This is an old charge against feminists, but one which has typically only been considered superficially. The real reason feminists are ugly has nothing to do with their physical appearance. Feminists are ugly because they are miserly with love.
One of the effects of feminism is that men of my generation have had a much wider opportunity to cook. I can’t think of any men my age or younger who don’t know how to cook. Moreover, I can’t think of any men of my generation or younger who don’t enjoy cooking. This is in stark contrast to the women of the same generations, who (typically) view cooking as an indignity. The reason for the difference in attitude boils down to what cooking is all about. Cooking is an act of love, an act of service to others. It is an opportunity to care for others in a very fundamental way, to literally nourish them through the work of your own hands. This is precisely what troubles the modern woman so much about cooking (or cleaning, or changing diapers). Serving others in the mind of a feminist is an indignity, so cooking, cleaning, or any other act of service and love is the object of revulsion. Women now actually compete to show off their miserliness in caring for others, each trying to outdo the rest in proving they are the greatest scrooge with love. It has gone so far that large numbers of women are quite proud of the fact that they have never learned to cook or otherwise care for others. Their miserliness is a badge of honor. Not all women have adopted this extremely ugly worldview, but the ones who are going against the grain of the culture here understand better than anyone how uncommon their loving and caring attitudes really are today.
The ugliness of the feminist mind-frame towards cooking, cleaning, and caring for others is so profound that it is difficult to process. These women are so obsessed with not showing Christian love that they make it a priority not to serve their own families. Cooking, cleaning, and caring for their own husbands and children is a concept which is repulsive to them. Acts of service to others are in their twisted minds traps to be avoided, and many go so far as to order their entire lives around avoiding showing love to others, especially their families. These women are so gripped by miserliness they have made it a priority not to show love to their own children. When they find themselves unable to avoid an act of service and love to their families altogether, they first steel their hearts with resentment, turning their hearts to stone to avoid the feelings of selfless love they live in constant terror of developing.
It is important to remember that while these women have avoided love and service to others in an attempt to profit, this does not profit them at all. The philosophy of the miser is profoundly destructive to the miser themselves. While we shouldn’t lie about the extreme ugliness in this frame of mind, we should remember that the miser is suffering immensely from their own perverted outlook. There is also great opportunity here. While what I’m describing is quite plain to see once you consider it, very few have ever had the opportunity to really examine it. We can help explain the profound ugliness of a miserly heart, and in doing so (if we are doing it right) we are doing an act of love.
The new year is a time of resolutions, and one resolution I would offer for us all is to truly consider the folly of a miserly heart and not only repent ourselves, but help others to do the same.
May each of you have a happy and blessed new year.
“Pursue love.” 1 Corinthians 14:1.
I know many young women who are not ugly physically (7 and up) who are proud of their inability to cook. Nor would they fall into the general category of those who call themselves feminists. They never learned in the first place, which can be forgiven of them because of their parents. But their pride in not learning to cook, and their lack of desire to learn, is against them.
I am one of those young men who likes to cook. Especially for others. I consider it one of the higher forms of art, in addition to possibly being a service to others. But it takes time and effort I don’t always have. Which is why it would be nice to have a helper who can accomplish that simple yet rewarding task when I can’t. Sure would be nice to find one.
Happy new year. The suffering of a miserly heart is a just reward. And is as it should be.
It’s hard for me to remember this ugliness, since it’s been so long that I discovered I was on the wrong path (feminism). I’ve been married 25 years this week, and our two children are grown. I don’t remember hating serving my family but I do remember frequently being impatient with them. I would say I am in denial, from regret and embarrassment. Thank you Lord for grace, for I am surely in need of it.
Thanks, brother. Happy 2014 to you and everyone else.
Happy New Year, Dalrock and everyone.
This is particularly noticeable when it comes to caring for an ill family member. I have known women who say they very much dislike and resent carrying not only for an ill husband but even an ill child. I think it is unnatural for a woman not to feel a desire to (and satisfaction in) caring for her own offspring. How very sad that feminism has made women resent that which we were created to do – care for our families.
But it is very noticeable once you start looking for it. I wrote an essay awhile back on caring for my husband while he was injured, and one of my obsessed feminist fans got very upset, nearly hysterical, and wrote an angry reply on her own blog. As far as I can tell, what she objected to was the fact that I recommended that women be selfless, when in her mind I ought to have mostly written about the importance of how women need to take care of themselves when their husbands are ill. I won’t link to her blog, but here is what she wrote (emphasis mine):
So ladies, the most crucial thing to worry about when your husband is sick, according to feminists, is…you.
Should be “caring” not “carrying”.
nothing more attractive than a girl with a great job and a colorful past, right ladies!
yuck.
When I was growing up it was part of being a man to learn to cook. Men were expected to be able to do anything – fix the car, write a book, build a house, cook for themselves (also called batching), etc.
It was part of self-reliance. Now when he got married, the woman was expected to take on the feminine duties, which included cooking, but he could do it. I can still, after many years, cook better than my woman, but I don’t unless she’s sick, or I’m away.
“It [feminism] is mixed up with a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.” – G.K. Chesterton
As always, spot-on. Bravo.
I saw this “ugly feminist” effect with my oldest sister. She was (physically) a beautiful girl up until college. An old friend (whom I hadn’t spoken two in nearly twenty years) called me up to trade memories of the old neighborhood we grew up in. We caught up on how each others families were. He recalled that my oldest sister was an object of many young mans affections back in the day.
What happened next? Well, she had one serious relationship before college, and that ended with a broken heart. She also positively LOATHED my father. Then, four years of ivy league education was the finishing touch.
She now lives alone, and barely speaks to any family members. Never married, of course.
Die-hard feminist. It’s sad, really. I’m getting a bit blue just writing this.
Thanks again, Dalrock. Happy New Year.
Happy new year Dalrock.
May I take this moment to brag that my wife cooks every dinner for the family, tries hard, and does a good job. Her mother (my mother in law) is in fact a spectacular cook, along with my wife’s 3 sisters (all married with kids). This past Christmas/New Years break has been great at the in laws, 2 weeks of baking, cooking, stewing, and frying.
I have a lot of cardio to do next week.
Yeah, I see this. Even when my wife was still in love with me, there was this splinter in her mind… some sort of strange combination of guilt and regret that contaminated her view of our sex life. She didn’t seem to mind “putting out” per se… but the thought of me getting any pleasure or satisfaction out of it made her distinctly uncomfortable. She now behaves like the proverbial dog in the manger… but [strangely] on principal. She’s been trained to feel guilty if she doesn’t! It’s unreal…. There is nothing she does that is not touched by this mindset.
No amount of concessions or reasoning can quench this hole in her mind. Capitulation only seems to increase her demands. The hoops I have to jump through just get more and more elaborate as I go through them. Some dusty concept of commitment has led her to settle for a marriage of convenience for some time… but the threat of dissolution comes out the moment she think’s she’s losing an argument.
I’ve tried to avoid stifling my masculinity in order to curry her favor…. I’ve tried being assertive and direct and clear about how I view things so that she at least has something to rebel against… but I’m afraid I was retired from boyfriend status way too long ago. Any sort of “game” is viewed as me being uppity… the “invisible man” just doesn’t know his place. She’s always carrying on about how she wants me to “work on our relationship”, but her contempt for acknowledging me as being “her man” is downright palpable.
Her perpetual catch-22’s cause me are a never ceasing agony. It wouldn’t bother me so much if the church didn’t bend over backwards to ratify it as “holy.” It surprises me that she would want my son to have to go through this, but according to her, if a woman can apply even an extremely liberally defined “abuse” to the marriage, then the guy is just getting what’s coming to him.
Co-workers are mean and selfish. Modern woman has been duped into the role of marital co-worker, with fealty to Encorpera taking precedence over their husbands. And men want wives, not co-workers.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/20/a-man-wants-a-wife-not-a-co-worker/
I’m not sure I’d say I’m much of a cook…but I’m not going out to eat all the time and I’m not starving.
I’d be ok with a lady who may not make the best tasting food…but at least tries to cook for me. Like you said it’s an act of love…and I’d even place that ability above sex.
Remember Jesus taught the greatest rulers are the ones that serve.
http://biblehub.com/luke/22-26.htm
truly consider the folly of a miserly heart and not only repent ourselves, but help others to do the same.————-
well said and to the heart of the matter. May you have Christmas blessings throughout this new year and an open and generous heart!
Sue
Feminists are ugly because they rebel against their very natures. I think that rebellion starts to take hold and the outside starts to resemble the inside.
Happy New Year Dalrock, hope your blog goes from strength to strength!
@Matamoros,
Webster’s says the spelling is “baching it”, which looks weird. I agree a typical man ought to be able to do all the typically “women’s work” even better than a typical woman does. At least sub for her or fill in for her sometimes to keep in practice, not least to be ready for when she is sick or gone or otherwise occupied.
One thing to keep in mind is that traditionally it was considered “women’s work” because it was easy, despite a fairy story making it seem other otherwise. If a woman was available, then a man could use his time more wisely doing harder tasks.
I cook all the time, proper meals too, not the microwave kind. It’s none too difficult these days and with ovens and other electrical items around the home, it has also become relatively easy and a bit of fun to do now and again. Obviously it’s a chore most of the time.
Still, my mother is a brilliant cook, which certainly adds to the enjoyment when I’m over there. Seems to be a lost art amongst modern women.
Ya, its strange that nearly an entire generation of woman can’t cook. I can cook many different good tasting meals. When I have women over my house, I tease them about chaining them to the stove. When they protest I let them know not to worry, the chain will be long enough to reach the bedroom.
My husband almost never cooks as that is my job, but he can cook quite well if he needs to. is mother taught all her boys to cook because she told them point blank that girls these days “can’t cook, can’t clean, can’t nothing.” So she made sure they could do it. I could cook a little when we met and the things I could cook, I cooked for him. I am a very good cook now, but he can cook better than I can.
I bake circles around him though which is good for me because he enjoys fresh baked breads, cakes, etc. I do have something to offer him in the kitchen that he can’t do for himself.
But yes, there does seem to be a sense of satisfaction on the part of some women with the fact that they don’t have a domestically inclined bone in their bodies. I don’t really get it. Who marries a man and gives birth to his children with the mindset that they don’t want to love and care for them?
Good article and comments as ever. The Dalrock blog is one of the best.
I feel bad for Some Guy. I wonder why, when she threatens dissolution and in view of the entire unsatisfactory situation, he doesn’t say “Oh, can we? I want that too.” Seems to me the bitch is threatening peace and freedom.
Great post, Dalrock. The stinginess of feminists in never wanting to do something nice for a man really does go against the nature of many and even most women. Most of the women who follow this advice will feel less happy and fulfilled but hey, they get to claim fealty to the feminist herd.
Feminists are also ugly because of the injustices they are causing men to undergo, like Hawaiian Libertarian’s post about the Imputed Income Trap, and because of the innocent young men that are being expelled from college due to fake rape claims that only require the preponderance of the evidence to convince the campus tribunal (often composed of feminists or white knights).
I write about this and share a few cases that have been written about in the media.
http://www.justfourguys.com/war-against-men-campus-rape-tribunals-are-out-of-control/
Yes, Dalrock, one should care for others. Happy New Year!
My ex wife was way hotter before she became totally entrenched in her feminism backed by her Christian faith. I think the church made her more ugly overall.
Elspeth,
You just described 90% of western women. They do not care about anything but themselves and everything they do in conditioned on meeting their needs first. Its messed up. Yes I can clean, cook and bake circles around any woman I have met thus far in my 39 years. Even my dad out cooked my mom who ended up frivorcing him. If it was not for me my family would have died from either starvation of culinary boredom.
Look at the feminist hatred toward Stephanie Smith making 300 sandwiches for her boyfriend to win a marriage proposal. This may seem backwards, but I think in this day and age every guy should make his girl jump through at least one hoop to win his hand in marriage. After my first wife divorced me for prizes and money, I decided that I would test my next girlfriend before I would marry her. I did and we are still together over a decade later.
When I was 10 or 11, my grandma was dying of liver cancer. My mother went with her smallest babies to be with her for a while. I was assigned the task of cooking for the rest of the large family. They probably did not eat well, but my mother;’s cooking was never earth shaking. So, we got by even with my crude cooking.
And, here in Mexico, around 2000, a little girl ran across the street one day and hugged me around the knees, which was as high as she could reach, and called me Grandpa. I have never completely understood why that little girl adored me, but she did. And, as she approaches her 16th birthday, she still calls me Grandpa. And, her whole family accepts me as Grandpa #3. I am invited to family gatherings, even in other towns.
But, when she was 8, I went to visit one day, probably to help her with her English homework. She bathed her younger brothers; washed clothes; cooked the meal for the family; and took the food to her Mom and her oldest Grandpa. Let me repeat; she was EIGHT YEARS OLD. And, already could take care of a family.
Happy New Year, Dalrock.
And, yes, I can cook, but my Mum (and sisters) are better than I am. Because my Mum and Grandma taught them (and us boys).
Young women, if you can cook really well, it adds +2 to MMV. Consider that as Girl Game hint #1 for 2014.
I would ask most women this.
If I can cook, clean, take care of myself, and keep myself afloat while keeping the peace and the only thing of value you have to offer…you willingly contracept your way out of it.
What is the point of you?
Rollo wrote on this regarding his wife, who dismissed a nasty dancer’s fracture that he got.
And SSM’s quoting of that feminist above demonstrates SSM’s exact point about empathy. When your husband is injured…look after yourself. Sinister.
Reason #3,211 not to get married.
@Stig — From a biblical standpoint, I see no option but to remain with her until she chooses leave of her own choice. I believe she escalates things as far as she dares in the hopes that I will be the one to pull the trigger on the divorce process– that way she can craft the perfect cover story about how I wronged her. (The prohibitions of the scriptures are real enough to each of us that we are held in check… but are not accepted/practiced to the point were actual reconciliation is effected. That’s really shitty, but it’s probably how it is.)
I honestly do try to imagine how I could have a C. S. Lewis style “Until We Have Faces” moment where I finally see how I’ve really been all these years…. I haven’t known what else to do except to push really hard to avoid the “Fireproof” churches and go as far towards the ones where there is at least a veneer of opposition against divorce. It’s certainly given her something else to complain about, but then… it’s always something.
I wish you wouldn’t call it selfless love, Dalrock. Its not. It might be sacrificial, or it might be just an act of love, but it is not selfless if it is done for family.
Love done for general humanity, may be selfless. Love done for you and yours is not.
Most women under thrity are proud of the partying, proud of not being really capable of doing anything but sex and they think the party will go on forever.
And for the most part they are right, at thirty there’s still a hoard of thirsty men that will make themselves slaves, err, marry them.
They don’t have to do any of those things, because they don’t need to do any of them to get the self validation they need.
Sure, there’s an undercurrent for the smarter ones that they really aren’t anything but an object because there’s nothing more to them (which is why they had the great war against objectification, they know at some level that’s really all they are).
The expect to be loved “No matter what.”
Subbed
I needed this post brother, though I don’t have time to explain it, I will say it shows me a way for forgiveness to break through! Thanks.
as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
When your husband is injured…look after yourself. Sinister. [Referring to quoted comment at the Bodycrimes feminist blog.]
All they were saying is that it’s important to take care of yourself because you can get burned out and then be no use to the sick or injured person for whom you are caring. What is so sinister about that? This is a strawman argument, attributing motivations that aren’t there so you can feel superior. It is dishonest and makes you look foolish.
It’s like on the airplane when they tell you to put on your own mask before assisting others, including small children. If you are exhausted or unconscious from lack of oxygen, what good will you do?
Why would a man marry a woman who can’t or won’t cook and clean? I dropped many a prospect who had some modernist notion that we should share the house work. And these were Christian women.
The only woman I encountered who was willing to be a house wife was already divorced with another man’s children. Again a Christian woman. I tell you we Christian’s have a lot of explaining to do.
I also dropped any prospect that:
– was not a Bible believing Christian.
– did not agree that the husband had the final say on any decision.
– had a poor or non-existent relationship with her father.
– had another man’s children.
– had divorced her husband.
– wanted to have a career.
– did not believe in spanking children.
All the American women that I encountered and fit the above criteria were already housewives and happily married. I ended up marrying a woman from another part of the world who was raised to appreciate her man. She’s not perfect (nether am I) but she is in a league above any of the prospects I encountered stateside.
Some Guy says:
January 1, 2014 at 4:43 pm
Pray brother pray. And maintain your masculine frame. I’ll pray for you too.
@ JDG
Don’t spank Children. That’s violence.
Has no one ever read: http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/ ?
E.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/1u6r6u/i_so_so_badly_want_a_wife_whos_a_stay_at_home/
“Don’t spank Children. That’s violence.”
To withhold spanking is child abuse.
@Ras Al Ghul
I think I see your point, although there is at least a degree of selflessness when caring for your family. Also, in some cases it is easier to love your family, but in other cases I think it can actually be more difficult to love your family than a stranger. But my point in this post and the prior one is regarding the mindframe of the miser (feminist) herself. She sees even caring for her own children as dangerously selfless. This isn’t hyperbole; they really do deeply fear it. As I pointed out in the previous post, they fear this so much that when they can’t avoid it, they have a whole series of rituals to first harden their hearts and then purposely return to a state of selfishness. They actually fear that their selfishness tank will run dry if they aren’t constantly on guard and topping it off. So while feeding and diapering your own children isn’t remarkable in the realm of selfless love, to a feminist (miser) even this penny’s worth of love is too much to imagine spending.
But you admit it is violence…
No…actually you did.
Dalrock
I note that selfishness is a theme running through a lot of your posts. In particular the last two.
It may interest you that Christian authorities on occult teaching have long seen this thread in satanism. Specifically, Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, summarised his teachings with the song,”I Did it My Way” by Frank Sinatra. LaVey insisted that the central tenet of satanism was selfishness.
I would venture that the Men’s Rights Movement, and Christian opposition to feminism, is simply fighting satanism by another name.
There has to be a reason feminist don’t think domestic life is happy… happy…
Let’s see … the feminist women were beaten as children … and say all men are violent.
Let’s see … the feminists ride alpha cock, who were beaten as children and are in and out of prison.
Let’s see … the feminists were beaten as kids and don’t want to cook for a man.
Let’s see … the feminists have awful relationships with their fathers … who beat them, perhaps, or else why hate bad dad?
Sorry it breaks my heart to see a kid hit and I call it out in public. The parents just go beet red.
But back to the topic at hand… getting women to cook….they would be happy housewives of they cooked … so we should force them to cook since doing otherwise would be abuse since we want them to be happy. Wait that won’t work.
That describes feminists exactly. It’s their soul that deforms them not their physical appearance.
Don’t spank Children. That’s violence.
vi·o·lence
1.behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
No! Spanking is not violence.
Certainly not as defined above. And if you are one of those who likes to change the meaning of a word to forward an ideological agenda, then my answer is:
Oh! You think spanking is violence. Why have parents throughout history taken to spanking unruly children? Why should I believe that modernists know more about raising children than previous generations of parents who’s children did not suffer with the deficiencies so prevalent in modernity?
What does our Maker say about the matter?
Proverbs 13:24
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
I don’t care what you call it, spanking is in and modern parenting advice is out.
Let’s keep in mind the Farmer In The Dell principle: husbands tend to not be miserly towards wives, wives tend not to be miserly towards children (and cats), etc. Given the natural tendency of miserliness of wives towards husbands, in sex, in backscratches, in making sandwiches, maybe we can say a feminist is a woman who treats the whole world as if it were her husband.
There has to be a reason feminist don’t think domestic life is happy… happy…
Let’s see … the feminist women were beaten as children … and say all men are violent.
Let’s see … the feminists ride alpha cock, who were beaten as children and are in and out of prison.
Let’s see … the feminists were beaten as kids and don’t want to cook for a man.
Let’s see … the feminists have awful relationships with their fathers … who beat them, perhaps, or else why hate bad dad?
A correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. Why do you believe anything a feminist tells you about why she thinks or does anything?
If you confronted me in public for spanking my child, I would tell you then and there in front of everyone that people like you are the reason kids are what they are today. And I wouldn’t be the least bit red in the face.
Ok. I’ve laid out my position. Thank you for explaining yours in detail.
Civilization is the radical notion that men are people too.
@Some Guy
Unsolicited and free advice, so take it for what it is worth, but given that she has essentially checked out of the marriage, work some version of the MMSL MAP on an accelerated schedule while also making necessary post-marriage preparations (important papers and documents, untraceable cash, separate and thus far unused/unknown bank account, credit card(s) and cellphone hidden safely off-premises, etc.), and then if things still do not improve then escalate to Dread game.
Also, read No More Mr. Nice Guy (Robert Glover, only 155 pages) and start focusing on yourself and your needs instead of the continued supplication (which doesn’t work) you mention in your first comment above.
@Lena S.
True. But you know the trouble is doublespeak.
@ Dalrock and continuing to poke SSM
Selfless love for another is inversely frequent with respect to the rate of voluntary dissociation of those relationships. Lets look at such an imaginary plot from the bottom up.
At the bottom, with the lowest frequency of dissociation, is parents voluntarily entirely washing their hands of a child, disowning, surrendering while a newborn, etc… This is the most rare form of relationship destruction. Hence, I conclude that a parents love for a child is the only love that might truly be called “Selfless” in existence. And even that is not guaranteed to exist as the internet makes it quite clear that some parents are just plain f-ed up and screw up their kids deliberately.
Moving up the line, we see love for your parents. This is not truly selfless, if it were, retirement care homes would almost not exist as an industry. If you or your body were conditioned to love your parents unconditionally, kids running away from home wouldn’t be such a terrific plague in the developed world.
Another step up the list, we see love for your brothers or sisters. This is also is not selfless, if it were then the death law industry would not exist, no one would ever argue about inheritance or responsibilities to disabled parents.
Getting towards the high end of relationship dissociation, we see love for your significant other. This plot is now getting problematic, however, because we’re starting to enter a third axis, that of voluntary association. Love for your SO begins from a voluntary association, and becomes involuntary when law and children get involved. Love for your significant other is not selfless, if it were, divorce would be nonexistant.
You are never guaranteed, nor should you attempt to impose the expectation of selfless love between those for whom there is no choice of interaction. Your parents and siblings are people in your life who you had no choice but to interact with for 18+ years. The love you feel for them is familial, it is proximal, it is a result of conditioned life experiences and comfort. This is not very different from the “brotherly” love that male soldiers will share with each other after sharing a foxhole in combat after being shelled and dragging each other to safety when their limbs were nearly blown off, only diluted 1000 times. This does not diminish the value of this form of love, but it does reveal such love to ultimately be conditional depending on whether that comfort can be maintained. Families blow up when comfort cannot be maintained, which is another reason so many people dread the holidays. Distance between those you wish to care about, but don’t want to hear from, is the best option for maintaining familial comfort in the face of strife. The holidays reduce that distance to zero, thus magnifying the lack of the comfort condition being met.
Wives and Husbands have entered into a voluntary association, a contract. This contract binds them into a mildly involuntary association once codified, or once children have been born. It is highly destructive to attempt to impose the idea of selfless love on such a contract. At best it is entirely counterproductive since selflessness implies that there is no value exchange between parties, but if there is no value exchange there would be no voluntary association to begin with. At worst it is simply marriage theft. This does not say that acts of selflessness will not or could not be a part of the association, nor does it preclude the possibility that two people will find each other and discover that they truly do love each other “selflessly”. What it does say, is that the expectation of selfless love, from either party in marriage, is ultimately a fatal conceit. It is the expectation that once voluntary association has been realized and turned into a contract, that both parties will now behave wholly selflessly. This is not any different from expecting citizens of a new country to all behave like perfect little socialists, never looking out for themselves first. I think I shouldn’t have to point out how ridiculous an expectation this is.
Those who try to believe that wives or husbands are inherently capable of selfless before or after the vows are taken are no different than your run-of-the-mill socialist who truly believes that if we all just join hands, that human self-interest will somehow vanish. It is a pipe dream, it does not exist. We would do well, as Rollo has stated, to stop pretending that it does exist because when it doesn’t exist when we assumed it did, highly destructive results follow.
Since retiring, I have started cooking most of the family dinners on work days since my wife is still in the workforce, although cooking in other situations still defaults to my wife. I have discovered that cooking to a reasonable standard is not too hard. It is even quite fun a lot of the time. It is a lot easier than “home handyman” activities.
I was struggling with some bolts while assembling something recently, and I said to my wife who was helping, “Now I know why men get this kind of job. It is harder than most things women do around the home.”
“start focusing on yourself and your needs” — That’s kind of ironic given the original post.
The current relational-judo move I face is… me not going to counseling (or reading a relationship book or whatever) means I don’t want to “work on our relationship” and therefore… “we’re DONE.” I explain to her in red pill terms why this is nonsense… but I think she just hears it as raw heresy. In my view, she’s basically forcing me to negotiate for something that she’s already given me.
If I bring up the topic of sex in any way, it is the surest way to see to it that she goes white hot nuclear. She (unsurprisingly) counters with a “we have to be friends first” tact. I counter that she doesn’t know what marriage is.
It’s not funny, but I pushed on the fact that her lack of a father at home, her previous sex history, and her various health issues are a huge problem for our relationship. She denies it. I’m shocked. So… was she a virgin before we were married? “Yes,” she says. I say… well what about the guy that ___’d you before we were married? Oh, that didn’t count, she says.
(pause)
So how many other things have happened that “don’t count?”
My god… we might actually be able to “work on our relationship” if anything she said had any sort of correspondence to reality. But it’s all smokescreens and rabbit trails. To think that she insists that we sit with a counselor for hours so that we can sort through all this is beyond me. Just going by her actions (and this has been observed elsewhere of other women), giving up the power of “no” is just impossible for her to conceive. I don’t think she can imagine a relationship where she doesn’t have anything to coerce me with.
This seems to me to violate a the sort of fundamental prerequisite that makes a “real relationship” possible… and makes all this talk about “working on our relationship” a total joke. I’ve attempted to explain this to counselors and pastors before, but they can’t hear it. They just smile and nod and then go through their usual routines like I haven’t said anything. After all… both people have to be about equally at fault and both people have to compromise, right…?
Of course, if one iota of anger shows through in any way, then nothing I say has any validity. If that’s how they want to play it, that’s fine. But my wife and her pastor/counselor enablers are engaging in fraud. They stay in business by shunning and excommunicating anyone that calls them out on it. These are the modern day counterparts of the Pharisees.
I think I have about 10 years on you, I just turned 51, but
Moreover, I can’t think of any men of my generation or younger who don’t enjoy cooking
I do not particularly like to cook.
Male cooking may have been born of necessity because of the art being abandoned by women, but of the men I know who are uber enthusiastic about cooking (I’m not talking grill master here) many of them are just part of yet another herd in the cultural group think that is the US. That they havent figured out that women writing in dating profiles that they LOVE a man who cooks, then they cook, is just falling into another sexual manipulation is sort of sad.
15-20 years ago there was a similar herd thing among men to want to build things. It was de rigueur to make one’s own furniture. Classes in woodworking were packed. That has fallen away, a lot, I know this because I have a veritable furniture making factory in my 3rd garage and I was one of many on my streets back then, now I’m the only one. I predict the cooking thing will die down, leaving those that truly and really do like it, maybe you are one of those Dalrock.
Yea, feminists are ugly.
It’s true that you do have to take care of yourself when you have a spouse who is injured or ill, but that doesn’t mean your needs come first (which is what feminists insist on).
Our oldest was barely out of newborn size diapers when my husband had a serious injury that resulted in hospitalization, surgery, and a long recovery period. At that time, Baby’s needs came first, Husband’s needs came second, mine came third. I managed to eat regular meals and get enough sleep so I wasn’t a zombie. I did not get manicures, go out with friends, go shopping (except for necessities), or anything else that wasn’t absolutely necessary.
We got through it. Now my husband is taking care of me and our kids while I’m having a high-risk pregnancy with complications.
This is just what you do as an adult. You take care of your responsibilities to your family. It seems to me that feminists advocate for women to remain perpetual children who never have to face adult responsibility. Patriarchy never infantilized women like feminism does.
No, the cooking thing won’t die soon, because MGTOW is on the rise. Cooking is a survival skill. When men take it upon themselves to survive individually more, male cooking will rise.
And frankly, grilling *IS* cooking, probably a much healthier form of cooking than baking and frying.
Lena
All they were saying is that it’s important to take care of yourself because you can get burned out and then be no use to the sick or injured person for whom you are caring. What is so sinister about that?
It isn’t sinister. It’s stupid. It doesnt even really mean anything. Its comfort food in the form of words. Its the kind of empty calories women love to feed themselves in conversation, not because later one of them who has an injured spouse may think…..”hmmmmm, my friend told me I need to take care of myself first and I am feeling hungry and exhausted, Id best go eat a bite and catch some rest”, where, had they not heard that they would have been found with a head injury on the kitchen floor having collapsed from exhaustion and hunger. No, its because the one saying it gets to feel some desired emotion at the time of saying it, as if they actually have contributed to the care of the injured party by sharing this profound advice.
If its not stupid its nefarious, because the only meaning for saying that that has any actionable utility is the one where they mean go get a spa and a facial or some such nonsense, like folks who cannot avail themselves to aromatherapy are going to end up being poor care givers.
People are incredibly stupid in the things they repeat. The radio is full of ads that are from “The Ad Council”…..”its hot outside, make sure you get some cool water and shade,…go to
http://www.its hot so get water and shade.org, brought to you by concerned idiots and the Ad Council.
Jeremy, yes it will die soon. We are talking about very different things.
Some guy…..you are repeating the script many of us have experienced in Christian counseling. Verbatim. I am sorry you are in the thick of it.
The part where you said if any anger shows your words are invalid resonates. The anger then becomes the issue, the real issue is forever lost.
This is happening in cozy meeting rooms (with many leather bound books!) across the county daily.
Latest from the Erikson Saga:
And frankly, grilling *IS* cooking, probably a much healthier form of cooking than baking and frying.
From what I’ve read, baking is better than grilling, which is better than frying.
Earl said I would ask most women this.
If I can cook, clean, take care of myself, and keep myself afloat while keeping the peace and the only thing of value you have to offer…you willingly contracept your way out of it.
What is the point of you?
Why, earl, just the fact that she’s a woman automatically makes her AWESOME. How could you dare even think of asking such a question?
Besides, as a man, you OWE her a relationship (on HER terms, of course) if that’s what she wants from you, you all-powerful patriarchal a*****e!
@Empath
I suspect you and I are talking about very different things. I’m not talking about becoming a gourmet, although some men certainly go this route. I’m talking about enjoying the opportunity to feed someone else. I first thought of this about ten years ago in Elk hunting camp. These men were like brothers to me, and preparing a meal was something I enjoyed because it was an act of service. I’ve stalked Elk and Deer with these men, skinned, quartered, and packed out animals over mountains and across beaver ponds with them, etc. What struck me was that were I a woman this simple act would come with an incredible amount of baggage.
More recently I was camping with a good friend of mine, the kind of man you would want by your side if you needed to quarter and pack out an Elk. I was fighting off a cold and didn’t want to take the chance of getting him sick. He not only did all of the cooking but all of the cleaning as well, and he did so cheerfully. I’m all but certain that he wasn’t seething with resentment, but at the same time I’ll make it a point to take over camp kitchen duty the next time out (I’ll also bring the Bourbon). Likewise I picked up a dirty sock from the floor the other day which wasn’t mine and put it in the hamper. If I were a woman (at least the average woman, my wife fortunately does not suffer this way) this would have been an occasion of great resentment and indignity, not to mention fraught with terrible risk. Fortunately for me as a man I’m not at risk of losing myself, and don’t need an emergency pampering session and frequent reminders to be true to myself to combat the dangerous effects of caring for someone else.
There is some truth in the idea that carers must also care for themselves. I can see this being somewhat in the caring role myself these days.
But at a deeper level, feminists seem to imagine that absolute freedom is attainable, desirable and something men have as a birthright. None of these things is true.
When they find themselves unable to avoid an act of service and love to their families altogether, they first steel their hearts with resentment, turning their hearts to stone to avoid the feelings of selfless love they live in constant terror of developing.
“Just desserts” will emerge in years to come in the form of these elderly and infirm women either having no one to care for them (either from having no living relatives for the purpose due to their never having married, or because their grown children have become estranged from them) or being cared for by minimally qualified, minimally paid “professionals” who couldn’t care less whether they lived or died.
Happy 2014 Dalrock!
Yes, ’tis a sad state of affairs with modern American/Western women.
We would all like to change it, so we must ask. “How did this come to be?”
Why did women come to disregard Genesis, the Law of Moses, and the Divine Wisdom of Jesus Christ?
Follow the money, and one soon sees that the less time a woman devotes to her family, the more time she can devote to the corporation. The less time a woman spends cooking meals, the more time she can spend cooking the books in a sub-prime loan office.
‘Tis a short-term and destructive strategy–to encourage women to abort and pursue the material over the spiritual. But some do profit off of feminism–those who grow the State.
I hope that in 2014 Good Men realize that the higher form of game is returning Genesis, the Law of Moses, and the wisdom of Jesus not just to the choir, but to our courts, schools, universities, and churches, and then, perhaps, we may again begin to see it in our homes.
Best in 2014! 🙂 Da GBFM lzlzozozlozo
“To withhold spanking is child abuse.”
Animals don’t spank their young. They cuff them on the back of the head, which is the only thing I ever did – and all three turned out just fine,
@Some Guy
Not really. I think you are looking at it the wrong way, and stand by the advice.
Read NMMNG and accelerate the MMSL MAP towards Dread. Or acquiesce and submit.
Also, with respect to ‘mansplaining’ to a woman in red pill terms,
http://therationalmale.com/2013/12/30/secret-of-the-red-pill/
Just do it. Just be it. You cannot use logic with an illogical person.
Actually women’s lack of empathy for masculine pain (not lack of ALL empathy as BodyCrimes exaggerates my point) is exactly the reason women do make the best nurses. Dissociative indifference is a necessity in healthcare for the same reason cattlemen never give names to their cows.
Re: Leif Erikson
If he could be turned he would make a powerful ally.
Rollo,
Actually my dad always named the personal beef we raised each year. It was always Bonzo.
That said, I agree with the dissociative indifference you mention.
Hmm yes. Leif Erikson. Very tough for him the way Jenny wants to revise these linked remarks extensively and change him from “amazing husband” to effective non-person. There’s some instructive value for us in looking at them.
http://glenlasbury.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/twitter-personality-of-the-week-5-10-questions-for-jenny-erikson-jennyerikson/
@rollo there will come a day when the red pill digests in leifs stomache. It will be sooner rather than later. Its not often that one man’s injustice is recognized and championed by many who don’t know him.
Many of these feministas are now or will soon be going into retirement homes. They will have no right to complain about the service, food, etc. as many were useless at domestic skills. I posted this on Sunshine Mary’s blog, but in case some of you missed this. A good gift for a feminist.
http://www.bigcatrescue.biz/servlet/the-79/Crazy-Cat-Lady-Action/Detail
Happy New Year everyone.
Dalrock,
I profoundly disagree. Rush got it right with rule #24.
If you are an ugly woman, you are (or should I saw, were) locked out of the mainstream of society. So, you turn to feminism to get what beautiful women were already getting in life. Feminism makes ugly women whole (with state funded resources) at the expense of men (in that sense, feminism = communism in a dress) because men will not give ugly women the time of day without the state stepping in to force them to do it. It is that simple. SSM’s picture of the happily married and beautiful (and non-feminist) Gabriella Reese and her family says it all…. Gabby did not need Feminism, she was already beautiful.
Feminism is all about the absence of looks. That is the root of feminism. It is not that complicated.
Feminists are ugly because they are miserly with love.
T-shirts and bumper stickers being printed as we speak!
“To withhold spanking is child abuse.”
Animals don’t spank their young. They cuff them on the back of the head, which is the only thing I ever did – and all three turned out just fine,
You spank your daughters. You cuff your sons.
Spanking the female child teaches her the authority of Daddy’s love. It will serve her well when she accepts a man for husband, and remembers the consequences of her transgressions. Women routinely press their husbands, test them, push them, just to get a taste of Daddy’s love.
No, Jenny is not going to reconcile with Leif. Why should she? She has everything from him now that she wants. Probably life-time alimony. Plenty of child support. She has made it clear she doesn’t want his d**k.
But, he is right in trying to reconcile. Not for her in his life. She is a fiend. For the girls.
Some men on the manosphere are living in Medieval times. They have not shifted gears for Marriage 2.0, except to avoid marriage as such. That is a good start, but there is more that needs to be done.
The word cuckold, and related words such as the horn, need to be removed from your vocabulary. Cuckold was relevant when most women were virgins when they married, or more likely became engaged to their husbands, and most married couples stayed married their whole lives. When the average first time bride has had 11 previous lovers, and 40% of marriages end up in divorce, cuckold is an oxymoron. Simply a cheap and dirty shot by our worst enemies (other men) trying to make themselves feel important.
The other thing men need to realize is that when you have kids, which is a bad idea in the USA, they become your biggest responsibility. Your male ego is not on the list any more. What Real Men[tm] think of you is not on the list any more. What other men your wife lets use her vagina to be added to those who used it before you married her, is not on the list any more. Your kids are the only item on the list. Your wife clearly does not care what happens to them, just wants to get money using them as hostages. If you don’t take care of them, not one will. That is the modern woman in action.
Next, there are many bad things which can happen to kids. However, for most kids the worst thing that actually happens to them is maternal custody.
Since I believe strongly in the Don’t Get Married view, the best way to keep your kids from maternal custody is not to marry or have kids in the USA. GTHO, and don’t import a wife which gives her all the power of an AW.
If you do screw up your life and your kids’ lives, by having them in the USA, do anything you can to avoid maternal custody. Anything. Don’t file if she spreads herself around; make her file. If you can reconcile even after she has found other men, do it. The odds are neither of these choices will work anyway. All you can do is your best. In most cases, if she wants strange d**k, your kids are going to end up ruined by maternal custody.
I realize many men here can’t handle these ideas. Remember the extremely vicious personal attack I encountered the last time I said this. Well, I stand pat. While the odds are slim you can do anything, do what you can. Your kids are the most important thing in your life, since you made the stupid mistake of having them. At least know when their lives go down in flames, that you did every single thing you could to save them.
I don’t know how to say it any better. The only way to guarantee your kids don’t end up in maternal custody is don’t have them in the USA.
Despite the title, they claim to be egalitarian: en.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights
I’ve always been amazed at the double standards and one-sided explanations provided by those kinds of subreddits.
Why dont men just walk away from the madness when their wives file? They get the kids anyways and by walking away a man is in a much better position to start fresh without having to worry or pay for the kids. This may be the first step to defunding the system. It sucks I know, but does it really make sense to spend all of that money to lose your kids anyway? They are going to end up pretty screwed up regardless.
Love is a spiritual law and thus paradoxical. The more you give away the more you receive back in return. Hence why the miserly horder of love ends up alone
I would not consider my wife a feminist but when it comes to being compassionate to me or others, even her own children, she is completely lacking. She does not want to be dependent on anyone nor be in anyone’s debt for even the smallest of favors. And she sees all men who want love and attention from their wives or girlfriends as “needy” and can’t stand needy men. She of course likes the attention of men but doesn’t believe she should have to do anything to deserve the attention. Men should like her just the way she is. Which is why she lives alone now and the kids choose to stay with me. They don’t have to assume that I love them.
Women today make it impossible for themselves to be happy.
Go the way of the surrogate and have your kids without a woman that has any say so. This gay marriage thing has a silver lining. Single men can now have a child with out a wife or some other overseer. The child is yours for ever with out having to appease some tyrant cunt backed by the government thugs.
Anony 71
The only reason I have a wife is for the use of the uterus to grow my kids. If I could have jacked off into a machine and made the kids i would have done that.
The Purpose of Christian Dating and Marriage (by a Coptic Orthodox priest)
http://catholiclifehacker.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-purpose-of-christian-dating.html
I met my wife while my father was dealing with heart failure. This was in my early red pill days, and I had been going from relationship to relationship to that point. The last two ex’s claimed to be charmed by the level of care I had been willing to devote to my father, but I took a lot of flak for missed appointments, activities and a couple of weekend trips cancelled due to my father’s health. Ultimately (thank God), the ex’s didn’t stick around. No matter how much my wife makes me completely and utterly bonkers at times, I remember very vividly one date early on when my dad was in the hospital and my not-yet wife and I had dinner and were supposed to go to the ballet after, and she suggested we blow off the show and check in with my dad. My gf went from sitting in the chair to sitting on my dad’s bed to lying next to him, chatting away in what passes for her English (I figured out by accident that foreign women are superior), and there wasn’t a bit of awkwardness to it. That sort of instinctual-level act of love and service to both of us speaks to the quality of a woman, and certainly wasn’t lost on me at the time. Feminists can lay claim to whatever titles they want, but the missing quality of Empathy can’t be compensated for, can’t be mitigated, and can’t be hidden.
One of your best posts ever. Very well said.
As a chef with almost 30 years of experience and single father who’s 11 yr old daughter lives with him, I can deeply relate to this post. My girl loves me cooking for her and I love to cook and eat with her.
It is probably very hard for most to believe on this blog , for at times it is almost impossible for me to believe myself, but after going through much of the typical bullshit that single fathers must to have a relationship with their children, my daughter and I are very close . And this is even with her being from a different language and culture, with her language being my second, and us being apart for years. It just dawned on me after reading this post that a key aspect of our close relationship is probably due to how much we prepare and eat home cooked meals together.
Yes, cooking for your family is a great act of love.
“many go so far as to order their entire lives around avoiding showing love to others, especially their families. These women are so gripped by miserliness they have made it a priority not to show love to their own children.”
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Bah, humbug, and a Happy New Year to you all, Men.
[P.S. SSM’s cranky antagoniste is a fairly obvious Englishwoman. And they’re just like that, “feminist” or no, every man jack (for such they be) of ’em.
I suppose it comes from operating a closed shop WRT mating and the male inhabitants (on an island surrounded by aggressive foes) for literally centuries. I guess the setting up of the Danelaw territories was the last mass influx of fresh X-chromosomes, unless you count Famine Irish, who are merely a more extreme and isolated example of the same principles and haplotypes. And it shows …
They all, with few exceptions, believe themselves to be inhabiting some sort of modernist Jane Austen World, where invisible, unspeakable servants scoot around fixing their magnificent and priceless lives for them, perpetually, and (not quite enough) money just .. appears in their handbags.
Even though the vast majority of them are only a greatgrandma away from clogs, shawls, emphysema, cholera, bedbugs, the unsleeping looms, and the pit-brow. The mere mention of ‘manual labor’ within their delicate and refined hearing causes them to retch, ever so genteel-ly. How very dare you! Misogynist pig! ]
I do not particularly like to cook.
My husband (40) is a bit younger than you emapth, but doesn’t particularly like to cook either. He can, and does a wonderful job of it when he fills in for me when I have a legitimate reason why I can’t cook a meal. You won’t find him in the kitchen just because he feels like it though.
My brother (43) on the other hand, loves to cook. Gourmet quality meals he churns out. His children are very fortunate in that regard because his wife is a terrible cook.
I can’t really think of any men I know who are older than us who like to cook. My father is a better cook than my mother but he still expects her to cook even though he’s retired and she’s not. The way he figures it, they don’t need the money she earns, so she chooses the second shift.
She comes home and cooks.
“Women routinely press their husbands, test them, push them, just to get a taste of Daddy’s love.”
Yes.
“When the average first time bride has had 11 previous lovers, and 40% of marriages end up in divorce, cuckold is an oxymoron.”
Precisely. As I have said several times, the greatest success of feminism has been to stick the average husband with such a woman. It is paradise for cuckold fetishists, but hell for normal men.
Elspeth, I don’t mind cooking, but I get my wife to serve the meal.
Damn near puked trying to read any 71’s post
Disgusting
“Spare the rod and spoil the child.”
The “rod” is question is a rod to guide sheep, not beat children. People can pervert the Bible to justify anything.
Dalrock
I suspect you and I are talking about very different things.
Based on your response, yes we were. The initial lines about men cooking suggested (to me) something not necessarily gourmet but more than rustling grub. I agree, when I have been in those similar situations (never done Elk though) with men, yes it is a pleasure to whichever men are doing the cooking.
One could add to the thesis that most men are handy with cleaning as well. In fact most men I know are generally handier domestically, all around, than their wives. Happy efficient workers
I’ve heard that one of the primary goals of Marxists was/is to destroy the family. How might one destroy the family? Present the idea of men as a part of a large, evil, oppressive patriarchy (i.e., the enemy). Present the idea of sexual liberation and love of self above all else. Why would any reasonable feminist want to be seen as a caregiver? For a feminist, to be seen as a caregiver is to be seen as weak and acting in support of the patriarchy.
Marxists figured out long ago that you cannot destroy America through revolution. They figured out that to destroy America, you must destroy it from within – like a virus. The USSA can only be realized through the destruction of the the social values and societal norms that made the USA great. To create the USSA, one must first destroy the underpinnings of the USA.
Ton
Gives no quarter. If you have kids, how did you manage that? That is the only thing that makes this feminism shit bad. Other than that there is slut pussy every where. My oldest daughter (13) just had her first “who are you texting” from the damn phone bill. My wife is of the ignorance is bliss school of thought. More shit I have to fix.
@empathologism,
Few men make a show of domestic chores, they just do them and move on to something else. I’ve yet to meet a woman who didn’t act as if doing the laundry was equivalent to being tortured in the pit of hell.
Put the dirty clothes in the washing machine; transfer the wet clothes to the dryer; transfer the dry clothes to a laundry basket; fold the clothes; and put the clothes away. The entire human effort involved takes 20 minutes to do one load of laundry.
And given the reduced size of families today, how many loads of laundry does the typical 4 person family do? My guess is it averages no more than 1 load per day.
Pressing would extend the time, but who presses anything in the modern casual dress culture. If my shirts need pressing they go to the cleaners.
We’ve gotten to the point that something like laundry (that in your great grandmothers day was a major burden, because it had to all be washed and pressed by hand) has practically become a trivial task. And this is true for the majority of traditional “domestic duties.” They’ve been automated to the point that the performance of them has become all but trivial.
You have to wonder if women’s bristling at domestic duties comes from the fact that, deep down, they know that these duties are easily accomplished in the modern age.
@ 8 to 12:
I agree that most women make a show of the chores we do. It mostly easy quite easy and repetitive compared to what our great grandmothers had to do.
I don’t mind doing laundry (for a family of 7) and I press my husband’s shirts myself. What’s more is that I have help doing it. My kids help a lot by doing much of their own. The folding I really don’t enjoy so I put on some music and dance my way through it as I work. Problem solved.
Cooking is mostly from scratch here (no convenience food) but I rather enjoy that. It’s something of an art.
You have to wonder if women’s bristling at domestic duties comes from the fact that, deep down, they know that these duties are easily accomplished in the modern age.
Nope. It’s not that. It’s that the work largely benefits someone other than themselves. If that someone includes a man, that makes it even more of an affront.
Think about it. Who denigrates Martha Stewart of Rachel Ray? No one, because they benefit directly from their feminine based labor.
“I’ve yet to meet a woman who didn’t act as if doing the laundry was equivalent to being tortured in the pit of hell.”
It takes away her precious time from social media to find other male’s attention to validate herself. Or it takes away from her wine drinking time…or nap time…or any of the other various things that she would prefer to do over serving someone else.
I think women’s biggest waste of time is complaining about all the stuff they have to do. You get it done faster by doing it.
Ton, I am well aware of your views. It is one thing to express different viewpoints, sometimes not understood by those stuck back in ancient times. But, it is totally different to attempt to destroy anyone whose view is different from yours. There is room on any board for your opinions and for my opinions. Except when you don’t think so.
Did you think when you left this board and got me essentially banned on another board, that was a good thing? Did you think no one would know?
Men are different. Some men don’t care much for their kids. This is understood by anyone who has watched men. They will toss their kids into maternal custody over any personal affront. And, I well understand this. It is a personal choice, and there is no way to criticize personal choice.
But, before men marry they well need to know what marriage 2.0 really means. And, for men who truly care for their kids it means exactly what I wrote. The choice should be made before marriage and before the kids are born, not after.
Yeah, Ton, the truth makes me want to vomit, too. It is outrageous that a man is placed in that situation. But, that is reality, and pretending it isn’t so, and trying to “kill the messenger”, as you are doing, accomplishes nothing.
And, the reason this is true is because for 45 years men have been fighting and quarreling instead of working together poltically. Just as the last 3 generations saw their rights evaporate, this generation also will see even more rights go, while “we” fight and quarrel like children.
I became active at a very low level in men’s issues around 1966 when I left the Army just as the MSM started to push feminist propaganda. I still write many thousands of words a year on various fora, under different names (to protect myslf from vicious personal attacks such as we saw recently.) And, I guarantee you, I will be at it long after you are gone if I am still alive. And, I suspect after Dalrock is gone, just as Glenn Sacks is long gone.
People who stick to this task for a long time are basically different, and I do not fully understand how so. It might be that we are angrier or maybe it’s that we are less angrier and thus less stressed out, I don’t know. But, some last a very long time and others are like a flash in the pan.
Richard Doyle allegedly came back from the Korean War, and found another man in his bed and was ordered to pay for that bed. He declined and went to jail until they gave up and threw him out of jail. For a man who had been living on the frozen hills of Korea, jail was probably nice.
I don’t know if Richard is still alive at this moment. But, it wasn’t too long ago that he wrote another book on men’s issues. If it weren’t for his probable death in the future, he’d probably even outlast me.
8-to-12
This is kind of where I part ways with the manosphere. The majority of the men in the manosphere say they value domestic chores that women used to do around the house. I do not. For me, doing the laundry is not really work (and if it is something that my SAHW did, I wouldn’t value it.) As a result (the days I watch football), I do the laundry. And the work I do in the house really isn’t all that valued (nor should it be.)
When I was single (and lived on my own), I had to do my own laundry, clean my own house, cook my own meals, do my own yard work, everything. And I worked outside the home 60+ hours a week. As I did this, what I learned is that work around the home is not work at all. And people complaining about how hard domestic chores are, would get no sympathy from me.
Now that I am married, whoever gets home first, cooks. We all pitch in cleaning the house, takes no time. We got the yard so that it requires very little maintenance.
I just don’t see what the big deal is here, nor do I relate this to feminism. Feminism is simply a looks issue, not a miserly issue.
@Some Guy
I imagine you’ve heard this before, but your circumstances are unlikely to change so long as you continue openly trying to make the marriage work.
My own marriage wasn’t as far along as yours (my wife was just starting to mention divorce via “Gosh, I hope we don’t end up divorced” passive aggressiveness), and this was after a few years of blue pill crap on my part, trying to keep the marriage stable and pleasant via placation and standard marriage advice. Fortunately, I’d twigged to the red pill sites a year prior to her veiled threats starting up, and figured this was a good time to see if the advice worked. It was obvious the marriage was grinding down in spite of what I was trying to do to keep it going, so why not cut to the chase?
So I printed out the divorce paperwork for my state, did some research on what was involved in filing, and the next time the “I hope we don’t get divorced” line was given, I sat her down and started going over the forms, the legal steps involved, what was likely to happen, and she was in tears by the halfway mark. Didn’t stop, kept going until I’d explained everything. Then I handed her the paperwork and said, “You fill it out, I’ll be happy to file it. If you’re not going to file, I don’t want to hear another word about divorce, or I’ll be filing.”
It seems to have worked, going on not quite a year. Of course, we don’t have kids, and her cash and prizes would be negligible, so that may have had something to do with her not pulling the trigger. And, of course, I continue to work to keep the marriage going, but not openly. Wife gaming is a contenious subject, but it’s been invaluable to me and the marriage. The downside is that I’m no longer in a marriage I was hoping for.
Take my experience for what it’s worth. Best of luck to you.
Pingback: Feminists Are Ugly, Inside and Out
Feminists are ugly… well, that’s a dog bites man story, for sure.
It’s not them though. It’s their belief system. The notion of radical individualism, of separation from others so that the individual can focus solely on self-gratification, is ugliness personified. I don’t think it’s white knighting to say that most of the good stuff in life and most of the joy comes from our bond with others, out of caring for others in whatever way we happen to demonstrate that care. This is true whether it’s in a friendship, a parent-child relationship, or marriage. You have to be mindful of others sometimes, a lot of the time in fact, otherwise you’re not in a relationship with them, you’re just temporarily co-located. The bond with others simply isn’t possible when people build an altar of selfishness enshrining themselves and then worship at it.
“The notion of radical individualism, of separation from others so that the individual can focus solely on self-gratification, is ugliness personified.”
Funny I could say that is also what PUA and MGTOW is too.
These women are so gripped by miserliness they have made it a priority not to show love to their own children.
Would it not require much work to overcome the natural desire to love one’s own children?
Joe,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. More over, this is not feminism.
A feminist uses government legilsation to empower HER to maker herself WHOLE at the expense of OTHERS (others = men). There is no radical individualism here. It is entirely communal such that her desires must be met by mandate. That is part of feminism.
Again, this is not feminism. Feminism says I must be mindful of the sensitive feelings of others in my workplace. All the time. I must accomidate them or there will be repercussions against me. HR will step in to make her WHOLE at my expense.
There is no radical individualism here the way there always is in MGTOW. Men don’t turn to government to make them whole at the expense of women if they aren’t getting what they want (or need) from women, the way women do with men by way of feminism.
Acts of service to others are in their twisted minds traps to be avoided, and many go so far as to order their entire lives around avoiding showing love to others, especially their families.
Guys are still expected to bring home the bacon though.
Perhaps we should have a tax system where revenues from men go to benefit men, and taxes from women go to benefit women…
“Would it not require much work to overcome the natural desire to love one’s own children?’
Nope. once you understand women. Why do you think so much is made of motherhood. If it wasn’t for CS and leverage over the father and special privilege children don’t live. http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm notice the first paragraph children will died in place of women and they vote and will not have it any other way.
It is odd that women would kill their own children. From the “evolutionary” perspective so aggressively espoused by many a lefty, it would seem that they would have a major malfunction here.
“Would it not require much work to overcome the natural desire to love one’s own children?’
50,000,000+ babies say…yes.
50,000,000+ babies say…yes.
Theoretically, of course.
Feminists are ugly because they rebel against their very natures. I think that rebellion starts to take hold and the outside starts to resemble the inside.
It would seem that Marx was at least a little bit correct; social constructs can exist.
Roissy Maxim #13: When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/the-ten-year-cuck/
I’ve yet to meet a woman who didn’t act as if doing the laundry was equivalent to being tortured in the pit of hell.”
It takes away her precious time from social media
Not a problem anymore. My buddy’s wife has an iPad glued to her as she is doing the laundry.
Roissy Maxim #13: When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.
Jenny Erikson is the poster-girl for every incidence of red pill truth that could be challenged by blue pill chumps.
The thing about Jenny Erikson that I’ll remember was how a lot of us called her an alpha widow before she finally admitted it.
Red pill is bitter…but it tells you how to read between the lines.
When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.
Colder, I would think.
When a man is faced with a deteriorating marriage to the mother of his children, he then must make very hard decisions. For every man the decisions and course he takes will be different.
I cannot fault a man who decides to stay with a cheating wife because he wants to keep his children from her. I cannot fault his noble decision to try to save his children. But I can’t fault a man who decides to divorce a cheating wife to keep her from literally driving him insane. I cannot fault his decision to save himself first, because has has concluded that if he doesn’t, he’ll be useless for whatever relationship he has or can have with his children when the dust settles.
There are upsides and downsides to every such decision. A lot of factors will play into the decision. A man has to weigh them, and decide what he must do.
Ugly indeed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/smash-the-scale-new-years-resolution-revolution_n_4524224.html
50,000,000+ babies say…yes.
Theoretically, of course.
What do you mean?
“In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).”
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
That’s just the United States.
50,000,000+ babies say…yes.
Theoretically, of course.
What do you mean?
Theoretically saying yes.
Perhaps the modern woman’s apparent aversion to cooking comes from spending years living alone and working before marriage (if they marry). Without appreciation from someone else, the motivation goes down. A little appreciation (and perhaps the odd request/assignment for something in particular) goes a long way. Remember that women are responsive creatures and not that great at self-direction.
Dear Rollo:
Laughable to ponder the title of this little collective: “The Body Love Conference”. It’s satire on the order of Orwell, Swift or France.
From the looks of the bodies there, the owners absolutely hate themselves, and constantly endeavor to destroy their physical bodies through overeating.
Regards, Boxer
Someguy, CP:
Yeah, I think that when you have a situation where a wife is clearly rebelling against the marriage and you’re trying to bring her back into submission, you have to get to the point where you don’t much care if the marriage survives or not, and project that clearly to the wife. CP, in your situation where you prepared all the paperwork, if she had said “OK, let’s get divorced”, you’d have to say “Yep, let’s do it.”
And then do it. And follow all the way through to the end. Because otherwise, the gesture is empty, you don’t really mean it, and you’d go right back to her and the way it was.
The man in that situation has to work on changing the entire dynamic of the marriage. You aren’t ever going back to the way things were before. That old marriage is a thing of the past and you cannot let her go back to it
A bit of unsolicited advice, CP: Do not under any circumstances impregnate your wife.
In SomeGuy’s situation, it would have to simply be “Ok, wife. You’re clearly unhappy. You’re telling me we’re DONE. Then go file. Go. Get a lawyer and file for divorce. Do it now.”
Stop trying to have sex with her. Don’t have unprotected sex with her and don’t impregnate her. You don’t need to “work on your marriage”. You barely have a marriage at all. Do not under any circumstances go to any sort of marital counseling or couples therapy jointly. It’s a waste of time and anything you say can and will be used against you later. If she is counseling with a pastor, do not go to that pastor for your own counseling and don’t tell him anything.
I’d suggest you do some investigating to get to the bottom of why she’s acting like this. Could be:
1. Hormonal/medical
2. Emotional/psychological (alpha widow; sexual hang-ups, etc.)
3. She’s cheating on you or has in the past.
Sadly, SomeGuy, from your descriptions I don’t think your marriage can be saved. There’s really not much you can do if you’ve been self-improving and attempting leadership of your marriage and family.
Fellas unless she has a child (hostage) there is no reason at all to take any from a woman. She says divorce (childless) “there’s the door bitch, get your half and step”.
deti
A man has many hard choices to make with kids Ton and anon 71 are right. I’m doing anon 71 seasoned with Ton myself and having fun.
Lena,
I’d say this is correct. People (regardless of gender) respond to both incentives and disincentives. When I lived alone, I cooked for myself but I wasn’t interested in learning to cook well. It was just me. And throwing burgers on the grill outside each night was just fine with me, nothing special.
I can confirm that when I lived alone, I invited women (I was dating) over my house to cook something special for them in order to impress them. That was my motivation. 60 years ago, that would never have happened, but it probably happens now more-and-more. But I had to do this on a Saturday or Sunday as I didn’t have sufficent time Monday-thru-Friday to work all day and prepare a very special home-cooked meal (and no, there is nothing special about burgers on the grill, mac-and-cheese in the pot, and a can for peas on the stove just because it was “home cooked.”)
@Farm Boy says “It is odd that women would kill their own children. From the “evolutionary” perspective so aggressively espoused by many a lefty, it would seem that they would have a major malfunction here.”
I think you can argue it from a purely evolutionary standpoint.
A man could potentially father 1,000 children over his lifetime, but if the man dies that doesn’t eliminate any of his potential children. They would just be fathered by another man. That’s why men, from an evolutionary standpoint, are disposable.
The typical woman could potentially give birth to 10 children over her lifetime (an estimate, but 10 is a good number for this argument). But, unlike the man, if she dies then none of the potential children will be born, because only she can give birth to them. If she dies after giving birth to two children, then 8 potential children are never born. If a woman becomes weak due to lack of resources (food, shelter, care, etc…) then the odds are she either won’t be able to have children or the children she does bear won’t survive into adulthood (either because of their own health problems or because the mom was unable to care for them).
In other words, from an evolutionary standpoint, the well being of the mother takes precedence over the well being of her children. Given the following scenario, which would be the “right” choice from an evolutionary standpoint?
A woman has 3 children. There’s a famine. Her choices are:
1) Eat her 3 children. This will provide her enough food to weather the famine and make it possible for her to eventually give birth to her remaining 7 potential children (4 of which survive into adulthood).
2) Do not eat her children. She will die. Without her to take care of them, 2 of her children die, and 1 survives into adulthood.
From a purely evolutionary standpoint, choice 1 is the “right” choice, because it results in her having more children survive into adulthood (and thus reproduce themselves). You can see how behavior of a woman putting her personal needs before anyone else’s (even the needs her her children) does make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
In the bad old days, the concept of “future children” was an iffy bet, with birthing difficulties and all.
Better a baby in the hand than two in the bush.
@Lena S. says: “Perhaps the modern woman’s apparent aversion to cooking comes from spending years living alone and working before marriage (if they marry). Without appreciation from someone else, the motivation goes down.”
@elspeth was right, the aversion is to being labeled a man’s servant.
This is part of the double standard in modern feminism.
If a woman performs a traditional duty for a man (like cooking or cleaning) she is branded a serf by society.
If a man performs a traditional duty for a woman (like working a job to support her financially or making repairs/improvements to their home) he is dong what he should according to society.
Pride in lacking a skill – particularly those that are typically done in the service of others should be a red flag, man or woman. Cooking is just one of many such skills (acts of giving) that young women have inverted per feminist messaging.
When the sum of these inverted values is greater than her physical beauty or other such attributes the woman becomes unworthy of marriage. Yet she continues to tally her worth, her “strength” from the wrong side of the ledger. Of course men’s desires, what men actually value, and how men translate these skills into “will she be a good mother to our children” are also conveniently shamed, quieted through both passive and active measures such that men have learned to keep these views close to the vest and instead just sequester these women to the sex-only camps.
Perhaps younger men, more deeply indoctrinated, don’t “care” about such acts of giving as they are also more entrenched in the self, but the men I know in their 30’s and 40’s are still holding onto some ideal of a marriage as mutual giving; an ideal that, while forgiving of actual levels of “skill” are entirely unforgiving of how those things are valued by her. And when women brag about the many ways in which they lack or have little interest in such things, it just pushes these men further into the view that marriage is no longer viable.
Women are adopting the masculine traits but reserve the right to shirk the corresponding responsibilities. Yet they are also shedding the feminine traits and the corresponding responsibilities. So what remains?
I typically advise men to just adopt those things that women have abandoned. Part self-reliance. Part strategic out-flanking. At some point, when a man can sufficiently, confidently, and comfortably fulfill all of the roles, perhaps women will start to glimpse how they are in effect putting themselves out of work for the role of wife in all areas except for the sex. And with the price of sex at 0.0, they should be rethinking all of that misplaced pride.
I’m a scratch cook, can stitch buttons and simple hems, can garden, operate enough tools to build rudimentary furnishings and complete most routine home repairs, and maintain a supply of simple craft materials to entertain friends’ kids who stop by. I also do silly things like hand-make Christmas ornaments for friends every year. Admittedly, a few of these things may seem a bit light in the loafers, which it is why I continue to hone the masculine skills as well. Interestingly, hanging a complex light fixture for a friend and his wife didn’t have her and her BFF’s nearly as drippy as when I brought a platter of hand-decorated scratch cookies and my own blend of ginger-lavender infused cocktail syrup to their party. And yeah, the lavender was from my garden.
IME, I’m more likely to hear a woman brag about how good she gives oral before I hear her brag about anything in the kitchen. But advertising for the wrong “job” is a whole other post topic.
@SomeGuy,
I suggest you go over to TalkAboutMarriage.com and spend time reading posts started by men about their marriage problem (particularly in the men’s clubhouse section). You’ll find what you are experiencing is a common pattern that has been experienced by many men before you.
You’ll also find that being nice and giving in to her invariably fails and results in divorce (I know it seems counter intuitive, but it’s true).
Everyone likes to think their situation is unique, but it’s not. There are a handful of patterns that life follows. If you can find the pattern that your situation is following, then you can gain some insight into what did (and didn’t) work for other men in your situation.
Lena S:
“Remember that women are (…) not that great at self-direction.”
How do you reconcile this belief with the reality of women everywhere in the world engaging in sustained efforts to pursue their God-given passions – for education, creativity, meaningful work outside the home – often undertaken against great odds, including risks to their very lives?
@deti- if she had said “OK, let’s get divorced”, you’d have to say “Yep, let’s do it.”
Yes, and I was ready for either response. No longer caring whether the marriage survives has been one of the most helpful things for the survival of the marriage. That’s truly sick, but it is what it is.
A bit of unsolicited advice, CP: Do not under any circumstances impregnate your wife.
I have several reasons for not wanting children, and not providing hostages is one of them. I made it clear when courting that children weren’t on offer.
A more immediate threat in my case is not recognizing fitness tests. I just don’t see them as they’re happening. I recognize them after the fact and nuke them the second time around.
A post-feminist world looks a lot like Mad Max. A post-feminist world is a pos-apocalyptic world.
@Lena
“Without appreciation from someone else, the motivation goes down. A little appreciation (and perhaps the odd request/assignment for something in particular) goes a long way. Remember that women are responsive creatures ”
No, this doesn’t work. “Mmm mmm, this is great, honey!” does not make the wife want to cook the next meal in most cases, because most women do not respond properly. For example the more love the husband expresses, the less respectful the wife becomes. The more housework the husband does, the less the wife appreciates him.
@Shell
A generalisation does not negate an exception. Your examples leave out too much to be of much use or to have a meaningful answer to your question. Either way, would these exceptional women not do even better under the direction of a benevolent dominant man?
@Shell says: “How do you reconcile this belief with the reality of women everywhere in the world engaging in sustained efforts to pursue their God-given passions – for education, creativity, meaningful work outside the home – often undertaken against great odds, including risks to their very lives?”
Can you give some specific examples of this “against great odds, including risks to their very lives” stuff?
Education? Nope. Primary education is geared towards girls; colleges bend over backwards for women.
Business? Nope. The government provides tons to incentives for businesses to hire and women; female owned businesses get benefits from government that male owned businesses don’t. Plus, there is a decidedly societal bias in favor of female owned businesses (the “you go girl” mantra is universal when it comes to business).
The Military? Nope. The physical standards were lowered (again) recently for women.
Fire & police? Nope. Like the military, the standards for women in these professions is lower than the standards for men.
You did say all over the world, so there certainly must be some examples in Western society you can give us.
Feminists are ugly because they are miserly with love.
When done well, one gets more than they give.
It is almost as if they want to be miserable…
@jf12
Appreciation is only effective if there is a foundation of biological attraction, otherwise of course it will not work. And it is rubbish that the more love a husband expresses, the less respectful the wife is, unless there is no biological attraction, which will make her contemptuous of his expression of love for her.
I remember watching Meg Ryan in “Addicted To Love”.
Anton was presented as manly and sophisticated because of his excellent cooking skills. I remember thinking I needed to become a good cook in order to be more masculine like Anton.
But if most women view cooking and cleaning in this manner it would appear it doesn’t bode well for a man who is an excellent cook…
However I don’t see any survey’s or statistical facts to support the view that women/feminists look down upon men who are skilled at cooking. I would think being an excellent cook would impress a mate.
“This is kind of where I part ways with the manosphere. The majority of the men in the manosphere say they value domestic chores that women used to do around the house. I do not. For me, doing the laundry is not really work (and if it is something that my SAHW did, I wouldn’t value it.) As a result (the days I watch football), I do the laundry. And the work I do in the house really isn’t all that valued (nor should it be.)”
This is very interesting and I have to agree. Is it that hard to push a few buttons on a laundry machine? And while it does all the work you go write a blog post—-yeahhhh—such work!
Especially with men who marry later in life, being a bachelor so long, a lot of the housework becomes second nature and they start doing it without event thinking about it. Of course its all what is best for each family. If a man sees value in his wife doing those sorts of things—have at it.
lgrobins,
That is how it was for me.
@Michael says: “But if most women view cooking and cleaning in this manner it would appear it doesn’t bode well for a man who is an excellent cook…”
Women admire a man who is SKILLED at anything. They do not admire a man who does “women’s work.”
My wife turn over a quart of pumpkin orange paint on the carpet in the middle of our living room. She panicked. I stayed calm; jumped into action; and got it all up without leaving a spot on the carpet. She was impressed. (Shop vac; continually mist the area so the paint never dries; don’t over mist or the paint will soak in).
If I started vacuuming the carpet on a regular basis she would not be impressed.
I have an elderly uncle who, for some reason, all his life has insisted on doing the dishes. He clears the table; hand washes any pots and pans that won’t go in the dishwasher; cleans up the kitchen; puts the leftover food away; and wipes down the counters and table. His wife hasn’t touched a dirty dish in 40 years–literally 40 years. Do the women in the family tell tales of how much they admire him or say they wish their husbands would act that way? No. The make jokes about him; they laugh at him.
Oh, they don’t do it to his face. To his face they say nothing or compliment him. But behind his back they make fun of him. Sometimes they are absolutely brutal. I’ve even heard his wife throw in an occasional punch line about her husband (again, not to his face though). If you want a real life example of what women think about men who take over women’s domestic duties, there’s one for you.
Occasionally demonstrating some skill at cooking will impress a woman. Cooking every meal will not.
No. I’m sure other men can vouch for this experience that I’ve had with multiple women: a new girlfriend cooks for me and (because at this point she’s still crazy about me) she throws herself into it, really enjoying herself and obviously feeling good about it. I show my admiration and appreciation, and it’s then that she realizes what she’s done and starts to backtrack and deny her enjoyment of it. It’s as if the appreciation reminds her that she just willingly made a man happy — in the kitchen! wearing an apron, even! — and she remembers that she’s not supposed to enjoy that.
These aren’t hard-core feminists, either. They’re just normal girls who have been taught that happiness in a relationship is a zero-sum power struggle and that all men are takers: if you make him happy, you’re giving him the advantage over you, and letting down Team Woman besides.
@ IBB and LGR:
I agree that housework is incredibly easy. My husband appreciates that I do it joyfully as a service to him, but he isn’t particularly impressed by it. In fact one of the things he says to me when I’m dragging in the mornings getting breakfast on the table is: “Can you get it moving? Some people have to go to work.”
He says it half jokingly, but the implication is clear; that what I do is not work. He does acknowledge that teaching our energetic 7-year-old might be a wee bit taxing at times.
Like everything else, it depends entirely upon how attracted she is to the man doing the cooking. If she tingles for him, she’ll rave to all her friends about “and he can cook, too!” If she doesn’t, it’ll seem effeminate and supplicating.
Attractive man wears pink shirt and some kind of hat: she loves his confidence and individual style. Unattractive man wears same shirt and hat: stay away from me, you freak.
Attractive man calls from police station needing bail money: he’s misunderstood and just can’t get a break; what he really needs is the love of a good woman. Unattractive man calls from police station — well, unattractive man won’t have her number in the first place, so never mind.
@Michael,
If you want to learn a culinary skill to impress women, learn some bartending skills.
I’m very good at making a handful of mixed drinks. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal, but my wife is impressed none the less (enough so that I’ve overheard her bragging on my bartending skills talking on the phone).
Women love mixed drinks, but for some reason there are few who are really interested in learning the finer points of making them. Like grilling, this is one area where you can take the lead and still be the man.
“Yes, and I was ready for either response. No longer caring whether the marriage survives has been one of the most helpful things for the survival of the marriage. That’s truly sick, but it is what it is.”
The sickest thing I’ve learned about life…it is better to take the painful stuff first without a care about it and then recieve the rewards later, than to try to bury your head in the sand and kick the pain down the road. That pain will always end up being worse.
@Cail Corishev
They don’t have to be hard core feminists to have been indoctrinated. They self-sabotage due to the internal conflict that arises when their desires don’t match up with the indoctrination received.
Remember Genesis 3 where a woman’s curse is to take the leadership position of the man. This is why dominance is important in a man so that she cannot easily usurp his position.
happiness in a relationship is a zero-sum power struggle and that all men are takers
As Yoda once stated,
“That is why you fail”
The word cuckold, and related words such as the horn, need to be removed from your vocabulary. Cuckold was relevant when most women were virgins when they married, or more likely became engaged to their husbands, and most married couples stayed married their whole lives. When the average first time bride has had 11 previous lovers, and 40% of marriages end up in divorce, cuckold is an oxymoron.
I just can’t agree with this. Cuckold will always be cuckold. Just because most everyone is doing it doesn’t change what it is, and some of us don’t want anything to do with it. Yes the children are at the top of the priority list, but all things must be considered.
They absolutely need their father, but is it really better for them to see their father in that type of relationship? I guess one must weigh the children growing up in an environment where the mother calls the shots and displays utter disrespect and contempt for their father vs maternal custody.
I honestly don’t know what I would do given those choices, but I would not just remove cuckold from my vocabulary. It is what it is and I don’t think pride really is the issue here.
Re: attraction being key. As with all things related to women, if the man is attractive she will not behave better towards him if he does housework (although she is already behaving nicely towards him), and if the man is unattractive she will also not behave better (she will probably do even more atroaciously than usual). It does not matter what the nman does or does not do, in any case.
@Lena S:
“A generalisation does not negate an exception. Your examples leave out too much to be of much use or to have a meaningful answer to your question. Either way, would these exceptional women not do even better under the direction of ?”
I do not mean exceptions (unless you do?),. Everywhere in the world where girls and women are allowed to pursue education and develop their God-given talents – and even in places where they are not allowed to do so – they do it joyfully and self-directedly, by which I mean that they are driven by intrinsic motivation to learn and develop, a motivation that is common in ALL human beings, male and female. Of course they are aided in those pursuits by teachers and mentors, male AND female, but it is not difficult to discern their self-directedness.
Why do you think direction of “a benevolent dominant man” is necessary for a woman who self-directedly pursues her passions? I’m not saying such direction should not be welcome when helpful, but. I’m struck by your belief that women are not self-directed.
@8to12
“Can you give some specific examples of this “against great odds, including risks to their very lives” stuff?”
Hypatia and Malala Yousafzai are good and striking examples from ancient past and today (but there are many, many less famous others in between those two).
The “rod” is question is a rod to guide sheep, not beat children. People can pervert the Bible to justify anything.
No, it is a rod of correction and can mean spanking, cuffing, or any other means of correction that is necessary to train your child up in the way he should go.
The perversions of the Bible tend to come from those with a modernist view.
@Dalrock
Happy New Year my friend……and to all the posters on this Blog.
“”One of the effects of feminism is that men of my generation have had a much wider opportunity to cook. I can’t think of any men my age or younger who don’t know how to cook. Moreover, I can’t think of any men of my generation or younger who don’t enjoy cooking””
Great post!…when I was growing up my family always employed a full time Chef.Still do.The irony here is that among 2 boys and 2 girls is that myself and my brother were always in the kitchen learning how to cook…as we had a great teacher…something to be taken advantage of! My 2 sisters were the opposite as they sat at the table waiting to be ‘waited on’.Now lets fast forward 30 years.My oldest sister(45..and 2 kids) could not boil a pot of water or make toast to save her sorry ass.My youngest sister(41)…learned to cook very quickly as she has a husband and 3 kids.My brother and I are good cooks……self preservation as bachelors!..L* Lets look at today.Last night I put a roast of beef with veggies in the “slow cooker”.It took me under 30 minutes.This morning before I went to the office I plugged it in and set the temp so it would be ready when I got home from work tonight…..How hard is that?…..in all seriousness….you don’t need a PhD in rocket science I assure you! The funny thing about this is that my father came into my office a few hours ago and asked “what are you doing for dinner?….want to go out?…my treat”….My reply….”I have a crock pot cooking and my brother is coming over for dinner”….Him….”did you make enough for a 3rd party”?….”Of course I did”….L* So as I type this post(4:50pm..my time) my brother,myself and our father our going to have dinner together at my place….no big deal.I cannot understand what is so “DIFFICULT” about cooking and why it is beneath a lot of women?….L* The magic question of the night after we have a few drinks and watch some news is going to be to my father…..”So how come you wanted to come over here tonight to have dinner with us?….you and mother having some problems”??…his reply will be…”Don’t be such a Wise Ass …..and and mind your own damn business”…..L*….I know!…as we have done this before!….L*
Elspeth,
Which is why I say it is increasingly not valued. I do it. I know it is easy. I have done it ALL plus working outside the home. Therefore, I don’t value it when others do it and value it even less if that is all they are willing to do.
If it has to be done it has value. Otherwise it wouldn’t have to be done. The only question is, who does it?
Therefore, I don’t value it when others do it and value it even less if that is all they are willing to do.
Herein lies the problem, IBB. The “if that is all they are willing to do” part. I’m not sure how you mean. Does that mean “all they are willing to do” other than earn money?
My husband is more concerned with attitude than anything. He is not impressed with housework per se (he’s often better at it than I am), but he’s witnessed enough other marriages to appreciate that rather than throw him some Eggo waffles or frozen biscuits or store bought potatoes in the morning like most wives, I cook them from scratch.
He takes into account that I starch and press his shirts when most married men he knows either do it themselves or pay someone else to do it. The little touches I add that say I value him are what makes him value what I do more than the “work” itself.
It matters to him that its done by his wife even though it could be done by someone else. There are some things he doesn’t want our older girls to do for him- ever. Unless they just feel the need to do something special for him, he wants his wife to handle it, and execute it with the understanding that she is privileged to do it.
I understand that now so for him, it’s all good.
This is one of those things that gets my wheels turning because my husband was adamant that he wanted my energies devoted to him and our family, not divided up by being accountable to someone else. It was a sticking point with us for years until I submitted from the heart.
Homeschooling has done a lot to fill my time and desire to be useful and stimulated once the housework is done.
Oh ar. Cooking, by the way. Guess what I got for Crimbo? (Apart from some Nikka whisky from Old Child. Take it from the haggis’ mouth, boys, Jap whisky is superb. I honestly prefer it to some of the Arbroath-Smokie-like confections foisted on us as “Island whisky” by marketers nowadays).
Tim Hayward’s “Food DIY” book. Oh WTF thinks I, I’m already a better cook than any three generations combined of women in yer fambly, ya lazy Scouse git-woman. Is this a hint?
But nay, I had misjudged. ‘Er ‘Indoors is keen for me to expand my repertoire.
TBH yer man Hayward totally had me onside at “stick the rebar sections through the predrilled holes in the scaffold ledger which you’ve shoved up the pig’s arse till it comes out the other end, balance it on the stepladders over the v-shaped trench made of ordinary paving slabs filled with glowing charcoal, then drink two beers”.
I think there’s fennel quiche, and custard in there too. Don’t care.
Elspeth,
What your husband values and what I value are very different. My situation (as to not value homemaking) was one of wisdom and experience. I lived alone for a few years and had to do everything. Thus, doing things around the home became automatic, unappreciated, and meaningless to me. This was learned behavior on my part, and that knowledge may have ruined me (form the simple girl) to some extent. Its kind of like some of the more naive bachelors around here refusing to marry a woman with an N greater than 0, their refusal is their belief that she would always be thinking of that other dick comparing his dick to the other dick that was inside her, that she could never “pair bond” to him. I guess you could say my living alone and doing all the housework on my own (plus working full time and mangaing a business part-time at night), made it impossible for me to ever “housewife bond.” LOL!
Let me ask you something, how long did your husband live on his own (not living with his mom and not living with a wife) before he was first married?
Joshua,
It doesn’t have to be done. You don’t have to make the bed. You don’t have to ever turn on your oven or even cook a meal (just grill some burgers.) You don’t have to wash a dish (just load the dishwasher.) You don’t have to vacuum every day (or even every week.) My best friend lived with two other guys, they didn’t vacuum their apartment in over two years! LOL! The only clothes you need to “wash” (each time you wear them) are underwear and socks. There is so much that we do around the house that we don’t need to, we do it because we like to live in a clean home. And yet, we do it anyway….
…which maybe why I don’t value it.
Homeschooling has done a lot to fill my time and desire to be useful and stimulated once the housework is done.
Good for you and your husband, Elspeth. I can’t imagine why anyone would abandon their children to the feral public schools. I went to a solidly middle-class school and sex and drugs were rampant and glorified. Homeschooling was a highly regarded duty of the family in early American history and we had the high literacy rates to prove it. The vast majority of parents were responsible for their own children’s education and training and it mostly worked out well, a hell of a lot better than what passes for education today. Unfortunately public education seems to have started in this country as a way to rein in the exuberant, enterprising masculine spirit in obedience to the elites. That seems to have been more than successful up to today.
@Elspeth
This is what it boils down to, whichever direction you approach it from. Feminists are very open that their revulsion to housework is the very idea of serving her family, or setting patterns before having a family which will result in her serving her family. Sometimes you will get some squid ink about the cruelty women suffered in days of past drawing water from wells and stoking a coal fired stove, etc. but there is no logic there. As someone mentioned upthread they act as if putting laundry in the machine, adding a bit of soap, and pushing the button is tantamount to being tortured in the pit. Refusing to do an incredibly easy task because that task is easy (and was in past generations more difficult) is entirely irrational. The easier housework gets without feminists even slightly lessening their bitching makes the reality more and more undeniable. It is about attitude, and an extreme aversion to serving another. It is a profound miserliness, pure and simple, and the antithesis of Christian teaching on love.
their refusal is their belief
Knowledge and belief. The literature is quite clear on that point.
When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.
I would say that love doesn’t come and go. Love is something we do or don’t do. When she stops loving you, she made a decision to do so.
Somewhat on topic: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2216&context=llr
Take note of the discussion about strict liability offenses.
How do you reconcile this belief with the reality of women everywhere in the world engaging in sustained efforts to pursue their God-given passions – for education, creativity, meaningful work outside the home – often undertaken against great odds, including risks to their very lives?
I see what you did there. On what are you basing your conclusion that these passions are God given? Surely you are not referring to the ‘antiquated’ scriptures such as Titus Chapter 2:
3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
“drawing water from wells and stoking a coal fired stove” Ah say, Ah say Boy, Ah resemble that rema-a-ahrk.
Absolute doddle, except when you have to lie down full-length in winter to reach into the brick box-thing to lift off the night’s ice sheet (challenge is to get the whole thing out in a one-er, and leave it stood on edge with the others, like some crazy window showroom. Yeh there ain’t much entertainment round here).
I enjoy it, and the coal thing too, gives me a chance to get my head together and have a load of proper coffee, before defrosting the van and becoming a hazard to my fellow road-users.
Marissa,
That is clearly false. Time for a civics lesson on the Old Deluder Satan Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_School_Laws
The main reason why we have socialized primary and secondary education (in the Western Hemisphere at least) is the Protestant belief in the saving of the souls of their children from eternal damnation. The cardinal principle of being Protestant, is that you can’t BE Protestant if you aren’t 100% literate. You must be able to read the Scriptures (and understand them) without being told by someone else (a Roman Catholic Priest, for example) what they mean. Hard to focus on the literacy of your children when they are out in the fields working on your farm 4 to 5 hours a day. So (in 1642) the state had to step in (because there was NO seperation between church and state.)
It doesn’t have to be that way. Parents can step in and fill in the gaps of learning where public education fails them. That is what we do. We also get involved in the PTO and any and all school related parents groups, the principal would know me by scent.
Ibb you’re so incredibly wrong the only thing i can say is–
For those that know no explanation is necessary, but for those that do not no explanation is possible.
Well I guess it is so much easier to say this than it is to think and reason. This way even if you are wrong (and you are) you still get to keep your pride.
@JDG
The ruse has been the elevation of romantic love to be the truest, purest form of love. This makes the woman’s vagina her moral weather vane. If the vagina tingles, it is experienced as “true love”. You can see this in the famous line “I love you but I’m not in love with you”. She is saying her animal instincts are pointing in another direction, and since her feelings are the ultimate moral compass (being as she is “true to herself”), she has a moral obligation to follow the tingle over the Christian view of love. What is so striking is that the vast majority of Christians have swallowed this whole (see also, Fireproof). It is very common now for Christian leaders, the men who are respected as stodgy conservatives of the faith, to lecture on the purity of women’s romantic feelings.
Dalrock,
That’s just chivalry Dalrock. Its also the belief held by fathers of daughters who believe that their daughters deserve ONLY the best (no man is ever good enough for their girl.) In that sense (coupled with Neoteny) you get the sense that women have value, men do not (This is reinforced with the understanding that one man can inpregnate 1000 women, so women are needed more than men.) Because women are needed more, the most chivalrous men will defend a woman’s more romantic feelings at the expense of his own gender.
No one is wrong. Each man is free to run his household as he sees fit (in theory at least). If IBB doesn’t value certain things, then he doesn’t value them.
It’s really worse than that. When a woman “grows apart” from a man she used to be attracted to, she’ll treat him far worse than she’d treat a stranger.
Elspeth
My husband is more concerned with attitude than anything.
This is wisdom. Why a person is doing something can be more important than what they are doing. IBB should wipe the ketchup off of his glasses and take notes…
A man is served a hamburger with a pickle and cole slaw on the side for lunch. Is it a good lunch, or a crummy one? Not enough information. Consider two of many possibilities:
A man is served an overcooked hamburger on a stale bun with a pickle and store-bought cole slaw on the side, the plate slammed down before him by a woman with a frown and set lips.
A man is served a hamburger cooked the way he likes it, with various little salad relishes he prefers, with a side of home made cole-slaw – with a smile.
These are the obvious cases. The attitudes above extend into all aspects of life – conversation, raising children, natural bedroom relations, taking a walk, bathing together. If she has a really bad, ugly attitude then the best he can do is manage her. Like managing a problem employee, only with no backup from HR, he can never really trust her. And so he’s never totally “there” for her, because some part of his mind has to be occupied with processing her words/actions for warnings of impending conflict.
Drop that ugly attitude, and the mans trust in the women will probably increase, and he’ll be “there” for her a lot more.
If you are a Christian then sending your kids to public school is pretty much sending them to the enemies camp for indoctrination. There they will have the opportunity to learn to disrespect and disregard parental authority, biblical authority, and constitutional authority. They will be taught that evil is good and good is evil.
There children get to learn about Heather’s two mommies or Freddie’s two dads in math class. They will be taught that evolution is beyond dispute and the Bible is wrong and (as described by Shell) ‘antiquated’. They will have temptations and peer pressures forced upon them in their formative years with little or no support to oppose it.
If you want to know what kind of students our public schools are producing, scroll up and re-read Shell’s comments or go and read anything written by the inhabitants over at Jezebel’s.
Even if your not a Christian I don’t see how public school beats home schooling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq_tcyPV7Vg
Back in college years ago I knew women who lived with other women. Two or three or four of them in a house / apartment. Sometimes one or two of them would decide that they were not being treated fairly by the others – that they were being taken advantage of. I stumbled across this while visiting a woman in her dwelling, and while getting something out of the fridge I noted a bowl of eggs with letters on them, like “AH” or “BT”, for example. Letters on eggs? DuH?
“Oh, that’s just Jane. She’s convinced that the rest of us are eating her food, so she’s started putting her initials on things, like the eggs, a box of cereal, a jar of peanut butter”.
This is how women at least sometimes treat their roomates. I’ve known women who treated the men they lived with this way. One relative of mine was obliged to make the either the entree’ for dining or the salad plus do dishes. He joked once that it would soon get to the point where they’d have to stand side by side at the sink, so that she wouldn’t wind up washing more dishes or silverware than he did – “one for you, one for me, one for you, one for me”.
Feminists arguably are treating men just like they treated their college female roomies. And why not? Feminist dogma insists that men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies, so naturally any LTR / marriage must be egalitarian else someone is oppressing someone else and that means both people must be equally skilled at any given chore, except that any [drum roll] traditionally female task should be done by the man because if it is done by the women it is the beginning of a slippery slope that surely will end with her barefoot, pregnant and chained to the stove while he gets drunk and prepares to screw floozies then come home to beat her before she goes to sleep beneath the sink (right next to Cinderella, no doubt).
Ideologically, feminists must foster distrust between women and men. If we can’t have equality of outcome in anything except misery, well, that will just have to be good enough…
JDG,
Well that depends on how hard the parents work at teaching their children, doesn’t it? Not all parents are capabale of doing this. Many cannot, and many WILL not.
I am a Christian but I have to ask you this, do you have any 36 year old cousins who have never held a job in their life because they were functionally illiterate at age 16, could not do basic algebra at age 19, and could not pass a GED test at age 23? That is my cousin and he was home schooled from age 8 to age 14. At age 15 they tried to get him back into school and tried to get him in as a 7th grader. He couldn’t do it, couldn’t keep up even at tracked at the most remedial level, dropped out the instant he could. At this point, I’m surprised he’s not dead.
What is so striking is that the vast majority of Christians have swallowed this whole (see also, Fireproof). It is very common now for Christian leaders, the men who are respected as stodgy conservatives of the faith, to lecture on the purity of women’s romantic feelings.
It is so common now that it isn’t even noticed. Some how women have become the embodiment of all things good and necessary. Just this morning on the radio I caught Dr. David Jeremiah giving the ole “Men will not settle down and become civilized unless they marry” pitch during a sermon on my out the door.
He was attributing the collapse of order in a civilization to men not marrying. Never mind the fact that 40% of children born today are out of wedlock, or that single mothers raise 70%+ of our prison population. Nope, it’s all because men aren’t marrying.
What can I say, I used to believe it too. It’s like some one around these parts used to say, “Feminism is all around us. If we aren’t actively fighting it, we are participating in it” or something to that effect. I apologize to the author for so terribly paraphrasing it yet again.
Seems counter-intuitive:
http://bloomington.craigslist.org/mis/4267589122.html
Even if your not a Christian I don’t see how public school beats home schooling.
Most of the people I know who homeschool are liberals.
That is my cousin and he was home schooled from age 8 to age 14.
That sounds more like unschooling.
Feminists are ugly because they are miserly with love.
Normally, I can put myself in the typical Feminist’s mind and come up with their rebuttal.
This one is a toughie.
Some how women have become the embodiment of all things good and necessary.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/“Women_are_wonderful”_effect
Worth noting is the mention of ambivalent sexism (which is itself sexist, by the way, along with the ASI). I’ve had anti-AS apologists state that women must be treated worst, otherwise they are victims/recipients of sexist attitudes/behaviour. It’s all rather strange to me – why would anyone want to be treated worse? It opens up to a much larger conversation, including the favourite shifting of paternalism from men to government (I guess government is gender-neutral?).
Normally, I can put myself in the typical Feminist’s mind and come up with their rebuttal.
The first thing that came to my mind was the “That’s not funny!” line. Anyhow: I, too, have become better over time with predicting responses, but the statement is not an easy one to predict for.
I am a Christian but I have to ask you this, do you have any 36 year old cousins who have never held a job in their life because they were functionally illiterate at age 16
No I have yet to meet a home schooled adult or child like that. But I have known quite a few barely literate public school graduates who used drugs regularly and gave no second thought to committing various crimes or hooking up with strangers.
On the flip side, I personally know many families that home school their children. They fare as well or better than the most of the public schooled folks that I have met. Only these kids don’t do crime, hook ups, or drugs, and they are very literate. Most of these children are ahead of where they would be in a public school.
Most of the people I know who homeschool are liberals.
I actually didn’t know that liberals home schooled. So I guess people on both sides of the illusory political landscape home school.
Marcus,
My aunt was in way over her head. She may have had the aptitude to teach, but not the stick-to-it-of-ness to keep her son in line and to make sure he accomplished his read’n, write’n, and rithmatic. So he failed because she failed him.
I have a sister-in-law that homeschools her two kids and she does a fine job. Her children are moving along in their studies a full two grade levels above their age bracket. That is probably more the case with homeschooling (if done properly) since that is closer to tutoring. And her kids are socializing fairly well (they do karate with other kids in the neighborhood, her son just earned his Eagle Scout, and they are both very involved in church activities.) Hopefully, that is enough and they wont be socially left behind their peers.
I actually work with mostly people who identify as liberal/progressive or as libertarian. None of them home school. Hence my comment above. Most of the families who home school that I know personally are church going Christians from various church congregations around where I reside. They would not self-identify as liberal.
” Feminists are ugly because they are miserly with love.”
Normally, I can put myself in the typical Feminist’s mind and come up with their rebuttal.
This one is a toughie.
Easy.
“Women cannot learn to love others unless they learn how to love themselves FIRST! You just call it ugly and miserly to perpetuate Patriarchal Oppression and prevent women from learning to love themselves first so that they can continue to be enslaved to your masculinist hegemony!”
Keoni Galt
“Women cannot learn to love others unless they learn how to love themselves FIRST!
Ah. That explains the increasing selection of vibrators in drugstores…
My aunt was in way over her head. She may have had the aptitude to teach, but not the stick-to-it-of-ness to keep her son in line
Sadly public schools are like this. They also don’t keep the kids on tract. And the kids usually aren’t taught self discipline to begin with.
I know someone who’s brother sent his nephew to him because the nephew was failing high school (public). This person helped his nephew with algebra and geometry, taught him how to write reports and essays, and corrected him when he needed it. He graduated high school. Sadly there is more to the story.
In the first year with this person the nephew was baptized and self identified as Christian. He even wrote apologetics defending the Christian faith. After spending a couple of years in that secular environment with no Christian support other than at home, the nephew walked away from his faith one step at a time. He had made friends who had no respect for authority or the Bible. He ended up moving in with a girl and getting her pregnant. It only got worse from there.
The man of whom I am speaking would tell you that he made a lot of mistakes but also learned a few things. Even the apostles were sent out by twos.
IBB
If you cannot understand a statement as simple as, if it has to be done it has value, how do you expect to engage in thinking and reasoning?
Roissy Maxim #13: When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you
Oh stop messin’ about, you! You’re raising tiny demons, Gojira-like, from my Ancient Past, don’tcha know?
Oh, and Elspeth: the 1970’s “fish” feminists called, you are clearly oppressed and any contentment you may have is utterly false consciousness. They stand ready to yammer in both of your ears endlessly in order to liberate you. Just so you know…
Most of the people I know who homeschool are liberals.
There are so many places, public and private, where their children could be indoctrinated. Why would they need homeschool?
Unless it is a vanity thing…
A few infographics I’ve seen about homeschooling:
Just was reminded of that popular book years ago– “Do Hard Things”. It was to inspire young people of that value that comes from doing the hard stuff in life. So, for the women who can’t love and serve their families, for them, that very act is a “hard thing” and because its hard all the more reason they should do it, but this is still a tough sell. In general, submitting and leading are hard things and there is value there for those that achieve them.
I’ve had anti-AS apologists state that women must be treated worst
Should be “worse” not “worst” – to further clarify, they wanted men and women to be treated equally and not have women treated better just for being women (though, they didn’t seem to oppose affirmative action).
There are a variety of reasons as to why I know of more liberals who homeschool than conservatives – I suppose it comes down to conservative women refusing to do so, and liberal women (and men) feeling really strongly about how their children should taught. Being in a more conservative area will also contribute to that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CWomen_are_wonderful%E2%80%9D_effect
It even has a name. I wonder how much impact this has had over the years…
@Farm Boy
Yes, it’s quite prevalent. The irony is that feminists oppose it, at least in talking about it, in order to be in line with their own theories, but have done little to change it, especially if it involves making women suffer more.
Well then, homeschooling probably is a vanity thing with liberals. So much of what they do is because of such.
Pingback: Dark Brightness
Well, if the “tone” of the education their children receive is too conservative for their liking, they are more likely to homeschool, it seems.
So, for the women who can’t love and serve their families, for them, that very act is a “hard thing”
My grandmothers would be appalled by these women.
IBB,
Not all parents are capabale of doing this. Many cannot, and many WILL not.
The latter is the correct part, not the former. It is there unwillingness, not their inability. Anyone can do this if we could get 4 VERY rebellious adopted children through to being adults with at least as much knowledge as those graduating from the nearby government high school. The end of our road wasn’t pretty, but it was better than the government schools would have been.
Everyone can homeschool, especially with the many resources available. You are right that many will not, but that is a failure, not an inherent condition.
I would rather have a few failed parent-based situations than the horrid travesty we have today. Your problem is that you don’t take into account the massive issues with government workers in schools, but do focus on some idiot parents.
(Reposting this to hopefully get the highlighting correct.
Well, if the “tone” of the education their children receive is too conservative for their liking
Where would these places be? Even in conservative rural areas, teachers still come from teacher indoctrination factories.
I grew up distrusting teachers and their silly perspectives.
If you are a Christian then sending your kids to public school is pretty much sending them to the enemies camp for indoctrination. There they will have the opportunity to learn to disrespect and disregard parental authority, biblical authority, and constitutional authority. They will be taught that evil is good and good is evil.
Exactly. Any more that I might say on this subject would turn into both a threadjack and a flame war, so I’ll leave it at that.
I suppose it comes down to conservative women refusing to do so, and liberal women (and men) feeling really strongly about how their children should taught. Being in a more conservative area will also contribute to that.
This is really bizarre. My experience has been the exact opposite. The ‘conservative’ people tend to want to home school and are more interested in the details of their children’s education while the ‘liberal’ people tend to except public school as way to go. I’m even considered a bit paranoid in the eyes of my ‘liberal’ co-workers because I don’t trust public education.
Where would these places be? Even in conservative rural areas, teachers still come from teacher indoctrination factories.
And they teach from a progressive point of view using a progressive curriculum.
I second the question. Where are these lone bastion’s of ‘conservative’ education? We had a couple around here until a few years ago. But now they are long gone. Are there any more out there somewhere?
Even in conservative rural areas, teachers still come from teacher indoctrination factories.
Not always. There are parts of the US (and Canada, and the rest of the world) where teachers were taught in conservative colleges/universities, or have simply found their way to more conservative areas. I don’t present my experiences as being typical – I certainly understand that, in general, JDG’s observations are correct.
See Table 9 (pg 30): http://www.csus.edu/indiv/h/howellj/papers/homeschooling_howellsheran.pdf
IBB said Not all parents are capabale of doing this. Many cannot, and many WILL not.
BradA replied The latter is the correct part, not the former. It is there unwillingness, not their inability.
You NAILED it, Brad.
To follow up on my previous response to RPG, there are NO legitimate reasons for conscientious parents, Christian or not, to not homeschool their children. I speak from direct experience. My wife, who possesses a mere high school diploma, homeschooled my now 11-year-old grandson before he even started kindergarten, bringing him up to a second grade level in the Three Rs before he even started kindergarten. Oh, and not only is my wife one of the most impatient people on earth, but my grandson is a typical boy (the type reflexively branded “ADHD-afflicted” by the publik edjookayshun establishment’s boy-hating femtards). Yet he achieved, under his grandma’s mentoring, on a schedule of only three hours of school work per day, six days per week. Total cost in dollars? One hundred – for an all-inclusive, 3 Rs-focused K-12 curriculum (an insignificant fraction of the residue of the money stolen in taxes to pay for state-mandated mind and soul poisoning in the State’s juvenile day prisons).
In other words, anybody CAN do it – with some minimal effort and if they have their priorities straight. Unfortunately, both of those things are insurmountably tall orders for too many people nowadays who dare call themselves “responsible parents.”
Re:Women are wonderful. Waw. I too never knew the phenomenon had a name. Note especially “women’s in-group biases were four times stronger than men’s “.
I have taught (mathematics) to a fair number of homeschooled kids, over the course of the last few years. Their parents seem to cluster at the tails of the distribution, and are about equally distributed between ultra-lefty hippy types who hate the government, refuse immunizations and smoke pot, and ultra-righty hippy types who hate the government, write about the zionist conspiracies and shoot AK-47s. Their kids, also, predominantly swing either very, very well educated, or dumb as a bag of hammers and lazy too. Very few mediocre kids in the homeschool mix. There is no correlation between their parents’ socio-political affiliation and their cognitive abilities. Some of the brightest kids who work the hardest were raised by doped out hillbillies and racist nutjobs, who live on communes without plumbing. It’s interesting to contemplate.
Institutionalized/standardized public schools are really great at churning out mediocrity. Mediocrity is better than nothing; but the critics are right in part, in that public schools generally try to mold kids into cubicle slaves, rather than encouraging them to think for themselves and solve complex problems through trial-and-error.
If you guys are going to homeschool your kids, you have an awesome opportunity to bestow a classical education on the next generation. It is, apparently, very easy to lose track of this goal and merely let your kids drop out, putting up roadblocks for their future success. Do it right.
Regards, Boxer
I love to eat good, tasty food, so I’ve learned to cook pretty.
If I have to cook, clean, and keep my home AND work for a living, a woman who can’t/won’t is unnecessary.
Pretty well, that is.
@ IBB
You mean you don’t value things like this?
http://chefmommy-brandao.blogspot.com/2012/05/mail-bag-healthy-lunch-ideas.html
LOL, yes, let’s praise the woman who figured out how to put deli meat, grapes, and cheese in a box.
Let me tell you when it was all over.
It was years ago…. I was commuting almost two hours away to my big break. The deal would end up closing, but before that it was grueling. I’d doubled my income, but I had to drive.
So I come home… walk in… and we had two young children right then. But my wife… she’d made a point to save the dishes for me. I didn’t know what a shit test was at this point, but this got my attention. We argued about it… and I don’t know what happened. Maybe I made the error of doing the calculus on how much I’d have to do to get her to just shut up for a while.
Not long after, she got on this thing where she didn’t want me to touch her because she assumed I only did it if I wanted sex. If I didn’t do romantic type stuff she’d complain about it… but if I tried anything, she’d complain more. Meanwhile she’d complain to her friends that she couldn’t get me interested in sex. But the hoops kept multiplying and getting moved.
The counselors basically showed up and wanted help negotiate all this bullshit. It was all taken at face value with them. I needed to compromise on housework and learn how to understand all her feeeeeeelings and stuff. I attempted to work on what they said to do, but after a few years I slowly realized that they were never going to pitch in on making her accountable to reciprocate.
What a waste.
My view of the counseling racket is… it’s all predicated on taking the kind of attitudes Dalrock is describing in his original post here… and then treating that stuff like you can reason with it and compromise with it and play patty cake with it. It’s crazy.
…
I realize my best outcome in this scenario is a marriage of convenience. I think deti said upstream that what I have is not a marriage at all, but I don’t buy that. I knowingly gave my word that this was a “one man, one woman for life” deal. I made sure the preachers made a big deal about it for all our friends and relations. Yeah, I have “chump” written all over me now, sure. But I’m not going to redefine marriage once things get tough. It’s not what people would think that bothers me– I actually fear judgement day.
I can’t take all the measures suggested here. But I hear 71 loud and clear. If she leaves or files, I will not take her back no matter what she says or does. I appreciate his tales of these guys from the eighties about that. If she just up and left, I would go ahead and file, lock down custody, and never look back. I don’t see that happening, though. She’s ill, she’s pushing forty, and there’s no one that is going to pay for her or take care of her. I just got to the “caring for the senile spouse” stage forty years early, that’s all.
Dear Some Guy:
You’ll never hear me say that, nor see me put it into print. No one has any business judging a man’s home life. I don’t respect men who tear down other men in hard times, and if that’s happening it ought to stop.
If she leaves or files, she has voluntarily relinquished the title of “The Honorable Mrs. SomeGuy”, and taken up the mantle of “middle age skank-ho divorcée”. You should let her know this as plainly as possible. Marriagable men who care about their women and kids are not the going commodity today. She got very lucky in getting you to wife her up, and she will not be finding anything better at this point. The reality is that she will find a descending series of low-quality men who find her temporarily useful, until the day that she is untouchable. That’s the brutal truth of the matter, and she ought to see it clearly from the start.
Regards, Boxer
Don’t see your age in your “about” section. I’m 58- been cooking since age 12, won’t say why. There were 8 males in my JHS class in 1969 taking cooking class. We took the class much more seriously then did the girls. My wife didn’t cook when we first got married- though she baked wonderfully. Not cooking was creative incompetence on her part; she was from a family with 8 kids. She learned to cook well rather quickly, though she relies much more upon written recipes for spices then I do. I look at the spice rack and decide what to use. She looks at the recipe and decides what to use. 4 boys, 1 girl, and they all know how to cook.
JDG:
“On what are you basing your conclusion that these passions are God given?”
On the basis of their existence. If God did not want women to learn and create, He would not have given them intelligence and talents.
Denigrating the ability to cook is stupid. Cooking is a very useful social skill, not to mention that you actually get to eat a lot better (and cheaper) than most restaurants. I’m not very good at cooking. But two of my best friends (guys) make excellent food, far better than most restaurants.
And in the end, these same woman will wonder why there is no one there to take care of them – “ye reap what you sow”
On the basis of their existence. If God did not want women to learn and create, He would not have given them intelligence and talents.
The existence of passion for something or someone does not automatically determine that it is from God. More often than not people have a passion for something or someone that is self serving and sinful. God has given women intelligence and talents, and He has given them a set of guide lines in which to put those talents too use. Again I point to Titus chapter 2.
But I thought you were the one who said the ideas in the Bible were antiquated. If so, to what God are you referring?
Now I’m unsure as to your blogging status. You’ve stuck around for some dialog. Perhaps I was too hasty with my standard drive by reply earlier.
CAF “delivers” again:
Do women tend to become more religious when they have children?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=849168
Dating Again? (the usual modernism, but with a twist)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=849270
Annoying statements: Everyone has a past of some sort, issues that make that vulnerable, the proverbial “skeletons in the closet”. And yes, there are people who will think less of you, and for whom being a virgin is a must-have, despite who you have evolved into. But honestly, those people are generally not able to sustain a loving, forgiving relationship anyhow.
Disrespectful Wife (…)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=849285
MarcusD:
“Everyone has a past of some sort, issues that make that vulnerable, the proverbial “skeletons in the closet”. And yes, there are people who will think less of you, and for whom being a virgin is a must-have, despite who you have evolved into. But honestly, those people are generally not able to sustain a loving, forgiving relationship anyhow.”
Yeah, sure. This is Catholic Lite. The Church has always valued virginity. This is simply intended to make slutty women and the men that have to marry them feel better. And what a great bit of shaming language that last line is!
Sorry, MarcusD, I should have made it clear that the statement was by CAF not you.
I cannot bear to read the article on the disrespectful wife, but I assume it takes a feminist tack. I would refer to St Paul in Ephesians, “see that she respects her husband”. Simple.
Some Guy, the dishes were a shit test. The best response would have been to handle them like Kevin Spacey in American Beauty.
Yep, no worries. I’m going to goad someone I know to respond to that thread.
There are a few people on CAF that don’t make such clearly false statements as the last line in the excerpt is, but they are few and far between, and likely just as tired of the “Catholic Lite” as me.
Always have to quote Spacey’s famous line: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn’t exist.”
So appropriate.
Let me ask you something, how long did your husband live on his own (not living with his mom and not living with a wife) before he was first married?
8 months total. Six with a roommate, two with me before the wedding. I don’t know that it’s relevant though. The way he runs our relationship is more about the nature of his views on marriage than any intrinsic value he attaches to cooking and cleaning. He knows what I do here work hard. It’s not about that.
This is going to sound horrible to some, but it’s about having his wife at his disposal whenever he needs her. If the workload is heavy and he can’t take a lunch, calling at 11 and knowing that by 12:30 he’s going to get a meal, made at home fresh, and delivered to the office.
That there are many men who aren’t interested in that is not breaking news, IBB. You’ve always been very outspoken about your admiration of a woman’s accomplishments outside the home. My husband is thoroughly unimpressed by that and is fully willing to live on a tighter budget for the pleasure of coming home for lunch midday and knowing his wife will be home or walking into a house that is filled with the smell of food on the stove.
In many ways he is a young man with the ideals of an old man. It’s just as Laura said. A man runs his house as he sees fit. He determines the things that have value to him in a bride.
However, I disagree with you that most housework doesn’t have to be done. It may not have to be done to the extent that many of us do it, but when you have children especially, you cannot live in filth of even in an unhygienic environment. If anyone who doesn’t like you gets a hint that you are, they can call child protective services and you’ll have problems for worse than a dirty house.
He knows what I do here work hard
That should have read: “He knows what I do here is not hard work.”
Yes, I have always been happy to have my wife work outside the house, though until recently this was mostly part-time. But not many people would consider me a feminist.
I want my wife to run the household, so I expect her to do the grocery shopping and run the laundry. But now I am retired (on a good pension) I do more cooking and a bit more housework. Though there are some tasks I won’t do. I don’t mop, for example.
There is nothing wrong with a bit of role reversal if the couple prefer. My wife is more car-minded than me, and I am the softer parent. In other areas, we adhere strictly to traditional roles.
I have worked outside the house as well, Julian. The first year of our marriage, as well as a few years into it when my husband was laid off and temporarily out of work.
This arrangement is not an inflexible one by any means. We’ll do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. Frankly, it has been character building for me, having the task of being primarily a servant to my husband, home, and family.
The meme of the “strong independent black woman” is very real and I was like an unbroken mustang in my heart for at least the first 8-10 years of my marriage. I was rarely openly rebellious to my husband because he just isn’t the kind of man who suffers that kind of thing and I knew it.
Passive aggressiveness, failed attempts at fitness tests, just all around insane was how I would describe myself. I was that was because my whole life I had been filled with the notion that I needed to be my own safety net. That I couldn’t trust him, that I was a fool for not working, wasting my education, etc.
I was a basket case mentally with the outward veneer of having it all together. But he was undaunted and unmoved and unwavering in wanting his wife to be a homemaker. Someone had to break and it wasn’t going to be him. I am more at peace than I ever thought possible. And it happened through serving my husband.
Not every woman has the same issues and not every husband has the same desires. That’s the beauty of Scripture’s admonition to every wife: “Submit to your own husband.”
Yes, Elspeth, good point on the precise words of scripture there. Ephesians is such a rich passage.
I am lucky that my wife is a librarian and that is a woman’s profession which is flexible as to career requirements. She likes being a librarian. But her job used to take second place to mine, Not that I always liked mine. Breadwinning can get very tedious.
Oh good grief. That “disrespectful wife” thread on the catholic forums– it’s so full of psychobabble.
“Have you tried telling her that this hurts your feelings?” — Awwwww…. Poor baby….
“Oh, hai! Maybe you should see a counselor… or even separate for a while!” — Wheeee!
“Your real issue is communication. You need to sit down with her and tell her how you feel without making accusations and while remaining emotionally neutral the entire time.” — Put your hand into the meat grinder…. Now, turn the crank while keeping a pleasant look on your face.
Let the patty cake begin!
There are a variety of reasons as to why I know of more liberals who homeschool than conservatives – I suppose it comes down to conservative women refusing to do so, and liberal women (and men) feeling really strongly about how their children should taught. Being in a more conservative area will also contribute to that.
Betcha there is really on;y one reason. Geography.
What you stated here is nonsense if you are suggesting it as the norm across the south.
Its wrong a a twisted up way. This notion that liberals feel strongly about how their kids are educated is code for creating the govt leviathan of education. Not for local level control. Unless you are playing with definitions and where you say “liberal” you are drawing on something other than the pedestrian meaning. If thats what you are doing…..fine…..people like to do that in blog comments, start hair splitting and dropping quotes. But it is ineffective in a big group to do so.
Your real issue is communication.
That’s what they all say. It means the men needs to learn female communication. Full stop.
When I was stuck in that event horizon 12 years ago, the guy said that, and I told him look, its fine if you want to go that way, I’ll play, on one condition. You mediate 3 issues objectively. It took some fussing but he agreed (key……it was a male)
We laid out cases, her and I, on 3 issues. Sex was not one of them, it was an issue but not one for mediation. I was trying to teach the man something. If he would truly hear out the sides on some very specific issues and render an opinion, he would see then how frustrating it is for a man to be told, in light of things cut and dry, that the solution is better communications. NO….the solution was Do this, this, and this. Tangible, like a judge with a verdict, and I was “right” in all of them.
To much to go into but later, dust had settled, and the guy told me how that was a big deal for him to have done. He got to see a real tantrum as he had to tell a woman she was dead wrong on some things. It failed as counseling, she was so angry we didnt go back for a long time, but in the end it worked as the issues ended and the marriage thrived and there have been no more ideas about going to hear another putz say “we need to get you two communicating”
lgrobins(@2:17pm),
“Especially with men who marry later in life, being a bachelor so long, a lot of the housework becomes second nature and they start doing it without event thinking about it.”
For sure. I can tell you, as a happily married guy of 3+ decades, that your idea of “clean” and her idea of “clean” are only going to coincide on the 5th Thursday of February in leap years.
Certainly feminism is at the very core of this problem, but it is exacerbated by poor upbringing too. Also, this can all be simplified by observing what Boy Scouts teaches boys vs. what Girl Scouts teaches girls. I think many women are delusional in that they are putting themselves in dependence of men yet they think they can still have their independence. Sad, but funny at the same time.
Never go to a counsellor. It is none of their business. You are a husband. There is no secular authority above you.
The meme of the “strong independent black woman” is very real
And how did this come about? I see it on Tv and the movies all of the time. Did Hollywood promote it?
@Anonymous age 71
This is pure retardation. You are saying that it is correct to prostrate yourself for the children. How then will your children learn that self-respect is an important aspect of living? The situation was turned into fucked-up by her, not him. Begging for your family back is no different than pleading with the devil for mercy.
You are suggesting that a man who ceases asserting himself as a man can still be a worthwhile father. I say that no father can demonstrate masculine virtue without first enforcing justice in his own life. The man who tells his children to stick up for themselves, while letting mommy be a slut, is a hypocrite.
>> there have been no more ideas about going to hear another putz say “we need to get you two communicating”
I’m afraid that the wife in these scenarios is communicating quite clearly:
* “My husband no longer deserves my respect.”
* “I’ve arbitrarily decided that my husband needs to re-qualify for my commitment, love, and affection.”
* “I’m toying with the idea of firing my husband and finding a replacement.”
* “If my husband can’t respond in perfect love when I show him contempt, then he must not deserve me anyway.”
Yeah, let’s put a nickel in the can, hold hands, and sing Kum-ba-ya with that. Sounds like a real plan….
The secret is: don’t marry an American. Marry a Pole,or South American, or like I did, an Italian (not Italian American). Life won’t be quiet or easy, but you get less resentful feminist nonsense.
And how did this come about? I see it on Tv and the movies all of the time. Did Hollywood promote it?
No. Hollywood did not promote it. The truth is that it began with some black men wronging black women. Not all, but enough that a domino effect kicked in.
The OOW birthrate was already alarming at the time Daniel P Moynihan sounded the alarm, but LBJ’s Great Society, which effectively rewarded illegitimacy, made things worse by playing the role of husband and making scott free sex even easier for men and women alike.
Baby wasn’t going to starve if daddy left, so mother felt no need to be the kind of mate that would make him want to stay and he left. Factor in feminized education, AA which leveled the playing field by hiring a double minority female, and the die was cast.
Men checked out, women grew more and more bitter, internalizing that “black men ain’t worth sh*t”, and an entire generation of women were indoctrinated that their best bet was to take care of themselves because depending on a man is a fool’s errand.
Almost all relationships were deemed temporary (see black divorce rate) and since women had the leg up in education and hiring, they became “strong and independent”. It was really just another form of interdependence of course, with government filling to role of husband, but they didn’t have to answer to government when they wanted to party with the girls on Friday night, LOL.
I’m as much a product of that culture as other black women my age and older. I had moments of deep anxiety in the early years about “what if this doesn’t work and I put all my eggs in this basket?” And if he wouldn’t let me buy something? I was ready to be committed for being so stupid.
Thankfully unless most men, mine simply put his foot down and refused to allow me to treat him as if he couldn’t be trusted to be here tomorrow. I had to woman up, so I did.
Hollywood portrays and glamorizes something that is in reality sad, sick and twisted, but they didn’t start it.
“who have never held a job in their life because they were functionally illiterate at age 16, could not do basic algebra at age 19, and could not pass a GED test at age 23”
IBB, you say this describes some homeschooled kids.
I say it describes the majority of people coming out of inner city high schools WITH DIPLOMAS in almost every large urban/metro area in the United States.
They may not know how to cook, but they sure know how to eat:
http://www.returnofkings.com/25103/fat-feminist-lindy-west-has-internet-meltdown-because-she-cant-fit-in-airplane-seat
The Lindy Wests of the world are full of love, really, really full.
Elspeth
Very honest and over all good post. The part that makes you a special woman and an outlier is this
“Thankfully unless most men, mine simply put his foot down and refused to allow me to treat him as if he couldn’t be trusted to be here tomorrow. I had to woman up, so I did.”
Black women will at that point call her husband (government) to come in and kick the mans ass that moment. You didn’t and chose to submit and you are enjoying a family life and in your comments about your husband and family the happiness comes through. I have never heard a black girl or woman speak like that about anything ever. ( I know you catch hell from other black women) ” The strong black woman” is the foundation of the destruction of black people and has become African American culture itself. All areas of blight and destruction are populated by people living the African American cultural experience to the fullest.
You are a special lady.
Someguy, Jan 2, 9:39 pm:
I can appreciate your stance on your marriage. If you’re going to stay because your vows mean something, that’s admirable and noble. That’s not chumpitude particularly if you’re doing it for your kids. Perhaps you’re right that the best you can get is a marriage of convenience. If you’re doing it so your kids get a decent start in life, there’s nothing wrong with that. From the way you make it sound, you’re the saner parent, and divorce would just consign your kids to living with a madwoman.
Just the same, if I were you, I’d get a divorce lawyer on retainer pronto. Lay it all out for your lawyer, and find out how things will go in the event she decides to detonate. Be prepared to do what you must.
Re: “A man runs his house as he sees fit.” It would be nice IF the wife lets him run it. That’s the essential part.
Deti,
No, I’m saying this described my cousin. Because it does.
Notice what I boldened.
This is often what happens when schools hire unqualified people to be teachers because they fulfill some government mandated quota, and the students they are all teaching are bastards (literally.) You are talking about trying to educate children who don’t have a mother and father who are married. They may not know who their father is at all…
…that is the problem, it is partially the school is shit because the teachers are shit but it is mostly the family life of the students.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best, “Education is all family.” You are NOT going to get this inner city high school problem in suburban America with kids who grow up in healthy, intact, homes, with mom and dad who are married to one another. The instant suburban America starts being mostly populated with single moms raising children alone, lo and behold, the students will start to suffer.
Elspeth,
It’s relevant. That explains a lot actually. He was only 8 months away from having mom wash his clothes to having a wife wash his clothes which is why your husband probably appreciates the fact that you wash his clothes. I could never appreciate it. I wash all the clothes in my house for the family and I don’t count that as work because it isn’t. It is pressing buttons and folding things. I did it for YEARS when I lived alone. It means nothing to me and (therefore) I see no value in it.
Okay. If he knows it and he still appreciates it, that is one thing. I know I don’t.
Yes.
I would have rather never married than marry a woman who wanted to just be a home maker. To each their own.
@Some Guy Re:”I’m afraid that the wife in these scenarios is communicating quite clearly”
You have a great list there especially the one about using contempt as a shit test “If my husband can’t respond in perfect love when I show him contempt, then he must not deserve me anyway.”
I will echo all the other men here and recommend you go Dread. Keep in mind she is broken, she is sick, and Dread is the medicine that is required to combat Contempt.
greyghost,
She sure is. Special.
Rollo Tomassi says:
“They may not know how to cook, but they sure know how to eat
http://www.returnofkings.com/25103/fat-feminist-lindy-west-has-internet-meltdown-because-she-cant-fit-in-airplane-seat
The Lindy Wests of the world are full of love, really, really full.”
The loathing-of-cooking and obesity epidemics are not unrelated. Any woman who buys all of her meals is going to get fat, even if she tries to eat healthy foods. Any woman who takes pride in not knowing how to cook is going to STAY fat, especially as she gets older. And in our society, mature women build social support networks based on nurturing and providing rather than on hotness or independence, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
As someone who is hurtling towards Grandma Age herself, I can promise these women that if they don’t know how to cook properly for themselves and lovingly and lavishly for someone else, their time in middle and old age is going to be even more miserable than in their 20’s and 30’s.
LOL.
That’s just it, IBB. I had no intention of or desire to be “just a homemaker.”
It’s called submission.
I would have rather never married than marry a woman who wanted to just be a home maker. To each their own.
I find it funny the way men almost always assume that it is the woman angling to stay home with the kids. Looking for some sucked to marry so he can take care of her.
That was not the way it went here. Did you read the dialog I had with Julian and Farm Boy? Do you know how many married women in my family and/or church are homemakers? Hardly any. I’m the odd one out. Leave it to Beaver is not where I came from. I was the smart one who had big plans.
My family expected bigger things of me. My husband said, “Change of plans. My kids are going to be raised by their mother. Quit next week. You can finish school, but unless we need you to work, that’s it.”
I’m so very, very glad I followed his lead. We don’t have half the squabbles and issues other couples we know deal with.
Oh man. I’d literally risk it all to marry a feminine SAHM.
“Re: “A man runs his house as he sees fit.” It would be nice IF the wife lets him run it. That’s the essential part.”
That’s why I said “in theory”.
I think SOME men love to cook- many still don’t. Cooking certainly got a bad name in modern culture say- teh 1970’s- when a combination of feminism and mass commercialism (selling ready meals) did a double whammy on cooking.
Thank God cooking is back- although too late to save many wonderful family/ethnic recipes- actually we “ethnics” really never let go- as an Italian American I’ve never felt so much pity as that I feel for “Medicans” who grew up on processed food.
Virtue,
SAHM != SAHW
I ask you, what if you marry a woman who is infertile? You still want her home? What if she doesn’t want children and has taken (medical) measures to prevent pregnancy from ever happening? Would you still marry her? Would you marry a woman who refuses to submit to you? What would you do if you married a woman who was infertile and she didn’t even know that until after you married her? You still want your childless wife at home?
We talk about submission a lot and Elspeth is “special” specifically because she is willing TO submit. Most women don’t. And won’t. It doesn’t matter what they read in the Bible about submitting to their husbands, they won’t. And because they wont (and man’s laws in our country stipulate that they don’t have to), it is usually a pretty good idea to get these issues out front BEFORE you actually marry a woman. And I’ve found (too often) that people don’t have these discussions about what he expects of his wife in marriage (and what the wife expects of her husband in marriage.) And (after a few years) that is when people start talking “divorce.”
I’m not saying having a happy family is an option that is necessarily available to me. All I’m saying it’s what I’d chose if I did have a choice. Male authority is abuse, according to the Duluth model of domestic violence. Biblical marriage is thus de facto illegal in this country.
As an aside, and I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this – if I knew the woman was infertile before I got married, I wouldn’t marry her. If my penis fell off tomorrow, that would be a terrible tragedy, but I wouldn’t expect anyone to want to marry me either. But this is a risk that men have always faced, nothing new about it. Women face a similar risk with male infertility as well.
I am not “special” IBB, nor have I ever purported to be.
I’d be less than honest if I didn’t admit that my submission was initially driven by my desire for this man and nothing else. The Bible had nothing to do with it. Tradition had nothing to do with it. I wanted to be what he wanted me to be to keep him wanting me.
When the realities of married life kicked in, then I took another look at the faith of my youth, and the desire to do what’s right helped to bolster what was still primarily driven by my feelings. That and the very real understanding that I was married to a man who was not inclined to let me make his life a living hell on a whim.
20 years in now, and I have reached a place where my allegiance to God and Biblical principles keep me on the path of a submissive wife. This didn’t happen over night.
Elspeth,
By your feelings you mean attraction. You were submissive first because you were so attracted, he was so dominant that you would do anything to keep this man. And then it was convenient that the bible jived nicely with your feelings/attraction. How is it now that you can say so confidently that your allegiance is to biblical principles is what keeps you a submissive wife and not the initial attraction, the dominance, that made you submissive. How does God now get the glory when it was raw attraction that put you together?
My guess is feminists have never felt the sort of attraction that makes them want to do anything for their man, it is rare.
Elspeth,
THAT is what makes you so special. 🙂
How is it now that you can say so confidently that your allegiance is to biblical principles is what keeps you a submissive wife and not the initial attraction, the dominance, that made you submissive. How does God now get the glory when it was raw attraction that put you together?
Laura,
Do you realize that the wording of your question implies that a true conversion experience cannot impact a marriage that was built on something other than Christian principles? I find it hard to believe that you believe that.
I can say confidently now that my allegiance is to biblical principles because we have both had a real “come to Jesus moment” albeit at different points in our marriage.
Am I trying to pretend that the desire I feel for my husband doesn’t make it waaay easier to submit to his leadership? Not. at. all. It most certainly does. But I’ve been in and around the church my entire life. Seen marriage wax cold almost overnight.
When you can be happily married after 20 years (especially when you were young & stupid when you married), you give God the glory for that rather than be so smug as to take the credit or be so foolish as to think that libido can keep a marriage together.
It can’t.
But yes Laura, the dominance does play a role in keeping me submissive. Sure it does. But holding me accountable to my role is a Biblical duty on the part of my husband, is it not?
You may have been young and stupid, but you had the attraction, the foundation! On the attraction issue I side 110% with Deti’s viewpoints, so that fills you in on my thinking.
“But holding me accountable to my role is a Biblical duty on the part of my husband, is it not?”
Yes, that seems obvious. I don’t see how you will ever stray from you role though cause he will always be dominant.
You may have been young and stupid, but you had the attraction, the foundation! On the attraction issue I side 110% with Deti’s viewpoints, so that fills you in on my thinking.
Thank you for clarifying your frame.
I don’t see how you will ever stray from you role though cause he will always be dominant.
Hmmm. Never thought of it that way frankly, but he was bred to be a man who approaches women from a certain vantage point, so yes. He will in all likelihood always be dominant.
I am curious though if you believe a true Christian conversion can save a marriage? Or is it doomed without sufficient attraction?
@Elspeth
“But holding me accountable to my role is a Biblical duty on the part of my husband, is it not?”
No, it is not his Biblical duty. His Biblical duty is to love you, whether or not you are fulfilling your role. Your Biblical duty is to submit to him, REGARDLESS of whether or not he is fulfilling his role. I cannot understand why even “enlightened” women such as yourself and SSM so often forget this fundamental fact.
His Biblical duty is to love you, whether or not you are fulfilling your role. Your Biblical duty is to submit to him, REGARDLESS of whether or not he is fulfilling his role. I cannot understand why even “enlightened” women such as yourself and SSM so often forget this fundamental fact.
I understand this fundamental fact, JF. My comment was largely based on Ephesians 5:25-27.
So yes I agree with you that my husband’s love is not to be conditional upon his wife’s submission any more than my submission is to be contingent upon his love. However, in a functioning Christian marriage where both are striving to fulfill the Biblical mandate, part of “washing her in the word”, and helping her become more holy is to assist her in living up to her God-given responsibilities. it’s part of what leaders are called to do at every level of the Christian hierarchy.
No?
“true” is the key word. If its true, then yes. But how do we ever know its true? Is that something taken on faith?
But how do we ever know its true? Is that something taken on faith?
Ye shall know them by their fruit.
Fruit, being actions? I see all you can sum up is based on how that person is acting at that particular snapshot in time. If SSM’s husband cheats again 10 years down the road, then that wasn’t a true conversion right? Who ever knows until we are dead whether something really stuck.
What I am saying is only God knows a true conversion.
Re: washing. He gave Himself up for the Church. He calls on Her to repent, but He doesn’t hold Her head under the water baptistery to FORCE Her to repent. It’s all conditional on Her voluntary unforced submission.
Fruit, being actions?
I would say fruit is the results of someone’s actions.
I see our disconnect Jf. My husband doesn’t force me to submit to him. I want to please him.
If you interpret dominance as domineering force, then your comment makes sense. Dominance and love are not mutually exclusive, however.
“I’d be less than honest if I didn’t admit that my submission was initially driven by my desire for this man and nothing else. The Bible had nothing to do with it. Tradition had nothing to do with it. I wanted to be what he wanted me to be to keep him wanting me.”
This, right here, in my opinion is the ONLY foundation which currently works to keep a marriage together and satisfying for both man and woman. Its absence in so many marriages is also the reason why so many of them fail.
If HER sexual attraction and desire for HIM is not there, the marriage will be at best one in which the participants care about each other. Caritas. But it will never be agape, or eros, or even phileo.
The marriages Elspeth and SSM have to their respective husbands succeed and thrive because they had sexual desire for their husbands from the very get-go.
JDG:
“The existence of passion for something or someone does not automatically determine that it is from God. More often than not people have a passion for something or someone that is self serving and sinful. God has given women intelligence and talents, and He has given them a set of guide lines in which to put those talents too use. Again I point to Titus chapter 2.”
I don’t think Marie Curie’s passion for science, Amelia Earhart’s passion for flying, and Florence Nightingale’s passion for medicine and nursing came from ungodly sources, do you? That’s the passion, and drive to realize it, I’m talking about.
“But I thought you were the one who said the ideas in the Bible were antiquated. If so, to what God are you referring?”
Not everyone considers the Bible to be the authority on contemporary life. Among those billions of people who don’t there are many who live decent lives all the same.
“Now I’m unsure as to your blogging status. You’ve stuck around for some dialog. Perhaps I was too hasty with my standard drive by reply earlier.”
Hastiness is a common problem, yes. My initial comment was hasty as well. But, frankly, I do not think it is possible to dialog with people who write posts like “Feminists are ugly” and those who use this as an opportunity to unload their misogyny and personal unhappiness it has created in their lives.
By way of explanation for the above, let me tell you a bit more about me. I have been a stay-at-home mom most of my married life, at a certain point starting my own business to help my husband supplement our income and to do what I’ve always loved to do. He works very hard to be an excellent provider for us and has been doing it for years. Now that the kids are grown, we both have our own businesses and help each other running them when necessary. We are together 24/7 and this allows us plenty of opportunities for great sex, which has only become better since the kids left home.
Not that you will have to believe me, but I am thin and elegant, always taking good care of myself for my husband’s and my own pleasure. He likes that, very much. I also cook, clean, shop, mend our clothes and occasionally make them. I take pleasure in that, although I don’t think this is such a big deal. My husband never cooks, BTW (nor cleans), I don’t think he even knows how to, but he likes watching me do it (oh, and how). We have a fruit and vegetable garden, and we still can our harvest, although less than we used to. And I’m a feminist, which means a person who believes that men and women should have equal rights under the law. I also do not buy the idea of a submissive wife, and neither does my husband (who laughed at it when I presented the idea of him after reading this blog), and this has not made our marriage any less successful – I’m no less feminine and he’s no less masculine because of it. I should also add that we never argue, even though we do not agree on everything (obviously). Having been through some difficult times earlier in our marriage, we have learned to appreciate each other more with time, and that involves growing the ability to respect another’s opinion and to compromise. Although, truth be told, I usually also go along with his decisions on major family issues, as he is smart and wise, and I trust his judgment.
Hearing the commenters here unload their prejudices (“feminists are ugly,” “women have no moral agency,” paraphrased; etc.) that stem from their hatred and pain is disturbing in many ways, not it in least since these people call themselves Christian. I am genuinely sorry for the pain of men who married lousy women, incapable of fulfilling their wifely and motherly duties, but, to me, that appears to have less to do with feminism and more with choosing wrong women, maybe those who somehow bought into a myth of women lacking self-direction and needing male supervision. This would be one sure way, IMO, to act with learned helplessness at home and in life.
Now if you excuse me, I have a dinner to cook.
deti,
I can think of at least one other…
…the concept of avoiding loneliness (at all costs) in the golden years. My wife and I are years from retirement BUT we keep planning and preparing for when we are retired and what we want to do when neither one of us are working. We are constantly saving and preparing for our future together, a future that exists after the last child leaves the nest. I’m guessing that she and I have at least 10 full years of travel plans already set (not carved in stone) but we already bought the stone as we have the RV. Some folks get a boat. Some folks prefer to fly. Others build their retirement dreams around spoiling their grandchildren. This can be enough to keep a marriage together when everything else is lacking, I’ve seen it.
This is why I quite often drift apart from many of the men here in what I value in women. I like to think long term, way beyond just the physical\bedroom connection to when she and I are old and grey. Marriage for me was a lifetime commitment (something that only God could terminate when he was ready to call either one of us home) so before I married my wife, I had to be absolutely sure that she is the one I want beside me in my 90s.
Fruit, being actions? I see all you can sum up is based on how that person is acting at that particular snapshot in time. If SSM’s husband cheats again 10 years down the road, then that wasn’t a true conversion right? Who ever knows until we are dead whether something really stuck.
This implies that true conversion is followed by perfect behavior for the rest of life from the conversion forward. We all struggle with sin (see Romans 7). The difference is whether we make sin a habitual practice in our life, accept responsibility when we stumble and make every effort to never commit the act again.
Is this a guarantee? Of course not. If we were capable of living a sinless life there would have been no need for the Holy Spirit to inspire John to pen these words in 1 John chapter 1:
If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
Note verse 9. If believers were henceforth sinless there would be no need for further forgiveness. But “walking in darkness” is a sure sign of an unregenerate heart.
You seem to be looking for guarantees. I offer none because I cannot. I do believe however that our lifestyle and the things we practice habitually are capable of revealing the sincerity of our faith.
None of us can really know what is in the heart of another, as you say. But I don’t know what kind of answer can be satisfactory if perfection is the standard of measurement. By that standard we all fail and are for certain hell bound.
IBB:
“…the concept of avoiding loneliness (at all costs) in the golden years.”
My comment was about why a woman gets with and stays with a man, for “true love” if you will. The only source of that “true love” now which actually keeps her happily with him is her sexual attraction to him; her being “head over heels” in love with him.
A woman does not stay with a man simply because she does not want to be alone in her elderly years. Even if this is her reason for her remaining with him, it is not a reason which produces happiness or even contentment, but instead produces resentment and strife.
Shell,
Don’t be too hard on yourself. 🙂
You say you are a feminist. Truth be told, you seem quite submissive to me.
That is good Shell. You should be. I don’t know if you believe in God or in His Son and my Savior, Jesus Christ, but you sure do a good job of following God’s commandment of Eve in Genesis: Chapter 3 verse 16.
You got married. You had his kids. You stayed married even when things got tough. You have great sex with your husband (your words.) I can think of quite a few feminists who would absolutely NOT regard you as any kind of feminst as you do tend to submit to your Patriarical husband. In fact, you might be surprised to find out that many of the single men here could only dream of marrying a woman such as yourself even though you claim to be a feminist.
IBB:
Shell is actually quite typical of many women claiming to be feminist; and also of women who completely eschew the “feminist ” label.
Everyone in this society is a feminist to some degree. Even ultraconservative Christian women are essentially antiabortion feminists.
Go to an ultraconservative church and ask any married woman there if she thinks she’d have the right to divorce her husband if he was “verbally abusive” to her. You will get an unqualified “yes” from almost every woman you asked.
Ask that same woman if she agrees she has to submit to a man to the point of obeying his direction to quit her job if he believes she should for the good of the family. You will get an unqualified “no” from almost every woman you ask.
Ask that same woman if she believes a premarital sex count of, oh, say, 5 means that she is less valuable or desirable for marriage. You will get an unqualified “no” followed by shrieks of “How dare you judge her! You can’t judge a woman by her sex partners! “
I’m sure that is all quite true deti, but count me among those who might not regard Shell as a true-blue, man-hating, feminist.
@Elspeth,
it’s not a disconnect, so much as it totally contrary to my experience. “I want to please him.” I don’t know any women like that, except for those few women who are trying to hold on to alpha males. It is NOT incumbent upon the man to be dominant to his wife before she submits. It IS Biblically incumbent upon her to submit no matter his dominance.
Jf12:
I agree. I don’t know any women anywhere with an express or even implied attitude of wanting to please their husbands, except (1) women married to alpha males and who fear his leaving her or straying or cheating; or (2) SSM and Elspeth. Even the women in church I know never, ever show an attitude of submission to their husbands.
It is NOT incumbent upon the man to be dominant to his wife before she submits.
BS! The man initiates and the woman responds. If you don’t believe me, consider what is between your legs, it gets hard so you can initiate the gift and the woman responds to receive.
Maybe God created man to be clueless and lazy until woman was created and then when Eve submitted first, Adam gained the boldness to lead and have dominion. Also maybe Jesus had to wait for His apostles to choose to follow Him before He began to assert His leadership.
But wussy men whine, “I would lead if she would only let me and get out of my way.”
Is masculinity derived from the permission of the woman?
I don’t think Marie Curie’s passion for science, Amelia Earhart’s passion for flying, and Florence Nightingale’s passion for medicine and nursing came from ungodly sources, do you? That’s the passion, and drive to realize it, I’m talking about.
The source of their passions could have been from good or bad origins. Even if the origins were good, that doesn’t mean that the execution of those passions was the right thing to do. Furthermore, You are trying to claim that the existence of said passions are enough reason to assume that they are from God and therefore good. I disagree, and so does the Bible. Passions exist for many reasons, and even noble passions often exist for selfish reasons.
Not everyone considers the Bible to be the authority on contemporary life. Among those billions of people who don’t there are many who live decent lives all the same.
This was never disputed. My question is on what AUTHORITY do you base YOUR conclusions. You still haven’t answered. Am I to hold your opinions in high regard merely because you believe them? Or do you have some source outside of yourself that I might consider?
Hastiness is a common problem, yes. My initial comment was hasty as well. But, frankly, I do not think it is possible to dialog with people who write posts like “Feminists are ugly” and those who use this as an opportunity to unload their misogyny and personal unhappiness it has created in their lives.
At least you seem to admit that feminism has indeed caused unhappiness in the lives of some of its victims. And here you are having a conversation with someone who thinks feminists are indeed ugly.
Feminists are ugly because feminism is ugly. It is a deceptive ideology that is based on lies from its inception and survives like a parasite on the backs of others by producing and perpetuating for as long as possible more lies.
I’m a feminist, which means a person who believes that men and women should have equal rights under the law.
Feminism is anything but ‘equal’ rights for men and women under the law. For you to say that such is feminism indicates that you are either incredibly misinformed or you are being deceptive. The very term feminist implies a female oriented goal. Humanist might better describe what you apply to the term feminist.
Hearing the commentors here unload their prejudices (“feminists are ugly,” “women have no moral agency,” paraphrased; etc.) that stem from their hatred and pain is disturbing in many ways, not it in least since these people call themselves Christian. I am genuinely sorry for the pain of men who married lousy women, incapable of fulfilling their wifely and motherly duties, but, to me, that appears to have less to do with feminism and more with choosing wrong women,
1) Not everyone who comments here is Christian.
2) Your forgetting the actual rule of law in this country, the iron fist that has taken by force the children and home of many an man at the whim these women. Most of these men have no legal recourse what so ever because of feminist induced laws.
maybe those who somehow bought into a myth of women lacking self-direction and needing male supervision. This would be one sure way, IMO, to act with learned helplessness at home and in life.
I’m sorry but unless you can produce some source of information other than your opinion, the mountain of evidence posted here and sites like this one is pointing in favor of the ‘myth’.
Now if you excuse me, I have a dinner to cook.
Perhaps while your cooking one of your excellent meals you might be willing to watch some informative videos. The authoress is like you in that she is not a Christian, but she has an informed perception of the feminist legal climate in this country.
Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat) Presentation at the 2013 NY Libertarian Convention
Not all feminists are like that:
Angry misogynists:
Thank you for hearing me out. I want to caution you, feminism really is a shell game Shell (no pun intended – ok yes it was – I couldn’t resist).
Have a good one.
@JDG
Shell wins since you accepted her frame and engaged in a logical debate with a woman. A masculine man would frame his own argument and not care about her prattling. Additionally, a masculine man would not care whether she agreed with him or not.
Pingback: Directions
7man – Sorry but I disagree that clearly pointing out the illogical misinformed positions she is taking and positing logical ones equates to accepting her frame. I use logic for the sake of those reading, though it would be nice if she could pick up on it. I don’t write very often without it except when I’m clowning around (I know, I know, not very masculine).
Why are you the authority on what a masculine man would or would not do, and what makes you think I care whether or not either one of you agrees with me?
Pingback: A cook’s tour of the modern household | Law of Markets
You silly bugger. I am female, a feminist, and I bake bread every day, make dinner and lunch every day, home-made soup twice a week and brunch on Sundays. As it happens, since the start of our relationship (six years) I’ve been the breadwinner as well as the bread-maker. I cook because I enjoy cooking, although I must confess that my husband is the one who makes cakes when cake is needed, and he does a fantastic cheese omelette when occasion demands.
I have no doubt you’ll find some way to turn that into some sort of poisonous way I’m torturing the poor bloke, but I can assure you he doesn’t feel that way.
@JDG
When has logic ever been useful in a discussion with a woman?
Since you accepted her points and too the time to address each one in order you did accept her framing of the issues. You accepted her points as the offensive and then took a defensive position as you used logic to refute each one. She therefore defined each element of the debate field and you did not introduce a single new element.
I never claimed to be an authority, but I know what works and what is fruitless. I care not the least whether you care if I agree with you.
7man – I don’t doubt that you know a thing or two about what works and what doesn’t. I guess what I am having trouble believing is that their is a rigid set of rules that a man must conform to when debating that determine whether or not he is masculine.
What I would like to know is why do you say that dismantling and refuting every point she made is ineffective when others will hopefully read it and see the flaws even if she does not? Whether it be defensive or offensive I still don’t see the connection between a) using her statements as a point of interaction and b) accepting her frame of said statement.
You say that she defined each element of the debate field. These were the very elements that I wanted to debate, dismantle, and show to be false, so that the truth in each matter might be revealed.
I use to read your blog back when, so I know that you are no stranger to these matters. Furthermore, I realize that it is possible that I just cannot see what you are trying to point out. But then I have to ask why I have seen others here use this very same tactic with no one making the claims that you are making here with me?
Dude – Back in the kitchen and hurry up with those sammiches.
I’d recommend the movie “Fireproof” in repairing your own marriage (Yes, you read that correctly)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=849358
Re: the premarital sex thread, another line: “My Catholic partner says God has forgiven us and is good with this.” (Explains the shaming language)
—
Divorce and Celibacy
If a woman were to divorce due to the husband being neglectful/emotionally abusive and she remained celibate afterwards, would the divorce still be counted as a sin?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=849477
Interesting:
Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303997604579240022857012920-lMyQjAxMTAzMDMwMDEzNDAyWj
@7man
Incorrect. Wives are to submit even to husbands who aren’t doing right, e.g.1 Peter 1:3. And of course wives are to submit when husbands are doing right. Biblically it doesn’t matter how the husband behaves: the wife is supposed to submit anyway.
I meant 1 Pet 3:1 of course.
@Shell
unload their misogyny
Please define “misogyny” as you use it.
—
@IBB
You say you are a feminist. Truth be told, you seem quite submissive to me.
See, I think that’s worth pointing out – people will say, in public, that they are something they are not, to get approval, but will act privately in a completely different manner. In this case, to appear progressive they call themselves “feminists” but actually act in a different manner, even if they don’t realize it themselves. It seems the Victorian period is repeating itself.
Also, wouldn’t threatpoint make every married woman a rapist (using feminist definitions)?
Pingback: The Heroic Single Mom :: The Damned Olde Man
@jf12
Of course a wife is to submit regardless. This does not relieve a man of his duty to lead. As a practical matter, following and submitting is a response to leadership and dominance. You can tell a woman to submit regardless and would be Biblically correct yet that does not make much difference in convincing a woman to submit to a weak man.
@JDG
Yes exposing the fallacies of a woman’s argument can help others. But it does not help you in learning how to deal with women. It is not an effective method when you personally need to deal with a woman whether it be your wife, a woman at work or the females in the family court system. Facts don’t matter. It is more effective to frame the argument and provide much less information. I just chose to point this out to you since you provided a good example. I realize that lots of guys are using the same methods of argumentation but it is just as non-effective.
Oh no, not the submit to a marshmallow debate again. Here you are.
http://notequalbutdifferent.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/casti-connubii-wife-must-lead-if-married-to-marshmallow/
I don’t know any women anywhere with an express or even implied attitude of wanting to please their husbands,
That is easily one of the saddest things I’ve read on this subject perhaps…ever.
Never mind, Elspeth, my wife is baking away happily and has just brought me a cup of tea.
I just put the husband’s biscuits in the oven. What a coincidence.
Still, I can’t fathom a woman not having any interest in pleasing the man she married.
And it should not be predicated on her fear of him leaving her or cheating. That certainly isn’t something I fret about.
The potato and olive bread was quite edible but a bit undercooked. Which is what I told her.
Mind you, I think the tea proffering may be to keep me from hitting the vino.
Also, wouldn’t threatpoint make every married woman a rapist (using feminist definitions)?
Yes it would. That’s the double standard we of come to know so well.
@Shell
unload their misogyny
Please define “misogyny” as you use it.
I missed that one even though it was right in front of me.
s/b – we have come to know so well.
I realize that lots of guys are using the same methods of argumentation but it is just as non-effective.
I’m thinking the goal would be the determining factor for the effectiveness of the tactic in question. But aside from that, why don’t you get back in the game and start writing again? Surely that would be more helpful than commenting every now and then.
@JDG
People don’t learn and have not accepted any of the wealth of information I previously wrote about. I learned the hard way from experience since as a beta man nothing worked, but it seems to me that few men are willing to learn since they would have to take responsibility rather than blaming teh bad womynz.
Now I participate by sniping occasionally and by being the editor for Lena S. A portion her posts is written by me. The concepts mainly come from me and she does a fine job expressing them after we have jointly discussed, tested, rediscovered and developed the ideas.
Lena has tens of readers!
Could you post a link?
@JDG
Lena’s comments have her blog’s URL ‘behind’ her tag
http://notequalbutdifferent.wordpress.com/
“Dude – Back in the kitchen and hurry up with those sammiches.”
Enjoyed this one (and others, but that one in particular)
Cheers
Pingback: Why would a man want a housewife? | Sunshine Mary
@7man, & Lena & all women who promote the “Man up!” fallacy.
Yes “You can tell a woman to submit regardless and would be Biblically correct yet that does not make much difference in convincing a woman to submit to a weak man.” It also doesn’t make ANY difference in convincing a woman to submit to a strong man. Biblically (and not coincidentally in real life) a “brawling and contentious woman” is no respecter of men. The men’s behavior literally doesn’t matter: the woman MUST submit regardless. It is NOT the case that men must “Man up!” despite it also being the case that men should not “Man down!”
@jf12 & all the men (and women) who promote the “just submit” fallacy… Good luck with that.
I am a true feminist… which means a person who believes that men and women should have equal rights under the law but enforced favorably towards females and unfavorably towards males.
>>As a practical matter, following and submitting is a response to leadership and dominance.
In other words, you are saying that initiating effective leadership initiates effective submission? Hogwash. Not in any Bible I have seen and not in reality, Both the Bible and reality show that effective submission initiates effective leadership.
This is the heresy which has destroyed Christianity. As far as I can tell it is from male ego, not reality.
No, I believe effective leadership merely facilitates (enables) the development of submission.
Please make your case for effective submission initiating effective leadership and cite the Biblical support. I am honestly curious.
I invite you to make your case for my heresy at my Judgment Day. We will let Jesus render judgment. Of course you will also be able to learn all my failings and sins first, but I will ask that you have the opportunity to address the King.
>>Is masculinity derived from the permission of the woman?
Actually, yes it is, as far as Biblical leadership is concerned.
Item 1: In the Bible is written that it is better to live in the desert than be married to a contentious woman.
Item 2: In the Bible it is written that it is better to live on a rooftop than be married to a contentious woman.
Item 3: In the Bible, though this one varies by translation, one translation says he who can control a contentious woman can control the wind.
No where in the Bible does it say a man can dominate or lead a rebellious, argumentative woman. It does not say so because there is no way to control and dominate or lead a rebellious, argumentative woman, except by extreme violence.
Let me add here that I have been studying this issue since 1984 when a divorced Christian man called and told me his pastor screamed at him that it was his fault that his wife committed adultery. At that time, I bought a paperback Bible, I forget, one of the most common translations. And, went through the whole thing line by line, page by page, and noted inside the back cover any reference of any kind involving men; women; marriage; sex; or anything vaguely close.
After noting any possible reference to the topic as such, I went back and studied each and every reference. In case of doubt, I looked at other translations.
Not only does it not say that a man is at fault when his wife sins, including adultery. It also does not say that effective leadership initiates effective submission. It very clearly says the exact opposite. Gotta; love those heretics! And, it gives no clue on how to control a rebellious, contentious wife.
The issue is settled in Genesis, for those who actually read it. God was Eve’s personal spiritual leader and teacher, not Adam as the ignorati claim, yet she sinned. How much more information do you need? Are you going to tell me God was a poor leader? hee, hee.
I imagine some of you men are going to puff all up in a rage, because it just seems logical to you that a Real Man[tm] like you would induce a woman to be submissive, right? My SIL who I have not visited since July 5, 2005, with no plans for the future is a Baptist deacon. And, he believes this garbage. Interestingly, his wife, my daughter, is one of the most contentious and rebellious women I know. Their days are, or were as of 2005, spent, “Shriek! Shriek!”
Yet, on Sunday, she waltzes into church with a beatific smile on her face, and she and the other contentious dearies boast what good, submissive dearies they are.
Let me note here that there is slim chance any of you actually know a submissive woman, or would recognize her if you met one in person. They are as rare as hen’s teeth, if we go beyond their hypocritical words in church. I only know a handful in the USA of hundreds and hundreds of women I have known in my lifetime.
I also believe that a contentious woman cannot be led unless she chooses to be led. This in no way means that submission initiates dominance/leadership. Both men and women have free will.
Who was talking about a rebellious or argumentative woman? As you can probably observe, I wouldn’t have much luck being argumentative with 7man if I chose to go that route.
Two of the finer Biblical examples of leadership not initiating submission are Michal, David’s wife, and Vashti, wife of Ahasuerus. In both cases the women were nexted as soon as they exhibited contempt. And the fundamental example of marriage in the whole Bible is God is to His people as a man is to his wife. Clearly, leadership on God’s part did not and does not induce submission in His people. Woe befall all those who want to say to God “Man up!”
I found a submissive woman when I encountered Lena and she will be my wife. (I am divorced from a highly contentious woman, so I know the difference.)
@jf12
Go back an reread. I never said that leadership initiates (causes) submission.
The man initiates the gift (erection) and the woman can choose to receive it (lubrication). But this is not causative, merely enabling.
jf12 says:
January 4, 2014 at 8:11 pm
>>Two of the finer Biblical examples of leadership not initiating submission are Michal, David’s wife, and Vashti, wife of Ahasuerus. In both cases the women were nexted as soon as they exhibited contempt.
Good examples! Thanks! However, today we can’t next women, without turning our kids over to maternal custody, thus ruin. And, becoming lifetime alimony and support slaves.
Jeremy says:
January 3, 2014 at 9:11 am
@Anonymous age 71
But, he is right in trying to reconcile. Not for her in his life. She is a fiend. For the girls.
>>This is pure retardation. You are saying that it is correct to prostrate yourself for the children. How then will your children learn that self-respect is an important aspect of living?
I must wonder if you are or ever have been, married, or have kids? Or, been around kids of divorce? That was a really bizarre thing to say.
If the kids end up in maternal custody, they are not going to have anything good happening in their lives. This is so simple I can’t make it any easier to grasp. Maternal custody isn’t the worst thing that can happen to a kid, but it is the worst thing that actually does happen to most kids. Yet, you are nattering on about them learning self-respect? Unbelievable!
If your kids end up in maternal custody, the chances they are going to learn anything from you – or her – drop into the basement. And, they will have no self-respect at all. Or much of anything else good.
In both Mexico and the USA, nearly 80% of people in prison come from maternal custody. Self-respect isn’t in their lives.
I have written this several times on different threads. And, it seems to be a total waste of time. Male ego and concern about being, Oh! No! A cuckold! Please, God! Kill me! over-rides any concern for the kids.
Speaking again of cuckold:
“Cuckold” = man fault.
“The Horn” = man fault. (The horn is some Neanderthalic hand gesture which accuses you of being a cuckold.)
This cuckold thing is really medieval. In past times, a man could actually control his wife if need be. If she committed adultery, in some states killing them both was justifiable homicide. I think this was true yet in my lifetime, but I can’t remember the details.
And, years ago, if a woman committed a crime the husband went to jail, on the principle that he was supposed to keep her under control. Thus, in those days men were permitted at least a modest amount of physical control of a woman. Not extreme violence, unless she banged someone else.
As strange as it sounds in 2014, a man could actually forbid his wife to leave the house, and in many cases, she obeyed. If she didn’t and he slapped her down, probably nothing happened to him.
So, it was assumed when a wife committed adultery that he had failed to take aggressive control of her as he should do.
So, when a woman committed adultery, it was assumed her husband was a spineless wimp or worse, a castrati. And, it was a total public disgrace to have it known you wife committed adultery. And, lived. So, cuckold was pretty much the ultimate insult you could toss at a man.
Today, any man who thinks he can control his wife’s sexual behavior is probably soon enough going to sense a red dot on his forehead followed almost instantly by a very high velocity projectile. In fact, SWAT teams were developed to deal with men who presumed to control their wives.
Anyway, Dalrock has blogged at length about churches which blame men for female adultery, and frivorce. Well, their heresy comes from the same source as the cuckold insult. Ancient history not relevant in 2014. Yet on a blog which denounces man-fault we have a steady stream of man-fault comments.
If you don’t believe me, consider what is between your legs, it gets hard so you can initiate the gift and the woman responds to receive.
First, why is it not surprising this must be the fodder for your point.
Secondly, this is not at all a compelling argument. We could go round and round in a chicken and egg sort of way about what is cause and what is effect in the events that lead to an erection and a willing recipient of same. As worded, a sexual act takes place after an erection spontaneously pops into existence. Very sophomoric chronological description.
Thirdly, If this is some “Elder George, Dear Brothers and Sisters” paraphrase it is not working. He writes a more accurate description of the force that acts and that on which it acts. Yet even he would not make such a leap to suggest that this necessarily means that a man must act in a certain way and then that submission is a forgone conclusion. He would say that’s how it should be, but not frame it as cause and effect. Because it isn’t.
Anonymous 71 did a good job explaining one of several reasons such faux pontifications and theories about the initiator and the follower are false. This is dangerous ground. It must be read correctly. It doesnt dismiss a man from leading to say that leading does not result in following. Its dangerous because its a micron away from Joel and Kathy Davisson’s model for marriage. Its handing the woman control of the man on a platter of fresh strawberries. If you like that beat and can dance to it, fine. But it is no wise prescription.
This recent post at Laura Wood’s blog covers some of the same ground as Dalrock’s post, and provides a nice companion read. As usual, she really nails why women are better equipped for these duties versus men.
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2014/01/my-dad-is-a-mom/
The Catechism of the Council of Trent states that a wife should not leave the house without her husband’s permission.
Male ego and concern about being, Oh! No! A cuckold! Please, God! Kill me! over-rides any concern for the kids.
Ignoring the fact that such (cuckolded) men will often have to pay for support for that child in addition to his own (actual/biological) children, thus reducing their overall fitness.
In fact, SWAT teams were developed to deal with men who presumed to control their wives.
And, your source for that?
Some feminist troll wrote:
Amelia Earhart’s passion for flying ,
Misspelled “riding”. Being the first female passenger across the Atlantic really isn’t all it’s made out to be, you know.
7Man also trolled with
I never said that leadership initiates (causes) submission.
No, you’ve just strongly implied it here and elsewhere, in the usual passive-aggressive manner with a soupcon of deniability. It’s tedious, really, to watch you and Lena play your games. Rather like being at a gathering of adults when two cosplay fans show up fully dressed…
Being submissive and being a sycophant are very very different. Men wanting a submissive wife has nothing to do with wanting a sycophant.
Being submissive and being a sycophant are very very different.
This is true, as no one can suppress their true desires and nature over the long haul anyway. Then things get real, real fast. It’s the reason why I suspect so many marriages go kaput. The act gets tired and someone can’t take it anymore.
When the moment of truth comes (and it always does) things often get very ugly. Ask me how I know. Then you have to decide going forward how you’re gonna do it. The right thing to do is submit to God, and submission to the husband becomes much more palatable.
That’s where I part ways with Deti and Laura. Our marriage was built on sand (lust) initially. We had to scrap it so to speak, and rebuild it on a rock. We just managed to rebuild without living in separate houses first.
all the men (and women) who promote the “just submit” fallacy… Good luck with that
A woman makes this remark to some men, and then later is referred to as a submissive woman. Before it (the misread) even starts, no, i am not even a little bit into the idea that women submit to any and all men….not in the least. (though a pleasant disposition is nice in men and women)
This comment doesn’t tell me anything about her posture towards other men, as I said, that’s irrelevant. It is revelatory of her posture towards MAN, and whoever her man is or will be. To paraphrase it in context:
Man says “I like a submissive woman”
Woman responds “make me”
That exchange being heralded as submission is beyond bizarre. It may work in the peculiarities of certain fetishists (to each their own, I am not passing judgement on that), but it has no broad application as proof of any dynamic that represents an Ephesians ordered marriage. It COULD be one, I suppose, but its like stuffing Godzilla through the eye of a needle to get that to work.
This is true, as no one can suppress their true desires and nature over the long haul anyway.
Especially someone who asserts that they must be made to submit, kept in submission actively, even proactively. This is why (old ground I know, but I just waded into this in response to a post on my blog) I dislike the Christian game concept. It rests the entire dynamic of the marriage on the man, which cannot work no matter what. We decry the fact that all is placed at mens feet no matter what, then we go and double down on that adding another rationale for the frivorce. Christian biblical guardrails ought to dadgummit be enough. Sure thats the case with all sin, but in this case we delude ourselves into thinking we make a difference. If, as Anon 71 has aptly laid out, she can still go off, and there is no denying that she can, then why make hoops, especially such blurry ill defined ones that just beg to be exploited by a woman. If there is some self improvement angle, something for the man aside from it somehow (maybe) facilitating his wife’s submission, fine I guess.
Its
JDG says:
January 1, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Why would a man marry a woman who can’t or won’t cook and clean? I dropped many a prospect who had some modernist notion that we should share the house work. And these were Christian women.
The only woman I encountered who was willing to be a house wife was already divorced with another man’s children. Again a Christian woman. I tell you we Christian’s have a lot of explaining to do.
I also dropped any prospect that:
– was not a Bible believing Christian.
– did not agree that the husband had the final say on any decision.
– had a poor or non-existent relationship with her father.
– had another man’s children.
– had divorced her husband.
– wanted to have a career.
– did not believe in spanking children.
You just described pretty much all so called Chrsitian women.
Some Guy says:
January 1, 2014 at 7:00 pm
The current relational-judo move I face is… me not going to counseling (or reading a relationship book or whatever) means I don’t want to “work on our relationship” and therefore… “we’re DONE.” I explain to her in red pill terms why this is nonsense… but I think she just hears it as raw heresy. In my view, she’s basically forcing me to negotiate for something that she’s already given me.
If I bring up the topic of sex in any way, it is the surest way to see to it that she goes white hot nuclear. She (unsurprisingly) counters with a “we have to be friends first” tact. I counter that she doesn’t know what marriage is.
I had to go through the same hoops which in the end my wife left. I think that her churches focus on all the crap books and counselors really skewed her views of marriage and when combined with her prior feminist indoctrination our marriage was over once she stepped into her church if not when we said “Ido”. Your statement about her prior sex life is also illuminating. What I have come to see in my ex is that she thinks that just because she didnt want to do something in her past (or has some regret) it never really happened. Its like she is living in some fantasy world and I am supposed to close my eyes and make believe with her,
she thinks that just because she didnt want to do something in her past (or has some regret) it never really happened.
The church offers everything they need to believe this way, live in an artificial reality
“Our marriage was built on sand (lust) initially.”
I am really confused on how lust can be said to be sand. To me that is a variant of attraction or it is attraction. Lust has a more negative connotation. But you NEED to have that BURNING desire, call it lust or whatever to make it a solid marriage.
“7Man also trolled with
I never said that leadership initiates (causes) submission.
No, you’ve just strongly implied it here and elsewhere, in the usual passive-aggressive manner with a soupcon of deniability. It’s tedious, really, to watch you and Lena play your games. Rather like being at a gathering of adults when two cosplay fans show up fully dressed…”
Why is the manosphere becoming where if you say something in disagreement, have a different outlook on something, you get called a troll?? I reserve the troll term for the absolute worst, most vulgar, hateful people, really just feminists—not our own, not those who are generally in agreement with us 80-90% of the time.
If you think Lena and 7man are playing games, open your eyes!! The internet is full of games!
Because you like the taste of another man’s cock on your wife doesn’t men other men should accept such a thing.
lgrobins
Why is the manosphere becoming where if you say something in disagreement, have a different outlook on something, you get called a troll??
Cute strawman, but nothing more. I learned what “trolling for flames” looked like back on USENET over 20 years ago.
I reserve the troll term for the absolute worst, most vulgar, hateful people, really just feminists—not our own, not those who are generally in agreement with us 80-90% of the time.
Bully for you. Now, how do you propose to make the rest of the net obey you on this? Start with me.
If you think Lena and 7man are playing games, open your eyes!! The internet is full of games!
So what? Do you have a point to make, or are you just exercising your exclamation point key?
Misspelled “riding”. Being the first female passenger across the Atlantic really isn’t all it’s made out to be, you know.
Missed that one too. Thank you for pointing it out.
@AR
Peace be with you.
I also dropped any prospect that:
– was not a Bible believing Christian.
– did not agree that the husband had the final say on any decision.
– had a poor or non-existent relationship with her father.
– had another man’s children.
– had divorced her husband.
– wanted to have a career.
– did not believe in spanking children.
You just described pretty much all so called Chrsitian women.
In the West for the most part yes. There were some who would have qualified, but they were already married. There was one case where the woman passed with flying colors and was a virgin, but her father would not allow her to marry me because I wasn’t.
Elspeth said:
This is true, as no one can suppress their true desires and nature over the long haul anyway. Then things get real, real fast. It’s the reason why I suspect so many marriages go kaput. The act gets tired and someone can’t take it anymore.
Correct. The marriage contract is routinely entered into in bad faith, one of the few contracts where people continue to support that approach. There is rarely full disclosure before marriage; just infatuation fueled by pretense and denial. And then:
When the moment of truth comes (and it always does) things often get very ugly. Ask me how I know. Then you have to decide going forward how you’re gonna do it. The right thing to do is submit to God, and submission to the husband becomes much more palatable.
Right again. Because it’s only going to work long term based on Divine Design. If that weren’t true, we’d be able to pull off long term successful marriages that were either egalitarian or with submissive men.
Neither works.
I wonder why.
I never ceased to be amazed by the Biblical shell games on the Interwebs.
Ephesians 5:22 (KJV)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Colossians 3:18 (KJV)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
That’s a direct command to the woman, a free will moral agent. Women can choose to be submissive or not. The end.
There’s no command that says, “Husbands, make your wives submit.” And it ought to be obvious that every Christian has a choice as to whether or not they submit to Christ, and in which areas of their lives, and to what extent. Like sexuality, for example.
But God already hardwired us for success if we develop our masculinity and femininity…it will naturally line up. Biology always wins.
Which is also why you’ll never convince me that Christian women believe in submission to Beta Males. Because they don’t. They go Jenny Erikson and justify it later.
Actually the term troll is over used more often than not. Not only in the manosphere. Its a peeve of mine (peeve number 592) too. Its a throw out line not a true accurate categorization of whats happening. Trolls, as originally intended, didnt stay, were not regular contributors, would pop in, stir things, maybe stir some more as the drama unfolded, then gone.
But lets not miss the content of AR’s comment just because he used the term questionably.
I’ve learned to cook because I have no reason to expect a possible future wife to know how to cook. Cooking your own meals is an obvious cost savings, too.
As the Marriage Market Place has dried up of chaste Christian women in my area (I don’t know if I should really call this MMP, it’s more the courtship/dating phase and intentions), the ability to cook has moved farther and farther down what I’m looking for in a woman.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/01/08 | Free Northerner
Pingback: Is a Sacre Tort a Souflee? Unpacking Rainy’s irresistable man (Part 1 of 2) | Feminism is Empathological
Pingback: Winning the lottery. | Dalrock
In the words of Australian stand-up comic Jim Jefferies (sadly I don’t know how to link but he is worth checking out) ‘Lesbians (unlike gay guys) are so fucking miserable’.
Hi, Opus. Actually, with their much higher levels of domestic violence, near-universal chronic infidelity even in the closest & longest-lived romantic relationships, general (and appropriate) lack of progeny, etc., to say nothing of the ~30 years reduced life expectancy being a sexually active homosexual results in on average, the “gays” (male queers) don’t have very happy results from the life they’ve chosen. (Yes, chosen; there’s no one daily holding a gun to a homo’s head and forcing him to engage in homo sex over the course of his life. He could always be celibate WRT homosex, required to be Christian in any event)
@Luke
You’ll have to take it up with Jim Jefferies. He said (in the sketch) that gay-guys were live-wires and fun to have around at parties. He, by the way, says he has been Heterosexual his whole life and that it is ‘fucking miserable’ being straight. More or less what many Man-o-sphere types say.
Feminism is the belief that woman and men are equal. A feminist is not someone who hates men or refuses to care for them or to have a family. Their are feminist who cook. Their are also feminist with families. Their is nothing wrong with more men being able to cook or more woman. Gender shouldn’t matter if some one enjoys the art of cooking it doesn’t make them any more loving than a person who doesn’t like to cook.
@Dawn
I don’t think men have an issue with your definition of feminism, but the problem is that the actual outcomes and practice of feminism differs from your definition of it. The more you read into the manosphere, providing that you can read it without getting angry, you will see that there are some real and legitimate concerns. The manosphere wouldn’t exist if men didn’t love women… it does show a genuine interest and concern. However, men are now waking up and reacting to the actual twisted form of feminism that they experience from day-to-day. It is certainly a movement, and one that the national media has touched upon a few times,and I’m sure you’ll be seeing more of it in the very near future. I would encourage you to read on with an open mind. You really are getting a glimpse into what men are feeling, but might not share openly with you face-to-face in public.
Dawn,
But they aren’t. This is the belief that unicorns fart rainbows. I am not equal to my wife in her successful ability to give borth to a baby now am I?
More to the point, I disagree entirely with what you believe feminism is today. We are in the third wave of feminism. And what is this wave all about? It really is very simple:
That is it. That is your equality Dawn.
To use a quote from Mahatma Gandhi:
“I like your definition of feminism, I do not like your feminists. Your feminists are so unlike your definition of feminism.”
Who is a “feminist?” The gross stereotypes I read here have nothing to do with what feminism really is. Feminism is simply trying to create a world in which women have the same opportunities in work and political life as do men. Just because a woman works does not make her “miserly with love and nurturing.” How disrespectful for the millions of wives and mothers who choose to work a job that pays the same as it would pay a man. Women have ALWAYS WORKED. My mother was a teacher and she came home every day and cooked a meal for 7 people. She didn’t dislike it. The guy who wrote the original statement above actually has the balls to say that when men cook they like it but “feminists” feel degraded! What a laugh. Expecting equal pay and treatment in society has NOTHING to do w/home chores. My God, working women cook, clean and otherwise nurture and love their families as much as stay-at-home moms (which religious people here seem to equate w/biblical moms). Plenty of mothers work and plenty stay home but it’s having the CHOICE that is the focus of feminism. The point is, women should not have to ask for permission to work or not work from their hubbies. You people seem to segregate women into two camps and two options only: Be a Stepford biblical wife OR be an evil, unnurturing feminist who hates men and kill their children. Talk about 2 dimensional, black and white thinking–i.e., NOT thinking.
@karley…the blog writings and actions of modern feminists speak so much louder than the textbook definitions of equality that they always profess to believe in. In this era it’s all about female self entitlement… and their feminist philosophy was neatly summarized by queen beyonce other day, with hillary standing right behind her, when she said, ” we are 50% of the population and we deserve 100% of the opportunities.”
And believe it or not she said it with a straight face because she actually believes that’s what equality is…As a man I was shocked by such a blatantly unfair statement….but then, there is your feminist version of “equality.”…it is actually your silly feminist leaders who are “Not Thinking.”
Kailey tells us what Feminism is: she says it is a world where women have the same political rights and working rights as men – as if that is a position as inevitable and correct as the sun rising in the East – in fact it is a very recent (in human terms) event – made possible by male inventiveness and the usual male pandering to females. In practise women now have greater political and working rights than men, but allow me to deal with those two rights (as she calls it – rather than inevitabilities), historically and separately:
In relation to voting: In England (and I assume likewise in the thirteen colonies) women always had the right to vote on Parish matters. There was never any bar to women seeking election to the British Parliament! What they did not have was the right to vote on matters of National consequence – but then neither did most men. Female Suffrage has by and large expanded at the same rate as Universal Suffrage (that is to say for men). Until the twentieth centuries the main purpose of government was War and Trade – most women (and most men) were not involved with the same and thus the exclusion of women was not based on Misogyny but on interest. It was no more unfair to exclude women than it is (say) to exclude non-shareholders form a vote in the affairs of any Publicly Limited Company. (I am going to ignore the question as to whether the continued expansion of the suffrage makes voting meaningless and whether Democracy will lead to bankruptcy and tyranny – the common view of all previous political scientists).
In relation to work: Until the last century or so, almost all work was manual labour and women were (so far as possible) excluded from that. That was a matter of kindness not oppression. Women are still absent from manual work and clearly by reason of their own choice. The only work they want is the easier, centrally heated, coffee-drinking, chatting-on-the-phone, attending-endless-meetings jobs – what they amusingly term career. Men continue to provide the back-breaking infrastructural support: the plumbing, the road-mending, the street-cleaning, the garbage removal. The woman who did not need to do any form of work was the one who was envied by her sisters; she sought a man to marry who could provide her with non-stop leisure. It was only on the back of male work that that was possible but then for only a small number of women (such as the perpetual Jane Austen heroine). The division of Labour is rational (has created western civilisation) and given female propensity to desire support protection and status and legitimacy for children it made sense both for men to be sole bread-winners but to gain an increased wage for work on the basis that they were married. Feminism has made it virtually impossible for all but the super-rich to rely on a single wage – and that is why Kailey’s teacher mother had both to work and cook. Feminism is thus a disease of the rich and no friend of women.
I imagine that Kailey is entirely unaware of the historical position but then I feel certain that in Women’ Studies classes such inconvenient facts are not taught.
Is it also appropriate to wonder about attributing this social decline as having, at least in part, some social engineering behind it? As I think over my past 7 decades of experience there have been many dark hands working to promote Feminism from divergent quarters. For example, if you wanted to destroy a nation, what better way then to fracture its families. Certainly there are many ways other than through women for men are not immune to seductive whispers either. Having just witnessed a good friend’s child’s transformation as accomplished at a well known women’s college, a so-called places of “higher learning”, the college appears to have become a machine designed to educate and perpetuate the distortion we call Feminism.
Well said Opus.
Having just witnessed a good friend’s child’s transformation as accomplished at a well known women’s college, a so-called places of “higher learning”, the college appears to have become a machine designed to educate and perpetuate the distortion we call Feminism.
This has been going on for decades. Just look at Hillary Clinton’s bio. She went into school with ‘conservative principles’, and came out a feminist lefty along with many of her classmates. And how long ago was that? It’s even happening in ‘Christian’ (aka churchian) schools.
For decades feminism has been pushed in the media, in academia, in politics and government, and now in churches as well. It became the norm long ago and opposing it is the ‘odd’ thing.
Pingback: “Feminists are ugly” | JaredFam
Feminism should simply mean equality, not more, not less.
Equality has nothing to do with the ability to cook: It’s a personal choice to learn that or not.
As for spanking (saw that was touched on here): Children are individuals. Some respond extremely badly to spanking. The day my Father spanked me is the day I began hating him. To this day I remember the degradation and fear. I feared him for the rest of my childhood. Had he found a way to communicate that was reasonable and not physically overpowering, our relationship would have been far better throughout our lives.
I feel so sorry that you have met so many cruel feminists. Let me assure you that we are not all this way. I not only made my boyfriend dinner tonight, but I fully plan on sucking his dick later. And I don’t think that feminism is suffering at all because of it! 🙂
Pingback: Part II: The Corruption of the Bible & Christianity | The Pink Flamingo
Pingback: Part II: The Corruption of the Bible & Christianity | The Penn Ave Post
Can you help me.
What do I say to men who like fat and ugly women?
I’m in my early 20’s and I’ve been asked out by no more than 5 men in my entire life. I’m confused because I know most men dont like ugly, fat women so I know something is wrong with the men that actually do like fat ugly women.
So what do I say to these men so that theyll go after what they truly love? (Attractive with a nice body….not necessarily a super model)
Pingback: Otra Razón que Hace Que Las Feministas Suelan Ser Feas | Bar de la Esquina
Ugly, miserly feminist weighing in here. My men friends think I am gorgeous, love my cooking, and think my home is beautiful. So do my women friends AND family members for that matter. How do I correct them (biblically speaking)?
[D: Welcome Gayle]
@ Gayle:
You are indeed gorgeous, as your pic clearly indicates. I’d like to sample a bit of your loved cooking. I am a man who greatly appreciates quality home cooked meals.
Ism’t someone going to help roxanne? It’s been almost four months for crying out loud.
Gayle and nuddypants are you sure you’re feminists? Just checking. I like home cooked meals too, but can you make sammiches?
How do I correct them (biblically speaking)
Well, you could do what most women do. You could get a man to do it.
It is worth noting that none of the feminists who objected to this post denied that the attitudes in question are ugly, they just wanted to point out that they weren’t like that. This proves the power of pointing out how ugly those attitudes are. They desperately want to defend feminism, but they won’t cop to the ugly feminist attitude after I exposed it for what it is.
For the record, I’ll spot them them the benefit of the doubt. Hundreds of angry feminists (at least) must have been outraged by this post, and they are the handful who were able to comment without blowing a gasket.
roxanne asks:
What do I say to men who like fat and ugly women?
Assuming that this a sincere and legitimate question, I would ask you why you would say anything to them. “Chacun a son gout” (to each his own taste). Putting it another way, “there’s somebody for everybody.”
I’m in my early 20′s and I’ve been asked out by no more than 5 men in my entire life. I’m confused because I know most men dont like ugly, fat women so I know something is wrong with the men that actually do like fat ugly women.
I assume that your first question was rhetorical and refers to yourself. If I’m correct in this assumption, why do you consider yourself “fat and ugly?” It sounds like you have a serious self-esteem issue. You really need to seek counseling about this. Odds are that you’re not anywhere near as “fat and ugly” as you think you are – and that it’s your negative self-image and lack of self-esteem that are the primary turn-off to men, not your physical appearance. Assuming that “something is wrong with men who like me” is a key manifestation of this insecurity – and a big bright red warning flag to men.
So what do I say to these men so that theyll go after what they truly love? (Attractive with a nice body….not necessarily a super model)
Again, assuming that what you’re saying here is “I’m too fat and ugly to be worthy of any man’s attention, so let me do everything I can to shoo them away,” why would you want to do this? See my previous comments on getting counseling for your self-esteem issues.
In closing, I apologize in advance if I’m misreading the intent of your comment. If I am, please correct me and elaborate further.
Gayle and nuddypants are you sure you’re feminists? Just checking.
I’m sure that they are when they want to be (i.e., when it’s convenient or expedient to be an EmpoweredIndependentWoman[TM]). At other times they’re not (like when they want/need something that only men can provide). FI and all that.
Pingback: Separating Values |
Pingback: The women rebel. | Dalrock
Pingback: The ugly feminists of Christmas | Dalrock
Pingback: Fraternities and Sororities of Righteousness. | Dark Brightness
Pingback: A year of ugly feminists | Dalrock
Pingback: Commodifying Love |
Pingback: » Why Feminists Hate Male Sexuality
Pingback: Why Feminists Hate Male Sexuality
Pingback: Friday afternoon ugly feminists: Hot farts edition. | Dalrock
@Opus: “The only work they want is the easier, centrally heated, coffee-drinking, chatting-on-the-phone, attending-endless-meetings jobs – what they amusingly term career.” Women are doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, managers, military personnel, teachers at all levels, ad infinitim. You’re living in the past and your insulting (what’s new here) characterization of women and work is only evidence of your limp dick (meaning you’re insecure to the point of needing therapy…oh no, therapists are part of the evil feminist conspiracy!!. Women have already proven they can work as hard, smart and good as men. Sure, they can’t do some highly physical jobs but just like in the 1800’s, not all jobs are physical and that’s a good thing for men and women. You do know about the Industrial Revolution, no? Machines, computers help alieviate the necessity of grueling manual labor. Thank God the manosphere is only inhabited by frightened young junior-high boys who can’t get laid–unless it’s w/a complimentarian wifie. LOL!
[D: No need to reply to the troll. karley heiman/Julie Vanderslice/Julie Powell is now banned for commenting under multiple aliases.]
Pingback: Countercultural, natural, and beautiful. | Dalrock
Pingback: Feminist: Men don’t complain enough when taking over tasks from women. | Dalrock
Pingback: My 5 step process to maturity in relationships | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: Why can’t I write without being written about? | Dalrock
Pingback: A golden cage | Something Fishy
Pingback: Beauty Matters – The Real Reason Feminism is Against a Woman’s Beauty | girlwithadragonflytattoo
Pingback: Selected Sunday Scripture- #71 | Donal Graeme
Pingback: Indian Feminists are Ugly | purushatma
Pingback: Ugly Feminist Misers | Dalrock
Cooking is an act of love, an act of service to others.
Pingback: Minal Hijratwala: Ugly and Pagli | purushatma
Years later this remains a truly brilliant insight, Dalrock.
Thank you.
I’m now rereading this for the fifth time or so. This isn’t just one of the things you’ve ever written, Dalrock; it’s one of the best things I’ve ever read in my life, period. I don’t know how anyone could articulate it better.
Part of what makes this little essay great is how much bigger it is than I first thought. As a statement about feminism, it hits the nail on the head. But in the year and a third since then, I’ve come to realize that your observations apply to far more than just feminism. Every branch of identity politics is not only teaching resentment; they’re teaching that it’s *wrong* to show gratitude, appreciation, and most of all, love. It’s the new ethics of withholding love.
Ironically, the only people who are still being taught to love are straight white males.
Pingback: Misers are miserable. | Dalrock
Pingback: Feminism costs too much. | Dark Brightness
Pingback: Carl F. Robinson, "Lessons from Reality TV: PBS’s Colonial House & Texas Ranch House" | Counter-Currents Publishing
Pingback: Hilarious Christmas feminist bitch-slap contains a serious and stinging rebuke for ugly, miserly feminists. | The Sunshine Thiry Blog
Pingback: Feministinnen sind hässlich – Scheidende Geister
Pingback: It tastes better that way. | Dalrock
Pingback: Nudity and Respect | Σ Frame
Pingback: The ugly feminist’s greatest fear. | Dalrock
Pingback: A tour through the twisted psyche of an ugly feminist. | Dalrock
Pingback: Complementarian contempt for the servant’s heart. | Dalrock
Pingback: Soulmates: The cuckold and his scold. | Dalrock
Pingback: Grill envy | Dalrock
Pingback: A beer fit for an ugly feminist. | Dalrock
All we ask is more honesty, less self-consciousness, whirling a dance-of-hours. We married late, but after three kids and 37 years the family looms larger than Big Mom or Dad. Our name is very old, over a thousand years, and to me it’s most important that this antique lineage survives.
We are born to Learn. To learn is to Love, to love is to Give– bequeath the legacy of Life and Light that revered forebears once bestowed on us. In this, we cite Memento Mori, the mortal sense that all things end: Good can be attained, evil can be endured.
As soul-sparks ignited by almighty Spirit, “that which we are, we are”. Addressing spiritual reality, we add: Being exists in essence as Potential, for not in Being but Becoming lies The Way.
Pingback: Tragedy of the feminist commons. | Dalrock
Pingback: April 2019 Ugly Feminist of the Month. | Dalrock
Pingback: The ugly feminist view of pregnancy: “Gestational work” | Dalrock
Pingback: Roundup | Eternity Matters
Pingback: Gratitude is the cure for feminist resentment. | Dalrock
Pingback: If You’re Complaining About How Little Housework Your Husband Does, You’re Doing Marriage Wrong • Just Conservative Views
Pingback: Nagging Husbands About Housework Won't Improve Marriage - Conservatively
Pingback: If You’re Complaining About How Little Housework Your Husband Does, You’re Doing Marriage Wrong – Eurosceptic News