pill or put on a gadget that will enable our advancement in masculine ways and matters?

Why are we trained to see men as oppressors and adversaries?
Why are we constantly being bombarded with the message that to be what a woman was intended for is demeaning in some way?
Does it help any?

If ever there were rhetorical questions...

Are feminists making God a white knight?

I was thinking about an old 'baby' of mine recently.
In my late teens he was one of a few kids I used to babysit.
He was simply adorable.

This little boy was loved by everyone. At Mass, all the old ladies would fuss over him like he was their grandchild. And younger women wanted a child like him.
So I had competition for his affections lol.

Looking back, he was probably a little 'alpha' in the making.
He was certainly unusual (no bias on my part lol).

Most people, after Mass, would spend a minute or two in quiet reflection in front of one of the statues of a saint, or Our Lady, or The Blessed Sacrament.
This kid (aged 3) would head straight for the statue of Our Lord and ask, in a loud voice, arms folded across his chest, head tilted (yes, his alpha pose!)...
"And how are you today, Sweet Jesus?"


Out of the mouths of babes...


As a teenager now, I am sure he would be upset if I reminded him of this. 'Street cred' is everything to him now, at least in front of his friends.
Unless I framed it differently of course and 'bigged up' how 'alpha' this whole episode was, to me :-)
I mean, it is pretty alpha to stand up in front of God and ask how He is, no?

Who asks God how He is?
I never asked God how He was my entire life.
I only hoped he cared how I was...
My 2 minutes in front of the statue of Our Lord was never about Him. It was all about me.


You know how dogs give you that 'begging' look when you are cooking and they can smell dinner?
This is how I must look (to God) when I am praying for my 101 things:

:-)






It is apparent from the many Bible stories that Jesus loved women. He was certainly surrounded by women wherever he went, which would be strange for the kind of figure he was - a man with no ties to a family unit and with 12 men followng him around and preaching.

The women of Jerusalem were crying for him as he was led to where he would be crucified.
Martha and Mary would invite him over for inner with their brother Lazarus.
Mary Magdalene kissed his feet.
Veronica wiped his face when it was soaked with blood.

Jesus was an alpha alright :-)
And women flocked to him.


But does God love women more than men?

As I inch my way towards drafting a post about the various aspects if feminism, I wonder if 'Christian feminism' sees women as more automatically deserving of God's love than men?

I have reason to suspect this.

The moral superiority over men that is blatantly displayed by some Christian women.
The whole 'man up' thing is perhaps a way of saying, 'I am God's Princess! You have to fulfil my needs without any effort on my part!'
The 'God forgives all' meme, which somehow only applies to women.
The 'God is my protector' idea, which somehow also means that an Earthly man who does the protecting doesn't get a cut in the 'thanks'.
And this. God has been hijacked for the feminist cause since 1982...

These scenarios may happen in subtle ways.
But mostly, they are 'in your face'.
Which is what the brash feminists do best.

I wonder how God feels about this misuse of His name?
How does He feel about being 'volunteered' as a white knight?
Without His consent...
Has anyone asked Him?

God is certainly 'alpha' in Manosphere parlance. Afterall, there are many women who call themselves 'brides of Christ', officially or not, as the case may be. That's a pretty big harem.

But the whiteknighting thing makes him look 'beta'.
Does He mind about that?


The married men who complain that they get nagged by their wives, spare a thought for God.
He gets nagged everyday by millions of single women praying for a good husband :P

This post should really have been entitled, 'Prayers for a husband the Red Pill way'.

For, in the spirit of my 'baby' above, instead of hassling God for what we want, how about a slight change of frame?

Something like this?

Dear God/Sweet Jesus,
How are you today?
My day was great, hope yours was better.
And if it wasn't, how so?
Since I can't see you or hear you or touch you, how can I make it better for someone I can see or hear or touch?
Do you have someone in mind?
I wouldn't mind at all if he happens to be tall, handsome and rich.
I won't be fussy. I'll take whatever you can give me. Besides, I heard the short, ugly and poor ones are all taken...
Anyhow, you take care of yourself.

Till next time, stay blessed.


See?
How could he say no...


Anyhow, off to say my night prayers now...