The Contract killers

This post is not about hit-men and gangsters, I promise :-)

A common theme in The Manosphere is that 'the social contract' has been broken.
Meaning that men have always held up their end of the bargain by being men and doing what men do - i.e. building civilisation for both themselves and the collective of women and children.
But the women turned into strange hybrid creatures that aren't recognisable anymore.
And now a man has to go out there to build skyscrapers and then come home and cook his own darn dinner.

Or something to that effect.

It is no joke.
No-one is laughing.
Because the problem is really complicated.
And so the solution, if one will ever be found, will have to be equally complicated.

I tried to  ask this question before in 'Dissidents of the 'Spheres' but I didn't really get clear answers.
This is all I got in answer to the question:
Who or what is the real culprit here? Who is the 'contract killer'?

Men: Well, it's not us, because in fact we are the ones who began asking the question. It can't be us, by definition - our definition.

Women: Actually, we don't have time to answer this question. We are feeding ourselves, killing our own snakes, looking after the kids and caring for 95 year old great-grandma. We are too tired for this discussion. Zzzzzzzzz.

Do women have a point?

It is not a myth that modern woman is one tired daughter of a gun.
Whether she chose it or not, that is her lot.
But she is not lazy. That is not the problem. It is not the work per se which is the problem.
The problem is that she is doing everything.

I mentioned before that the State/Employer is killing the nice girl.
Sometimes this is quite literal.

But I am not going to dwell on this side of things for now.

There is another way the State is killing nice girl.

Danny touched on this in one of his recent posts.
Three women were discussing how one of them could cash in on her ten year marriage if only she would wait it out so that she does get to the ten year barrier. Because after ten years of marriage, she could get X % of husband's earnings, including his retirement money.

No need to discuss how abominable this kind of thinking is.
But the point of this post is, can and should a woman be blamed for accepting low-hanging fruit?
Can an alcoholic be blamed for falling off the wagon if someone accidentally hands him a bottle of gin after he completes the rehab session and was dry for 4 months straight?
Is the state making 'recidivous alcoholics' of women?

If the divorce laws were not as they were, would women be quick to head for the divorce courts?

It is a well-publicised fact that Barbara Felters, ex-wife of tennis star Boris Becker flew to Florida from Germany and filed for divorce from him from Florida, after yet another one of his flings.
Why?
Because the financial reward and the custody laws were more 'woman-friendly' in Florida than in Germany and she was able to sidestep their prenuptial agreement which woud have gotten her considerably less money than what she got from the Florida petition.
She took advantage of the laws in Florida. She took the path of least resistance when she wanted to divorce her cheating husband.
Can one blame her, really? She had two sons to raise. Was she wrong to go for more money?


In any case it is one thing to be disgusted at celebrity divorce settlements because of the colossal amounts of money involved.
But what about average Mrs X? Are the amounts she is awarded in a divorce out of proportion to what is fair too? Even if there are children involved?
Some men accuse women of not using awarded child support money on the kids but on themselves.
Is this verifiable? In all fairness I never heard of a child dying of starvation whilst Mum went on a shopping spree to Rodeo Drive, but if anyone has eveidence to this effect I would be at least willing to hear it. Even if it would make me sick.


There are some people who are so principled that they will never take the easy route no matter how much the easy route is shoved in their faces.
Ramadan is a perid of fasting for Muslims, as we all know, which is daily from dawn to dusk for about a month.
But what if you live in a Nordic country where the sun won't set until close to midnight in the summer months, if at all?
In countries like this, the advice is to follow Saudi Arabian time.
And yet, there are Muslims who will endeavour to fast the entire duration of the Nordic summer day.
These are people who are saying: No-one will be permitted to soften the rules for me. If I live in Sweden, I shall fast from dawn to dusk like I would in Saudi Arabia. No-one will sugarcoat things for me. Nobody will sweeten the deal on my behalf. I feel the full pain of the bitter deal, or I don't accept the deal at all.
Masochist or honourable member of the faithful?

In related news, Muslims are in uproar at the London Olympics right now, because Ramadan coincides with the Games. This will put practising Muslim athletes at a disadvantage.
But I am sure the devout, even in this situation, will find a way.

Resisting the temptation to pick the low-lying fruit is not for everybody though.
Is there something that can be done to stop the trend of truly greedy women who want to line their pockets with the spoils of their broken marriage?

If women are to be the feminine creatures that men want, is it time for men in the mainstream to be the masculine creatures that women want in a much more widely visible way?
I am not asking for the Taliban or anything.
Just a dose of masculine authority.
If the divorce laws are so abhorent to men, why can't something be done to fix it?
There are women who find it equally abhorent that some women are giving all women a bad name, by the way. But do men have a solution that works? Or is this issue way too complicated to be resolved?
Feminism will persist unless men topple it, even if women turn their backs on it.

Here's a video I found on Christian J's blog.
In it, a father is attempting to set his daughter straight after she is disrespectful to him and her mother on Facebook.
I am sure the daughter does not realise this right now (she is 15 or so and is naturally 'challenging'. Hey, it happens :-)
But she is indeed one of the lucky ones.

The future child of this woman may not be so lucky. He or she will get intimately acquainted with the term 'father hunger' and will get the feeling that there is not a man in the world who has his or her back. At least not quite like this man is demonstrating below.



Can we get this man to sort out the divorce laws please?

If he wants to run for President, I'll vote for him*.
Because he is 'a real man'. A real father.
And Patriarchy works.
His daughter will be on the straight and narrow again in no time at all. Because she has a Dad who cares.

Why am I so particular about this issue?
Because women want and need masculine men.
And then of course they will turn around and 'complain' about them :-)
But that is a sign of affection, don't you know? I think Michelle Obama demonstrates this beautifully here.
The not-so-masculine men will simply be avoided or strung along with the LJBF line.
This is important: masculine man=adored but nonetheless complained about, the others=not even worth complaining about.
This is why learning some Game (the good kind - I do not think this includes Tucker Max antics by the way) is important for all boys and men to learn nowadays.
Because the good guys will get a chance to attract a woman who currently is being lured away from them by the alpha bad boys who happen to be kings of Game.

This man below is a good guy. He actually wants his daughter to be an upright citizen with standards.
And he is really masculine too.
Heaven.
He is living proof that sometimes one can indeed have it all :-)

Incidentally, right at the end of the video, one finds reason to laud the mother of the girl in question too. I find it so cool that she is behind Dad in his disciplining of his daughter. She is not standing in his way. Because she knows Dad is right. She knows the value of Dad's input in daughter's life, even if she and Dad are no longer together.
(Note to self: aim to be a mother like this one day).
I am sure she is a sensible woman. I am pretty sure she would not endorse a punishment which far outweighs the crime. I am sure she would be the kind of Mum who would stop Dad from going too far in his disciplinary action, if necessary.
Just a hunch.


I promised at the beginning of this post that it would not be about hit-men and gangsters...
But, with all the shooting going on in the video below, erm...I might have been too hasty with my promises :-)
(Before you watch the video, rest assured that no-one - humans nor animals were actually shot. One innocent little laptop was not so lucky though...)


* Oh wait, can't vote. Not American.
Zut alors.

Just eat your soup and let her talk

The above was LL Cool J's response to the question: 'Tell me about the woman in your life'.

The interviewer burst out laughing at this answer and brought the interview to a quick close at this point.
I laughed out loud too at this answer.
Because it is oh so familiar.

The opening scene of 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin' sees a man brought in to the village doctor's house by his wife because he is 'deaf'. After a brief examination, the doctor works out the problem and duly fishes out a pea out of the man's ear. A pea, which it would appear he may have accidentally inserted into his ear from childhood.
Captain Corelli's Mandolin' is a war-film.
There are horrific scenes of death, betrayal and pain.
But by the end of this film, this man's only complaint is about the nagging of his wife. In the last scene of the film, he is practically begging the doctor to put the pea back in his ear because he can't take it anymore.

:-)

I don't know much about LL Cool J except that he is a rapper and actor.
I have never heard him rap but I have seen him in a sitcom or two years ago.
But like most men, he seems to have certainly figured out the key to a peaceful life :-)

My own musical hero Ludwig van had no such problems. Deafness, although of course is an unfortunate medical difficulty, could be, for the man looking for a silver lining to his raincloud, the perfect way of escaping some of life's little stresses.

What is it about women's chit-chat that men find so unbearable?
What is it about women's chit-chat that make men brave outside temperatures of minus twenty for hours at a time when they are not even smokers but need a desperate excuse to leave the frenzy of female conversation?

Even with 'masculine eyes' I cannot seem to get to the bottom of this one.

I do like one-word answers. Even to 'open questions'. I really do.  It is reassuringly familiar. In this, I am probably one of the outliers.

But I cannot live with this all the time.
This is one big reason I have female friends :-)
One of the functions of  'the herd' is to preserve sanity :-)

There is an evolutionary benefit to a quiet man of course. Out on the hunt, if the wild deer heard you, neither you nor your family would be getting any dinner that night. In fact, if the hunted were dangerous enough to become the hunter, you might not even make it home to dinner.

I get that.

When I asked the question about why men are quiet during traumatic times, in The Quiet Man, I got decent answers that satisfied my curiosity somewhat.
"Men are stoic."
"It is not worth speaking when no-one is listening."
"It is just male nature."

I get that.

I also get that most men need a certain 'quiet time' usually after a transition from one activity to another, typically the transition from work to homelife.

I get that.

But the situation I am describing is neither 'out on the hunt', nor traumatic nor an infringement of 'quiet time'.

Take dinnertime, for instance. Which is precisely the time LL Cool J is referring to.

Is it physically painful to indulge in a little chit-chat about the day's events, or the political climate, or the economic crisis?
Or any other topic?

Or during social settings where the general theme is not sport- or work-related.

Why do men clam up?

Is there a reason other than boredom?
Is boredom ever a valid reason?
Or am I just in the wrong crowd?
It is known that a woman's 'corpus callosum', the part of the brain that connects the left and right hemispheres is much more developed than a man's, even though a man's brain is bigger in mass, corrected for body surface area.
The part that deals with language skills is also better developped in women.
Hence to say that a woman is wired to communicate is in fact a biological truism.

But is there not a design fault in the system if the talker has no audience?
There would be no need for this post if men were known to be good listeners :-)
But again the number one (number two?) complaint about men is that they do not appear to listen to or hear women.
Which is odd, because the hunter has to have a keen sense of hearing, no?

Something does not quite add up.

Is there a chance of selective hearing going on, maybe?
Or is it really the case that men are not wired to hear women at all. Just each other, i.e. other men.

Is this a cruel trick of Nature that women can only communicate effectively with each other?
Or is it a design fault that God hasn't quite gotten round to fixing yet because he is procrastinating, but 'watch this space'?
Given that 'one day' to God equals a thousand years, we might be in for a long wait...

What you don't see is the woman yapping away in the background. This man is in 'tune out' mode :-)
Where do men learn how to do the 'tune out' thing? Is this part of the 'locker room' training?

Going Dutch - the thorny issue of the Dutch Treat

Confession: I love all things Dutch. The collective national height, the national mode of transport, the National Day, tulips and the colour orange all hold significance for me.

The British are known for their 'Dutch courage' :-)
'The flying Dutchman' is a great piece by Wagner, apparently.
And everyone knows that a 'Dutch coffeeshop' is anything but :-)

There is so much to celebrate about The Netherlands and the Dutch.
But it I have to say, there is one thing about the Dutch that makes me squirm with unease.

I am sure the tradition of 'going Dutch' being attributed to the Dutch is nothing more than a smear campaign, because of course this phenomenon is not restricted to the Dutch.

However, I know that this practice is actually prevalent there. It really is. It is the way of life.
But, the point of this post is not to diss a whole country. I am just interested in this specific phenomenon with the unfortunate name.

We are all confused about the right etiquette on a date. This is arguably one of the more contentious issues in the SMP.
Charming Disarray describes brilliantly her own thoughts on the issue here.

What I really like about her post is the mention of the different ways in which men and women can 'give'. A man may well pay for the expensive dinner at that Michelin star restaurant, but who is evaluating the cost of the lovely birthday party she hosts in his honour? Or the simple picnic she puts together with all her heart, just for the two of them to enjoy?

Some women are very sensitive on the issue of who pays on the first date for two main reasons:

1. They may simply be principled people and feel that a first date is nothing more than a 'look-see' and should not oblige a man to pay for both parties. Nothing to do with feminism. These women just want to be fair to a man, who, afterall may well get rejected.

In a previous thread, Bellita mentioned the need for women to look at the dating world from the point of view of a man: He could easily spend hundreds of dollars before a woman might so much as kiss him on the cheek. Is this fair on men? Or is this part and parcel of his reality that he should just accept because a woman should not be thought of as a 'commodity' unless she advertises herself as such?
Which brings me uncomfortably close to my topic of choice, 'the bang-to-buck ratio'.
(Thank you Bill :-)


Is 'being fair' in this way by women viewed as a good or a bad thing by men?

These women are probably the very same ones who will choose to decline a treat from a man on a first date if she is about to reject him. Because she can't live with herself if she accepts his treat and then bails on him.
On the other hand, she might pay for herself because she actually likes him and is therefore wanting to show goodwill in the manner described below:

2. Some women may not necessarily be wanting to 'be fair' like the category above, but do so a little  grudgingly seeing how men are being treated by unscrupulous women, and as a result of this, they want to distance themslves from the whole 'golddigger' vibe.

And of course there are women who are true golddiggers and see men purely as walking cash machines and nothing else. She would rather look into his wallet than into his eyes over a romantic dinner.

But, it must be said: This 'golddigger' woman - who is often deried by both men and women alike - is sometimes just what a man appears to want. The woman who will accept his treat and make him feel like a man. The woman who is actually seen as 'feminine' because she is able to accept.
As opposed to her 'feminista' sisters who are so masculinised they want to pay for everything.

Like I said, we are all confused.
The conventional wisdom is that men should at least offer to pay. Because it is symbolic.
Symbolic of what?

Erm, dunno anymore...
Like I said, we are all....


Is there so much bad blood between men and women that even a symbolic gesture is not possible anymore?

Anyhow the focus of this post is actually not on first date confusion.
What happens when two people are established as a couple? Perhaps cohabiting or married.
Perhaps even with children.

What are the financial arrangements? Is a woman expected to still pay her way? Even if her capacity to do so is severely limited by her choice to be a stay-at-home-Mum or variation thereof?

Is there a code of conduct? Should there be a code of conduct? Or are we all content to fumble in the dark?

What do most modern men want in terms of home life and finances?

Because of the current divorce laws, do men want women who will work throughout their married lives, fully aware that this will take something away from their femininity and create exactly the kind of 'masculinised' woman they don't like...or do men want the woman who will be financially dependent on them fully accepting that in the event of a break-up she will have no alternative but to fight for as much financial assistance from him as she can get?

Are men just as afflicted by the notion of 'pie in the sky' as much as women are accused of? Do men even know what they want anymore? Or are they just as confused as women?

This is a perceived message from the modern man:
'I shall provide willingly for you and the kids, but in return, you must never pull that EPL crap on me no matter how badly I treat you.'

Or:

'You and I will share financial responsibilities for the household and kids equally, but I still want the right to be seen as 'the king' with all the conqueror's rights that come with it. Even if you have to go to work same as me, don't come home and be all bossy with me. In the home, you: little woman, me: The Big Boss. You Jane, me...forget Tarzan - me blooming King Kong!'

Fair or foul?
A tad facetious or the naked truth?
If we were to rewrite the rules, what would they be?

Film Review: Captain Corelli's Mandolin

It seems I cannot find films other than war-films to illustrate lessons on male-female interactions as I see them.
This is the third war-film I have watched which deserves a fine-toothed comb.

I actually first saw this film many years ago. My understanding of the film has changed a lot in that time.
To summarise, this film (based on the book by Louis de Bernières) is set in Cephallonia, a Greek Island during World War II.
Pelagia is the highly intelligent and beautiful daughter of the local doctor, Dr. Iannis, a widower who is slightly eccentric but very much respected by everyone, especially his daughter who was virtually raised by him alone.

Pelagia is engaged to Mandras (played by the delightful Christian Bale of  'Empire of the sun' - all grown up!), a local handsome fisherman who is illiterate (which I guess is not unusual in that village at that time and is a fact which is relevant only with respect to Pelagia). Mandras is a well-respected man, but as his own widowed mother would proclaim time and time again, he 'never grew up'.

As Italy invades nearby Albania, the men of the village are urged to join the war effort. Mandras promptly does, leaving behind an increasingly exasperated Pelagia who writes him several letters and receives no reply. As becomes clear later on, the only reason he does not reply is his illiteracy, of which she was not aware. She eventually loses her love for him as is declared in her last letter to him before he returns.
Mandras returns a casualty of war despite the Greeks defeating the Italians in Albania. He is nursed back to health by Pelagia and her father.
Pelagia, who is a very principled young woman somewhat rediscovers her love for Mandras during his return stay. However, he takes the next available opportunity to disappear again leaving her for the second time.
During this time, an Italian regiment is posted on the island headed by Captain Antonio Corelli, a seemingly carefree opera-singing, beer-swigging, party animal with a talent for playing the mandolin. To make matters worse for all concerned, the Greeks of Cephallonia have to surrender to the Italians, (and they do this in a hilarious face-saving move in which they decide to surrender instead to the highest-ranking German Officer on the island instead of the Italians, their dearest enemies,  making sure to let the Italians know that they would rather surrender to the German Officer's dog than to an Italian).
Captain Corelli ends up staying at the Iannis' house in exchange for medical supplies.

The inevitable happens. He and Pelagia fall in love.
A process which does not escape the notice of her father, Mandras and Mandras' mother.

But, on the advice of her father, Pelagia does the honourable thing and 'undoes' the engagement to Mandras.

The Italians and their German allies fall out when an unscrupulous German shoots at an unarmed Italian soldier during an armistice. This sees the Italians joining the Greeks in a bitter battle with the Germans which the Germans win. The Italian soldiers are taken prisoner and despite the fact that they were once allies, the Germans shoot the Italians dead.
Captain Corelli is saved by one of his troops (Carlo, more on him later) and is later found alive by Mandras who takes him to the doctor.

Corelli is nursed back to health but uncharacteristically for him, he is increasingly disillusioned by the destruction of war and leaves Cephallonia for good, helped by Mandras to escape by boat in the dead of night, for fear of the Germans.

Pelagia is devastated once again. She goes on to medical school and qualifies as a doctor. But her heartache remains.

Corelli sends her a guitar recording of the mandolin piece he had composed for her, from Italy.
And, eventually, he keeps his promise and returns to her.

(In the book, Corelli and Pelagia reunite when she is in her 60's).


Mandras
In today's SMP, perhaps Mandras would be seen as the 'beta' guy who went off and fought for his country and lost out to the irresponsible lazy 'alpha' as a result.
But I would put forward a different viewpoint.
Mandras was, before the war a typical enough fellow. Well-liked by everyone, he was clearly in love with his girl Pelagia.
But he never really had time for Pelagia. He became obsessed with the war. He became a bit of a monster. Not his fault: war does that.
But there was more to Mandras: His bad character was only unearthed as the war proceeded.
He had saved Corelli only so Pelagia would 'love him again'. Disingenuous.
He had also ordered the hanging of a friend of Pelagia's for kissing a German officer on the cheek when he promised her he would leave her a grammophone after the war. This girl wouldn't even dance with the German soldier at the local dance - she was too 'true' to her country. But a spontaneous kiss on the cheek of this guy earned her her death at the hands of Mandras who called her a 'whore' and a 'traitor'.
Pelagia dodged a bullet here.


Antonio Corelli
As Pelagia reproached him on more than one occasion, he seemed to take nothing seriously, at first glance. He and his men were always to be found on the beach partying and singing operas. She once said to him, "Why don't you take your holiday on someone else's island?"
She hated the fact that this soldier was all about partying when her own Mandras was suffering gangrene in Albania.
"What is there to sing about?" she angrily asks him.
But there was a serious side to Antonio. Pelagia only found this after she got close enough to him.

The audience of this film, much before Pelagia herself, are given a glimpse into the serious and shrewd nature of Corelli, by his "Heil Puccini" reponse to the German Captain's "Heil Hitler".
It may have seemed comical and frivolous, but one got the distinct impression that two fingers were being cleverly stuck up in the face of Nazism without the German Captain noticing.

Once, he was playing with one of the local children and Pelagia rushed to take the child away from him.
Corellli said to her, "Signora, in times of war, one has to make the most of the innocent little pleasures."
He was right of course.
Never judge a book by its cover.


Pelagia and Corelli
Pelagia was very honourable despite what appears to be disloyalty to the man to whom she was engaged.
Mandras was a bit of a fool, and played an embarrassing practical joke on her the night before he left for the war effort, in front of everyone. There were many strikes against him, I feel.

Pelagia's behaviour around the time she falls in love with Corelli is suitably irrational and illogical but also reveals a woman trying very hard to stay 'honourable'. At one point she points a (unloaded) gun at Corelli. Several times, she 'tells him off' for his behaviour (quite rightly). At the dance hosted by the Italian soldiers in an effort to appease the locals, she dances Tango with another Italian soldier to avoid dancing with Corelli and quite possibly (bizarrely enough) to make him jealous. Even though she didn't want to want him. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

Interestingly, I think Pelagia also demonstrates another golden rule about women. That women are very conscious of their public image. That trait is being lost amongst some younger women nowadays, but these are actually the outliers.
Pelagia is publically embarrassed twice - once by Mandras and once by Corelli. In Mandras' case, it was a stupid, little boy prank which should never have happened - certainly not on the eve of his departure to war. The writing on the wall was there following this prank, I feel. An immature man is the worst consort for a woman. She and her children will always suffer.
In the case of Corelli, Pelagia is publically embarrassed when Corelli tells everyone that the beautiful mandolin piece he has just played is 'Pelagia's song'. Mandras' mother is present at that gathering. Everyone knows that Pelagia is engaged to Mandras. It is humiliating and scary for Pelagia because she is beginning to realise that she is falling in love with Corelli, an enemy of her people.
But at least, in this latter case, it was a declaration of love, of sorts, by Corelli. Pelagia is actually being validated. A man had composed a beautiful piece for her. She just couldn't handle the fact that it was done publically before she had had a chance to sort out her feelings.
Therein the difference between Mandras' and Corelli's public embarrassment of Pelagia: Mandras' prank spelled the end of their marriage before it had begun, Corelli's misplaced display of love led to the consummation of said love the very next day :-)


Pelagia and her father
These two had a wonderful father-daughter relationship. The father was a very wise man whose advice to Pelagia was central to the film. He spotted the waning love for Mandras, and of course the growing love for Corelli in his daughter.
His speech about love being what happens when the 'flames die down' is so true. Pelagia was blushing throughout of course, because it's not the kind of conversation one wants to have with Dad and all...but she needed to hear it.

To be honest, I suppose one could say that Pelagia's father was biased against Mandras from the beginning. Mandras was an illiterate man. Pelagia was on her way to becoming a doctor. Her father was well aware of the 'hypergamy' instincts his daughter was likely to harbour and advised her accordingly. He also always believed that no man in the village was good eough for his daughter (what father doesn't think this of his daughter?!) and that she would end up marrying a foreigner.

When he spotted that his daughter was in love with Corelli, he said to Corelli, "When I met Pelagia's mother, she was actually betrothed to someone else...he almost killed me. I had to lay low for a while..."
Talk about aiding and abeting Corelli!

There is a superlatively moving scene towards the end of the film where she thinks she has lost him in an earthquake at the rubble of their destroyed home, only to find him safe and well nearby. One couldn't help but feel utter relief for this poor woman who seemed to be losing all the men in her life.


Carlo
Carlo was a member of Corelli's squad. It wasn't particularly apparent to me in the film but he was actually gay. He says to Pelagia at one point that he would protect her if something happened to Antonio. In fact he did more than that: he saved Antonio's life by shielding him with his body during the massacre by the Germans.
Talk about bravery and honour.

Single Mum - by choice

I really cannot believe I am revisiting this topic. Because the logical thing to do would be to avoid issues that enrage me.
But alas, I claim not to be a logical creature.
Maybe I am wearing 'red' today, Grasshopper.
In any case I am definitely seeing red.
The gloves are off.

Let the rant begin.

In the post on intimacy I hinted that my personality type is often characterised by passivity, so much so that we are often mistaken for the dead. In my case this is no exaggeration.

But even I come alive when a principle is at stake.

In the post 'The sins of the Mother', I was in a subdued mood describing a phenomenon which is sad, with the full recognition on my part that some of the perpetrators of these 'sins' are largely unaware of the consequences of their actions.

In the case in hand, my reaction is very different. Because the intent here is all too clear.
Here is a woman choosing to be a bad mother even before she becomes a mother.

Single motherhood is tough. Men who abandon their children willingly are cowardly and unjust. Women who prevent ex-partners from seeing their children (for no good reason) are unfair to their children, not to talk of the ex-partner.
The point of this post is not single motherhood per se.
I daresay, given the right conditions, no woman would choose to become a single mother.
Given the right conditions.
What are these right conditions?

1. She is right in the head. Even an idiot like me knows it is very hard work being a parent. Nobody should be looking to do the whole single parent thing. It's not normal.

2. It is socially stigmatising to want to be a single parent. Note I did not say, to be a single parent. I do not believe it is right to point fingers at a general group when individual circumstances are not known.
There are many reasons why people (men or women) end up raising a child alone.

3. The state is not encouraging this phenomenon.

In Britain, it has become quite the fashion for a 16 year old girl, bored of school and living with the parents, to decide to become a 'baby mama' to get herself a new apartment and all the mod cons, paid for by you and me. I am sure that phenomenon is not unheard of in other countries too.

The scary thing is, material gain is sometimes the sole reason for her pregnancy. That, and the fact that she is looking for someone who will 'love her' unconditionally when it becomes clear that the randy 16 year old boy she is consorting with is not really in the 'love' business, despite what he says. The irony is, she herself may not know what real love is, either. She may really be as immature as she acts.

When I think of this issue, I always remember a former female boss of mine, not known for her tact or subtlety. She would read in one of those tabloids about yet another 12 year old expecting twins, and she would say something like, 'No ponies to go riding on?'
Particularly hilarious as it would appear she was completely oblivious to the fact that these urban kids did not quite live in the same world as her. Or perhaps she was being ironic, and I am the one who is missing her point...

Anyway, it came as quite the surprise to see this article referenced in one of Dalrock's posts.
An educated woman who is financially independent and who was herself raised by a single mother wants to become a single mother.

This woman's mother became a single mother not by choice, as she states early on in the article. Which makes her decision to become a single mother all the more hard to digest.
This woman is not the daughter of some narcissistic mother who wanted a 'mini-me'.
Her mother never said negative things to her about her father growing up. Even though it is clear that her father was not an ideal father.
The problem was not his large beard, as she claims. The problem goes far deeper than she lets on.
Society dies another little death each time a young woman adopts her kind of attitude.

Each to his or her own. Life is full of choices.
But hopefully, one is allowed an opinion.
Here's mine.

Do we not yet have enough evidence to suggest that it is better for children to have two loving parents rather than one, in general?
Not to say of course that children of single parents are necessarily worse off.
Everyone would agree that on the whole an abusive parent is worse than no parent. Children who have had to grow up without one parent make do, and overcome, but often not without a lot of hardship first.
The point is, given the choice, why would anyone want to deny a child something that is good for them? Deliberately.

The whole 'single by choice' thing by women and men is cool. Everyone is free to make a choice that affects them.
'Single motherhood by choice' is not cool. Because a bad decision is being made for another human being even before they have begun life.


'Single motherhood by choice' is bad motherhood. Because any woman who does not know by now that denying a child their God-given right to a father (if that father is a good enough fellow who is not abusive or dangerous) is at risk of one day becoming a bad mother. It cannot be stressed enough the importance of Father in the lives of both boys and girls. Why must people always be left to discover this the hard way?
Not enough feral kids on the streets already? Not enough damaged people to make us all sit up?

Adults who were adopted as children go through this yearning to find out their roots practically their whole lives until they get the information they need. It has been likened to the need to scratch something that is not there, ala the 'phantom limb syndrome' of amputees.

Is this what we want for our children?

This woman doesn't want to be bothered by the stresses of a relationship with a man. But she wants a child.
Is this woman even mature enough to be a mother?
What if said child becomes too difficult to live with? Will he or she be chucked out too?

She doesn't give a sensible reason to choose what she has. Her father was not the best, agreed. But should this not be the impetus for her to improve things for the next generation?
Most people who are born poor strive to do better for their children one day. Most people who grew up without a father either want to be a good father or ensure they couple up with a good father for their future children.
This woman seems to have had a great mother. This exemplary mother did the best she could so that her daughter had a great upbringing and life. Mother did so well in this task that daughter now believes that single motherhood is easy.
Unfortunately, Mother's heroic efforts are about to be nullified by a daughter who doesn't get it, who doesn't understand the sacrifices Mother made.

She just doesn't want the 'hassle' of being with a man, the possible father of her desired child.
She is proving the point that a woman essentially brought up exclusively in a matriarchy ala Kim K is at high risk of becoming a narcissist. Unless she gains insight into the problem and self-corrects. Such women are unfit for marriage because they are way too selfish, so they will try to find alternative family-building strategies, like this woman is trying to do. She sees it as her 'right' to have a child, by any means necessary. Who gives a monkeys about the needs of the child? As long as she gets what she wants, stuff the rest.
It is not her fault. We are all products of our environment afterall. But Mother cannot be held responsible for this selfish woman's decisions. If what she says about her mother is true, Mother did a great job, along with her grandmother.
But I fear daughter is showing exactly why she needed a father growing up. Pity she cannot see it herself. Let's hope she does not succeed in propagating this problem.
And this should be a lesson to voluntarily absentee fathers, and mothers who deliberately separate their kids from their fathers. This situation creates little Frankensteins.


Which conditions have gone awry in this woman's situation allowing her to unashamedly declare her abhorent intentions to the world?
All three.


Quite rightly, what incensed a lot of men in the comments section was her noble promise that she would somehow provide a 'male role model' for her future fatherless child.

Yes. Some poor man who may or may not have ties to her will be roped in to play part-time 'daddy' to her kid from a distance, at occasions and in a manner of her choosing. Just like in the movies.

In all humility, might I appeal to her better nature here, fully acknowledging the possibility that this young woman, like the rest of us may have been 'misguided' in her thinking?
That she simply needs to wake up soon and say to herself: 'Something's wrong with our modern life. Things are not supposed to be this way'  like many women are doing now.

Because those who do not, ever in their lives, are the ones on the non-stop express train to Crashville. Some are in the first-class compartment paid for by feminism.


Can and will this woman get off the poisoned train?

She has a chance to prevent this 'part-time daddy' nonsense she wants so badly from becoming a reality now.


Doesn't she know that it is a last resort option that people (including her lovely, commendable mother) have to take when all other attempts to prevent this have failed? Does she really believe it is fun for a kid to have a 'part-time' father-substitute? To watch as Uncle X leaves to go home to his own children? To always feel that no-one is his/her own to keep, that every adult man he/she comes into contact with is 'borrowed'?
From what she says in her article, she should know!

You are not supposed to be choosing this option for your future children from the get-go, Dear Friend.
Uh-huh.
You go, girl.


I really must stop here before I implode.

Too late!

'Into me see'

This is the quasi-onomatopoeic description of the word 'intimacy' by a wise old man I know.
Intimacy: into me see.

I think it is a brilliant description. Because it really opens up the true meaning of the word in a way I had never seen before.

I read somewhere that a woman, in deciding whether a man could be a possible candidate for her affections (in a romantic sense, that is) should ask herself one simple question:
'Can I bear to see him naked?'

Whilst I think this is wise, I also see this as only part of the equation.
They forgot to add:
'Can I bear for him to see me naked?'

Or, (as I am sure the men would be quick to point out):
'Can he bear to see me naked?'
And, it must be said, if a man is in the running, the answer to this question should obviously be 'yes' from the get-go :-)
Unless he is one of those outlying 'slow-burner' types :-)

When I was a teen I actually believed that men's idea of intimacy was a purely sexual one.
I am sure that idea came from fairly accurate perceptions of the world around me at that time.

Ask any 20 year old woman what men (her age) want and well...you see what I mean.
At 20, most women are at or close to their highest level of attraction to men (of all ages, actually) and given that a 20 year old woman is probably likely to find herself in the company of 20 year old men (who on the whole are not yet aherm, 'masters of themselves' shall we say) due to school, college, home life, job, etc, it is only fair to say that a certain perception could develop which is not necessarily true of all men.

But I was able to self-correct as I got older of course.
We are all on a perpetual journey of self-correction, I guess.

What might a man's idea of what intimacy means to a woman be?
Perhaps exactly the same as mine was.

And I would hope, that as a man matures, he too sees that women have a different version of intimacy than he may have thought at first.


There are other kinds of intimacy as we all know.

Emotional intimacy.
Spiritual intimacy.
Psychological intimacy.
Social intimacy, to name a few...

Some people see the above forms of intimacy as more 'intimate' than sex, of course.
I somehow cannot find a real life example, but a good fictional example is Julia Roberts' character in 'Pretty Woman' who refused to kiss her clients on the lips because that would be too intimate.
Yes.
Counterintuitive, for sure, given her profession.
But somehow I can understand that.
For her, it was 'just a job' afterall.
I guess not many people can feel 'intimate' at work.


As a little digression, I shall state here that it took me a long time to take a personality test. Several posts over at Bellita's have touched on personality testing.
After a little (OK, a lot!) encouragement, I finally took the plunge.
And it didn't surprise me to see that my personality type are the least likely to actually take a personality test :-)
Because we don't like to be 'figured out'. Even though we love to figure others out, in order to fulfil one very specific function of ours - our raison d'être.

We do things slowly. We do everything slowly, to the point of near-total inertia, prompting in others the need to check we are still breathing.
(This reminds me of the film 'Beethoven' - the one about the dog - where it was actually the job of one of the household's children to check every morning that Beethoven the dog hadn't died, by placing a mirror under its nose to see if it steamed up. That's how inert the dog was).
And that's how inert my personality type can get :-)
I wonder if President Coolidge had the same personality type as me?
When told of his death, writer and wisecrack of the time Dorothy Parker quipped, 'How could they tell?'
But I digress...


We are 'private' beings.
Not secretive, but definitely private.
Odd for a blogger to claim to be 'private' but I always had it in mind that no blog of mine would be about me, per se. Just general, preferably abstract ideas I find interesting or important enough to write or talk about.

Back to the topic in hand, one of the possible hold-ups in relationships is the idea that one or both partners is 'private'.

We cannot bear to be vulnerable.
We cannot bear to be 'naked' to someone else. Even in marriage.


When those 'absolutely see all'  total body scanners at airports were first being proposed, I noted with great amusement how horrified some people were.
Of course I 'get' the concerns raised, and in fact I was one of those same horrified people, but I couldn't help wondering: is this a Western disease? Or is this a modern disease? Or both?


Why do we fear nudity so much?
I am no fan of naturism. Or even nudity just for the sake of nudity. (Apparently naturism and nudity are two completely different concepts). In that sense, I guess I am fairly conservative.

But, is that a problem in itself? What's the problem with a nudist beach, exactly? Why are some people so vehemently opposed to them?
I mean, I really don't think it would bother a Kalahari desert tribesman so much if he had to go through a body scanner in order to get in to the next village...
But is this because he is neither Western nor modern?

Are we too 'clothed' in our current world?
Do we have too many clothes on, figuratively speaking?
Do we seriously need to 'shed some clothes' so we can finally have some fun in our lives?

As a Brit, I know that this is a national thing for us. We are known for this 'reserve'. Some might call it 'uptight'.
Other countries I know which are also 'afflicted' by this national 'disease' are Norway, Switzerland and Germany.
Some would say all of Europe is like this. Too afraid of nakedness. Too 'square'.
Americans never seem to be tainted with this brush though :-)


I find it interesting that the word for 'privacy' in french is intimité (intimacy). The Anglo-Saxon languages feel the need to separate out these two concepts, but the Latin-based ones recognise them as one and the same. Interesting.
And telling, because culturally, these two populations are very different in their approach to many things.

There are some personality types that are much 'worse' than my own when it comes to privacy.
I know these people well :-)
Yes I am looking at you, INTJs :-)

On the other hand, paradoxically, I cannot bear people who 'let it all hang out'. Those who go on talk shows like 'Oprah' and 'Jerry Springer' and want to dish out every possible detail with no regard for their own anonymity or privacy.
I literally get hives with these people.
Honestly.
They drive me insane with their lack of 'restraint'.
I always want to run from them :-)
Even though I like them on principle. Because of their honesty.

I guess it is the extremes that I take issue with, on all of the above.

There should be a balance. Like with everything in life.
There is always a fine line.

Question is, where should the line be?
Who gets to draw the line?
And why?

Is the need for individual privacy killing intimacy?
Has it always been this way?
Or have human beings gotten more and more 'uptight' in recent years?

Friendly or fresh? Fascinating or forward?

I saw this post on The Private Man which attracted my interest.
In it, TPM describes a scenario in which an elderly woman compliments his beautiful brown eyes.
He was genuinely touched by that.

I would too, if I had been in his place.
It is such a nice thing to be complimented in this way, especially by a total stranger. As a woman, I love to be validated. Much more than a man, as my sources of self-importance usually come from outside of me and are to a large extent based on my appearance rather than what I do. But I can and should learn to live without these if I don't get it (invaluable piece of wisdom from Just Visiting).

Therefore I so get it that TPM was so 'chuffed' when he was 'validated'.
But I felt uneasy about the takeaway advice to women that TPM gave, as a result of this encounter.
He was implying that it was a good thing, whatever the age of a woman, to do stuff like this.
Helen Andelin must be turning in her grave right now.

Now, several commenters on his blog already alluded to the point I am about to make.
But somehow I feel the need to add my own thoughts on this.

Many women will agree that as they get older, they become much more 'open' in the sense that they loosen up a bit. Not so uptight.
Like all toddlers go through a stage where they get all shy in the presence of strangers, although there are some girls who are naturally extrovert even from kindergarten, even they go through a 'reserved' stage.
That 'reserved' stage is maybe getting slightly lost in today's society.

But it is still there. It is perhaps manifesting itself differently from previous ages.

The Manosphere men say this:
'A woman is seeking to reject you within the first five minutes of meeting you'.

This is true, inasmuch as she puts up automatic barriers whilst she assesses whether you are friend or foe. This is normal behaviour. It is a huge part of the 'filter behaviour' I have touched on in previous posts. Nobody should be disputing its importance to women. A (young) woman without this automatic response is in trouble. Certainly in a social sense. But quite often even in a physical sense.

A woman in her sixties has 'done it all' already.
Figuratively and quite literally.
She is perhaps the most 'aggressive' she will ever be in her life, as her natural T:O (or T:E if you are American :-) is at its highest level ever.
She can compliment a man all she likes. Society won't bat an eyelid.
And she often does. She ain't shy.

A 20 year old woman is in quite a different place in her life.
She is at her most attractive in her life.
She is also at her most insecure.
She is at her lowest T:O ratio.
She, unlike her grandmother, has something to protect.
The wrong kind of attention, and she is on a train to some place she didn't want to go to.
She needs a shield to protect herself from unwanted attention.
Some Manosphere bloggers call this a 'b*tch shield'.
The 'b*tch shield' is massive when a woman is young. It gets smaller and smaller as she gets older.
At sixty, she doesn't have it anymore.
Because she doesn't really need it anymore.
With any luck she would have used it to good effect during her younger years.
Like 'fitness testing', a 'b*tch shield' is there to perform a certain function.

Is it often misused?
Yes. But how the 'b*tch shield' is applied is dependent on the level of maturity and character of the individual woman.
I am not referring here to the shield which has grown legs and has a mind of its own. That is outside the scope of this post. I am speaking here about the normal socially beneficial shield that has a useful purpose.


I wonder if the gradual loss of this 'b*tch shield' is what is termed 'external attractiveness' in this post of Andrew's. Interesting that in Andrew's definition, he chooses 'openness' as one of his criteria. Clearly, it is important to men, this 'openness'.
Is it possible for a woman to be pleasant without being too 'open'?
What about the shy, wallflower type of girl? Is she in possesion of an automatic 'b*tch shield' by virtue of her retiring nature?


If a 20 year old woman compliments a man on his beautiful brown eyes, unless that man is known to her, like a boy in school, or her brother's best friend, or someone like that, it would be considered a little 'strange' by society, and him. Certainly, if he is much older than her, it would be rather...odd. Perhaps society still judges women more than men in this type of situation, as has traditionally been the case for hundreds of years.

A 20 year old girl is supposed to be less 'forward' than a sixty year old woman.
Because of her natural lack of confidence, she often is less forward than a sixty year old woman.

She is supposed to be 'demure' for want of a better word.
Demure behaviour cannot be compatible with complimenting a (stranger) man's looks.
It is definitely not her job. No-one should expect her to do this.

Complimenting a (stranger) man on his achievements is a different thing. Like he just scored the final 3 points that won his team the coveted championship...you know, like Jeremy Lin :-)
It will lead to the same result, i.e. the man feeling good about himself, as indeed TPM did, but it is less 'fresh' for a woman to do this.

It is a very fine line for a woman to tread.
Even at forty, a woman who is too 'brazen' in her approach to men could be seen in the 'wrong' way.
Of course, she may indeed be sexually aggressive and forward. I have no doubt that this is often true, and not just in the imagination of men, but there are also certain behaviours that may give off vibes which can easily be misinterpreted.

Flirting is good.
But when there is a risk of misinterpretation, it is time to stop or do it differently.

Maybe sometimes it is best to leave it to the (older) women who really do know what they are doing. And who can live with the consequences, or at least navigate their way out of trouble.