An Australian study tracking women who left school in 1991 has found that only 38% of tertiary qualified Generation X women are still working full-time compared to 90% of men.
It's almost like there are two ages of women. There's a strongly careerist period in their 20s, which is often followed by a dissatisfaction with their lot and a desire to start a family and scale back paid work commitments.
I do get this. After about ten years in a career, when you've successfully met the challenges of work over and over again, some of the early excitement wears off and it becomes a bit of a slog. Men have a reason to keep slogging away, particularly if they're the main providers for their families. And women have a reason to take a break, to devote at least a part of their life to motherhood.
But it must be confusing for younger men. They have to adapt to the idea of the highly ambitious career woman when they're in their 20s, but then return to the more traditional masculine provider ethos when in their 30s.
My advice to young men would be to remain committed to their own careers no matter how much the women they know appear to be high-flying careerists. There's a strong chance that these women will change their priorities later on. And when women have had children there's often a real appreciation for men who are stable breadwinners - it can help to make for a happy marriage.
That almost seems too low....I don't know any women in that age group though :( so I can't comment....
ReplyDelete?
The truth of the matter is that many new mothers find their priorities changing, I know of about 3 women from this generation who fully intended to return to full time work but found themselves completely unfulfilled compared with raising the kids.
ReplyDeleteIt seems there may be a biological impulse here since this seems to be a general trend across many different cultures in developed nations.
Truthfully, I think it's biological annnd ...who really likes a cubicle? Really? Being an anonymous secretary in corporate world is pretty meaningless in comparison to being a mother anyways.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that those women aren't sexually continent in their 20s. If you get my drift.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, the numbers seem correct to me. Most women with young children work part-time, or are homemakers. Even today.
From Pew in 2007:
A majority of working mothers (52%) say that a mother working part-time is ideal for children. Three-in-ten say a mother who doesn't work outside the home would be ideal for children and about one-in-ten (11%) say that a full-time working mother is ideal for children.
That means that only 11% of women who work outside of the home think that it's a good thing. An even lower portion of homemakers think it's a good thing.
Being an anonymous secretary in corporate world is pretty meaningless in comparison to being a mother anyways.
ReplyDeleteYes, but its meaningless in comparison to being a father, too.
I think men and women are well-suited to different kinds of work. Women generally do better at work involving a variety of tasks, while men do better at more concentrated work.
My husband and I are both engineers by training, and we're both capable of tending to the household and minding the children. But he makes a better engineer (I struggle to keep my mind from wandering), and I make a better homemaker. We could each do the other's job, and have done so satisfactorily in the past. But that is not ideal, or the best use of our resources.
Who says men should LET women fall into 'traditional' roles?
ReplyDeleteDo women DESERVE to have men take care of them anymore?
What value do women bring to the relationship, when they're a competitor in almost every way, yet demand 'protection' when it's convenient?
In short...what have women done for men lately?
Homemaking is primarily for the children's benefit, not the wife's.
ReplyDeleteIt also substantially lowers the divorce rate, which is something many men are not oblivious to. Wives who work outside of the home are much more prone to wander off. Furthermore, many men actually enjoy having their wife at home. It has its benefits.
In short...what have women done for men lately?
ReplyDeleteRaising young children is a big job. It really is a full-time occupation. My wife and I both wanted my wife to be the primary caregiver. So she has been at home while I go out to work.
And I have to say that Alte is right - it has had benefits and not just for our children. My wife has changed a bit in personality, toward the kind of femininity that I remember from previous generations of women.
She's become a calmer more nurturing type of woman. She seems to want to look up to me as the man of the household and to want to please me.
Obviously getting this kind of treatment from my wife then makes it much easier for me to be strongly invested in the family and in my own role.
So my family life has become very happy.
I'm of this generation - did my HSC/VCE in 1990 - and certainly had a flourishing career, followed by stay-at-home motherhood in my thirties. While the trend is obvious, I'm not sure your analysis is spot on, Mark. My friends and I became high-fliers because there wasn't much of an alternative. We all wanted to marry and would have done so in our twenties if the opportunity had arisen. The reason we waited until our thirties was that our male counterparts weren't willing to settle before then (and some still aren't). Staying at home is the more difficult choice, but ultimately women of my generation still desire to have a husband who wears the trousers.
ReplyDeleteMy experience of women now in their twenties is that they are far more career-oriented than we ever were. They may be willing to marry earlier, but they expect their careers to take precedence over that of their husbands, some even becoming the main breadwinner while the husband stays at home with the single spoilt child that she has as a token of her success in all areas of life. They are the ones wearing the trousers, and I think this next generation is far more frightening.
My generation are stuffed up, but this next generation of women don't want a real man - just look at how silly they are getting over films like 'Eclipse' and how male role models are becoming more and more effeminate - and in many ways they are far more feminist than we ever were. They pay lip-service to things like motherhood, but deep down they despise men, whereas my generation were outwardly assertive but just waiting for a man with a firm enough hand. The current generation of women just want a slave to pander to their egos, do the housework, and perhaps father a child. They are so selfish that they can't even recognise that work isn't as fulfilling as bringing up a family.
My advice to young men today would be to focus on their careers, don't expect the women to change their priorities, and make the test of whether a woman will make a good wife her attitude to her career and whether she intends to stay at home for at least the first five years of a child's life. If she's just passing time and making a living, and she doesn't want to put her children in child care, marry her; if she has definite ambitions or believes in child care, steer well clear!
Old hat,
ReplyDeleteI was at Melbourne Uni in the early to mid 90s.
I don't remember a cohort of marriage oriented women. I do remember women who were strongly influenced by third wave feminism.
What this meant is that they wanted to pursue relationships without regard for marriage or romance. Therefore, they acted against the romantic ideal (in which men think of women as being beautiful and good) by drinking way too much, sleeping around, swearing and dressing mannishly.
There were some women who pursued sexual liberation aggressively and others who went along more quietly with the new culture. But there was little to encourage men into a culture of family life.
Imagine being a young man and seeing women acting this way and feeling disappointed and confused and then watching "sexually liberated" women sleep around with bad boy types.
I don't think I'm wrong in this analysis because by the time I was in my early 30s and the women I was meeting were pushing 30 and becoming more seriously interested in marriage I finally started to get treated in a more encouraging way - women began to act a bit more respectably, be friendlier, more family oriented, and even flirt a little.
Family formation then became a whole lot easier.
Old hat, I'm curious. If you and your friends really did want to find a strong man to marry in your 20s weren't you alarmed by the behaviour of other women? Weren't you worried that such behaviour might demoralise the men you wanted to form settled relationships with?
Most of the women I know work part-time if they have children. I know a few very traditional women who are full-time at home. My wife has mostly worked part-time.
ReplyDeleteI have also known one case where a woman dumped a marriage and child for a career.
I have noticed that my wife gets a bit more assertive when I am at home, even temporarily as I am this week. She referred to me yesterday as a "housespouse". I had to remind her that I am in fact a chief breadwinner on a short holiday. Why are women so dense about economic realities?
I don't know about younger women. I doubt they are really any more feminist deep down. I strongly believe that human nature is largely fixed, including the hypergamous tendencies of women. Most young women go through a feminist phase, in which they claim they will never marry and never have children. It doesn't necessarily last!
I am not surprised by Mark's figures. Full-time work over a lifetime is not much fun, even for men, even in good jobs. I cannot believe that women find it any more enjoyable.
David
PS Hi, Alte. I am rather relieved that you are OK. You seemed to leave in a terrible hurry, and I did wonder if something bad had happened.
There's a strong chance that these women will change their priorities later on. And when women have had children there's often a real appreciation for men who are stable breadwinners - it can help to make for a happy marriage.
ReplyDeleteAfter she's ridden hundreds of other men's cocks, she wants to attach herself to your wallet. What's in it for you, exactly?
You were a stable breadwinner when she was out whoring around. Just because she has now "changed her priorities" (read: hit the wall and suddenly hears the clock ticking) why should you change your priorities? You always wanted a pure, decent woman -- go find one. Send the well-used thirtysomething on her way. She made her bed, let her lie in it, increasingly with cats rather than men.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteThe notion that men should tolerate career women who MAY belatedly later discover they are female is inadvisable because women, unlike men, are allowed to have it both ways:
when she quits she could easily nag him that she sacrificed her job for him
if he is not bringing in the money she expects, she will remind him of his inadequacy as a man.
Second, the money that men make has decreased as a result of affirmative action policies to hire women. Women have no problem with programs designed to usher them into the workforce. Therefore, they should have no problem with shouldering work and family responsibilities (or doing it 'all') and they should be chastised for their failure to do so. To commiserate and sympathise with their self inflicted plight is to excuse their efforts to marginalize men. After all, the rationale behind the existence of career women is an inherent distrust of reliance on men as providers.
Finally, I don't think women afford the same kind of treatment to metrosexual men who discover their masculinity at a later stage.
I agree with the last comment. I have taken to advising men on these blogs to marry a virgin. I did. But I suspect I am being unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteMen's morale is low these days. Most men's morale that is. Some men are still cocky and masculine, but they are not as common as they once were. Even men of my generation (I am 55) have had the stuffing knocked out of them. I have been dismayed at how much crap men put up with these days. I have seen men's self-image plummet in a few decades.
There was a time, not long ago, when a man would not have *lowered himself* to marry a non-virgin. And now men are pathetically eager to marry anything they can get. Personally, it amazes me.
Why would any man tolerate marrying a quasi-feminist, cranky, ageing, tarty woman? She probably won't even cook you a decent meal. Why?
David
My friend works in a law firm and all except a partner and senior associate work part time.
ReplyDeleteGood to see tax payers money wasted on unused tertiary education while guys struggle to get in to the field.
"Why would any man tolerate marrying a quasi-feminist, cranky, ageing, tarty woman? She probably won't even cook you a decent meal. Why?"
ReplyDeleteI often ask that myself, David! But the fact is that these more assertive types seem to be more successful with men, and there are so few of the manly types left that most of the (few) traditional women are snapped up quickly. That said, I know several women who are demure, attractive, good cooks, and domestically-oriented... but where are they supposed to meet a decent guy?! Where are chaste and modest women supposed to find a husband when the assertive, loose women who don't believe in cooking or housework are the ones who get the limelight, offer themselves on a platter to their co-workers, and are considered sexier because they leave nothing to the imagination?
We live in a society where casual sex is the norm and women who don't put out are labelled as frigid or snobs. I agree with you that men's morale is at an all-time low, but so is virtuous femininity. There is more stigma attached to being a virgin than to being a slut.
I suppose all we can do is make the best of a bad situation. I'd like to think that things may improve by the time my children grow up, but I'm not expecting it to and am therefore preparing my children to survive as misfits in a very perverse society....
Seems reasonable. My wife only cut back to 6/7 of full time work though. Probably helps that I do half the child care while working full time. :)
ReplyDeleteHello David!
ReplyDeleteI know I confused everyone. To be honest, I was a bit fed up with all of the Manosphere stuff. I'm working on rewriting my old articles and posting them as a website, rather than a blog. Something less interactive and less personal.
It'll be a while before I get anything posted, though. I'm up to my ears in Aristotle right now, for the rhetoric course I will be teaching this fall.
Novaseeker is here sometimes, too.
I hate to break the consensus here but sex is fun. This is not a great insight to a man but it seems for a woman to do it its "riding cocks" and "whoring around" etc. Marriage is a big commitment, obviously. Should we marry in substantial part to get access to the only legitimate sex? I don't think that leads to stable marriages either.
ReplyDeleteSo what do we do? Cut out the sex is fun stuff and say no its only fun within marriage? Or say no its not supposed to be fun at all its only for childbirth.
You can quote the childless and divorce rates all you like and say society was better before. You can also say that rampant promiscuity doesn't make people happy. However, you have to "convince" people to give up sex in order to live chastely. While we may agree that society should vastly tone down the sex focus I don't think you'll find that the ending of all premarital sex will be an easy sell.
I hate to break the consensus here but sex is fun. This is not a great insight to a man but it seems for a woman to do it its "riding cocks" and "whoring around" etc. Marriage is a big commitment, obviously. Should we marry in substantial part to get access to the only legitimate sex? I don't think that leads to stable marriages either.
ReplyDeleteSo what do we do? Cut out the sex is fun stuff and say no its only fun within marriage? Or say no its not supposed to be fun at all its only for childbirth.
You can quote the childless and divorce rates all you like and say society was better before. You can also say that rampant promiscuity doesn't make people happy. However, you have to "convince" people to give up sex in order to live chastely. While we may agree that society should vastly tone down the sex focus I don't think you'll find that the ending of all premarital sex will be an easy sell.
Hedonism is always "fun". The difference between different kinds of hedonistic behavior is when the "cost" of pursuing the fun comes due. For alcohol, for example, the "fun" of being drunk, for most people, comes due the next morning and they fairly quickly learn that behaving hedonistically with respect to alcohol is a bad idea. For a smaller number, however, the "cost" is delayed, and they can tend to become alcoholic.
ReplyDeleteWith sex, it *used* to be that for women the "cost" of behaving hedonistically was acute and relatively quickly paid in terms of pregnancy without ubiquitous abortion. Now, of course, that is all different, and the cost of such hedonistic pursuit of sex by women has been deferred in a way similar to the way that a cost of over-drinking gets deferred by the super-natural "tolerance" of the alcoholic. Many women are therefore behaving with respect to sex as alcoholics behave with respect to alcohol -- pursuing it with hedonistic gusto for quite some time until the long-term costs of the behavior catch up to them in large ways.
You're probably right, Jesse, in that the jig is largely up on this due to the technology at hand and the permissive legal environment regarding the same. However, this does not mean that the trend is not incredibly negative -- it's like we have most of a generation of women who are literally drunk on casual sex.
Yes, Old Hat, you can say that this impacts men, too, and it certainly does so, but to a much different degree. Simply put: average man has much lower access to casual sex than does average woman. The casual sex-go-round is populated by probably around 50%-60% of the women and only 20% or so of the men. The rest of the guys are off getting drunk or playing X-Box, because the ladies who are "putting out" are certainly not putting it out for them. A girl has her standards, after all, even a promiscuous one.
So what do we do? Cut out the sex is fun stuff and say no its only fun within marriage? Or say no its not supposed to be fun at all its only for childbirth.
ReplyDeleteThat's actually a very good point.
I think it's dangerous to tell people that sex is always "more fun" or "more rewarding" within marriage, because it isn't necessarily true. It can be really fun fornicating while drunk as a skunk. It feels good, even if it isn't good.
Sometimes married sex isn't very good. For some couples, a lot of married sex isn't very good. Or they aren't having sex at all.
But a lot of the "abstinence" types aren't willing to admit that, so I think some young couples go into marriage thinking it's going to be like on their honeymoon forever. Inflated expectations can be dangerous, and when things go sour, they assume that they've done something wrong (rather than understanding that it's just part of the normal cycle), and that there is something seriously wrong with their marriage.
I think it helps when people get real, straight-talking advice on marriage and sex. Most people my age seem to be quite clueless about the banal realities of marriage, and how to smooth over the rough spots to keep things going. You have the hedonists and the purists, but not much advice for regular, highly-flawed people. And what advice there is, is often counter-productive.
Even saying "they should be virgins" doesn't change the fact that the marriage market right now is populated by people of both sexes who have already made a lot of mistakes and have a damaged relationship to sexuality, intimacy, and the opposite sex. If we want people who are currently of marrying age to eventually marry, we have to show them a realistic path, and give them real tools for doing so. I tried to do that with my blog, and got lots of emails from people who said that it really helped them. I'm hoping the website will meet a similar need. But its very small.
What we need is for the Church to have serious pre-marital classes for people who aren't yet engaged. Sort of like premarital classes for singles, to get them in the right mindset from the very start, to help them understand what to look for in a potential spouse, and to give them a practical view of marriage.
That's the key: selling marriage as a practical good, that has a value all it's own. Completely separate from the "sex and love" that seems to take first place right now. Teaching people that marriage is valuable even if the sex isn't very good and no one is feeling-the-love. Right now, love+sex is the reason people marry, so when they fail, the marriages get dumped.
However, this does not mean that the trend is not incredibly negative -- it's like we have most of a generation of women who are literally drunk on casual sex.
Alcohol is a good analogy.
It's a very hard habit to break. You have to change the very way you think and react. For many young women, you have to learn to take control of your emotions in a way that has never before been demanded of you. Self-control isn't something that our society has lately prized in its women, rather we're taught to "let it all hang out" and "do what feels right". It's very hard to change that, to swallow one's pride, to hold one's tongue, to ignore one's feelings in favor of productive action, to learn to empathize with others, to abandon self-pity and rationalizations, and to be future-oriented. It's the complete opposite of how we are raised.
Alte (and Jesse), you make a very good point about the sex-marriage connection. I have seen a lot of Catholics jump on the "theology of the body" bandwagon, basically pushing the line that Catholics can have great sex - better sex than everyone else, even! - within the confines of marriage... which just buys into the secular obsession with sex. It creates unrealistic expectations, and it also skews the way people view marriage.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the problem remains, as you say, that we have a lot of people who have made mistakes. I think the chaste attitude is more important than the technicalities of whether someone is a virgin when they marry. We don't live in a society where there are safeguards against sin, the protection of fathers and brothers, or the general social disapproval of loose behaviour. Sadly, we have to accept that today's 'good girl' merely doesn't put out on the first date, is selective in and faithful to her partners, and has an outdated notion that she'd like to marry her partner before they move in together. I'm not saying we shouldn't ask for more - quite to the contrary - but this is what we have to work with.
Davout, while I sympathise with your comments I have to disagree with you. You say "After all, the rationale behind the existence of career women is an inherent distrust of reliance on men as providers." We don't live in a society where women have the option to rely on men as providers. Even the most traditional fathers I know expect their daughters to enter the workforce once they finish school. Women have to earn a living while single, and especially because there's a good chance they will never marry of course they must try to do well. It is not a self-inflicted plight. We simply do not have a society that accommodates women who wish to be traditional their entire life (if at all). It also does not accommodate women who are destined to be spinsters but who do not wish to be career women - what else can they do?!
Hi Alte. I am pleased you are OK. I was a bit worried something bad had happened to you.
ReplyDeleteI have little time for the Theology of the Body stuff. I have barely touched on it, partly because I distrust the source. I think the late pope had unrealistic ideas about human nature. The Catholic Church, of all institutions, should not be unrealistic about the negative and disappointing side of human nature.
I agree, a lot of marital sex is not that great. But, some is. The confusing thing about sex is that it holds out huge potential, which it sometimes delivers, and sometimes not. It is confusing. Sex is not always great. It can be mundane. But there are experiences I have had with my wife which are highly memorable.
There is a bit of an analogy with alcohol too. I used to drink, but I gave it up about ten years ago. I found that sometimes it was a delightful experience, but increasingly it was not. And all one was left with was a hangover.
My push on virginity is largely motivated by my strong personal preference. I can understand that a man might want to marry an exceptional woman who is not, as it happens, a virgin. But I cannot understand why, ceteris paribus, modern young men don't insist on virgins. I think it is another example of men increasingly accepting second-best in our society. I think it is sad.
Increasingly, I am glad I was born when I was. I feel sorry for young people, especially the men.
David
I found that sometimes it was a delightful experience, but increasingly it was not.
ReplyDeleteThat's what premarital sex is like. That's why you have to keep trading off partners. Chasing infatuation like a drug.
Marital sex works in the opposite way, I think.
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete"I have little time for the Theology of the Body stuff. I have barely touched on it, partly because I distrust the source. I think the late pope had unrealistic ideas about human nature. The Catholic Church, of all institutions, should not be unrealistic about the negative and disappointing side of human nature."
This is absolutely true. All that the so-called Theology of the Body is (when it isn't simply a recapitulation of standard Christian teachings) is a set of variations on the theme: "How to talk dirty and still be Catholic". It's no accident that JP2 was not only the promoter-in-chief of this stuff but, as we are increasingly finding out, the promoter-in-chief of sacerdotal sodomites.
Of course, this "theology" would never have had the following it has acquired in Australia, if the average Australian so-called Catholic wasn't just a debauched pagan slob with a few extra bells-and-smells. How the hell does a male Catholic in this country who takes his faith seriously find a potential wife who hasn't simply bought into the same Sarah Jessica Parker culture that has unhinged Australians in general, and under-30 Australians in particular? I'm 48, a long-time reader of this website, a faithful Catholic, and increasingly doubtful whether I will ever get married at all.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI agree that women who are not sexually experienced can be highly attractive. Its a bit of a complicated thing. I've found the "good girls" to be very impressive largely because I think it shows a great character. Where does this character come from? Again a strong family and social background in substantial part. Many of these women have been in the church.
What we have in society is a lot of immaturity, in people of all ages, and very weak impulse control or indeed impulse understanding. People who are chasing sex all the time might not be very "solid". Their nervous systems can be over indulged, their ability to "soldier on" can be weak and their personalities easily affected by setbacks. This is of course a substantial generalisation but its the sort of person who can't sit still and can't handle frustration that we're talking about.
The idea then that being highly sexed is necessarily "healthy" then I don't think follows. You need a degree of continence I think as a person to have a strong personality.
How to talk dirty and still be Catholic.
ReplyDeleteCatholics have a long history of talking dirty (and being drunk), and I'm infamous for having more than my fair share of potty-mouth (especially when drunk). I actually think that Catholic sexual teachings are too flowery and romantic, and oblivious to the nitty-gritty details that actually make a difference. The Pope's eulogy on the female orgasm is enough to make me want to retch, and was nothing if not counter-productive.
The difference is in the emphasis placed upon sex as the cornerstone of marriage, especially women's sexual fulfillment. The focus used to be on reproduction and sexual agency. Sex was a service a woman provided to her husband, because it led to children that were assumed to belong to the man. But now that sex and children are separated (even, it seems, within the Church), the focus is moving from the man's paternity rights to the woman's right to sexual entertainment. Now it's something men have to offer in order to please their wives and keep them from running off with someone more exciting. A lot of modern "sexuality" is just feminism for the horny.
I'm a big proponent of Game because it's useful, but I think that Game shouldn't be necessary. What is Game but trying to fool women with psychological tricks into believing a man has authority and power that he really doesn't have anymore? Men wouldn't need Game if they actually had the power to begin with. The more power they had, the less Game they would need. Some women are so well-trained or dogmatic that they can even fool themselves, but they struggle constantly to hold onto the illusion.
It's all ridiculous. The whole system goes completely against our natural inclinations and is a perversion of God's order. If we want women to act in a more productive fashion, then we have to change the situation surrounding them so that their behavior can alter accordingly.
We're the ADHD generation, Jesse. That said, I'm the kind of woman you're describing, and even I can manage to keep it together. So the others have absolutely no excuse. If I can do it, anyone can do it. Grace makes the difference.
ReplyDeleteI agree that women who are not sexually experienced can be highly attractive.
Hmmm... I've thought about this quite a bit, and I observe the young women around me at my church. Very pretty, modest, well-behaved girls, but they're often missing that "certain something". On the other hand, I spoke to some of the older girls at our homeschool co-op and they had that "certain something". They glowed somehow, from the inside, and their personalities are infectious and attractive.
I think the problem that many chaste unmarried women have is that they don't seem very sensual. Sex has become a very important component of marriage, and many men are frightened of marrying someone frigid. I think it's possible to be sensual without having sex, or even having physical contact. Sensuality doesn't necessarily denote "sexiness", either, but rather a passionate nature.
That's one of those feminine wiles that seems to have been dropped. Now there's sexy or dull, but little in-between. And a lot of good, chaste women seem dull, I'm afraid. Their eyes are dead, their mimic is flat, their smile is bland, their body language is cool. There's no warmth expressed, even if they are really valuable wife-material underneath. Women don't seem to know how to be feminine, anymore. They don't know how to be attractive without being slutty. The promiscuous women aren't very feminine either, they just get more attention because they're so aggressive and easy.
I've often thought, perhaps charm school should make a comeback. The feminists made fun of teaching such things as making interesting conversation, table manners, or even mild flirting. But there was a reason it was taught: it worked.
Old hat,
ReplyDeleteWe don't live in a society where women have the option to rely on men as providers.
.....but women wont have this option until we remove the primary causal agent of low male incomes which is excessive presence of women in the workforce. The primary causal agent, in turn, of this presence is affirmative action. The restoration of a traditional society thus relies on the elimination of affirmative action (theft). In poll after poll, women are the biggest proponents of theft, so long as they benefit, which logically implies not only that women want fewer men working but that women are most willing to impose burdens through the auxiliary arm of the government upon men. As a result, men now have to work harder to support a family on a single income and a number of men who would rather be working are now housebound.
Robbers do not go to a rehab center to get weaned off theft. They go to jail because everyone is expected to know that theft is intrinsically immoral. The implication therefore is that women are either not moral and/or guilty of theft. If they are not moral or transiently moral, then they cannot be thought of as adults in the sense that men are. If they are moral, they should at the very least voluntarily stop profiting from affirmative action schemes or make a concerted effort to overturn the relevant legislation.
"I think the problem that many chaste unmarried women have is that they don't seem very sensual"
ReplyDeleteExactly.
I know a few chaste girls at church, and well, despite being relatively attractive they're definitely lacking something.
Funny thing is, when one of them married recently she underwent a transformation is now definitely sassy, go figure.
My wife was a virgin when I married her. A critic might qualify that by saying that she was a "technical" virgin. I had a pretty good idea that she was not frigid! I don't think too many women are really "frigid". It depends on the man.
ReplyDeleteThe ideal seems to me to marry a girl who is just about to turn into a hot little tamale; and make her your hot little tamale. People marry too late, perhaps.
I agree with Alte when she implies that the problem was really that John Paul II wrote about sex and women in a stupidly romantic way. As I have said in relation to his lousy teaching on marriage and authority (which came close to being heretical in my view, only just avoiding it), he clearly had no clue about what marriage and women are really like.
The word on JPII's poor teaching on these matters is getting out. Thinking Housewife had a couple of pieces on it recently.
BTW, Alte, did you notice that "Full of Grace ..." got into a lot of trouble with feminists for a recent post ("Dog Whisperer")?
Your remarks about couples faking it (male authority)are interesting, Alte. I don't think my wife is faking it when she asks my permission for stuff (just in the last 24 hrs, "Can the dog come in the car?", "Can I buy that coat?"). It just seems instinctive in her. Weak on the theory, good on the practice ...
I get the strong impression though that the cultural and legal climate are a lot better for men in this country than in America.
David
Davout, I agree with you entirely that things like affirmative action need to be stopped, but I also know that certain key men are significant proponents of such policies. In fact, I probably know more male feminists than female ones, and I attribute this to the fact that they don't feel they have the right to comment on so-called women's issues. This is wrong, but until men start speaking up on these issues, the wrong women will dominate. Please don't tar all women with the same brush.
ReplyDelete...
"I think the problem that many chaste unmarried women have is that they don't seem very sensual."
Yes, they often seem insipid, but I think this is mostly cultural. American and European chaste women do not suffer from this, and I've personally had more problems with men finding me too worldly (which I put down to Australian men not being able to handle my European upbringing). Australian women seem scared to be vivacious and encouraging in case it's taken the wrong way, and I often have toyed with the idea of running a finishing school but always conclude there is insufficient demand (even if there is an abundant need). That said, Australian men could also do with some lessons in how to show interest without being crude or seeming obsessive.
I think it also needs to be said that the majority of women who are chaste nowadays are somewhat passive or lacking in passion by nature. We don't see much of the passionate woman because most of them lack self-control and don't remain chaste in today's society. In a more moral society, I think we would see many more passionate and sensual women who have reined in their carnal inclinations and who are better people for it - likewise, with the men too, I believe! - and it is this lack of general morality and pervasive indulgence of whims that has led to a majority of people who have no self-discipline and cannot distinguish between right and wrong, let alone lust and passion.
old hat, it seems you are a female. I assumed you were a man.
ReplyDeleteI agree that women will accept affirmative action, but that it was partly a creation of male politicians pandering to the female (especially feminist) vote. It is not as big in Australia as in America though. I think Australians are not as obsessed with success as Americans, and there is more of a safety net in terms of welfare. Also American women (rather cynically) used the plight of American Blacks to push their own claims for "affirmative action".
Australian women don't seem too bad to me, and I don't find them insipid. I know lots of young women who are really sweet and charming. At their best, Australian girls can be "good mates" in every sense, and don't seem to have that resentment of men that comes across in the women of other nations.
I am not "in the market" now, but if I were a young bloke, I think I could find quite a few girls who would be fine for me.
David
"old hat, it seems you are a female. I assumed you were a man."
ReplyDeleteDavid, I'll take that as a compliment. ;-)
I'm glad you don't find Australian women insipid and that you see attractive women around you - that bodes well for the future. The traditional young women I know tend to be either insipid or arrogant. The insipid ones are so virginal that I fear they will put their husbands off by wanting to pray the Rosary immediately before sex and insist on turning off the lights... while the arrogant ones think they are so special (because they are good girls) that they can be rather rude and ungracious in the way they turn down a man's advances. They think they can do no wrong and have little thought for men's feelings.
As for affirmative action, I abhor it having seen the worst excesses while living in the States. However, I do think American women are more appreciative of and complimentary to men. The worst cases of resenting and demeaning men I have seen have been here in Australia....
Here's my thoughts on the sex thing... (I'm a virgin *wink wink*)
ReplyDelete- All the married men I know only had one previous partner not including their wives...while their wives had on average 3. I believe this goes back to the 'not being frigid' comment. (Even sexy actors like Chris Reeves only had one other partner)
- I feel like sex can smooth out a lot of rough spots in a relationship...unfortunately they always come back :) and when your married and the sex starts to fade at times....they come back with a vengeance---and can lead to divorce. Therefore, you should not have sex with someone until you truly truly have a deep understanding of the person. I think 6 months pretty much will tell the deal if you have lots of meaningful discussions.
- If you look at sex as a recreational activity then well....hmm....that's so impersonal isn't it? You could have sex with anyone then! I just feel like this attitude will lead to many relationship and emotional problems. It's kinda belittling to a woman as well...it means she's just a vessel to be emptied into. That's a pleasant thought that's going to lead to TONS of sex in the marriage guaranteed :)
- The Frigidity Comment is very valid....I think it's part of my problem :) But alas and alark....I'm not going to lie and change my personality to find a man, cuz in the long run it will lead to a divorce. If I end up single so be it. Marc can put up pictures of me as a warning to other girls to find a man in college.
- Back to the sex as recreation....What happens if your wife gets diagnosed with cancer and during Chemo cannot have sex? Do you turn into a politician and leave her for a younger woman or sleep with someone behind her back? My friend's father is an amazing man for going through the whole thing with his wife, I think her being sick has deepened their relationship so much. But my grandfather may have cheated on his wife while she had Chemo...and to this day my mom has Soooo Many Trust Issues. Serious Issues that have affected her marriage. Anyways...just something to think about......
Well, old hat. An "old hat" just sounds masculine.
ReplyDeleteI move in traditional circles a bit, among conservative and traditional Catholics. And I see women at my public service job of all ages.
I haven't met too many really traditional girls. Not in this town. There are a few young women whom the modern world has apparently left untouched. But I would be nervous of such women. You never know what odd beliefs they might hold. I think a girl should be "in the world but not of the world". Other-worldly women do make one nervous. One does meet the occasional young woman who seems to come from a different century.
I am bringing up my daughter to be chaste, but not ignorant. I want her to know about the real world.
Also, a lot of Trad girls, "virgin up". I would not put too many bets on the status of even the sweetest, most demure-looking, veil-wearing little Miss.
When I was in the market, I was looking for a girl who liked me and wanted me, but who was a virgin. I got lucky. My wife is not a prude, but she didn't want to upset her mother and she had behaved herself. But I could easily tell that she was not frigid. Other women, I was not so sure about. But a man can usually tell. We are not clueless.
I wasn't being a hypocrite about virginity. I am pretty introverted and I had passed up most of my sexual opportunities out of caution and morality.
All I noticed about American women was that they put a huge effort into looking good. Much more than Australian girls.
I have had a few young women working for me in the last few years. I feel sorry that so many of them are "living with" men, but that aside, they seem like nice, sensible feminine girls to me. Although one of my favourites, a sweet kid in many ways, took up with a married man. Naughty girl.
David
You know the sex as fun, sex as recreation is actually the true form of male chauvinism isn't it?
ReplyDeleteSubtext being "Your not exactly what I want, I don't really know if I love you or want to commit to you....but your Good Enough to get my rocks of with for the next few months...thanks sweetie"
So it shows a lack of love, a lack of intimacy, a lack of loyalty, a lack of honor...it's just pure emptiness. (or empty-ing)
And the excuse is...well...as the sex and *cough* relationship progresses maybe we'll fall in love. That is a lame ass excuse.
Furthermore, if you actually do end up with a woman who has the same viewpoint of sex as you the 'recreation' could lead to lots of *fun* little scenarios....Swinger Parties, orgies...etc etc
I mean really...if you have no deep emotional attachment to the person your sleeping with....Then you're just a Beast...A Dog....that's not even a representation of humanity.
Sex is not a relationship, sex is the seal on top of the relationship.
The problem is the sex 'haze' that you feel towards a girl is your definition of love. So therefore you have no actual definition of what true love (like the guy who sticks with his chemo wife) is.
Romantic Sex Haze is not love.
David (Anonymous) wrote the following: "All I noticed about American women was that they put a huge effort into looking good. Much more than Australian girls."
ReplyDeleteThis wouldn't surprise me, since I see a similar phenomenon occurring not only as far as American girls are concerned, but as far as girls from Western Continental Europe (I don't mean England, where the lager-lout syndrome seems even more common among females than among males) and the Middle East go.
An Egyptian lady, Coptic Christian, whom I know (she'd be in her 70s now, I think, but is still astonishingly good-looking as well as extremely dignified) once marvelled to me: "Why do Australian women AGE so fast? Why don't they ever put any effort into preserving their appearance? They spend all their time at the beach, and by the time they're 40 they look like great-grandmothers." (Those weren't her exact words, but that's a precis of what she said.)
I responded that I'd noticed the same thing independently, even in my childhood. And my childhood was in pre-feminazi days, so we can't blame the phenomenon on lesbian agitprop at universities. Again and again I would observe: Italian and Greek women of 50 looked about 30 (without Botox, let alone plastic surgery); Australian women of 30 looked about 80.
If you speak a major European language, and if you attend a conversation class run by an outfit promoting such a language (Alliance Francaise for French, Goethe Institute for German, Dante Alighieri Society for Italian, etc.), you'll notice that the average Australian woman and the average European-born woman seem to belong to two different species, indeed to two different phyla. The latter can be - by judicious use of her vocal tones and body language - very determined and firm without crossing the line into outright boorishness. The former, 99% of the time, simply can't.
""She made her bed, let her lie in it, increasingly with cats rather than men.""
ReplyDeleteDamn fine comment that.
I have no sympathy for women who use up all their sexual power in their 20's chasing un-gettable alphas and then "settle" for someone they would have sneered at just a few years before because he has a stable job [i.e not musician].
I found a good girl last year, young, pretty, 19 [I am 24] and thankfully she has seen fewer pricks than a dartboard [unlike some of her competitors].
Carrie from sex and the city is dead, thank God.
Serious advice for a young man, look around in your mid twenties until you find a younger woman willing to settle down, if you can't find any get down to the gym, young girls like the muscles.
Don't waste time on the amateur whores, they didn't deserve my time, they don't deserve yours either.
If you can't find a younger girl willing to settle down then become a born again Christian, if you do it young enough you can grab one of a number of highly attractive girls who have certainly not been the town bike.
My cousin converted for just such a reason and believe me, he is happy. Doesn't believe a word of the happy clappy stuff but he has a beautiful wife and a strong community around him.
If you ask him if it was worth it, he wouldn't need more than a second.
According to "former AFC":
ReplyDelete"Carrie from sex and the city is dead, thank God."
If that statement is true, then it's the best news I've had all week. And this has been a pretty good week, given that it also brought the tidings of near-ubiquitous Bronx cheers for Archbishop Denis Hart's oleaginously inadequate motu proprio on dung-punching padres.
Alte, Old Hat,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you raised the subject of some of the more chaste girls not projecting enough feminine charm.
When I look back at my 20s I do sometimes wonder if I didn't give some of the quiet girls enough of a chance.
But I often did try to interact with them but found them very "flat" - they didn't seem to know how to flirt, or how to express feminine personality.
I don't think I did everything right myself either. But I was a lot more spirited than they were.
Would these girls have been like this in the past? How would they have partnered?
Anyway, as much as I'm going to encourage my daughter to be family oriented, I'm also going to do what I can to encourage her feminine expressiveness.
"Full of Grace ..." got into a lot of trouble with feminists for a recent post ("Dog Whisperer")?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I emailed her to congratulate her on a great post. Wish I'd thought of it first. She's a great girl. I need to get my site up and running to take some of the heat off of her. The more of us write, the better.
I think it also needs to be said that the majority of women who are chaste nowadays are somewhat passive or lacking in passion by nature.
Yeah, the passionate ones get quite hounded by male attention. Often by older, more experienced men. It's hard to deal with, especially when you're still quite young and easily led.
It's kinda belittling to a woman as well...it means she's just a vessel to be emptied into. That's a pleasant thought that's going to lead to TONS of sex in the marriage guaranteed
He, he. You need to learn about Game.
Would these girls have been like this in the past? How would they have partnered?
ReplyDeleteThey probably would have ended up spinsters. There used to be quite a few of those.
On the other hand, there are women who are more reserved and there are women who are more outgoing. But the lack of basic feminine behavior is a newer thing, I think. They seem very androgynous to me. Their behavior doesn't mark them as female, in the way that it should. Since heterosexual men are attracted to the opposite sex, a young woman should be setting herself apart, in order to be identified as such.
Just last Sunday I was observing a young woman and young man talking (I know, I'm such a busy-body). He showed initial interest in her, and was saying something passionately and looking very intense. She also seemed interested, but she just looked blankly at him and nodded a bit. He got bored and wandered off. I was tempted to run over and give her a good shake, "Look alive, Girl! That one was so cute!"
I thought, if I could just put a little earpiece in her ear and whisper directions, she would be set for a date now. "Okay, you see he's getting excited talking his boring guy-stuff? Smile slowly and warmly, tilt your head slightly to the right, blink hard once, and then nod a few times. Now let the smile slowly fade while you continue to ocassionally nod ever-so slightly. Drop your eyes to the floor to the right of his feet. You're listening intently because he's very intense now, so you know it's important to him. Wait a minute... wait a minute... there! Look at him and giggle; he's being funny. You can tell because his eyes lit up, he has a slight smirk on his face, and he's waiting expectantly for your response." And so on.
I could make a fortune! I can tell what to do from 20 feet away, so why can't they tell when they're right in front of him? *sigh* Their mothers should be teaching them this stuff, and modeling it for them. But they're so focused on keeping their daughters virginal that they forget that chastity includes married sex. The focus needs to come off of virginity and abstinence, and move toward chastity.
When I look back at my 20s I do sometimes wonder if I didn't give some of the quiet girls enough of a chance.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it's not really about them being "quiet". I know a few quiet women who are very charming. It's about them being withdrawn, and sort of blank. It's off-putting, and gives them a hard or cold face. Men are attracted to a warm and inviting face. Men want to feel wanted and appreciated, but those are active signals that a woman has to deliberately send. It's like she's trying to use her mimic and body-language to say, "Hey, I like you!"
If she doesn't do that (called IOI, or "indicators of interest"), he'll assume there's nothing there for him, and move on to greener pastures. I see it all the time.
It's about them being withdrawn, and sort of blank.
ReplyDeleteBingo. That's exactly what it was like. As if there was nothing there to reach toward.
And, yes, a woman can be warmly quiet and therefore attractive.
If she doesn't do that (called IOI, or "indicators of interest"), he'll assume there's nothing there for him, and move on to greener pastures.
Well, that was me. I wasn't the kind of guy who would try to conquer coldness.
The first time I met my future wife she laughed at my jokes, smiled a lot and twirled her hair occasionally.
It gave me enough to go with.
I think bland stoicism is really a very masculine trait, I blew off several chaste girls because they just didn't do it for me.
ReplyDeleteThinking about what it would be like living with these girls still gives me shudders.
>>Women generally do better at work involving a variety of tasks, while men do better at more concentrated work.
ReplyDeleteInteresting opinion. I retired after 31 years in an electronic factory. Most assembly operators were women, because they perform better at dull, boring, repetitive, mindless jobs, which accurately describes assembly work.
Anonymous age 68
old hat,
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, I am not tarring all women with the same brush. When I use the term 'women', I imply 'the majority of women', not 'all women'.
I agree that many men are feminists. In my experience, these men have come, in descending order of frequency, in three forms: cowards, profiteers and true believers.
I do not believe these men, by and large, would have moved feminist legislation if it were not for the female dominated rallies and demonstrations of yesteryear that agitated for feminist objectives.
While this does not excuse those men for caving in, it does establish the cause and effect of how the legislation came to be.
YOu know what this is all b.s.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, Australian women look old because you guys have no Ozone Layer and don't wear sunscreen. Nicole Kidman? It's called the skincare! They didn't have La Roche Posay Sunscreen before the 1990s. So please keep insulting Nordic woman's skin, it just makes you look ignorant. Dark skin types don't sunburn as easily.
This thread is only making me realize that men basically suck.
Let me break a secret....any woman can become frigid...even the sexual ones. If the relationship itself is shit...even if you are dating Dita Von Teese she will break it up.
If your rejecting a girl because she seems frigid it simply means your not sexually attracted to her. The end. It's not because she is chaste.
I'm done here seriously. Go debate about sex all day long. It doesn't matter....when your with the right person things will work out.
Look at Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green...they just got married....and Megan Fox has only slept with one other guy other than Brian Austin Green. That's it.....Megan Fox the sex bomb has less partners than most of my girlfriends.....and frankly I think she's going to have a WAY better marriage than most of my gf's also.
That was a very passionate response to arguments nobody was making.
ReplyDeleteTheRedRadish:
ReplyDeleteIt's kinda belittling to a woman as well...it means she's just a vessel to be emptied into. That's a pleasant thought that's going to lead to TONS of sex in the marriage guaranteed
Alte:
He, he. You need to learn about Game.
David:
Yes. Maybe it is just my wife, but I have never found that being "offensive" turns her off. Quite the reverse.
To RJ Stove, thanks for turning me on to Bruckner. I actually bought a record of his music at the Salvo's yesterday, and I will give him a go. I am not big on symphonic works, but we shall see. And does an Archbishop issue a Motu Proprio? I gave up reading anything the Australian bishops wrote years ago. They are, with one or two exceptions, hopelessly wet and silly.
Anonymous (who's annoyed),
ReplyDeleteI think you're arguing something different - that women won't be as responsive if the relationship goes bad.
Alte and I were trying to make a different point. That some of the young women who aren't promiscuous nonetheless fail to be attractive to more traditional men because they don't project enough feminine warmth and personality and so appear bland and fail to engage a man's interest - even those men who are looking for more than a casual relationship.
I agreed with Alte on this point because it fits my own experience.
I'm not sure, but I'd like to think that in a different culture such women might learn to project themselves more warmly.
It's perhaps a little bit like the way some men have grown up in a feminist culture in which men are constantly portrayed as abusers and oppressors of women.
So there are men who from early on in their lives condition themselves to not give offense to women. But being inoffensive just doesn't cut it when it comes to the dating scene - women want men who are self-confidently masculine.
I imagine that there are some men, too, who then appear overly insipid to women.
Maybe all of this is beside the point of a larger fight?
ReplyDeleteRobert Wright, one of the left's more interesting thinkers, is now flogging (again) his somewhat old idea of a "global brain" emerging from the internet. See: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/the-web-we-weave/
This dates from Wright's speculations in his highly speculative book "Zero Sum", but it is relevant as well to this discussion in terms of the limitations that view implies regarding human free will. If Wright's dystopia ( to me ... a Utopia for him) of a unified human brain consciousness happens on the basis that people like Wright want it to -- arising from the depths of the internet, populist, secularist, placing religion in a box (and punishing it severely for ever leaving that box), and creating global expectations for behavior based on secular norms, we have bigger problems than women dropping out.
I personally think Wright is just another secularist clutching at straws, because he knows the main problem his secularism has wrought -- chaos in morals, and social dissolution and alienation running rampant. In that sense he is correct that unless that is stemmed, bad things will happen. Yet, we must NOT let that be stemmed by the appeal to some kind of mumbo-jumbo "global brain" appearing as the collective of thoughts on the internet. That's a recipe for a mobocracy governed by secular elites. It's a disaster scenario really, for us.
Sorry for a somewhat OT post, but I do think it places some of the things discussed here, and in this post specifically, in perspective.
I hate to break the consensus here but sex is fun.
ReplyDeleteA banal statement of the obvious if there ever was one. Guess what - sex has always been fun! But women didn't always whore around.
This is not a great insight to a man but it seems for a woman to do it its "riding cocks" and "whoring around" etc.
Once again Jesse demonstrates that although he may imagine he is a conservative, he has uncritically swallowed the liberal worldview hook line and sinker. Men and women are not the same, chief. (This is a "no duh!" statement to anyone who is not a liberal.) Therefore the emotional, psychological and social effects of sexual promiscuity are different for men and women. A promiscuous woman damages herself emotionally and psychologically, and lowers her social status (sexual market value). A man does not. All the liberal efforts to pretend this is not true have failed utterly in the face of biological reality, and society continues to suffer the catastrophic effects of crazy liberal ideology on this front as on so many others.
I don't really agree that male promiscuity is not detrimental to men in terms of their own sexuality and how we are wired up that way. It's equally immoral for men as well, and I am therefore no promoter of male promiscuity. It just pours gasoline onto the fire, really.
ReplyDeleteI'll agree that the market value of a man does not get downgraded as much as it does for women as a result of promiscuity. That *social* difference is easily explainable by the fact that only men can be cuckolded -- a woman can't be forced to raise the child of another woman without her knowledge and consent, whereas a man can very much be forced to raise the child of another man without his knowledge and consent if his wife and her lover are clever enough to conceal it from him effectively. That is the primal and social basis for the double standard, and the reason why it is so sturdy in many ways. A promiscuous woman presents risks to her potential mate that a promiscuous man does not to his. Sure, his resources can go trotting off to a mistress and so on, but that is nothing at all like being duped into raising another man's child without your knowledge and consent.
"Old hat, I'm curious. If you and your friends really did want to find a strong man to marry in your 20s weren't you alarmed by the behaviour of other women? Weren't you worried that such behaviour might demoralise the men you wanted to form settled relationships with?"
ReplyDeleteSorry, Mark, I've only just seen this comment - until now, I've been getting approx. half of the comments showing up.
The answer is that we were more worried that the men we liked seemed to prefer the sexually-liberated woman and that none of them had any intention of settling down for at least a decade. With hindsight, places like Monash Uni (in the Arts/Law area) probably weren't ideal locations to meet the right sort of man, and the only real solution would have been for us to meet older men... but I honestly don't know how.
I truly feel that the behaviour of other women demoralised us more than the men we hankered after. The men had no intention of settling anyway and (like it or not) most STRONG men tend to sow their wild oats, if somewhat more discreetly than others. We certainly found other women's behaviour distasteful, but we accepted it as the way things were.
As for your memories of Melbourne Uni: "they acted against the romantic ideal (in which men think of women as being beautiful and good) by drinking way too much, sleeping around, swearing and dressing mannishly." ... I don't doubt that that was your experience, but I distinctly recall a small but significant number of us ladies who dressed well, always wore make-up, didn't sleep around, and drank but not to excess (and never beer). Those of us who have married after all pretty much all found husbands either through church/Christian groups or ethnic connections.
Old hat,
ReplyDeleteYes, blogger seems to have returned the comments that mysteriously disappeared.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. It's interesting to get another perspective.
I distinctly recall a small but significant number of us ladies who dressed well, always wore make-up, didn't sleep around, and drank but not to excess (and never beer).
I only remember one woman like that. She had her heart set on marrying a lawyer. I can remember admiring her at the time for going against the stream.
Maybe I was unlucky. Some of the women I met in my classes used to boast to everyone of how drunk they had got the night before and of how many men they'd slept with.
One woman flung herself at me in a drunken state at a uni camp and when I refused she became very angry, had even more to drink and had to be rushed off to hospital with alcohol poisoning.
And the general atmosphere between the sexes was cold and distant. I remember walking through the lawns in front of the Baillieu Library one sunny day with a mature age student in her 50s.
When I had first been to uni in the mid-80s you would have seen groups of men and women talking to each other, some boyfriends and girlfriends relaxing together and showing signs of affection.
But on this day there was none of that. The mature age student I was with was the first to express surprise at the situation, but I had been thinking the same thing.
In retrospect, I should have given up on uni as a meeting place more quickly. It's just that arts girls had previously always been my natural constituency - it wasn't easy for me to make a break.
"And the general atmosphere between the sexes was cold and distant."
ReplyDeleteThis really shocks me, Mark, because at Monash in the early to mid-nineties there was plenty of open affection - though anything too excessive was mocked! - and there were a fair number of couples among my acquaintances. We spent a good deal of time lolling on the lawns together - too much time, perhaps - and I suspect we all spent rather more effort on the opposite sex than we did on our studies. One of my more eligible friends had a following of desirable women that we called his "harem" - women would come up to me and ask to be introduced! - and even the women who were less chaste were fairly discreet. The men would boast about conquests, but never the women.
We mocked the butch feminazis with their "womyn's room" and although the women knew they could hold their own with the men academically I never saw any obvious distinctions made along those lines. The only thing I can think of that all of us had in common was that we'd been to single sex schools - I don't know if that had an influence....
To Anonymous 10:23:00 AM AEST, thanks for your kind words re my remarks on Bruckner. Like Wagner, Bruckner divides listeners down the middle; either one loves him or one hates him, and there's no third position. I happen to be in the pro-Bruckner (and pro-Wagner) camp. Concerning your other comments, I'm not sure if an Archbishop does issue a moto proprio; I guess I was being sarcastic when I used that phrase, given that Denis Hart's effort got far more media coverage than the real (2007) moto proprio regarding the freeing-up of the traditional Latin Mass.
ReplyDeleteIt's kinda belittling to a woman as well...it means she's just a vessel to be emptied into.
ReplyDeleteMy point with referencing Game in response to this was to point out a few things:
1) It is very difficult to belittle a woman by having sex with her. Women's self-esteemed is often tied-up in their image of themself as desirable and attractive. The surest and simplest way to degrade a woman would be by sexually rejecting her, not by having sex with her (as long as you aren't outright abusive).
2) Sex is something that women assume they give to men in return for something else, even if they enjoy it themselves. Women instinctively feel this way, so telling them that it isn't true (i.e. that their sexual agency does not transport to their husbands on their wedding day, as their part of the covenant, but is rather something he has to beg and trade for on a daily basis) just feeds their arrogance, as they immediately jump to the conclusion that they are getting "something for nothing". This breeds a sense of contempt for their husbands, and further turns them off.
3) Women are turned on by male indifference, not turned off by it. Aloofness is a classic Game technique and it works remarkably well, because it signalizes dominance and sexual confidence. A husband who is too eager to please will find his wife less amorous, while a "slam, bam, thank-you-ma'am" type will often find his wife trailing behind him, begging for more attention.
4) Your call for intimate romance rather than a sexual intercourse or trade, is very common among women. It is what we are taught that we want, from a very young age.
But women's actions, both on a personal and on a collective level, belie this theory, and most men -- and women -- "in the know" no longer buy into it. Women are turned on by dominance, and little else. Which is why "players" and "thugs" or are actually notorious for being callous or indifferent lovers, and women clamour for them, and fight over them, regardless.
That is the primal and social basis for the double standard, and the reason why it is so sturdy in many ways.
A lot of people complain about this double-standard, but are indifferent, or even supportive, of double-standards that benefit women. For instance, that male-on-female violence is judged and punished more harshly than female-on-male violence.
That is the case even if the incident ends in hospitalization or death. Just as a woman's chastity is valued more highly than a man's, a woman's life and well-being is also valued more highly than a man's. The two things are connected, of course. In both instances, the emphasis of a woman's value is on her body. A woman has social value simply by being, whereas a man's social value is tied up in his actions and accomplishments. In other words, a woman's value is high from the start, and her goal is to protect and maintain that. A man's value is low from the start, and he has to prove his worth.
If Wright's dystopia ( to me ... a Utopia for him) of a unified human brain consciousness happens on the basis that people like Wright want it to -- arising from the depths of the internet, populist, secularist, placing religion in a box (and punishing it severely for ever leaving that box), and creating global expectations for behavior based on secular norms, we have bigger problems than women dropping out.
Which is why the Pope called for an increase in Catholic thought on the Internet. It is important that we don't allow Christianity to be sidelined into a "religion box", but show that it is influential and central to all topics and debates.
I got/get a lot of flack for bringing religion into debates about Game, for instance, but religion is applicable to all things. It is essential that we continue to point this out, and not allow others to secularize everything.
Most assembly operators were women, because they perform better at dull, boring, repetitive, mindless jobs, which accurately describes assembly work.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant by "Women generally do better at work involving a variety of tasks, while men do better at more concentrated work.", is that housework (which is very repetitive and often mindless -- something that I like, as it gives me an opportunity to think deep thoughts, listen to the radio, and talk with others while I work) is better suited to women because of their multi-tasking abilities. Low-level assembly line work may be better suited to women than to men (although higher-level assembly line work is dominated by men, it should be said), but it isn't really suited to anyone.
Men, on the other hand, seem to be very good at working in a more project-oriented fashion. Taking one large task (such as building a bridge, preparing a field for planting, developing a software program, or planning a military strategy) and just working away at it for 8+ hours a day, 5+ days per week.
I have an unusually long and focused attention span for a woman (and an IQ score in a range dominated by men), but even I have to bow out in deference to my husband's ability to concentrate on a single task to the exclusion of all others. Even when the task is incredibly dry, such as his current one of reading a 2000-page computer science manual. He works all day, then he comes home, sits down, opens it up and begins actively reading. Often for 3 or 4 hours at a time, without moving other than to jot down some notes or test something out on his laptop.
I could never do that, and I'm a software engineer! It is not merely that it is one continuous task, but that it is one that is so difficult, advanced, and that requires so much constant intellectual power. I used to program professionally, but this manual is so advanced that I can't even understand the introductory chapter (I checked, out of curiousity). I have known many female engineers, but I have never seen a woman work in such a fashion. I know plenty of men capable of the feat, though, who would find my husband's behavior completely unremarkable. Just as I know many women who would find my sometimes whirlwind-days at home completely unremarkable, even though my husband is bewildered trying to keep up.
In other words, I believe that there is a fundamental difference in the way that women and men think and work, and that that difference makes us more or less suitabelt to certain roles and jobs. Of course, we can always find someone, somewhere who is atypical, but the general pattern is clear.
Mark, this blog is rather buggy. I regularly receive Google error messages while posting.
ReplyDeleteAlte,
ReplyDeleteYes, blogger is misbehaving.
BTW, your point number 2 is very interesting.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteWomen instinctively know that marriage is a contractual trade-off. That is why many women ask, "Why should I marry him?" They are asking, "What do I get in return for my exclusive sexual services? For wearing my body out with baby-making?"
To get back to the OT, women don't marry at a young age because they think the trade-off is too high. There is currently no significant penalty for putting off the trade into their 30s. It is only when they are interested in children, or are finding it increasingly difficult to attract men of the caliber they prefer, that they turn to the marriage contract.
We Catholics add a sacramental aspect to it (by involving God, to create a covenant), but that doesn't negate the presence of the contract. It merely reinforces it, and increases the punishments associated for breaking it. Any man who enters marriage without the expectation of sex and paternity on demand, already starts off on the wrong foot with his wife (she'll think him a fool to settle for so little), and will have to struggle to be taken at all seriously.
Women will often "test" men, to see how far they can go in breaking this contract. If the man goes along, the woman will be temporarily pleased at her dominance, but will eventually find her husband increasingly unnattractive. It's hard to be attracted to a man who acts as if he were your underling, rather than your leader.
First, they try simple neglect of their duties. Instead of being pro-active with and enthusiastic about sex, they become passive. Waiting for him to ask, showing reluctance, dressing unattractively, gaining weight and neglecting their appearance, etc.
Then they try reducing their portion of the deal, by occasionally refusing. They're too tired, they have a headache, they're not in the mood. The fact that none of these things preclude the ability to have sex are ignored. Or they make sexual demands, and refuse to participate unless they are fulfilled.
Then they try re-negotiating the contract. They demand presents, "romance", or that housework must be completed first. If there is an argument, they send their husband to sleep on the couch, or in the guest room, to emphasize his subservience and further denigrate him. It is, after all, the "Master Bedroom", so the person who sleeps there is the Master.
But women are ignorant of their own sexuality. Once they've convinced men to go along with all of this, they think, "I'm so miserable. I need a real man. Someone I can look up to. I just don't love him anymore." Then they leave the marriage, sometimes through divorce, adultery, or abandonment, sometimes by withdrawing their affections and behaving in a cool or distant manner.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251873/What-women-want-2010-A-husband-wholl-main-breadwinner.html
ReplyDeleteAlte,
ReplyDeleteAgain, your last comment is very good.
A problem from the male point of view is that men are constantly berated by feminists for being molesters and rapists and so on.
It's then possible for men to think "Well, I'll be one of the good ones and not impose myself on my wife" - thinking that this will win himself kudos.
But I think you're right when you write:
Women will often "test" men, to see how far they can go in breaking this contract. If the man goes along, the woman will be temporarily pleased at her dominance, but will eventually find her husband increasingly unnattractive.
I just don't think that men are prepared for this. Men don't really think or act this way ourselves and there's nothing in the culture to give men clues about this, so it's not until you've gone through it that you get to have a grasp of it.
I've learnt to change the way I relate to my wife. I don't "ask hopefully" anymore. I lead expecting that she will follow. And so far she has.
Most of what Alte says rings true from a husband's perspective.
ReplyDeleteI have never found that, in the long term, being firm (even hard and cold) hurts my relationship with my wife. Outsiders seem to assume I am a "nice guy" and that my noisy wife must dominate our marriage. I think they would be surprised. I have consistently maintained an attitude of arrogance and superiority, not all of it unstudied, which has served me remarkably well. At least, to the extent that after two decades, my wife is still trying to please me and providing comprehensive wifely services.
Women have learned to talk of "equality", but their hearts and hormones have not learned to agree.
Honestly, the advice husbands get in most places is the exact opposite of what actually works. My general attitude is that my wife is lucky to be my wife, and it is a privilege for her to serve me. This attitude has made for a remarkably successful and durable marriage, despite some real objective challenges.
Of course feminists will scream and howl at such attitudes, but since when have their concerns been for men (or women who want a happy relationship with a man)? They have a vested interest in damaging marriages.
Young men are systematically lied to - there is no other word for it - by society. Being what society tells you to be as a husband will often lead to disaster and humiliation for a man. At best, he will join the ranks of nervous wimpy husbands who joke that their wife "wears the pants".
The problem is that being a successful husband requires a lot more tenacity and courage (moral courage) than most young husbands realise. It is really hard work emotionally. Things like PMT are not a joke; and women are irrational a lot of the time. Husbands have to be firm.
David
A problem from the male point of view is that men are constantly berated by feminists for being molesters and rapists and so on.
ReplyDeleteThat's because they know how much it upsets you, of course. Even more than it upsets women.
They also get off on the thought of men being dangerous, sex-crazed louts. It's their fantasy come to life. The men are panting after them, helpless when confronted by their overwhelming beauty. It's wishful thinking.
It's very effective. All's fair in love and gender war. They also know that men cannabalize each other when rape is brought up. Fathers against sons, brother against brother, friend against friend.
Men also care a lot about justice, so women are quick to call men "oppressive".
Men just need to collectively learn to tell women to be silent and mind their place. I'll go first, to set a feminine example.
Ladies, shut up your harping and make this good man a sandwich.
:-) See? Didn't that feel good?
Mark Richardson:
ReplyDeleteI've learnt to change the way I relate to my wife. I don't "ask hopefully" anymore. I lead expecting that she will follow. And so far she has.
David: Quite right. Don't ask hopefully. Just tell her what you want. And if she doesn't comply, don't worry. Maybe ask again later. And don't be afraid to tell a woman to be quiet. Try it as an experiment. You may be pleasantly surprised.
Hey Alte a lot of what you say is very interesting. The point was made though that women specifically like the indifferent attitude of men. Men also like that. It means that you don't worry that much because you have a lot and don't need that much from the other person. That means the other person see's only benefits from the relationship and not hopeful expectations.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things Laura Grace was writing about (and got a lot of feminist-flak for) was the idea that "alpha males" are basically imitating "alpha females". They take a place in the female hierarchy by pretending to be the head female. Once they do that, all of the women in the hierarchy want to follow them. That's how alpha's end up "scoring" in such high numbers. They don't have to conquer each woman separately, they just have to "score" a top-tier woman, and the rest line up for their turn. That's why there's no point "running game" on a 4. It's a waste of valuable time. It's a better strategy to land an 8 and then take her out and about. Once you've been seen with the 8, the lower-status women are easy pickings. Women have a chronic case of "me too!"
ReplyDelete(I'm not saying such behavior is moral, merely that it is effective.)
They pretend to be the "Queen Bee", so to say, who gets to tell the other women "who's hot and who's not", what to think, what to do, where to go, what to say. She sets the trends, she leads by example, everybody wants to be her best friend, and everybody wants to be her.
That is the inherent cause of much marital conflict, right there: status envy. Envy is the underpinning of the entire feminist movement, which is like a marital conflict writ large. Women wanted what men had (because men were dominant), but now that they have it, they are disappointed to find out that it isn't as great as they thought. Men are more easily satisfied by their place in the social hierarchy (except the feminine-minded alphas). That's why they think that they can give women what they want. What they don't understand is that what women want is more.
The alpha female isn't necesarily indifferent to the feelings of the others, but she doesn't let on, and may even seem cold and uncaring. She pretends not to notice the others, other than to note their following, but she's actually constantly monitoring them, keeping them in line, and watching out for any treachery. She is highly alert and observant. If she emotionally crumbles, shows indecisiveness, or other weakness, the structure falls apart and some other woman rushes to take her place. That's why it's essential that she always keep her cool and maintain strict control, even at the risk of seeming arrogant; the other women are constantly testing her leadership and attempting to usurp her position. Gossiping is women's attempt to figure out where they are in the hiearchy, and weaken their competition with slander.
If someone lower-status gives her a gift (for men: sex) or a compliment, she keeps displays of gratitude polite, but cool. She expects such displays because she is the leader, and that's her reward for leadership. Of course they tell her that she's witty, beautiful, or smart. Stroking her ego is part of their job as underlings. If she especially likes the woman, or is grooming her for second-in-command, then she might return the compliment. Otherwise, it's a simple, "Thank you." The other woman is expected to count herself lucky just to be kept around, and she would be pleasantly surprised by anything more.
This is how women interact with each other (yes, like wolves), and it effects the way that women interact with their husbands; how they think and behave. I'm a very analytical and self-critical woman, but even I don't usually notice when I'm testing my husband until after the fact. Then I feel bad about it, and promise to never do it again. Until the next time, of course. It's instinctive, and the frequency changes over the menstrual cycle. Being fertile makes women anxious about their mate's status, and they act up more often. Testing to see if he's worthy to impregnate them, you see.
ReplyDeleteI think submission is especially hard for women who are used to being the alpha female. They get that position by being pretty, smart, socially adept, and shrewd. Those are good traits for being in a dominant position, but increase the stress of maintaining a subordinate position. Of course, if you do manage to dominate such a woman, she'll be so absolutely astonished that she'll eagerly fall into line behind you. But then you have to live with her, and keep her in line, which isn't always easy.
I understand Game because I'm good at using it myself. It works just as well for women as for men, and -- as Jesse noted -- it works on everyone. Children, men, women, your employer, etc. That is why I'm more critical of women than of men, and tend to respond to men's troubles with empathy and concern, and women's with cool disdain. The men are above me. Women are generally my competitors, and a select few are my equals. The women I consider "equal" become my friends (which is why I don't have many friends, but those I have are all attractive and clever), and the rest are expected to line up behind me and stop sniveling. If one "dances out of line" then she is dealt with harshly, or tossed out completely. There are always more where she came from, you see. Men who treat women in the same manner (as if they were easily replaceable, or generally unimportant), will be intrepreted to be "alpha" automatically.
If you go to a Game site, the alpha females will generally be calmly nodding and agreeing and offering tips. But the rest of the women will be throwing a veritable tantrum, and claiming that it's all a pack of lies, that it's all cruel and unfair, that it should be outlawed, etc. Any man who believes them has just failed a test. Feminism is the test.
Game 101 for today. And now you all owe me one, as I have just added 453 women to the "We hate Alte" campaign. Not that I care. I actually find it quite entertaining. :-)
"The problem is that being a successful husband requires a lot more tenacity and courage (moral courage) than most young husbands realise. It is really hard work emotionally. Things like PMT are not a joke; and women are irrational a lot of the time. Husbands have to be firm."
ReplyDeleteGood point, David! The problem is that many young husbands nowadays have not had good role models and have little idea of how to be firm. When they try, they often lose respect rather than winning it because they can't differentiate between being commanding and being a bully. It also undermines them if they respond in a way that suggests they are bluffing.
Today's generation of men often come from homes where the mother has bled her ex-husband dry, or cuckolded him, or merely worn the pants. How do you teach men from such a background to be "real men", the sort of men that even the most assertive woman would be happy to submit to? I think that's the challenge facing us....
Well, old hat. Where to begin? If a young man thinks that his pretty, giggly young bride sometimes gives him trouble, wait until she is menopausal! Women are very hard work.
ReplyDeleteI am 55 and an Australian, so maybe I was born and grew up in a better time and place than some men today. Although, I think I have just always had a certain inborn attitude to women. To be honest, I find most contemporary men somehow lacking in masculinity. It is NOT that I am some kind of macho, action man. I am not. It is just that I find many men to be terribly demoralised about women these days. I honestly don't understand it.
I'll give you a tiny, inconsequential vignette. Once a man starts to act like a man, and drops the "nice guy" act, strange things happen. I was in a bookshop recently, and I had selected a couple of volumes. I went to the front counter. It was one of those poncey, upmarket second-hand places in a country town, inevitably run by toffee-nosed (uppity) women. The girl at the counter started to hassle me about my purchase. "Just a moment!", I told her brusquely. She instantly fell back demurely, and waited. I then told the bookshop manager that one of her books was out of its proper category, handing it to her (it had been placed in medicine, but belonged in physics). She was disposed to argue; she was wrong; and I just looked at her coolly. Without in any way intending to, I dominated those two women completely. Why? Because I behaved like a man. Behave like a man, and women will fall into line.
It was strange. And it made me regret all my "nice guy" moments over the years.
I think as I get older, I don't care what people think any more, including women - especially women. If only men in general would stop supplicating to women. Much of it is just disguised condescension anyway.
The late pope said in one of his many less than brilliant writings that a man should behave like Christ towards women. I suspect he meant this to imply, "in a soft, easy manner". But one could more accurately say, "Yes, like Christ really behaved, in a commanding and impatient manner a lot of the time, brooking no nonsense".
Feminists will be snickering and snorting by now, but this approach is what really works with women, especially wives.
David
Alte:
ReplyDeleteThe men are above me.
David:
A cynical MRA guy would say that the only men you are aware of are those "above" you. Those beneath you are beneath your notice.
Good illustration, David, but I suppose what I am saying is that most men haven't grown up with fathers who have dropped the "nice guy" act.
ReplyDeleteI also have to admit that in this respect I tend to act in a masculine manner... at least with other women. I am a very competent person and although shy by nature have learnt how to command (because no one else would take responsibility). When other women stuff up, they tend to feel the full brunt of my disdain. That said, I did find (when I worked before I was married) that when men stuffed up I usually took quite a different approach, along the lines of a flirtatious "Could you explain this to me? I'm just a hopeless female and I can't make head or tail of your [x]...." This came naturally, was much more enjoyable for both parties, and tended to work wonders in gaining cooperation... unless they were complete slackers in which case they got a bollocking. Women, funnily enough, weren't easily cajoled, and I found it best to act like a man.
So this correlates with what you say (and I think Alte has said similar things). The niggling question, for me, is what if the man in authority is a sham? I had plenty of male bosses whom I could not respect, not only because they weren't particularly manly, but because when they tried to exert their authority they often were trying to get me to do something that didn't make sense or just throwing their weight around and making it abundantly clear they had no idea what they were talking about. There were some who had the air of authority but sometimes I had to stop myself from laughing in their faces. Real respect has to be earned, after all - otherwise, it's just keeping up appearances! (Though I do believe in keeping up appearances, I should note.)
The late pope said in one of his many less than brilliant writings that a man should behave like Christ towards women. I suspect he meant this to imply, "in a soft, easy manner". But one could more accurately say, "Yes, like Christ really behaved, in a commanding and impatient manner a lot of the time, brooking no nonsense".
ReplyDeleteThis. Many people's view of Christ is quite odd, in my opinion. Very little to do with the Bible.
The niggling question, for me, is what if the man in authority is a sham?
Don't you just hate that? So do I. The feminists did too (many of them were very clever), and it was the underpinning of their movement.
The Christians would say: hold your nose and do it anyway. Keeping up appearances is vital to society's successful advancement. And if you disrespect one man, it becomes increasingly difficult to respect any others. So turn the other cheek, I suppose.
Alte said,
ReplyDelete"And now you all owe me one, as I have just added 453 women to the "We hate Alte" campaign. Not that I care. I actually find it quite entertaining. :-)"
Hahahaha.
Thanks very much for that that was very interesting.
A couple of things come to mind though.
Firstly if a lot of these things work on both sexes then what is unique about women in this area? (For instance men like "more" too). Couldn't a women "alpha" (I do struggle with the terms lol) according to this lead a guy around with everyone being happy?
Secondly the "nice guy" thing is continually denigrated. But the moment you step up to being not nice, tough, authorative etc you need to be able to back it up or you are a sham. Falling in line means you can focus on other things but if you want to lead from the front you have to do that all the time. That is why I think a lot of "alpha's" can have fits of temper. Its all charming and wow and then something cracks the visage and they lose their trolley. They can't be shown to be weak at any time etc.
Additionally if your self respect relies on being number 1 it means you have a low opinion of others, they can't outmatch you etc. You can see in competitive fields often that everyone has to be this number 1. It has the potential to be disastrous for teamwork. That kind of attitude I think is not real strength but arrogance.
Thirdly game involves some useful attitudes but also work (perhaps also a bit of a "war" mentality). If you're "working" your partner all the time that can lead to fragile relationships. I'm not saying we should be lazy with our relationships but if you wake up every single day thinking "what do I have to do to wow her today ... or else" that can make relationships thin and tiring. Being a number 2 might also lead to laziness from that partner which could then cause resentment. I would have thought in practice that being a total number 1 or 2 all the time wouldn’t be necessary and people could have the bigness to swap around from time to time.
Fourthly an issue with Game I think is not so much it, but the priorities it can lead to. Ultimately the aim of relationships I would have thought should be to move eventually to happy marriages. "Gaming" can have the potential to rate yourself by "scalps", not successful relationships. Also the idea of keeping "someone on the back foot" can trade impressiveness for aggressiveness. This I think is the attitude that people find hardest to agree with about the game. Surely something like the game must only be used within a moral framework? By a “win” attitude it has the potential to attract and encourage immoral behaviors. For instance you can “win” by finding out all the weakness’ of the other person and “pressing” those at crucial moments and that’s not cool.
Finally I don’t think its foolproof and if its based on secret knowledge about the other sex then this info will get out and people will be able to differentiate game (which may not be all weakness) for real strength.
Old Hat,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever noticed that the strongest women are the ones most dogmatic about submission? Other women often are submissive, but they don't feel comfortable with the theory itself.
I wonder sometimes if that is because strong women understand the benefits better, or if it's because they are more consciously aware of domination/submission in human interactions? Most of the women I meet seem quite oblivious to it all, at the intellectual level. They just submit instinctively and then continue on with their "girl power" nonsense, without skipping a beat.
"Playing dumb" is key alpha female behavior. It's a tactic a strong woman uses to make herself appear weak and unthreatening. Men generally respond well to that. Women don't respond well to it, because they don't believe it. Women are more suspicious by nature, so you have to drop the "little old me" act and go straight to domination tactics.
Submission tactics:
-- playing dumb (stupid)
-- cute and silly (infantile)
-- sweet and innocent (naive)
-- physically weak (helpless)
The Thinking Housewife uses the last tactic to great effect. She knows that dumb, silly, and naive won't work for her (she's too wise and level-headed for anyone to buy that), so she's quick to call on men for physical safety, and write admiringly of their superior strength.
She's very alpha. She writes with the air of someone who is used to people listening and agreeing. She has a dry wit (something women value in men because it is such a rare trait in women) and regularly takes a lower-status woman to task for overstepping the line. She calmly and cooly eviscerates her attempted-usurper publicly for daring to write her an email containing any nonsense. Those are my favorite entries, because you can practically see the icicles dripping from her words.
I think she's quite brilliant, by the way, even if we don't agree on everything. She reads my writing, David, as you had noted parallels before.
At any rate, I like a lot of what I wrote in this thread, so I'll be moving it to my site today. Very interesting stuff.
The men are above me.
Hmm... This anonymous is obviously a man. No halfway-normal woman would be able to stand posting cryptic excerpts without adding their own snide or explanatory comment underneath.
In terms of the next generations of young men, some things that can be done are:
ReplyDelete1. Keep them as far away from the public schools as possible. The public schools are anti-boy indoctrination centers, to a large degree, and are both demoralizing for boys as well as actively harmful in encouraging boys to act in the way that the feminist-indoctrinated teachers want, but precisely what will lead to ruin years later when they are trying to interact with women romantically. The state is systematically ruining boys, and rule number one to mitigate that is to keep them away from the state's indoctrination center -- the public school.
2. Father needs to be present and needs to be masculine. If this isn't the case, it's going to be very difficult for the boy to normally grow into a masculine man.
3. Filter as much as possible the popular culture. I have found that many shows on children's TV channels, for example, are loaded with grrl-power, anti-boy garbage -- the kind of garbage which is just as damaging as the junk being peddled in the state's indoctrination centers/schools. Be aware of what is on the TV, don't assume children's programming is "harmless", and ban programming that undermines boys or presents them in a negative light compared to girls. If you do that, you'll be surprised how much programming you'll need to ban.
4. Encourage excellence in the boy. The current culture is all about "balance" and "well-rounded" and nonsense like that. That approach sucks, generally, for boys. What works for boys is experimenting with various things until they find something that fascinates them and then you encourage them to master it. It is in that process of developing mastery that he will develop a masculine kind of "self-esteem" -- one that comes from mastery and self-confidence, rather than constantly verbalizing one's feelings to one's classmates as the state's indoctrination centers will encourage him to do, endlessly.
Jesse,
ReplyDeleteFirstly if a lot of these things work on both sexes then what is unique about women in this area?
Nothing. Game works on absolutely everyone on the planet, even those fully aware of it, and schooled in it. They can't help it, it's instinctive. It works very well on children, as well.
Couldn't a women "alpha" according to this lead a guy around with everyone being happy?
Yes, and that's what some women do. But that's not the Natural Order, so I am against such a usage, on principle. It also tends to make all but the most status-crazed women miserable.
And it's relatively useless. Being the lead is hard work, and there's not much a woman needs from a man that she can't get with submission to him. So dominating him provides little benefit to her, other than a temporary ego-trip.
And it ruins sex. For those of us who are opposed to adultery and divorce, that creates a real dilemma. We can't wimpify our men because we have to keep sleeping with him regardless. It'd be like shooting ourselves in the foot.
the moment you step up to being not nice, tough, authorative etc you need to be able to back it up or you are a sham
That's why religion is essential for a successful traditional marriage (with male leadership). Religion provides the authority. It is unequivocal, eternal, and definitive. It also absolves men of needing justification; they have to lead because God said so. God is the "ultimate alpha", in this case, and there's simply no debating with Him.
Some more cynical atheists have even suggested that patriarchal religions were invented as a side-effect of polygamy. It's exhausting keeping a whole group of rowdy women in line, so the men came up with an "invisible man" who would keep watch and chastise the females when they weren't around. Priests are the earthly enforcers, and the other women are enlisted as undercover agents out of concern for their peers' eternal souls. Even the fear of a sound beating won't deter a headstrong woman, so Hell was invented to get a bit of fear into her.
I think it's generally nonsense, by the way. But I think there is a kernel of truth in it; that religion is instrumental in "keeping women in line". That is why secularization always leads to female domination. Without religion, men collectively lose their nerve. They need God to back them up.
That's why the Bible is full of admonishes to women to stop nagging and to submit to their husbands, why Isaiah 3:12 says "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." (being led by women is considered a curse, and a perversion of nature), and why Revelation 2:20 says "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols."
After all, why are you "tolerating that woman"? Haven't we written over and over that women should shut up, do what they're told, and stop stirring up trouble? In other words, Christianity is adamant about patriarchy and male headship, and only a complete rewrite of the Bible can disguise that. That is not necessarily because women are incapable of leading, but because it upsets the Natural Order. Society falls apart when women are in charge, both at the personal and political level. The ancients knew that, but we're rediscovering it for ourselves.
That is why I think a lot of "alpha's" can have fits of temper. They can't be shown to be weak at any time etc.
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the woman's upbringing (strong religious faith helps, as well). A woman who is trained in her father's home to be submissive, will generally continue to be submissive, even if her husband has a "weak moment" or two. The formation of good habits are key. If she isn't well-trained, she'll constantly be checking him for signs of weakness, and go in for the kill as soon as she notes a soft spot.
Additionally if your self respect relies on being number 1 it means you have a low opinion of others, they can't outmatch you etc. It has the potential to be disastrous for teamwork.
That's why pride is considered such a grave sin, and we're told to constantly work to improve our flawed selves. A certain amount of humility and empathy is key to having any kind of productive human interaction.
Also, the sacrament of marriage is supposed to override this negative aspect and create a team, through it's emphasis on permanency. Because the pair is so closely bonded and aligned, they are forced to work for the benefit of the other. "What's good for her/him is good for me."
That's why God hates divorce. The mere option of divorce dooms many marriages from the start, because it weakens the resolve of each spouse to sacrifice for the other's benefit.
If you're "working" your partner all the time that can lead to fragile relationships.
But you don't have to do that. It's more about forming good habits in your relationship. Once they are formed, they become like second nature and no longer require much thought. The "working" aspect is then relegated largely to the beginning of the relationship. After that, it's more about maintenance.
If you keep your Game tight for 90% of the time, you can relax the other 10% without negative consequences. She may even find you more endearing and attractive because of it; she'll think it's cute or sweet. That's what romance is, it's that 10% allowance. Smoothing out of the rough edges.
And after menopause it gets easier. Fertile women are sort of crazy.
I would have thought in practice that being a total number 1 or 2 all the time wouldn’t be necessary and people could have the bigness to swap around from time to time.
They can, a bit. But there's a limit to how far one can push that. It's about achieving a healthy balance.
Rituals and traditions also help to keep things in balance. That's why those rituals were developed, to regularly remind people of "their place" in the hierarchy. Things like head coverings, seat placement at the dinner table, husbands leading Grace, father driving the car, homemaking, etc.
Also, the Catholic Church's organization (with men in all of the leadership positions other than abbess) is designed to reinforce male headship throughout the entire Church, even into the private homes. Jesus understood the need for that, as well, which is why all of the Apostles were male.
This I think is the attitude that people find hardest to agree with about the game. Surely something like the game must only be used within a moral framework?
Of course. Game is a tool, but it can be used for good or evil. Game are the rules of behavior that guide human interaction. Morality are the rules that define when and how we are allowed to use Game.
As you note, I could use Game to trick people, but my morality prohibits that (except exceptional cases where the trickery is used for a noble end, as in the Old Testament). My husband is quite good at Game, and he used that to land a desirable wife. He didn't/doesn't use it to pick up young women in bars, because that goes against his morality.
Finally I don’t think its foolproof
ReplyDeleteNo, it's completely instinctive. Knowledge of Game merely means that a person will only respond to especially "tight" Game, not that Game will stop working.
And, of course, we are not completely mindless animals. We have free will, and can override our instincts to make superior choices and decisions. It is very difficult, but it can be done, and is one of the signs of inner-strength.
After all, not every woman ends up chasing sexy thugs. Some avoid them purposefully, despite an innate and undeniable attraction. Likewise, not all men fall for the Captain Save-A-Ho trap. Some are more critical of women's behavior, and steel themselves in the face of an undeserved plea for help.
Generally, people recognize "Game", and look down upon those who fall for it indescriminately as fools. That is why stronger people are critical of gullible men and promiscuous women.
This is turning into a Game Manifesto.
Alte,
ReplyDeleteThanks very much for your very considered response.
"Have you ever noticed that the strongest women are the ones most dogmatic about submission?"
ReplyDeleteIndeed, it takes a conscious effort, whereas the vapid types just follow their self-absorbed path in life. It's ironic that the women who are clearly inferior and oughtn't to be allowed to make decisions are the ones who tend to end up ruling the roost - their "career" (read job) comes first, they decide on how many children and when, etc. - while the competent women stand back from such matters even though they often do have a real career (which they sacrifice willingly).
Alte, I've just been rereading your comments about other women: "Women are generally my competitors, and a select few are my equals. The women I consider "equal" become my friends (which is why I don't have many friends, but those I have are all attractive and clever), and the rest are expected to line up behind me and stop sniveling."
I can't help thinking that while this may work for you, it isn't very feminine behaviour. I'm wondering what this communicates to men when they observe it, and whether it might reinforce some of the negative tendencies of women. (Mark, David, Jesse, etc. - do you find a woman putting other women in their place in the manner of a man attractive or would you prefer to see her display sympathy, etc.? Alte, do these women really fall in line, or do they just go and form their own circle and bitch about you behind your back?)
I know a number of women who hold this sort of attitude - I should add I suspect I am probably not entirely innocent of it myself - and I find them hard and lacking in compassion. Their accomplishments and attractiveness are dulled by an intellectual or anti-feminist traditionalist snobbery that is as palpable as other more common forms. They are not good role models for the young women in our social circle, and even though they are stridently submissive to their husbands and wear skirts, there is little feminine about them. It's the lack of compassion that bothers me most, and I wonder how many young women have been put off by the traditionalist way of life by the hardness of these women. (We have seen a significant number of daughters abandoning their mothers' traditional ways, I should add.)
I am concerned that such disdain for women who are hopeless (for want of a better description) actually fuels feminist leanings, isolates women from much-needed support, and gives the traditional way of life a bad rep. Alpha females exist - always have and always will - but I feel a truly feminine woman will always downplay that aspect, with both men and women. I don't think it's something to boast about - in fact, I think it's something that needs to be kept in check, in the same way that a man needs to ensure his authority and self-assurance do not become bullying and conceit. I think women need empathy and concern (along with a firm hand) and to treat them with "cool disdain" simply because they are women is plain wrong and un-Christian, whether it comes from a woman or a man. But I think you probably already know that, given your more recent comment: "That's why pride is considered such a grave sin.... A certain amount of humility and empathy is key to having any kind of productive human interaction." Could you reconcile your two comments for me, please?
I'm not a very feminine woman, except in appearance, habits, and behavior. In other words, I have a more masculine mind. I am an engineer by training, after all. I'm an INTJ, if that means anything to you. It's the classic Aspberger's personality type, although I don't have it. Both of my children have mild autism, though, so perhaps I'm not completely free of it, either.
ReplyDeleteThat said, my first comment was what my natural inclination is, but I'm not saying that it is the optimal form of behavior, and I try to temper it with whatever humility I can dredge up. It comes off as coldness, but it's actually such deep emotion (justice) that I have to completely cover it up. As you say, that is a masculine trait, not a feminine one. Women are more concerned with the subjective fairness than with the objective justice. For women, it is more important to be popular than to be right. I am unusual in that regard, I know.
Strangely, I find that women do generally "get into line". I'm baffled by it, to be honest. Some do bitch, but they're generally acting up in the first place because they don't like me. They'd bitch regardless. They still imitate and parrot me though, which I find slightly annoying.
I'm not lacking in compassion for the genuinely aggrieved, but it is rare for a woman to suffer anything of any importance. Women live quite pampered lives, and if they are suffering it is usually at their own hand. They are often complaining to me of their husbands, or their stupid jobs, or gossiping about the other women. My sympathy has it's boundaries.
My husband finds it strange, as he tends to put a lot of emphasis on being generally well-liked. I'm very introverted though, and find large groups of hangers-on quite annoying. I have strict standards for my friends, and if they don't meet them, they are welcome to leave. My husband is my best friend, and I like it that way. I have no need or interest in cliques or popularity. I had plenty of that in high school and college and found it quite empty and unfulfilling.
If that makes me a cold fish, so be it. I've never starved for a date, so I can't say that there is any indication on their part that men find it off-putting. If anything, that very cool-headedness combined with a feminine demeanor is precisely what they find most attractive about me.
By the way, I think being highly selective in one's friends and acquaintances is the core trait of an alpha female. That translates into selectivity in one's mate, which gives her children a distinct advantage.
ReplyDeleteBut it is important that the selectivity be principled, and tempered by a willingness to forgive lesser slights. I'm not particularly legalistic, for instance, and will forgive the occasional bad mood.
One last note,
ReplyDeleteI am very loyalty and protective of my friends, few that they are (David can vouch for me on that). I suppose that is also a male trait.
And I think it wrong of you to blame the daughters' defection upon their mothers. The daughters are leaving because they are eager to ride the carousel, just as all of the other women are.
"And I think it wrong of you to blame the daughters' defection upon their mothers. The daughters are leaving because they are eager to ride the carousel, just as all of the other women are."
ReplyDeleteSorry, I have to disagree. This reveals your general disdain for women which is no better than having a general disdain of men like feminists do. These girls do not want to "ride the carousel"; they merely want some love, affection, empathy, and respect that they did not receive at home. They have been told that their judgment is and always will be flawed (and that they therefore cannot be trusted to choose a boyfriend), they are not trusted to watch anything more adult than a BBC period drama, and the parents are so heavy on the discipline that they seem to have forgotten how to show love. The mothers take pride in how tough they have it and have no sympathy for other women's woes.
With regard to that, you say "Women live quite pampered lives, and if they are suffering it is usually at their own hand." You obviously have a select and uncommonly comfortable circle of acquaintances. I know a woman who lives in a house with a dirt floor and mould growing up the walls. I wouldn't call that pampered. And I have sympathy for any mother who is struggling with her children - having had no more than three continuous hours of sleep each night for the last couple of years, I know from personal experience how difficult child-rearing can be. And if someone is having trouble with their husband and wants to tell me about it I see it as my duty to listen and offer advice, even if it means telling her that she needs to see her husband's perspective - what sort of person am I if I refuse to listen and let that marriage disintegrate purely for want of a kind ear and outside perspective? Is your impatience with a weak, silly woman really justification for dismissing her worries (which to her are as important as any of your own)?
I grew up as an INTJ, by the way, seeing as you mention it. I have made an effort to develop other aspects of my personality and become a more well-rounded person who can get along with just about anyone, though. Clearly, this doesn't appeal to you - you like your small circle, and I can understand that - but I truly believe that one's ability to empathise and show true Christian compassion will necessarily be limited if one doesn't push oneself beyond one's natural inclinations.
Yes, I am an INTJ too. I used to be an INTP, but I became a boss of a small technical team a couple of years ago, and I think it has made me more decisive.
ReplyDeleteBasically I suppose "game" for a husband depends on an attitude. I am currently having quite serious difficulties with my wife, who is menopausal; and I am "running game" on her basically by ignoring her and refusing her the usual displays of affection. It seems to be working. She knows the areas I want her to improve in, and why, and she is responding. But with a huge amount of complaining and posturing. "Shit testing" as they say.
Nobody prepares husbands for this. It is no wonder most husbands fail.
I never wanted to be a "leader". But I think I am effective at work and at home, to the extent that I am, because I usually keep my cool and I do not say things I don't mean. I have toughened up a lot at work and at home. One has to.
Being soft on a woman never works, in my experience. They don't respect it, and they will - as Alte implies - misbehave to the extent that you let them. They get slack.
What a husband has to be prepared for is the most obnoxious language and attitudes imaginable from a wife. I suspect this is not just my wife; I suspect it is women in general.
What I will never understand, as long as I live, is why women will swear by all the gods that they will never do something you ask them to, and then capitulate in the next minute. My wife trotted off to the gym a few minutes ago, because, frankly, she knows she had better shape up or else. But she did it with the most ill-grace and bullshit you can imagine.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is from a "successful" marriage of over twenty years. The craziness of women never ceases.
Men have to understand. Women have a - shall we charitably say - different conception of truth and morality than men.
David
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThere are some hard questions being raised here. From my perspective guys are generally tough on other guys and they often prefer it that way. A guy would prefer to hear form a mate "You're a dickhead", than "Gosh you're a nice bloke". Part of it is because guys don't like to be too close to other guys but also because its a pushing so to speak to do better. If you're criticised for not passing or catching a ball correctly the subtext is not about finding an opportunity to criticise but the importance of catching the ball well.
On relations with women amongst themselves I'm not exactly competent to comment. However, I would say that bitchiness is not exactly desirable. One of the nicest feminine traits is "sweetness" and bitchiness can undermine that. Are women in the West more bitchy or competitive amongst themselves? I don't know. It can be hard at times to be a sweet girl in the West though.
Men have to understand. Women have a - shall we charitably say - different conception of truth and morality than men.
ReplyDeleteI would say that, the many exceptions aside, the main general difference in that area is that women tend to see their feelings as validating, whereas men tend to not rely on their feelings to nearly the same degree. In other words, if a woman feels offended, it translates in her mind to being "objectively unjust". Men don't make that translation nearly as easily -- a guy who is pissed at something and shares that with his friends is just as likely to get back from them that he isn't viewing it objectively, and that, onbjectively, he shouldn't be so pissed because of factors x, y and z. If a man reacts that way to a *woman* with the same story, she will react extremely angrily, generally, because she sees her own feelings and experience as being "self-validating", and when someone else tries to rationalize them or to suggest that there is an objective reality apart from them, that creates a dissonance which seems particularly galling and uncomfortable for many women. There are exceptions of course -- the INTJ women here, for example, may be exceptions to that.
The key difference isn't that women are more emotional than men are, as is often supposed. The key difference is what women and men do with these feelings, and how the feelings impact behavior and view of the world. That is very different between men and women, precisely because men are much less likely than women are to see their feelings as an objective source of validity or validation -- women are more likely to do that, which makes them appear, from the male point of view, to be less objective, both in terms of reason and morals. In other words, a woman will be much more likely to morally reason in a "situational" way based on the validating experience of her feelings than a man will -- that doesn't mean that women behave less morally than men do. Men also behave quite immorally, and quite often. The difference, again, is that the man almost always accepts that he is behaving immorally -- and he proceeds despite seeing it that way, whereas the woman will often "morally justify" her actions based on the validation provided by her feelings under the circumstances, and so is less likely to view her act as "immoral", or at least will view it as "being in a grey area" due to the conflict between the objective moral rules she has been taught, on the one hand, and the subjective moral reasoning based on her feelings and experience, on the other. Carol Gilligan almost admitted as much in her book, really, if you read between the lines.
I suppose that is precisely what I'm missing, Novaseeker. I can't rationalize my sins away, the way most women can. I think each person is responsible for their own faults and should not blame others for it. If their feelings are afflicting their judgements to the point where they are no longer able to make sound decisions, than I see their feelings as a problem to be overcome, rather than something to justify their stupidity and immorality.
ReplyDeleteThis is harsh, but being nice to women never results in reform. It just doesn't. The entire Church has moved away from harsh to "fluffy bunnies and cuddles" and we can see what is happening to the women. It has always been the stronger women influencing the weaker ones to improve their behavior. Putting the onus solely on men is a cop-out.
For instance, a good friend of mine called me up to tell me that she'd cheated on her husband. She explained that he "deserved it" because he had cheated on her before they were married, and she still "wasn't over that". I pointed out that she had known he had cheated before they married, and had no right to punish him for it now. That I thought her behavior was still wrong and that she should stop immediately. That adultery is a sin against not only our spouse, but against God (as marriage is a sacrament).
She called me an unfeeling bitch and slammed down the phone. She then called her other friends and got tons of sympathy. Yes, she's right to feel maligned. Yes, one wrong deserves another. Yes, they can empathize with her jealous anger. Etc.
She called me the next week to say she had decided that I was right after all, and had broken it off with her lover. I haven't made up with her, though. I was polite on the phone, but I don't want a friend who is that vindictive, treacherous, and cruel. Her other friends still like her, though.
Most of the women I know are middle or upper class. I don't know many poor women who are married mothers.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that one's ability to empathise and show true Christian compassion
I do empathize and show true compassion, but my compassion is directed toward their harried and neglected husbands, rather than to their pampered selves. They do (rarely) genuinely suffer, but most of their complaints are just whining. Most of them live quite charmed lives.
BTW, Old Hat, I think we do travel in quite different circles.
ReplyDeleteI live in a wealthy college town and most of the mothers are SUV-driving princesses who are terrible housekeepers (many can't even cook!), frigid, and whining that their husbands don't earn enough money for premium cable. I kid you not. One "nice Catholic homemaker" was complaining to me just last weekend that they'd had to take the cheaper cruise leaving from Baltimore because the flight down to Florida was out of their budget. She was very put-out about it.
I think my crowd is more indicative of the general population of middle-class women than yours is. There are frugal, selfless, loving women out there (my friends), but they are rare. The others marvel at the fact that I cook 3 meals a day (my husband is home for all 3) and bake my own bread. That should be standard.
What else do they do all day? Shop? Watch tv? Housework doesn't even fill up half the day, unless you have 5 kids. They all have 3 or less, and most of their kids are in school all day (mine are at home). And even I have plenty of free time, so what are they doing with their time that they are always "so tired" and "so overworked". Perhaps they should turn off Oprah and mop the floors for a change. Do you know how often I see them sitting in their air-conditioned cars, chatting on the phone, while their children play at the playground with mine?
These women are so selfish they refuse to even try breastfeeding because they think it'll ruin their perky tits. If I suggest that they could save money by getting a pre-paid cell phone and shutting off the text function, they act like that would be suffering a fate worse than death.
The working women are -- if anything -- generally even worse than the homemakers. And even the "submissive wives" are mere Christo-feminists who boss their husbands around and harangue them with their Bibles. They think acting pious, wearing a long skirt, and smiling blandly is a substitute for true, joyous submission to their husband's rule. It is not.
So, yes. I feel disdain for these women and their "problems". They are like spoiled children, so they would be better off handing their votes off to the only adult in the house: their husband.
End rant.
These girls do not want to "ride the carousel"; they merely want some love, affection, empathy, and respect that they did not receive at home.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Roissy would have an absolute field day with that comment. Those poor girls need some loving and affection. I'm sure he'd be willing to give it to them.
We can not blame our own failings on our parents or anybody else.
Alte and Old Hat wrote,
ReplyDelete"The niggling question, for me, is what if the man in authority is a sham?
Don't you just hate that? So do I. The feminists did too (many of them were very clever), and it was the underpinning of their movement."
Ah, and I wonder how those obviously incompetent men get their authority in the first place?
It's a well-known fact that general male suffrage and equality presaged female suffrage and equality. It isn't hard to imagine how "universal male suffrage" resulted in the vesting of undeserved power in the hands of many, low-grade men.
The old-time feminists might have been right to resent this. But in their vanity and selfishness, they looked right past the obvious solution: restore traditional hierarchy, not only between men and women, but among men as well.
Of course, middle-class, high achieving merchantmen of Europe agitated against idiot offspring of the aristocracy. I guess some might point to the aristocracy as the reason for the failure of traditional hierarchy.
This is the source of my disdain. It is not that they are sinners (as we are all sinners, and I am certainly no exception), it is not that they are not as intelligent as I am, or that I think I am inherently "better" than they are. Far from it. The fact that I know that I am not better merely fuels my frustration with them.
ReplyDeleteMy disdain extends from the fact that they think morality is relative, and dependent upon the state of their feelings and emotions. In otherwords, they are amoral while claiming to be Christians.
Before anyone throws WWJD at me, let me remind you that a large portion of His teachings consisted of telling people that He thought they were immoral hypocrites who would burn in Hell for all eternity. Just a reminder. He stopped an adulteress from being stoned, but He also told her to go and stop sinning. He didn't cuddle her and say, "Let's talk about your feelings." Her feelings were irrelevant; no feelings could justify her sin. No upbringing could excuse her treachery. Jesus didn't believe in making excuses for immorality.
The current scandal of an Illinois Catholic professor being fired for saying that homosexuality goes against Natural Moral Law (basic Chruch teaching), which the accusers claim is "hate speech" is indicative of this mindset. Here is an excerpt from his "scandalous" email to his students (and here's the accuser's email):
Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning.
Alte, I have enjoyed reading your posts and your short-lived blog; when your new website is up, I hope you will be able to advertise its address prominently so I won't miss it.
ReplyDelete"I think my crowd is more indicative of the general population of middle-class women than yours is."
ReplyDeleteIn America, perhaps. If so, God help America! Regardless, I feel very sorry for you that you are exposed to such a restricted and spoilt set of people. I think if you came here and met my middle (and upper) class acquaintances - class isn't just about money in Australia - you'd get quite a shock and perhaps revise your opinion of your fellow women. We all breastfeed, live without cable (many without television by choice), bake our own bread, home school the children (one friend is having her thirteenth this month), and survive on the husband's single income. We rarely get vacations, and all are very resourceful.
As for the daughters, I think you may have misinterpreted what I wrote. Just because they've abandoned their mothers' ways doesn't mean they've become sluts. None of them sleep around, but a number have been caught up in the occult or lured away by older men. I think it is the responsibility of parents to prepare their children for the world and not shield them so much that they become vulnerable the minute they leave the home, and a small but significant part of that means giving enough love that the child sees the home as a haven, somewhere they can retreat to - these girls clearly didn't think they had that option and have been lost.
Anyway, I agree we live very different lives, Alte. The hopeless women I know aren't adulterers or anything like you've described - just weak and needing direction. But compared to the women you've described, it occurs to me that they might just pass as strong, clever, and attractive in America. That said, I went to college in the States, west and east coast, and I didn't come across many women like that....
They are most certainly representative of the American middle class. They are, if anything, better than the average. After all, she understood what a sacrament is, and stopped cheating (for now) when it was pointed out that her behavior was unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteI have had another woman scream, "How dare you judge me?" when offered the same opinion. She left her husband for her lover, drained his bank account, and took his kids with him. That is more the normal route. The exact same thing happened to my male cousin last year, and a male friend of my family this year.
German woman are even worse, I think. They're just prettier and thinner.
I am 29, and the women I associate with are in their 20s and 30s. If that was not clear before. Men are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel when choosing wives nowadays. I am hardly a prize myself, but when the bar is that low...
As for the daughters you described, I thought they were giving up on chastity. That is the normal route here. I think the problem-women I deal with are a world away from yours, and not just geographically.
BTW, I have found women more like myself here (finally!), in our homeschool co-op. Those are the libertarians I was talking about. They are quite wonderful. Not as joyless and conspicuously pious as some, not as profligate and decadent as others. Just right.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping that they will be a good influence on me, and on my children. And, of course, there are women online, and a select few of my old friends.
Papabear, it's already up, but mostly empty. I'm writing new material for it. Click on my name at the top of this post.
Thanks Alte!
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome, Papabear!
ReplyDeleteOld Hat,
I have to admit I felt a twinge of envy hearing about all of those children. I'm not allowed to have anymore, which is very painful for me. I always wanted a large family, and I certainly have the time, energy, money, and wits for quite a few more. I'm certainly efficient and frugal enough for a whole gaggle of them. I used to joke about us starting our very own soccer team. :-)
Oh, well. Sometimes I think God has plans for my free time. Writing perhaps, so I'm starting to do that more seriously and less haphazardly than before.
Or teaching. That's what I'm going to try out this fall.
Old hat,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the middle-class women in our social group here in Melbourne are not nearly as bad as those Alte describes.
(Alte's description had the good effect of making me appreciate my wife even more.)
I live in a middle-class outer suburb rather than a posh suburb. I like the women my wife has made friends with. They're family oriented, not overly materialistic, dress nicely, not overly gossipy.
They give me the feeling that I'm living in an "intact" part of the world, where the normal processes of life are still humming along quite well.
Alte, I'm glad you're finding a better sort of woman in the homeschooling circles. Here, too, they tend to be salt-of-the-earth types, and the mix of Christians with hippies seems to prevent them becoming sect-like.
ReplyDeleteI've been trying to pin down what I find so astounding about your description of the women in your social circle, and I think it's the brazenness and hypocrisy. Even the worst of my non-Christian acquaintances would never try to justify adultery and seek sympathy... and that sort of woman simply doesn't set foot in a church in Australia. And I think this illustrates the vast difference in experience that exists for Australian and American conservatives/traditionalists/Christians. In Australia, church-goers are either dinosaurs or seen as choosing an alternative lifestyle. We are not mainstream. We also have no political voice - there is no conservative party and the most right-leaning major party is literally the Liberals. So we have a bit of a persecution mentality... which leads to other problems. The church is also very small, so each parish brings together people from all classes and backgrounds. One parish here, for example, includes the former Governor as well as recent refugees from Africa. Nor is there a racial divide between churches....
Eyebrows are raised when a Catholic woman here doesn't churn out a baby every two years or so - if you count miscarriages, I don't think there's a family that has finished with childbearing with less than six children - and one of the biggest issues for our community is that some couples on the fringes are using NFP with a contraceptive mentality to prioritise the wife's career. This may seem pretty tame compared to what you've described, but it worries me that such stories might be used to justify their behaviour. I could definitely envisage some of these women feeling rather saintly in comparison and saying something along the lines of "well, you should count yourself lucky - the average American Catholic is off having countless affairs!"
One question, though, Alte: with whom are these women having affairs? Are they part of your circle? In which case, surely some blame lies with the men too?
On a final note, I'd just like to comment that these women you describe sound like they've never grown up or learnt the difference between right and wrong. Such women perhaps do need an extremely dominant husband, but the women here don't need quite so firm a hand - they are quite capable of telling right from wrong and only need direction in the grey areas. No woman here would need to be reminded that adultery is wrong, and even my totally-warped leftie non-Christian friends wouldn't lend a kind ear to someone like that. Obviously, adultery does occur, but there's still a sense of shame or scandal.
I do get the impression that the American middle class, especially the women, are terribly spoilt and entitled. I imagine that the women in the English upper classes in Edwardian times were equally arrogant and entitled; or the patrician women in Ancient Rome. Women, if they are allowed to become so, can be a potent mixture of ignorance, arrogance and entitlement.
ReplyDeleteI was watching National Geographic TV tonight, an excellent program about the building of tunnels, airports and roads for the World Cup in South Africa. All done by men, using courage and intelligence. The only woman involved was running PR.
But to read the triumphalist outpourings of female journalists, the totally offensive "End of Men" diatribes, you would think that "sisters are doing it for themselves".
This mixture of ignorance of what truly underpins their comfortable lifestyles, and the societal message that women can have it all, can have their cake and eat it, is astounding to the male mind. The SUV-driving princesses that Alte describes sound like they are fundamentally appallingly out of touch. Their pathetic husbands expect very little, and that is precisely what they get.
It is the unreality of women's attitudes that astounds me. The complaining, the constant complaining, that everything is not peachy-keen and perfect. That their husbands are not perfect. It suggests a total lack of reality. It is as if the entire Western female middle class has become a collation of Marie Antoinettes.
My wife has the excuse that she is menopausal, or has PMT, or both; and she is not a bad woman; but even she apparently feels no compunction about spouting the most incredible nonsense, on the spur of the moment. A man feels like a fixed planet, around which a crazy female moon spins, tracing an eccentric path, hurtling end over end, firing off bits and pieces randomly and without rational thought.
And despite all this, we are expected to take women seriously.
David
Churchgoing is mainstream here. Almost everyone claims to be a Christian, as it adds an air of respectability. Even Nancy Pelosi claims to be a devout Catholic, despite being rapidly pro-death and feminist.
ReplyDeleteThey're not all "having countless affairs", but they are generally morally relativistic and utilitarian. Note in that accusatory email that the complainer and his friend are both Catholic. Some priests are cautious about what they say (cowards that they are) because they are aware that a significant number of parishioners do not agree with the Church's stance on morality. The massive amounts of annulments in America is a sign of that habit.
There are large Catholic families here, and many at my parish, but the majority have 3 or fewer children. Contraception (including abortion) is widespread and common. NFP is considered a medieval practice.
The only men in my circle are the wives' husbands, so I don't personally know the men they are having affairs with. And there is no scandal in an affair anymore. I know people on their third marriages, and nobody bats an eyelash.
As you say, the standard of behavior is so low here, that I often end up feeling quite virtuous, although I am not. That's why I'm hoping that being surrounded by more virtuous women will help get me to the "next level".
In Germany, they just don't bother getting married in the first place.
Bartholomew said,
ReplyDelete"Of course, middle-class, high achieving merchantmen of Europe agitated against idiot offspring of the aristocracy. I guess some might point to the aristocracy as the reason for the failure of traditional hierarchy."
The idiot offspring element only acceletates the process. Whenever people have presitige and influence, read money, they want a say in government. The point is though that refusing universal sufferage denies the essential equality of people as a moral principle.
BTW, I live in a rural community, in Amish country. One of the most conservative parts of the USA.
ReplyDeleteIt's worse most other places.
It's true that Australians tend to be more complacent, because their economy and society are still much more stable and better off. But be warned: Americans were there before. Things can change fast. Things are rapidly deteriorating over in Oz, and I sense an acceleration.
ReplyDeleteYes, I can just remember America the way it used to be, at least in the eyes of a young Australian boy. Americans seemed such decent, clever people. Serious and estimable. This was in the 1960s, and reached its apogee with the successes of the space program. America seemed a marvellous place.
ReplyDeleteAnd look at it now. It leads the world in pumping out immorality and moral insanity.
Australia doesn't have the highs and lows of American society; and it certainly seems that the sexes get on better here. Australian women haven't gone collectively insane.
David
Alte, you said:
ReplyDelete"Housework doesn't even fill up half the day, unless you have 5 kids"."
Only if your housekeeping standards are very low. Anyway, I don't see how it is your business what those women are doing with their time. May be they knit or crochet. May be they read or pursue other hobbies. You do come across as terribly judgemental towards them.
At least they stay out of workforce and don't take jobs from men or single women who need them to survive.
And anyway if they are all so bad as you describe, why do you keep contact with them? May be you should simply find better friends?
I think you are taking away the wrong lesson, David. That's what I meant with the warning.
ReplyDeleteAmerican women (and European women and homosexual men, for that matter) haven't gone insane. They are merely behaving as women behave when men place no moral restraints on their behavior.
That's what we were discussing above; that women are naturally amoral. They tend to view their decisions in terms of utility and immediate survival. In other words, their behavior is always based upon subjective criteria: What is good for me and mine, right now?
It is precisely that which makes women's behavior so baffling to men. They try to see logic where logic is irrelevant. For women, logic is a tool that can be used to gain status. Status is vital for procuring resources and safety. There are plenty of other tools: deceit, cunning, intimidation, appeals to compassion, or garnishing the support of a powerful ally. That is why it is so frustrating to argue with women. They are inclined to throw logic away if it isn't working and bring out some other tool (shaming language, tears, violence, whatever). The goal isn't to be right or find out the truth. The goal is to win and therefore dominate and gain status.
This is not because women are evil, but because that is the female behavior that has resulted in the successful propagation of the species, just as morality has served men well. Women are, in comparison to men, childlike in their size and helplessness, so agitating like men would be more of a hindrance than a help to them. They are better off acting like children.
Marriage changed that. Women can afford to be moral in a nuclear family, because they have a permanent protector and provider. Morality, in other words, is a luxury for women in a stable and safe community. Feminism destroys that community and increases the reproductive cost of morality, which is why morality is the fist thing to go when feminism arrives.
Men are more future-oriented and objective. They tend to view the world through right/wrong, black/white, moral/immoral. That is because men do best when they can build stable hierarchies and follow orders. Then they can fight in groups without devolving into in-fighting. They are able to hang on to a moral principle even when it goes against their own best interests. This requires a level of abstractive thinking that most women simply are not capable of.
Women appear to be moral actors when they are raised by strong, moral men, or are under the domination of a strong, moral man (generally through religion, ethnic/family ties, or marriage). Such women have developed good habits, which is why religious women tend to legalism. They do best with lists of does-and-don'ts, rather than with simple, moral precepts. Any flexibility leaves them wiggle-room for rationalization.
Trust me, Australia is next. First, the feminists will scrounge up some INTJ women, rarity though they are, and use them to claim the moral and rational supremacy of women.
Second, they will wine about fairness and equality. Men are actually very keen on equality, because men are inherently meritocratic (as opposed to women's communitarian sensibilities). Who wants to be "unfair"? And men will miss the obvious point that "equal does not mean same".
Third, they will pick out battered divorcees and rape victims as examples of "single mothers". Then they will berate the men for not doing enough to help single mothers. In other words, demand an increase in income transfers and other government supports of fornication.
And so on.
You guys have already been infected. It won't take much more for the disease to become endemic. Time for a quarantine.
You do come across as terribly judgemental towards them.
ReplyDeleteOh, I've been accused of being judgemental. That is truly a fate worse than death. How dare I judge them based on any objective standards? Bad me! Bad, bad me!
Thank you for that correction.
We will now return to logic and objective morality, after the break.
(Thanks for the free display of my last point.)
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHere is a further taste of judgmental generalizations on my part.
:-)
Alte, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"How dare I judge them based on any objective standards? "
Are there any objective standards on how a housewife is supposed to spend her free time?
If yes, please enlighten me as I am unaware of their existence. They forgot to send me the memo.
What I have seen so far are your personal opinions and judgements which you elevate to "logic and objective miorality".
The point is though that refusing universal sufferage denies the essential equality of people as a moral principle.
ReplyDeleteMore liberal tripe from Jesse. Honestly, why do you pretend you are conservative? Universal suffrage is not a conservative principle, nor is it inherently moral. In fact it is a driving force behind the decay of our once-great western civilization, and - given that the outcome of the drive for universal suffrage has profoundly pernicious effects - it is fundamentally immoral.
Are there any objective standards on how a housewife is supposed to spend her free time?
ReplyDeleteHmm...
http://www.proverbs31woman.com/
Not to say that I meet that standard, either. No woman does, as it is an idealized portrayal of wifehood. But it is untruthful to say that Christians do not have an objective standard against which one can measure a woman's wifely performance.
There are additional cultural standards against which each ethnic group and denomation measures wives, as well. These have developed over time, as they are considered the general characteristics of a help-meet in those societies.
Everything is not relative, much as you might wish it to be so.
Yes, OK Alte. I see your point. I would say though on the latter question, that Australian women have been, as you put it, exposed and infected with feminism. But, truly, it hasn't poisoned relations between the sexes to the extent that it has in America.
ReplyDeleteWe have had our Germaine Greers and the like, but Australia has a different, more pragmatic ethos, which has prevented feminism from taking hold. Yes, we just acquired a female Prime Minister, but this has caused relatively little excitement, I suspect because people here have the common sense to realise that she got the job in a factional deal. If this were America, there would be all sorts of silly triumphalism about it (cf. Nancy Pelosi and the Speakership).
I have a suspicion that the ethnic makeup of Australia (Irish Catholics, English Cockneys, Greeks, Calabrians, Croatians, and so on) has made this country unusually socially conservative, and resistant to family-hating movements like feminism.
My wife once said something uncharacteristically reflective. At a dinner party, of all places. She remarked that women cannot afford strict moral codes because they have children. I knew what she meant. And this ties in with your points.
I don't normally complain much about popular representations of men and women, but occasionally my sense of humour fails. Thus, men are - bizzarely - portrayed in the media as less moral and less technically competent than women. I suspect people realise intellectually that this is nonsense, but the false message is sent constantly.
My problem is that I grew up with women who were unusually sensible and analytical. My mother, as people often say, "thinks like a man". Most of my female relatives (sisters and so on) are likewise notable for not being airheads. It has taken me a long time to realise that the stereotypes about women are partly true. My wife is much more the typical woman.
I actually suspect my wife behaves with relative good sense and practices her religion because of my influence. But, as you have noted Alte, it is tiresome sometimes for a man to have to constantly provide moral and intellectual guidance to a woman. Especially as one receives no thanks.
I think one of the reasons for the success of feminism in freeing women from constraints and demoralising men has been that men simply get tired of arguing. A little bit of shaming language, some tears, a strategic lawsuit here and there, and most men will capitulate. It reminds me of a remark of Ann Coulter's, about a Democrat politician adopting acceptable feminist views, of his being "fitted for his tutu". An awful lot of men, particularly in the pursuit of social acceptance, are willing to be fitted for their tutus. One of the advantages of losing our recent male Prime Minister is that at least we are no longer led by a man who couldn't even convince his wife to change her surname. Men of the Left, who used to have balls, are now mostly eunuchs.
As has been intimated, a man has to have very strong philosophical and/or religious reasons for remaining committed to patriarchy. Even I, a natural patriarch, have had to struggle with this intellectually, especially as I have seen my Church's leadership increasingly capitulate to feminism. In particular I have come to recognise the last pope's contribution as a disgrace, which is not a happy realisation for a Catholic man to come to.
David
She remarked that women cannot afford strict moral codes because they have children. I knew what she meant. And this ties in with your points.
ReplyDeleteWomen are designed for survival. That's what we're good at, and that's where our instincts lead us. Adhering to a strict moral code puts women at a severe disadvantage, in regards to earthly survival, because it limits their ability to act to preserve their life, or their children's life. Many of the things women do or say seem bizarre to men, but when you view their actions in terms of pure survival, it makes more sense.
That's why I make the point in the article that patriarchy, and the associated protection of women, allows women to relax enough to be moral. The men are busy keeping them and theirs alive, so they can afford to be virtuous, trusting, and obedient. That is why women who grow up under the influence of a strong, moral man tend to be more virtuous than those that don't. They have grown up in relative safety, and with a good example of morality to learn from.
Of course, that all applies to men as well, but I think it applies to women even more. At any rate, I can only propose theories and wait for them to be knocked down. But it is a very conclusive one.
By the way, David. I used to tease my Australian friends with this old, worn-out joke.
ReplyDeleteAustralia. Where the men are men, the women are men, and the sheep are scared.
;-)
The version I have heard most often is: "New South Wales - Where men are men, and sheep are nervous."
ReplyDeleteBTW, I am getting some heat at Full of Grace ...
David
Anonymous said,
ReplyDelete"More liberal tripe from Jesse. Honestly, why do you pretend you are conservative?'
Hmmm how do I reply to this politely?
Hmmm how do I reply to this politely?
ReplyDeleteReply to whom? They didn't even bother to leave a name.
Does anybody else find all of the various anonymous posters a bit confusing? It's not as if they're asked to give a real name. They could just call themself "Anoni", or something.
Mark said: "A problem from the male point of view is that men are constantly berated by feminists for being molesters and rapists and so on."
ReplyDeleteAnd Alte replied: "That's because they know how much it upsets you, of course. ... It's wishful thinking.... Men just need to collectively learn to tell women to be silent and mind their place."
I know what you're getting at and agree that feminists blow things out of proportion, but some men ARE molesters and rapists, and comments like this suggest that women do not have the right to demand justice. It also undermines men as protectors. I don't think telling women to shut up is a very effective or moral way of dealing with a sordid and criminal reality.
Old Hat,
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that men who are actual rapists don't care what the feminists say. So screaming at men that they are "all potential rapists" is completely pointless. Men who care about protecting women will be the only ones who are offended and intimidated by that. Also, bringing rape up over every little thing ends up desensitizing the populace. Rape ends up seeming commonplace. I lived in Europe for 10 years and did not hear rape mentioned as often as 1 year in America. Anglos are veritably obsessed with rape, which I can only conclude has to do with some sort of perverted, repressed sexuality.
Yes, those women should shut up about it and stop harping on about rape as if rabid men were chasing them in the streets. They wish. It's pure feminist propoganda that they use to destroy marriage.
All men are potential rapists just as all women are potential murderers. But they are innocent until proven guilty.
Furthermore, the whole idea of "men as protectors" is that men protect their own women from other men. So why do feminists bring up rape when discussing married couples? Why does forcing your wife to have sex carry the same legal penalty as forcing a stranger to have sex?
ReplyDeleteHmmm how do I reply to this politely?
ReplyDeleteTry responding to the facts. Oh, you're incapable of that. Never mind.
"So screaming at men that they are "all potential rapists" is completely pointless."
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely, Alte, but the quote I was responding to didn't mention "potential" rapists, nor did I suggest bringing up the topic constantly. In fact, you and Mark are the ones who brought up the topic in the first place, and I agreed feminists blow the situation way out of proportion. What you said was that men all being rapists is women's "wishful thinking" (which I think is insulting - try telling that to a woman who has been raped!) and that women should shut up about it (which I don't think they should if they genuinely have been raped). All I'm pointing out is that SOME men are rapists and/or molesters, and it does a disservice to both men and women to deny that... and plays into the hands of feminists.
Ok am I allowed to talk about rape? Does Anonymous approve?
ReplyDeleteThe left love rape. It also plays into lurid sexuality so it gets a big play especially in the US.
Its a really interesting set up by the left, free sexuality is good, exploration/sex pleasure etc is good. Porn is bad, rape is the devil. Its obviously a muscle approach by feminists that plays into their biggest fears of male strength and aggression, so an intrusive state is called on to protect them.
It's also one of those "things", you don't rape a women merely (according to the argument) by physically raping her. That's just the end of the spectrum. You "rape" her by seeing yourself as superior to her then seeing her as there for your sexual wishes. Out of this comes aggression to women, out of that comes rape. Sooooo that's how all men are potentially rapists aside from the stats.
I mean the argument would have much more credibility if it didn't go hand in hand with free love. So its this bizarre thing, if you look at the date setting, where there has been the big "explosion" of numbers in the form of date rape, it goes from drunken groping one min, approved of exploration of sexuality etc, to, if there's any confusion at all about whether she said "yes I give consent to that", rape. So men play "offense" women play "defence" and the state punishes any "wayward passes", (less so if women are more the initators).
At the same time guys are pumped up in certain quarters by porn, a lowering of inhibitions, an expectation that all girls want it (these days) and thug culture to maybe rape in certain cases in greater numbers. I've certainly heard of instances, not among the middle class, where it started with everyone getting drunk and ended with doing it with a girl, who might be someone's girlfriend, no matter what she says. Guys like Eminem glorify it, I'm just an angry guy so you'd better give me what I want, don't box me in with tired social conventions etc.
I’m inclined to agree that if men don’t see themselves as protectors of women, and see them as the enemy or as fun, then these kinds of things can increase. So feminists tackle this by attempts to “de-aggressify” men.
Good points, Jesse. I think one of the most dangerous aspects of this trend is the way men are denied access to women who have been raped. Women are put into women's only refuges (which are hotbeds of radical man-hating feminism) and they are interviewed by other women, etc.. The fact is that a woman who's been raped or attacked instinctively desires the protection of a man and doesn't want the mollycoddling and man-hating rhetoric that feminist social workers offer. The feminists have dominated this issue and I think it's time for men (and women) to demand that men are allowed their role. The problem isn't that women go on about rape, it's that the wrong women have a voice. I don't think rape victims get much of a voice at all, and we need to hear from them that they want men around them, that they feel safer with the protection of men, that if they hadn't been alone a man could have stopped what happened. (And we need to get more real men into social work so that the left domination can be broken.)
ReplyDeleteOld Hat,
ReplyDeleteMen would be tempting fate to go into that sort of social work. They are just setting themselves up for a false-rape accusation from a confused woman.
I agree that female rape victims (there are many male rape victims, as well) want the protection of a man, not the "help" of the feminist indocrination camps. But I disagree on the type of help needed. Marriage is the best way for a woman to come under the protection of a loving man (and, in fact, marriage protects women from being raped in the first place). The intentions of any man, other than a husband or close male relative, will always be suspect.
Marriage is the safest place for any woman (this has been proven, and I can provide both the British and American stats for those who are curious), so if we truly care about women's safety, we should be encouraging them to get married young, and stay married. Shelter, protection, and legal separation laws could then be provided for those women whose husbands are such brutes, philanderers, or neglectful that they wish to escape them.
It is a bizarre and unnatural state of affairs to have young women prancing about "dating". It's dangerous, confuses expectations, and blurs the lines between consent and refusal. I was in that scene from 16-23 and I was constantly confused and nervous. Do I get in his car? If he comes over for dinner, will he "expect something"? If I have sex with him, does that mean we're "together", or is he going to just jump up and head out the door afterward?
In marriage, consent is public and formalized. That is why the Bible makes it clear that sex outside of marriage only comes in four forms: rape, fornication (including sodomy), incest, or adultery. They are all considered crimes, and they are all severely punished if proven true. Rape (forced sex outside of marriage) is the last crime left, and it's the only one that feminists complain about because it's the one that is predominantly in the hands of men. In other words, the Biblical system has been completely flipped on it's head.
Sex inside of marriage is never considered a crime in the Bible, because sex (and the resulting children) was the basis of marriage. Sex was considered to be what the woman brought to the marriage, so refusing sex would have been grounds for divorce, as she would no longer be holding up her end of the contract. The Catholic Church does not grant divorce, but they also don't have marital rape laws.
We now have marital rape laws because sex is no longer considered a core component of marriage. It is now supposed to be all about "love" (warm, fuzzy feelings), which is why we can soon expect people to be able to marry their pets.
These laws sound good at first, but they undermine marriage, because they deny the fact that sex and reproduction is the basis of marriage, and put the onus of consent onto the husband. He has to nervously negotiate consent each-and-every time, rather than assuming that he's allowed to have sex with his wife. They were a precursor to the gay marriage movement, and have increased the unnattractiveness of marriage for many men. Paternity rights are already weak, fidelity is weak, now sexual rights are weak.
So... what exactly are women offering men now in exchange for that protection and provision? Nothing. Women no longer offer anything within marriage that a man cannot get outside of marriage. And then they wonder why men can't be bothered to get married! Soon only the devoutly religious will be marrying.
To be honest, if I were a man, I don't know if I would marry in this toxic climate. I'd probably become a priest, instead. But then I'd risk "All men are potential molestors." rather than "All men are potential rapists." Men can't even win the sex-wars by choosing celibacy, anymore. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
What you said was that men all being rapists is women's "wishful thinking" (which I think is insulting - try telling that to a woman who has been raped!) and that women should shut up about it (which I don't think they should if they genuinely have been raped).
ReplyDeleteIt has been proven that the majority of women have rape fantasies, Old Hat. Most women's literature (both modern and classic) incorporates sexual violation as a theme because it titalates. This is a simple fact. Even the whole vampire-craze feeds off of this female tendency to crave sexual domination.
You may not like it. You may even be horrified by it, but you are in the minority. This does not, however, mean that women actually want to be raped. The fantasies are just an exaggerated version of their desire to be dominated by a man.
Most women want to be sexually pursued and -- yes -- for all of their complaining, they would be disappointed if men no longer desired them and "chased" them. They get off on it, because it's the ultimate female ego-trip. Women's pride is tied closely to their desirability.
What those women are upset about is not that men are sexual predators, but that the men pursuing them aren't the ones they want. American feminists bring up rape all the time because they think about rape a lot. People talk about the stuff they think about, after all. I think it might be a hang-over from the female pedestalization (fear of rape is connected to praise of virginity) that was rampant in the 1800s and 1900s. Which would also explain why it is primarily a favorite topic of white women. Black and Hispanic women don't really discuss rape much, even though we're much more likely to actually be raped.
No one is saying that a woman who has been raped shouldn't speak out about it. I don't know how you gleaned that out of our conversation. What we were discussing is whether a husband has any right to have sex with his wife, and whether he should put up with frigidity and constant rejection. The answer is clearly: no, he shouldn't. A man who lets his wife get away with that is on a fast track to divorce or cuckolding. She's lost all respect for him and is trying to make a fool out of him in his own house.
Mark was agreeing with that assessment, but noting that saying that has become taboo because feminists will claim that any man who doesn't immediately back off when his wife claims to have an imaginary headache is a rapist. "All men are potential rapists." has become a veritable feminist rallying-cry, and husbands are not exempt from this suspicion.
It has to be a power thing too Alte. Describing men as potential rapists totally destroys their credibility. They move from intelligent or honorable beings to uncontrollable monkeys or people with suspect motives. Fun.
ReplyDeleteThe reason for that is that marriage has been "converted" from a covenant relationship to a state-certified love affair. A covenant relationship implies rights and obligations, whereas a love affair does not -- in a love affair, each party is free to do as he/she chooses, and there are no "obligations" beyond what is desired by each and consented to by each. Some writers on marriage, mostly feminist women, happily describe this as "love conquering marriage", but in reality what happened was that the sense of covenant was deleted from marriage because covenant implies responsibility, and responsibility implies limits on desires and behaviors -- none of which is consistent with the endless, breathless drive towards maximal personal autonomy. And if marriage is primarily a state-certified love affair, then the concept of "conjugal rights" simply doesn't apply -- "husband" must seduce/coaxe his "wife" into sex as any loverboy would, and this throughout the "marriage".
ReplyDeleteOld Hat, Alte, others, two points:
ReplyDeleteFirst:
If Feminists are truly saying "All men are potential rapists" that's a bit less obnoxious than the common claim in the 1970's, 80's and 90's. The now-dead Feminist Marilyn French famously wrote a work of fiction that included the line "All men are rapists, and that's all they are". Oddly enough, she never to my knowledge wrote any fiction that stated "All women are whores, and that's all they are".
Susan Brownmiller wrote a tirade in the mid 1970's entitled "Men, Women and Rape". The thesis of this work is that all men use rape or threat of rape to intimidate/control all women. When I first encountered this book around 1977 or so, I thought it was laughable drivel that would fade away. Alas, it has not. Even though she hasn't written much of anything else in the last 30+ years, Brownmiller has had enormous effect. Her bad ideas can clearly be seen in the US Violence Against Women Act, circa 1993 or so. It can be seen as an underlying premise of modern Feminist cant. It is like water around a fish, we all swim in this polluted thought.
Second:
Alte is correct in how the feminization plays out. By selecting a woman who is a sigma or more away from the mean and claiming that she's been discriminated against, laws, regulations and in time social custom ar changed. It's like pointing to Elizabeth Browning as the norm, and asserting that lack of more women poets is "proof" of some sort of invidious plot against them. The American Association of University Women issued badly done studies in the 1990's with this method, "proving" that women were discriminated against in US universities.
It is having many bad effects, some not so obvious: promotion of women to positions that they are not competent to fill, for example. I'm currently watching a woman who has been promoted to president of a medium sized state university. She is very detail oriented, in a childless marriage to a professional man, and something of a micromanager. She is not suited for the job, and over her head. In fact, she would likely be a very good executive secretary/administrative assistant to a man, and would be trustworthy with some discretion on decisions. But she simply isn't a leader, and likely never will be. If she can function in a caretaker mode, then perhaps she can be a moderate success.
I see this more and more. In order to succeed in many endeavors that are outside of the scope of Proverbs 31, women must attempt to act like men. Some of them succeed, and it takes a toll on the rest of their life (marriage especially). Many do not succeed, and while they may have a happier private life, they tend to make mistakes/blunders/messes that others (usually men) must fix, repair, clean up, etc.
If this goes on, at some point there will be more social damage than can possibly be repaired. At that point, some things will suddenly just stop working...
Second:
ReplyDeleteAlte is correct in how the feminization plays out. By selecting a woman who is a sigma or more away from the mean and claiming that she's been discriminated against, laws, regulations and in time social custom ar changed. It's like pointing to Elizabeth Browning as the norm, and asserting that lack of more women poets is "proof" of some sort of invidious plot against them. The American Association of University Women issued badly done studies in the 1990's with this method, "proving" that women were discriminated against in US universities.
It is having many bad effects, some not so obvious: promotion of women to positions that they are not competent to fill, for example. I'm currently watching a woman who has been promoted to president of a medium sized state university. She is very detail oriented, in a childless marriage to a professional man, and something of a micromanager. She is not suited for the job, and over her head. In fact, she would likely be a very good executive secretary/administrative assistant to a man, and would be trustworthy with some discretion on decisions. But she simply isn't a leader, and likely never will be. If she can function in a caretaker mode, then perhaps she can be a moderate success.
I see this more and more. In order to succeed in many endeavors that are outside of the scope of Proverbs 31, women must attempt to act like men. Some of them succeed, and it takes a toll on the rest of their life (marriage especially). Many do not succeed, and while they may have a happier private life, they tend to make mistakes/blunders/messes that others (usually men) must fix, repair, clean up, etc.
If this goes on, at some point there will be more social damage than can possibly be repaired. At that point, some things will suddenly just stop working...
Novaseeker, I know you know the deal.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Jesse, but the two are closely intertwined. It's a two-for-one special. :-)
It is precisely the lack of self-control that a rapist has, that makes the thought so exciting. After all, what man wants to have sex so badly with a particular woman that he is willing to risk doing jail time for it? He loses control because the woman is so desirable that he is completely overwhelmed. That's the fantasy, anyway. And of course, in their fantasy the rapist looks like Denzel. No woman fantasizes about being dragged into the bushes by a toothless hobo.
In reality, he's usually just a thug, who thinks he can get away with it, or doesn't care if he gets caught. Let us note that women are often attracted to thugs, which is one of the reasons that they end up alone with these guys, in the first place. Thugs are sexy because they're scary, but thugs are scary because they're dangerous. They're hotter than the other guys, but they're also more likely to beat your face in. It's the hint of violence and unpredictability that turns them on.
Most women who are raped or beaten by their boyfriends and husbands don't break up with them (or report them to the police, despite the stupid partner-rape and domestic violence laws). It's not because they're afraid to, it's because they don't want to. This baffles the feminists, but it's obvious why: being abusive doesn't stop him from being sexy. It may even make him more sexy because he's proven that his threats aren't empty. His thug credentials have been confirmed. They don't try to get out until they start fearing for their lives, or their children's well-being, and then it's often too late and he ends up going bezerk. Until then, they hang around for more hot loving from Mr. Super Thug.
But as soon as Mr. Super Thug goes nuts, they go running to the Nice Guys for "protection". Puh-lease. They're running to the same Nice Guys they rejected in order to chase Mr. Super Thug, in the first place. And as soon as the Nice Guys have stepped up and helped them out, they'll start fantasizing about Mr. Super Thug again.
Once a woman has been with an alpha, she's ruined for any man who isn't an alpha. Which is why I can only laugh about "born-again virgins". Um... sure. Nice Guys are only attractive to those women once she's too old and unnattractive to keep Mr. Super Thug around. Then the Nice Guys get the worn-out leftovers.
I also know the deal.
I've lived it, and I see it all around me. Truth is, I'm happily married because my husband is a bit of a thug, and if he weren't, then I'd be trying to rationalize myself into an affair, stuffing my face with ice cream and cupcakes, or popping "happy pills", to keep myself from falling into despair because of the chump I'd married. Women are women. Smart women are the same, only sneakier.
Saying "men are rapists" reduces men to idiotic, slavering animals. Helpless in the face of women's virtue, intelligence, and sexual continence. This is the Victorian fantasy, based upon the idolization of women, and their pedestalization as superior beings. Which, as any thug or player can tell you, is a load of bull. If anything, women have less self-control than men do.
ReplyDeleteIn this vision, men are pathetic brutes and need to be controlled. Women aren't able to control them, so they enlist the help of other men (male politicians, the police, white-knights) to keep men in check. That's why women are quick to call for "protection". Men naturally protect women who are close and important to them, or whom they consider virtuous. If a man thinks a woman is trying to protect her own virtue, he will be inclined to help her do so. But if she can't even be bothered, why should he? So, the calls for protection are needed to guilt men into protecting women they otherwise wouldn't. The idea is that men are so expendable that it is right to ask them to risk themselves in order to protect any woman; that women don't have to earn the right to be protected with their chaste behavior (including conjugal rights).
If rape laws were not so draconian, women would have to curtail their own behavior to protect themselves, and align themselves with a man for protection. They would also be less inclined to marital frigidity because they would fear the loss of the man's protection. Women spurn their husbands because they can, because the state grants them the right to do so with impunity.
In previous times, it was assumed that a woman who did not protect herself had consented, so she had to be very careful in protecting her virtue. Once the onus was on men to protect women from themselves, women were free to do whatever they wanted. They can walk down the street naked, they can take off their shirt and lay down in a man's bed, they can even be prostitutes, and still claim protection. The sexual revolution was dependent upon a change in rape laws.
Feminists are nothing, if not clever. And men fall for this argument all the time. It never gets old, it never loses its power. Ad infinitum. Any man who fights it will immediately be demonized as being pro-rape, which is why it is important that women finally start speaking up about this stuff. We can't allow feminists to design our laws and shape our government.
Feminism starts off with pedestalization. That's always the first step to male subjugation. And male subjugation kills marriage. It is inevitable. That is why I am tempted to beat my head against the wall in frustration at Christian women's rallying cries of "Protect us, protect us, protect us!" and their subsequent support of these anti-male laws. I used to think that they were naive of the impact such laws have, but I am starting to get the sneaking suspicion that many Christian women are feminists at heart, and that they welcome these changes with full awareness of the social chaos that they bring. That truly saddens me, because it means that marriage is doomed.
Hi Alte,
ReplyDeleteI've talked to a couple of women who were with abusive partners and I was suprised by how low their self esteem was. They'd say things like "it doesn't matter" or "but I love him" (implying that they can't leave because they can't get anyone better or can't go it alone for a while). They're also shockingly stuck in the present. They can't really imagine an alternative future and so just get by on a much more day to day basis. All up they're fairly helpless and apathetic.
Women with a higher self esteem on the other hand immeditialy won't put with it (or don't put up with it for long) and when abuse starts they leave or take action. It doesn't seem to me that abuse makes women happy but on the other hand quite the contrary. There may be a quiet thrill at a raised voice from time to time but I don't think women really want thug men. They may just want powerful men in the way that I suppose everyone is attracted to power.
On Anonymous Protestant's point about Brownmiller I think that was an example of the extremism or "lesbianism" of the feminist movement which succeeded in turning a lot of women off it and making it a bit of an object of ridicule.
On your larger point about women I've already been accused of being a non-conservative recently so I'll keep this relatively short ;). You mentioned a women who was a non-effective leader at your university. I don't think that necessarily proves the point though. Plenty of men and academics are not particularly effective as leaders. If she's a token appointment that can de-legitimise the importance of strong performance but I’m not sure leadership is beyond all women. Many elements of “pick up after me” for instance may be immaturity, which passes (and is unfortunately all too common). The areas where women are most out of their depth are the realms requiring physical strength. I'm not sure that women though are necessarily out of depth across broader work avenues.
If the issue is of men and women competing against each other, does that really matter? Isn't it in human nature to compete and seek avenues of competition? If women are at home isn't there a danger of constant competition with the husband, read nagging? At least in the sphere of paid work its fairly impersonal and so you're not necessarily going against anyone or any one group in particular.
Alternatively if the issue is of women losing the feminine traits I agree that is at play but plenty of women dominate in certain areas, eg nursing, and can still maintain elements of femininity. It could be that certain elements of femininity such as nurturing, are strongly ingrained and so won't easily go. We all know how generally soft modern politics has become, issues like the environment and welfare dominate. This is in part due to the increasing arrival of women as a politically influential group. Given that it would seem that not all women are becoming man like.
To tie on from my previous post about women I'd like to say something quickly about men. Whatever you views on the war in Afghanistan might be, I'm surprised (well not really) by the continually whimpy coverage, "its a quagmire, we can't win" etc. Every problem is an unconquerable obstacle. This is not man like behavior, this is girl, coward and weak behavior. These arguments are usually put up by men (usually lefties but not exclusively). So I'm asking I suppose why have men become so whimp like?
ReplyDeleteThe point has already been made that many traditional avenues of male authority have been undermined and this must have some effect. Nonetheless I think it must be more and points to a general social laziness, complacency or desire for conflict avoidance.
Alte said,
ReplyDelete"In previous times, it was assumed that a woman who did not protect herself had consented, so she had to be very careful in protecting her virtue."
It could be that in previous times that if a women didn't protect herself they didn't care if she had consented or not because she had broken social convention.
They are feminists because feminism is, in terms of sex relations, the air that we breathe. It is extremely counter-cultural to buck it, and it takes a lot of energy, intellect, determination, intention and a lack of caring about the views of others to do so successfully. In effect, it is the dominant meme in sex relations today in the West.
ReplyDeleteAlte said: "In reality, he's usually just a thug..."
ReplyDeleteNo. In my experience, the thug-rapist connection only applies in war zones where you have out-of-control soldiers, not in the modern Western world.
The men I've come across who are rapists tend to be psychologically weak and perceived by most people as upstanding, self-controlled, and respectable pillars of society. One man I'm thinking of is a school principal and respected academic; another is a highly-respected member of a Christian church and member of the armed forces. I've never known a woman who was raped by a stranger, but I've come across plenty who have been raped (or an attempt has been made) by someone they know... and I'm not talking about dubious "date-rapes" either.
Jesse said: "I don't think women really want thug men. They may just want powerful men in the way that I suppose everyone is attracted to power."
Agreed. Lower class women in particular tend to confuse the two.
Alte said: "It is a bizarre and unnatural state of affairs to have young women prancing about "dating". It's dangerous, confuses expectations, and blurs the lines between consent and refusal."
So what are you suggesting as an alternative?! Arranged marriages?! Personally, I think dating is a lot better than the situation I grew up with in Australia where if you have dinner with a guy then you're automatically going out and have to break up with him - you can't see anyone else. I found the American system of dating far preferable. I was able to get to know guys without having to make a commitment on the first date, and it also made it clear who's interest lay where (instead of in Australia where everyone skulked around having secret interests that couldn't be investigated without considerable risk). I never had a single American date put any pressure on me to kiss or have sex, but would say that the majority of Australian "dates" had expectations I was unwilling to fulfil.
I never found dating "dangerous" and I don't think I or any of the women I knew were "prancing about". Alte, have a look at the language you use about women compared to the language you use about men - is that really fair? The way you write suggests to me that you believe there is something inherent in women that makes them fair targets for your invective.
I think we agree to a large degree on most points, Alte, but I see your constant censure of women and sympathy for men as something that makes victims of men and (through your own rhetoric) suggests that perhaps women deserve a pedestal of sorts (even if it's not a virtuous one). I don't think demonising anyone is very helpful.
Alte said: "Why does forcing your wife to have sex carry the same legal penalty as forcing a stranger to have sex?" and "Sex inside of marriage is never considered a crime in the Bible..."
ReplyDeleteAlte, it is statements like these that undermine any attempt to get women who aren't particularly feminist from actually abandoning feminism. Are you seriously suggesting that a man cannot rape his wife by definition?! Are you saying that the law should redefine rape so that sex doesn't require consent within the bonds of marriage? Well, that would be one sure way to discourage women from getting married!
I agree there are major problems in the way judges apply the available penalties for rape, but the definition must remain and the law must be able to be applied to an amazing array of situations. In the case of law, exceptions must be catered for. In answer to your question "Why does forcing your wife to have sex carry the same legal penalty as forcing a stranger to have sex?" I can certainly think of two cases in which this might be fair: the brutal and violent rape of a married woman by her drunken husband... and the rape of a woman in a nightclub who led the man on for quite some time and then changed her mind after a period of "making out". Are you suggesting the married man should get off scot free? And please don't try to tell me that the married woman likes having a thug as a husband. One of my ex-boyfriends broke several ribs trying to protect his mother from his violent alcoholic father - she didn't stay with him because she liked the thrill of being beaten every night, she stayed with him because she was a good Catholic who didn't believe in leaving her husband, who couldn't bear the shame of admitting she had a husband who was unworthy of the name, in short because she was a traditional wife. Marital rape laws must exist for the protection of such women. Just because they are a minority does not mean they can be swept under the carpet or dismissed!
Jesse,
ReplyDeleteYeah, but the reason they didn't care was because she was assumed to be a harlot. Nice girls followed the rules, so every girl who doesn't follow the rules is not a nice girl.
I never said that thugs make women happy, just that they turn women on. Sexual attraction is a very powerful force, and women will often stay in a situation where they are miserable in order to stay close to a man they find attractive.
Men will do that too, by the way, if the woman is attractive enough.
Old Hat,
Time for clarification again, as we are again talking past each other. Remember how old I am, and how times and terminology have changed. I'm using Game parlance here, as that has become the standard when discussing such things.
"Thug" doesn't necessarily refer to a gangsta or low-life anymore. My ex was a total thug, but he was also rich, attractive, and had a Ph.D. in Physics. He was still a thug, because of the way he acted toward me (and other women). Like you say, in public he was charming and well-mannered.
A "thug" is basically an alpha who is unbound by morality (he was an atheist). It has nothing to do with race, social class, or wealth. My husband is an alpa too (your "powerful man"), but he's Christian, so he has a mental list of things he's allowed to do and not allowed to do, and he sticks to that. You can be an alpha without being a thug, but you can't be a thug without being an alpha.
I've seen women fight over rapists, beaters, philanderers, and just-plain-jerks. Those guys never sleep alone.
You decide.
I never had a single American date put any pressure on me to kiss or have sex, but would say that the majority of Australian "dates" had expectations I was unwilling to fulfil.
Showing your age there, Old Hat. It's all about "hooking up" now. Even dating is old-fashioned. What would I propose as an alternative? What about courtship? As in, getting to know each other in a safe environment.
Are you saying that the law should redefine rape so that sex doesn't require consent within the bonds of marriage?
Yes. Why not? Or are you afraid that your husband will rape you if the law doesn't forbid it?
Well, that would be one sure way to discourage women from getting married!
Nope. Women like getting married, just not to chumps.
Are you suggesting the married man should get off scot free?
A married man who rapes his wife never gets off scot free. He's still married to his victim, remember? It's not like he can just disappear into the night, or something. He has to live with her after that. Not every punishment requires jail time.
Besides, most women who are raped by their boyfriends or husbands don't report it (and will lie about it, if asked) because they don't want him arrested. Really.
she didn't stay with him because she liked the thrill of being beaten every night
That's not the issue. The issue is: Why did she marry a thug in the first place? It's the thuggishness that's thrilling, not the beating. The beating is a side-effect. She may have regretted her choice in man afterward (as I did), but she still chose him in the beginning.
Marital rape laws must exist for the protection of such women.
No, legal divorce and separation laws must exist for the protection of such women. It's already illegal to beat your wife (that's simple assault and battery). The "rape" aspect is a matter of consent, not violence. Let's not confuse the two.
Alte, it is statements like these that undermine any attempt to get women who aren't particularly feminist from actually abandoning feminism.
ReplyDeleteSo what? Women will abandon feminism when they discover that feminism won't feed them. Not before, regardless of what we say. Things won't change until the social state goes bankrupt. And then all of the feminists will turn coats real quick, and claim to have been anti-feminists all along.
I was a feminist when I was much younger, because I was stupid and ignorant. Some women never drop it. I won't bother to make a connection there...
Alte, have a look at the language you use about women compared to the language you use about men - is that really fair?
Truth isn't fair, but it is just. You tell me I shouldn't say things I know to be true because they aren't fair. There's no need for me to speak hard truths about men, because the internet is already filled with that, so why should I repeat it?
But then you are assuming that women should be my natural allies. Girl Power, and all that. You are gravely mistaken. My closest ally on earth is my husband, and I will promote policies that are good for him, and for my children. The Girls will have to wait their turn. They might want to sit down, as it might be a long wait.
The way you write suggests to me that you believe there is something inherent in women that makes them fair targets for your invective.
Are you asking me to "spare the ladies"? When they are ladies, I shall spare them. I promise.
And finally, Old Hat...
ReplyDeleteAll of your anecdotes do not change the fact that anti-male legislation hurts marriage, and makes it unattractive for men. How do you aim to use the state to intimidate husbands while keeping marriage a viable option?
Is it worth destroying marriage for the many, in order to save some woman from the thug she married?
Alte,
ReplyDelete""Thug" doesn't necessarily refer to a gangsta or low-life anymore". The word clearly implies violence. So perhaps another word is needed.
There's also an issue of confusing the person with the behavior. If a little tard is acting tough I'm sure he'll get far less attention that a physically attractive or dominating looking bloke.
On the attractiveness of rule breakers. Following rules is boring so rule breakers can be fresh and exciting. That doesn't mean the relationships will be stable or long lasting. Sleeping alone is one thing, long lasting relationships another.
This ties in a little to Novaseekers point. If marriage is perceived as one long date then a "dateable" man, superficially attractive, may be seen as more desirable than a marriageable man, stable, effective, etc.
Jesse7
ReplyDeleteHere is a man's perspective.
Alte uses a word that works for her, "thug", and is honest and frank from a woman's point of view. She has practically said it in so many words: tough guys turn her on. Is she an untypical woman? Almost certainly not. She is, however, unusually forthright.
A better way to put it would be: guys who are capable of being tough turn her on.
I have a reasonably happy and long-lasting marriage. I am "stable" and "reliable" and a serious Catholic. I think I am a good father. But I am also capable of being a "thug". I don't thug it up all the time; but my wife knows that I have my limits, and that I am capable of being decisive and tough, if necessary.
If my wife misbehaves, there will be repercussions. And I set a fairly high standard. I don't shower her with praise and presents. I simply expect her to function as my wife.
A woman wants to know that her husband is not a wimp, or a "chump" as Americans say. There are plenty of ways for a husband to convey this. With luck, he will be a naturally assertive man who will occasionally drop the nice-guy act. Ideally there will be something about him that she can look up to or admire, in line with her hypergamous instincts.
A man has to make his wife feel female. Not all the time. Just often enough. She has to be able to recall instances when he has impressed her by being a real man.
There is a huge debate in the Manosphere about whether an ordinary husband can "thug up" or not. I think most men are capable of being "thuggish" enough, especially if they forget the nice-guy compulsion occasionally.
David
Alte, I think I'm beginning to understand your use of the word thug, but as I'm not into Game it's bit misleading for me. Regardless, I don't think it's right to give the word the legitimacy you are giving it. A thug is, by definition, a violent person, usually a criminal. I reject any attempts to make the idea of a thug appealing or respectable.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "No, legal divorce and separation laws must exist for the protection of such women. It's already illegal to beat your wife (that's simple assault and battery). The "rape" aspect is a matter of consent, not violence. Let's not confuse the two."
So, a man who beats his wife ought to be punished by law, but a man who forces her to have sex without consent shouldn't?! I disagree and find this notion abhorrent.
You asked "are you afraid that your husband will rape you if the law doesn't forbid it?". No, because I'm not married to a thug... but I've seen how women can marry a man not knowing what he's really like... and I've seen men change and become almost unrecognisable due to various circumstances. We don't have laws to ease women's fears. We have laws to punish wrongdoing, and from what I tell you are saying that rape ought to be legal as long as you're married to the woman you rape. What about de facto relationships? So it's not okay to rape the woman you're living with but it is as long as you're married?! Huh? What has a married woman done by definition to justify being forced to have sex against her consent?!
There are other points you've raised that I could address but I really think I'd be wasting my time. I can't stand feminists, and I deplore the way society panders to them, but I'm not going to let that turn me into a bitter misogynist. There is nothing reasonable about condoning rape, I consider your stance immoral and offensive, and I believe your utter lack of compassion for women is downright un-Christian. That's my last word. I will not waste my time replying to any further posts.
old hat
ReplyDeleteAgain, a husband's perspective.
What rape-in-marriage laws mean for a husband is that he always runs the theoretical risk of his wife claiming he raped her, on a whim. How on earth is he to disprove this? She will have his semen in her. If the sex has been rough, she may have abrasions or bruises or swelling. It will be her word against his.
I think you are an Australian. If so, you may remember the case of the man in Western Australia who did jailtime because his wife accused him of rape. He was recently found dead, a suicide, despite the woman eventually admitting that she had made it all up.
This is what rape-in-marriage laws really mean.
And, as Alte says, do you really, seriously imagine that a wife whose husband has genuinely raped her has no recourse? That she will not find a way to make him pay. What Alte is saying is that calling in the Law, or threatening every husband in our society with that risk, is an oppressive way to handle any such problems. The "cure" is worse than the disease.
Such laws are simply another way for feminists, using unctuous male politicians trolling for votes, to further stack the deck in favour of women, and make everyday life for men a minefield.
David
"What rape-in-marriage laws mean for a husband is that he always runs the theoretical risk of his wife claiming he raped her, on a whim. How on earth is he to disprove this? She will have his semen in her. If the sex has been rough, she may have abrasions or bruises or swelling. It will be her word against his."
ReplyDeleteThis is the case whenever you have consensual sex with a woman. What difference does it make if you're married or not? It's the risk you take... which should be negligible if you're married... assuming you married a decent woman. Don't you trust your wife not to make a false rape allegation against you?!
"Don't you trust your wife not to make a false rape allegation against you?!"
ReplyDeleteWhy should a wife have this power? There is no comparable power for men. It is an invitation to abuse and dishonesty, as the Western Australian case showed. Only a very naive person would assume that a wife would not be tempted to use it. Look at the use of false child abuse claims in divorce cases. Even a "decent woman" has bad moments and evil impulses.
A man I knew once used to say, "Give a man a weapon, and he will eventually use it." The same applies to a woman.
Moreover, you make Alte's case for her. If a married man has no more safety from false rape charges than an unmarried man, why would he bother marrying at all? It will tend to put men off marrying altogether, which I strongly suspect is part of the feminist plan.
Nothing enrages a feminist more than the thought that a man might be happily married.
David
Old Hat,
ReplyDeleteWhat has a married woman done by definition to justify being forced to have sex against her consent?!
There is nothing that justifies that, and we all know that it is clearly wrong. But let us be frank and honest about the actual nature of this act. Tell the truth: If your husband raped you tonight, would you call the police and have him thrown in jail for 10 years?
You wouldn't. You know you wouldn't, and claiming anything else is just a big, fat lie. You wouldn't because you wouldn't think that what he had done was worth jailtime. It just isn't.
You might emotionally torture him at home for a time. You might throw him out of the house. You might divorce him. But put him in jail? I think not.
My ex raped me, which is why I finally left him. Even he was surprised when I didn't report him to the police. But I cannot "play pretend" on this issue anymore without being a Big Fat Liar.
Let's cut the bull. Marital rape laws are like locked doors. They only keep out the innocent.
As for women being oppressed by the patriarchy, and therefore in need of further protection by the law (the irony of such a policy being completely lost on you), your anecdotes leave me cold. Truly, they do. You are using the typical feminine mindset that "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is just a statistic."
ReplyDeleteSo here are some dull statistics for you, to illustrate the inherent virtue and helplessness of women:
In the US last year, out of 100,000 people, 17.7 men killed themselves, and 4.5 women killed themselves. That is 60 men offing themselves every hour. In Australia, the statistic is 16.7 and 4.4, respectively. There is a reason for that sex-disparity: men's lives suck more. I personally know a five men who have blown their brains out, hung themselves in the garage, or decided to sleep their way to the afterlife. The one with less nerve decided to drink himself to a rotten liver. And I know two more who attempted but, thankfully, failed. Any woman who can live surrounded by that kind of carnage and continue to claim blanket amnesty for women is a monster.
The number one trigger for men to end their lives: divorce.
4 out of 10 pregnancies in America end in abortion. About 1/3 of women will have had an abortion in their lifetime. There are parts of the country where more children are aborted than born alive. I personally know of two men whose wives have aborted their children, and the men do not know about it. This is common.
That is mass-murder on a breathtaking scale. 42 million children per year, worldwide. Tendence increasing. The #1 reason for American women to have an abortion: having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents.
While 70% of all divorces are initiated by women, 85% of custody awards go to the women. Men are paying their wives to run away with their new lovers, and take the children with them. Most women divorcing have cheated on their husbands, or are leaving him for another man.
If men do not pay these women alimony and child support, their wages are garnished, and they are thrown into debtor's prison. Every day in our local small-town newspaper, you can see their faces with the words "Fugitive: failure to appear for non-support" under them. Every day. Day after day. Those pictures are interspersed with stories about the latest suicide, or murder-suicide. No connection is noted.
How about them apples?
For the men reading this: BEWARE.
Most "good women" think like Old Hat. They see you as the enemy, as cruel oppressors who have to be kept down. Do not believe these women, and do not buy into their Protection Racket.
There are precious few women who will tell you the truth of what women are really like, and they are constantly shouted down by the feminists, including the "Christian" ones. We are strikebreakers, the patriarchal scabs, breaking ranks and selling out our Girls. Nobody likes a sell-out. I know they despise me, I know they want me to shut up, but I am blessed with the ability to not give a crap what they think.
What I say is still true, no matter how loud the other women try to scream and drown out my voice. No matter how much they rant about me being "mean" or "unkind" or "lacking in compassion". They are trying to shame me into shutting up, because the truth is so ugly that they don't want it said aloud. And especially not said by a fellow woman, whose sex lends credibility to her arguments.
Men of olden days didn't dominate because they were misogynists and hated them. They did so because they knew what women are really like, and the kind of havoc caused by granting them complete freedom and license. The inmates are running the asylum, and it's about time we put an end to it.
I hope everyone can relax because this has been a very interesting discussion.
ReplyDeleteOn the point about the "thug" tag I think it smacks a little of middle class teenagers calling themselves "gangstas". It has the potential to be fodder for comedians.
She's arguing semantics to try to deny the truth in what I say. Women are attracted to thugs. They just are. They do not end up with thugs because they don't know what the men are really like. They end up with thugs because thugs are scary and sexy. Most women would rather be pumped-and-dumped by a Thug than marry a Nice Guy. Look around you for the evidence. It's everywhere. Their denials do not hold water.
ReplyDeleteYou know what, Jesse? I told my girlfriend that he'd raped me. Cried my heart out. She commiserated and agreed that he was an awful bastard. Two weeks later, she moved into his house. I told her that he was a rapist and that made him more attractive to her. They're married now. Nice, white girl from a posh neighborhood, with a Ph.D. in mathematics, and totally sick in the head.
I've seen women do stuff that would make your hair stand on end and your toes curl. Really. And those very same women will then get up and pretend to be helpless victims in need of a strong man for protection. And men believe it!
I hope everyone can relax because this has been a very interesting discussion.
She wasn't interested in having a real discussion of the facts. She accused me of being pro-rape and un-Christian. She was just throwing out sob-stories, shaming language, and pleas for protection.
This is how they argue. This is how they debate. The bad ones just ignore the facts completely (because they don't care), and the good ones agree with the facts, throw out a few choice anecdotes, and then continue with their shaming-language anyway (because they don't care).
They don't care, Jesse. They really just do not care. Most women do not care about what is happening to men because most women do not care about men. They think it is positively unnatural for a woman to take any interest in the fate of the men around her. They say that this is "unfeminine". I hear this all of the time.
Do you think she is unaware of my statistics? So why does she call for legal protections for the women, when it is men and children who are doing so badly now? Do you think she doesn't see as many, or even more, men being treated like garbage by the women they love, than women being misused? Do you?
If you do, I have some ocean-front property in Iowa to sell to you. I'll give you a good price, too.
Jesse, men need to wise up and toughen up, and stop buying the crap these "ladies" are selling. Or things are going to get really ugly, really fast. As Christians, our first concern should be for the truly helpless: the children.
And now I'll go calm down and stop ranting.
Thanks for the comments Alte.
ReplyDeleteSorry I went off like that, Jesse. I have a bit of a temper.
ReplyDeleteBut... Man! That felt good.
;).
ReplyDeleteAlte, you shouldn't assume motives to people you know actually nothing about.
ReplyDeleteIn your post from Monday, 12 July 2010 8:49:00 AM AEST you wrote: "Everything is not relative, much as you might wish it to be so."
Just how exactly do you know that I desire things to be relative?
Concerning Proverbs 31, I wonder you have enough time on your hands to write kilometer-long posts:)
Have a good day
Anony
Alte, I don't think you've read what old hat was writing. She doesn't think men are the enemy and she agreed with you on lots of things. She agreed the law needs reform, she just said that a minority of decent women need to be protected by law - that seems pretty reasonable to me. You're the one going off on rants and being emotional. You keep twisting her words and discredits you.
ReplyDeleteDavid, stop bleating and acting like a victim. Can't you see Alte is making a mockery of you?! She's the Alpha here and she's enjoying it. If it weren't for feminism she wouldn't be sitting on an engineering degree, teaching rhetoric, and whipping up hysteria about how victimized men are. She's the one acting like a man and you're all playing along. She wants you to demonize women so that she can be queen bee. Wake up and smell the coffee!
I just want to say that while I am aware of the situation and have grave concerns about feminism, I don't actually know very many men or women who fit into the descriptions that have been bandied about. I am a Catholic conservative, I have a good wife - an amazing wife if compared to some of the descriptions here - and the other women I know are honest and hardworking. The men, likewise, just buckle down and get on with life. I think Alte and David, in particular, need to get some perspective. Making women the enemy is just as bad as making men the enemy. I've seen bad behaviour from both sexes. I think it's time to stop trying to blame one or the other. Assigning collective guilt just ensures that the real culprits get away.
ReplyDeleteI don't care if Alte is the "alpha" here. She is telling the truth. Women don't care about men, other than the men they are close too, perhaps. Feminists are perfectly happy to see men die, if it furthers their cause.
ReplyDeleteI have read so many complaints from women about how bad it used to be for women, allegedly, but never, NOT ONCE, have I seen a woman admit that men had their problems too. I have read a ridiculous feminist, writing in an Australian newspaper if I recall correctly, complain about how women had to make munitions during the world wars. Oh, the humanity! It never occurred to the stupid bitch that men were required to die and lose their limbs, sight or sanity in the trenches. No woman has ever been conscripted; and no woman ever will be.
Feminists are profoundly short-sighted and selfish. Look at the abortion statistics. That alone should give women as a group pause - but they are not ashamed of it. As I said, feminists are happy to let people die to further their cause.
I have a good marriage too, and a devoted wife. I get what I want. And do you know how? By being a man, and not taking crap. Alte is right. Be your wife's boss or be her wimp. There is no other way.
The harder I am on my wife, the more she respects me. That is female nature. Women only respect power in men. I suppose that is why a man who suicides over a divorce receives ZERO sympathy from women. He must have been a "loser".
David
Just came across this - interesting discussion - and thought I'd throw out a few random thoughts in no particular order:
ReplyDeleteIf you guys are so anti-feminist, why are you being led by a woman? Why are you letting a woman tell you what's what and falling into line behind her?
Most people I know do hook up rather than date, but the Christians date and I haven't found anything dangerous about it. If you want someone to behave like a adult you have to treat them like one.
If I marry, it'll be because I want to start a family with the woman I love... not because I want protection from false rape allegations. I know I'm not the norm because my parents are still together, but I think both my mum and dad got a pretty good deal. It's pretty unthinkable, but if my dad lost his job, became an alcoholic, and raped my mum I'd want her to have the option of going to the law... especially if one of us kids wasn't around to help her.
The way some of you go on, I wouldn't be surprised if you start saying things like that a wife's testimony shouldn't be valid in court unless she has three witnesses. Careful where you go with this!
Maybe if men stopped acting like wimps and whining about how the world is against them, then we wouldn't be in this situation. Seems to me that Alte is boxing us as victims.
I don't see much respect for women in these posts. A real man doesn't have to put a woman down to feel superior. And a real woman doesn't have to vilify her sex so that she can be the glorious exception. Neither men nor women should have to play a Game to get somewhere in life. You need to develop character of your own, not go through life play-acting. That's mercenary and false.
As for the real world, yeah lots of girls are silly and petty and can't see the wood for the trees. But they're not born evil. And I've seen how loyal and supportive they can be. I have lots of female friends, and the best of them are very feminine, often self-sacrificing. Some are really intelligent too and won't have a bar of feminism, but none of them are hard and bitter like Alte. They don't have to put down other women to look good. They just encourage and set a good example. I know you'll call me naive, but there are good strong women out there and they should be encouraged, not put down as helpless and selfish sluts.
And another thing that Alte is right about, because I have seen it too. A woman will do ANYTHING for an Alpha male. Sex acts you would have nightmares about.
ReplyDeleteI have seen this myself. My ex-fiancee was a total "lady". People used to compare her to Lady Diana. When I got fed up with her, and broke off the engagement, that girl did things to try to keep me that you would not believe.
There are a lot of men these days marrying, unwittingly, used-up tarts who have serviced alphas in the most degrading ways; and then present themselves as nice ladies looking for providers. It is a huge con-job.
I am not saying, don't be a decent man. But don't be a shmuck. Women don't respect shmucks. For God's sake, be the boss in the relationship. And make sure you don't marry a woman who sees you as second-best.
Women secretly despise "nice guys".
Why do you think women have submitted to men so comprehensively in the right circumstances? Not because they were oppressed by the patriarchy. Because they wanted to. They got off on it. Feminists lie about this, because it embarrases them too much to admit the truth. Women don't mind submitting - they love it. It lubricates them. They just want to submit to an alpha.
David
Clearly you haven't read even this short article properly. There is no suggestion of a PREFERENCE for family over work, only to the workplace's inability to be flexible:
ReplyDelete"many have dropped out of the workforce - and the lack of family-friendly workplace policies is being blamed."
"While our young women are encouraged to excel academically, when it's time to start a family, there is very little support available from employers,"
Alte –
ReplyDeleteI am sorry, but your level of presumption surprises me.
Old Hat is a dedicated anti-feminist.
If you knew her as I do you would know this to be true.
And I know her because I am her decidedly 'Alpha' husband, writing here on my own initiative and, as it so happens, against her request.
She does not and never has seen men as the enemy. She hates feminism as much as I do, and also hates the effects of the victim mentality that infests both sides of the debate.
Old Hat has given up her personal ambitions in pursuit of her role as mother and wife – she had the capacity to make it far in this world from a material point of view, and has surrendered this to devote herself entirely to myself and our children.
Old Hat is adamant that the Husband is the head of the household and has been working hard to put her natural instinct for leadership aside in pursuit of submission to me in all things.
As I said, she did not wish for me to write in, and I have to this point preferred to be a spectator, but she will accept my decision to do so in compliance to my will. She is to be commended for this.
Old Hat despises female ambition, female scheming, and female manipulation. She too has seen the worst of this.
Old Hat agrees with the many concerns about bias in family law, about outmoded notions of feminine innocence, about the disregard for family unity, and much more.
She would never, never ever call herself a feminist and has nothing but contempt for that movement.
I continue -
ReplyDeleteAlte - You clearly understand the role of the husband and his Authority over you. If this includes a respect for all husbands and the authority they bring even to the society we live in, you will take my advice seriously and sincerely apologise for claiming that she holds beliefs she does not hold in any way shape or form, such as accusing her of believing men to be ‘the enemy’.
I will expect a similar apology from my wife if you can reasonably show how her own accusations are ill founded.
You say that she accused you of being ‘un-Christian’. You said that you treat women with contempt. There is no room for contempt in Christian thought, and on this point she is therefore right. You should apologise and take a good look at yourself.
You say that she said you were ‘pro-rape’. Perhaps it is based on her comments stating that your position is something she finds immoral and offensive, and linked it to ‘condoning rape’. ‘Condone’ meant to disregard, overlook or forgive without protest or censure. Rightly or wrongly, this is what you are asking our laws to do, regardless of your own personal feelings about rape.
We all agree that marital rape, defined as forced intercourse against the wife’s will exists. We also agree that its condemnation exists in law and that this law is sometimes or often abused. Is this abuse a problem with the law, or a problem with a culture that refuses to accept the reality of the female psych? This is where you and we differ. There is nothing inherently wrong with seeing the problem as primarily the latter rather than the former. Old Hat in our conversation has made it clear that she accepts that rape in marriage brings with it a different set of problems, is a different form of infringement, and requires different treatment, and she has implied as much in this blog even if she has not stated so directly. If she has been unclear about this, I can confirm it now. Nor is she against distinctions being written into law that reflect this. She rejects outright however the idea that law should be blind to the problem. If this is sufficient to make her a feminist despite her other strong views on the topic of feminism then she is one very strange feminist indeed.
David - I trust you are aware how the victim mentality – even if ones victimhood has a basis in reality – often distorts the way we view the world. There are more than bad women to know. Can you not see how your circumstances might be effecting your outlook, even to the smallest degree?
Take a break, take a breather and stop damaging the coherence of what is already a small enough body of genuine conservatives.
And Christopher – thank you for the common sense.
Sincerely,
Husband of an Old Hat.
As if,
ReplyDeleteWe've commented on the original article and then continued the conversation. I think that's fair enough.
Christopher,
I'm not a fan of the men as victim approach, and I've said words to that effect many times. Nonetheless its folly to ignore sex differences. I don't think women are born evil and I strongly reject and oppose that tone, however, women are different to men. Things like the Game (again I'm not a huge fan) work on the basis that a women will be influenced by her biological desires. So in this realm physical power will (may) trump niceness and supportive hard work. This is a modern difference, so in this framework being a pretty good bloke may not be enough to keep the marriage on the tracks.
It is fair enough to examine women and men collectively and say are they more likely to be like this or that because of a biological reason?
You want to marry the women you love and have kids, I think most people believe that, and most men who land in the divorce courts (to face a stacked system) too. You're young and big natured and assume the world is a reasonable and fair place. You'll have a different attitude though if you have a falling out with your wife and she takes your kids and kicks your life in the guts. You can say, Oh I should have worked harder to prevent that, but not everything can be prevented by the individual. That's why we need structures and social expectations and laws are a part of that.
I would encourage everyone to take it easy.
ReplyDeleteJoseph
ReplyDeleteI have no personal circumstances that make me anti-feminist. I have however always had a cool and realistic view of women. And I believe that we are all, men and women, born evil (Original Sin). But, lately, society wants us to forget that women are not perfect.
Have you ever asked yourself WHY women are called to be subject to men (husbands and church leaders)? Millions of abortions later, perhaps we have the glimmer of an answer.
My wife is a good woman, but if I told her that a man had killed himself over a divorce, she would not care less. But if something bad happens to a female - THAT is a big deal. That is the way women think.
When was the last time you heard a politician make a promise to help males? I think the only example I can think of was the enquiry in the Australian Parliament into the poor performance of boys in school, and even that had to run the gauntlet of feminist dishonesty. Oh, and Men's Health programs, only now starting up after years and years of Women's Health programs.
I will believe that women give a stuff about men en masse when I see netballers on the ABC wearing armbands in support of research on prostate cancer.
When men lost their jobs in huge numbers in the recent US recession, major media outlets hailed it as an advance! Now women were taking over. "The End of Men" was proclaimed in gloating articles.
A boy learns quickly - nobody cares about men. If girls were struggling in school like boys, we would never hear the end of it.
I have what I wanted in a wife. I married a pretty virgin, who has been a good wife and mother. Is she perfect? No. Has my dominant attitude to women helped me in my marriage? Yes. We are still married after 24 years, and we have three children. She bitches and moans, but she still cooks and washes. A man who buys into an "egalitarian" marriage is a fool.
"Game" works. It works because women want to be dominated by the right man. I have always known this instinctively, and now, with the "game theorists", and having read honest women like Alte, I have the theory to support the practice.
Young men reading this - you can make marriage work, but don't marry a slut, don't marry a shrew.
And don't pedestalise women. They may look like angels, but they are not. They mostly have the instincts of tarts. Just make sure you marry a girl who is your tart, and not a girl who is still a tart for an earier man in her heart, or who will become another man's tart when she tires of boring old you.
David
Joseph
ReplyDeleteI have no personal circumstances that make me anti-feminist. I have however always had a cool and realistic view of women. And I believe that we are all, men and women, born evil (Original Sin). But, lately, society wants us to forget that women are not perfect.
Have you ever asked yourself WHY women are called to be subject to men (husbands and church leaders)? Millions of abortions later, perhaps we have the glimmer of an answer.
My wife is a good woman, but if I told her that a man had killed himself over a divorce, she would not care less. But if something bad happens to a female - THAT is a big deal. That is the way women think.
When was the last time you heard a politician make a promise to help males? I think the only example I can think of was the enquiry in the Australian Parliament into the poor performance of boys in school, and even that had to run the gauntlet of feminist dishonesty. Oh, and Men's Health programs, only now starting up after years and years of Women's Health programs.
I will believe that women give a stuff about men en masse when I see netballers on the ABC wearing armbands in support of research on prostate cancer.
When men lost their jobs in huge numbers in the recent US recession, major media outlets hailed it as an advance! Now women were taking over. "The End of Men" was proclaimed in gloating articles.
A boy learns quickly - nobody cares about men. If girls were struggling in school like boys, we would never hear the end of it.
I have what I wanted in a wife. I married a pretty virgin, who has been a good wife and mother. Is she perfect? No. Has my dominant attitude to women helped me in my marriage? Yes. We are still married after 24 years, and we have three children. She bitches and moans, but she still cooks and washes. A man who buys into an "egalitarian" marriage is a fool.
"Game" works. It works because women want to be dominated by the right man. I have always known this instinctively, and now, with the "game theorists", and having read honest women like Alte, I have the theory to support the practice.
Young men reading this - you can make marriage work, but don't marry a slut, don't marry a shrew.
And don't pedestalise women. They may look like angels, but they are not. They mostly have the instincts of tarts. Just make sure you marry a girl who is your tart, and not a girl who is still a tart for an earier man in her heart, or who will become another man's tart when she tires of boring old you.
David
David,
ReplyDeleteNo dissagreement and neither will you get one from Old Hat. That was my point. I would probably rate 'most women' a little higher than you would however, though I agree about placing them on a pedestool - this is a form of idolatry and will always be shown to be false, in time.
Women are subject to their husbands for many reasons. Inferior worth is however not one of them. I trust you feel the same.
Joseph
ReplyDeleteIt is "pedestal", not "pedestool". I am not trying to be smart, but this is a common error.
I don't believe that women have lesser worth than men. Women have souls. But I think they are properly subject to men in this world - "the head of every woman is the man". I also believe that women are more prone to moral error and blindness than men (not that they sin more, but that they have trouble understanding the nature of morality.) "The woman sinned first and became a transgressor."
The Devil wants men to put women between them and God. This is a mistake, and it has led to a great deal of damage.
As for Alte. Yes, I appreciate the irony in a "male chauvinist" like me listening to a woman; but she is an unusually honest woman who says things I happen to approve of. Putting it bluntly, she knows her place. I am never going to object to a woman like that.
David
Oh, and don't think I am naive about all this. I have not had a busy sex life, being a very religious bloke. But, as I have said elsewhere before, when a man has had the experience of stuffing a girl's panties in his college room desk (as I have) just before her cuckolded husband knocks on his door looking for his young Catholic bride of a few months, it tends to make one a bit cynical about women.
ReplyDeleteDavid
Thank you for the spelling correction. I must write quickly as I am at work. (and this is one area where Old Hat is decidedly better and more diligent than I)
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the sentiment and also find Alte’s description of herself refreshing. But she must not be so quick to make assumptions, and know that a woman is at her best when she develops her compassion – including her compassion for other woman – and even for those whom have strayed.
I say much the same to my own wife when I believe it is what she needs to hear.
Joseph
I thought this was supposed to be a conservative traditionalist blog. It's fast becoming one of those us-poor-men-are-victims and it's-all-women's-fault blogs. You're supposed to be all on the same side, but Alte (in particular) is treating Old Hat like she's the enemy when she's obviously (if you read what she says) a definite ally. (But I forgot, she IS the enemy - she's a woman!)
ReplyDeleteAny feminist reading this must be having a good laugh - you're going to such extremes and becoming so irrational and vindictive against one of your own that you have absolutely no credibility. I was recommended this blog some time ago, and some of the other posts are just great, but this one just makes me want to up and leave... which I might just do. You give conservatives a bad name.
If you're the same Anonymous I've clashed with before I'll bet you'll be around making irritating comments for some time to come.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous
ReplyDeleteAttempts to deal with feminism in a moderate way have been abject failures. Feminists themselves have proven that they have no moderation.
Millions of abortions, broken marriages, and ruined lives, together with the biggest load of propaganda and bullshit just about ever. Those are the fruits of feminism.
It is not a joke any more. Men, and women who care about men, must stop giving feminists aid and comfort. Half-measures have failed. Time for a serious response.
David
I think it's time to close this discussion thread.
ReplyDeleteI let it go on because amongst it all there were many useful insights and there was much food for thought.
But it has clearly started to be taken personally and I think it's best to stop now.
I'd ask readers to consider the discussion closed.
Mark, forgive me for adding a comment, but I would like to make a general point about law which I think may benefit your readers. I am not responding to anyone in particular and therefore am not getting 'personal'.
ReplyDeleteMarital rape laws are not the result of a grand feminist conspiracy against men. The first challenges to rape laws regarding 'marital rape' occurred in the post-WWII period with cases where the woman was separated from her husband and seeking divorce. It was apparent that an estranged husband could commit rape and get away with it. This is the background to law reform in this area.
Furthermore, most of the current laws do recognise that marital rape is a lesser crime, and some states even restrict it to separated couples.
This is not to say that there aren't problems, but these require reform of the law, not outright rejection of the very notion of marital rape. If your readers are truly concerned about feminist abuse of rape laws, I suggest they turn their attention to the current plans in the UK to give men more legal protection by allowing the accused anonymity. This has the potential to save many men from the ruin associated with groundless rape allegations.
I refer you to the following article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7558673/Rape-defendants-to-be-granted-anonymity-despite-outrage.html
Mark,
ReplyDeleteI would like to apologize to Old Hat for calling her a feminist, I was out of order. We generally get along quite well, and I myself recognized this morning, after some contemplation, that our riff was uncharacteristic, and can be reduced to a misunderstanding and overpersonalization of the perceived offenses, rather than a true difference in philosophical opinion. We were frequently talking past each other, even while agreeing.
Joseph, I am sorry that you thought your wife was so under attack that you must intervene. But if that was your concern, you were quite right to step in.
But she must have some of the now-infamous compassion with me, and recognize that implying that someone who has been raped condones rape is bound to stir up a bit of righteous indignation. I never meant to condone partner/marital rape, trivialize it, or imply that it is not a grievous sin. I know personally how terrible, painful, injurous, and traumatic it can be. My point was merely that it should not necessarily be a crime punishable with incarceration, as I think that such a sentence does not fit the crime.
As for David "following me", that is simply not true (although he is too humble to admit it), and I hope that my behavior here has not discredited him, as that would be truly unjust. He has, if anything, been a strong influence on my own beliefs, including my religious faith.
For instance, I hadn't been to Confession in over 3 years before I began conversing with him, and I am very greatful to him for that change. He has also gently pointed out some of my other failings, that I am attempting (with obviously mixed success) to correct. I am certainly more verbose and emphatic than he (or anyone else on the planet), but that does not necessarily make me leader. It merely reflects the fact that I am quite young, female, and easily excitable.
Furthermore, I would like to apologize to Mark for my misbehavior. I am not a political conservative, but merely a traditionalist, and that difference in views is obvious in this thread. Mark has been very gracious to allow me to post, regardless of our philosophical differences. I am merely a guest here, because the topics interest me, and I am not part of the actual conservative movement.
My sincere apologies to all. In the future, I shall attempt to reign in my overabundance of passion, show more Christian compassion for the plight of my fellow women, and adopt a more civil tone.
James,
ReplyDeleteThat is very interesting and pertinent, but how does that jibe with the fact that marital rape laws are moving in the opposite direction in most US states (and in my native Germany)? That is, expanding to partner rape laws, and thereby applying to all cohabiting couples, regardless of marital status.
Also, as you note, in some states marital rape carries the identical punishment as non-marital rape. It used to be that marital rape was a separate, lesser crime. But now they have merely removed the marital exemption from the sexual assault statutes, in a growing number of states. The legal movement is going in that direction, it seems, not in the other.
Anonymity is, of course, the best interim course of action, for all men accused of rape.
Alte, the trend you note is why REFORM is required, not jettison of the very concept of marital rape. I too am worried about the direction in which things are going. You need to understand that the bulk of the problem is with the judges who apply the penalty. Two very different rapes should be able to be prosecuted under the same law. Two men will be both guilty of 'rape'. However, the problem arises when judges do not ensure that the gravity and circumstances of the crime are reflected in the punishment. One, let's say a married man, perhaps should be given the minimum penalty, and the other the maximum. In practice, feminist judges punish men with complete disregard for the circumstances, and this is wrong. This is why the entire system needs reform, but it would be just as wrong to legislate a blanket exemption for married men. Law has to be general enough to be applied to an amazing variety of circumstances. The trouble arises (and not just in rape laws) when judges do not exercise good judgment.
ReplyDeleteAlte, I accept your apology.
ReplyDeleteIt's "rein in" by the way, not "reign in". It refers to slowing or stopping the horse you are riding by pulling back on the reins firmly (but not too suddenly if you want to stay on)... much the way men were expected to control their wives in olden times. In fact, women were often compared to horses: they too could be selected for health and breeding the way one selects a good horse, and men found they could get the best out of their wives by treating them in the much the same way they treated their horses, with a firm (but not violent) hand. Work horses required less of a delicate touch than a highly-bred racehorse, and the analogy was carried on in various ways.... Regardless, I think modern society has lost something with the motor car - a good horsemen knows how to direct/guide and, if necessary, rein in a woman instinctively. Perhaps you could see it as a Victorian alternative to Game that trains a man to be man without resorting to pretence or acting... and which really enrages feminists! ;-)
Alte
ReplyDeleteI am pleased, and a bit surprised, that I had a good effect on your religious life.
I have always respected your intellectual and rhetorical abilities.
Women with leadership capacity, like Old Hat and Alte, and even my wife, are needed "on the side of the Angels".
David
Sweet,
ReplyDeleteJames said,
"In practice, feminist judges punish men with complete disregard for the circumstances, and this is wrong."
I'm not sure that that is the case, it might be. The issue would come down in determing sentencing and in that circumstances do play a part. There is also a difference between the maximum applicaple punishments, which will be identical for all rape (although some forms are "aggravated" and have a higher penalty), and actual punishments which will vary.
On the issue of marital rape laws, rape within marriage I believe has been a crime for some time in Australia. There was, however, an evidentiary presumption in favour of there not being a rape with married couples until not that long ago, which has now been overturned.
Philiosophy does underlie judicial rulings though so there is no escape from that.
On the level of general society, it is virtually impossible to argue that something is wrong if it is not against the law. Consequently, we cannot afford to not have some sort of law against marital rape. I agree that a distinction needs to be made between this and other forms of rape, as rape has a wide definition, but to reject marital rape as a crime (in law) would be tantamount to saying it is not wrong (within our society as a whole).
ReplyDeleteAnonymous
ReplyDeleteIf everything that is wrong should be against the law, why is adultery not against the law?
Or are you going to argue that adultery is not wrong?
David
I think the argument would be perhaps that adultery should be against the law. It is an interesting question of how well can morality stand when it is not backed by the law. Especially in a secular society that seems to downgrade morality as a force in its own right.
ReplyDeleteHistorically law has been seen as a reflection of morality and not vice versa.
Adultery used to be against the law and it should be against the law. The fact that it is no longer against the law and we have a massive problem with unashamed adultery points to the fact the laws do affect societal behaviour and supports my argument that laws must prohibit wrongdoing, such as marital rape.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I meant with my "not being a conservative". I'm generally against the criminilization of society. There are so many laws against so many things, that we are now all criminals. You can't help breaking the law when there are so many laws. Just because I think that something is wrong, doesn't mean I think there should be a legal punishment for it. Generalized criminilization results in an end to morality, as people stop asking themselves "Is this right?" but rather "Is this legal?". It is then assumed that anything that is legal, is right or moral.
ReplyDeleteThat said, adultery should definitely be illegal (as should no-fault divorce, which encourages abandonment) because it is a breach of the marriage contract. Marriage contracts should hold at least as much legal standing as all other contracts. Adultery is fraud.
As you note, when we move the policing of morality to the law, we put it up for a majority vote (and we weaken the power of the Church, in the process). It stops being a moral absolute, and becomes something to be discussed, debated in the media, and rationalized. Gay marriage is a prime example of how sodomy goes from being a moral absolute (against), to legal statute, to tolerated, to legal right (for).
Since the majority of the populace is female, and voting skews even larger in thier direction because of male incarceration and military service rates, putting any moral law onto the government's legal statutes will tend to lead to men's crimes (such as rape) being punished much harsher than women's crimes (such as abortion, which is murder). Some female American Senators have been caught on the record as suggesting that infanticide should be legal, which is simply a further progression of this movement.
That is not because killing a person is less bad than raping a person, but because of something called the tyranny of the majority. For the same reason, adultery is no longer a crime, as the majority being persecuted for it were women. It is inevitable in a democracy, which is why America was originally designed as a republic. But it is impossible to keep a republic (with its concept of absolute morality and justice) while women hold the majority of the vote, because women are natural democrats (utilitarians).
There are some things so heinous that they need to be forbidden by law, but I would keep that list quite short. It would be better to concentrate on protecting women who wish to leave abusive relationships, in my opinion. Some states have moved to have fast-track divorce available for women who can prove abuse (with a doctor's testimony, or the support of a battered-women's shelter, for instance). That is a more fair way of handling the situation, than allowing women to have their husbands dragged away from their offices in handcuffs, as happened to a close family friend of ours. He was eventually exonerated, but not before being suspended from his job and suffering a stroke. He's now out on disability, but his life is ruined. An accusation is enough to ruin a man, even if he is eventually proven innocent.
We should not persecute people for a crime that we cannot prove even took place. That is inherently unjust, and provides too much room for abuse. And women will abuse such a law, if given the opportunity. That is what we've learned.
But, of course, that is the libertarian view on things. The conservative view seems quite blood-thirsty, in comparison.
Old Hat,
ReplyDeleteThat is not a Victorian analogy to Game, that is Game.
Another analogy is dog-training, for which a friend of mine was recently vilified for making. But it is an analogy that also works quite well. After all, mankind chose those particular animals to domesticate (among others), because their social structures and behaviors so closely match our own. We assume the alpha status with those animals, and they recognize us as leaders.
My cousin is married to a horse rancher, and he has amazingly tight Game. You should see him with the horses, and then with his wife. ;-) I sometimes wonder if that's where the cowboy-fascination comes from.
One more thing:
ReplyDeleteI think it's very easy to turn domestic violence incidents into a sort of witch hunt. Identify the "bad guy" and hang him.
But, the inside is incredibly messy and complicated. It's not always as clear-cut as it looks to onlookers. The person who threw the last punch wasn't always the one who started the fight. They're just the one who ended the fight. There is a very simplistic meme of DV going around, that is very dangerous.
Sometimes it would be a better tactic to offer counseling to couples than to throw one in jail. The other spouse often doesn't want their partner jailed (and will have to lie to protect them); they just want them to behave. The law should take that wish into account, I think, and not always concentrate on punishment.
I know that it isn't as satisfying for the public, but it might be more effective, more just, and more of a help to the actual victims.
Alte said,
ReplyDelete"My cousin is married to a horse rancher, and he has amazingly tight Game. You should see him with the horses, and then with his wife. ;-) I sometimes wonder if that's where the cowboy-fascination comes from."
This is a rubbish comparison. I mean this is really abominable language. I hope the wives all read this crap and walk out.
That is, in fact, his own wife's characterization. LOL. And, of course, the innuendo possibilities are practically endless.
ReplyDeleteI can only assume you're joking, Jesse.