New commenter ayatollah1988 asked how much a husband should turn to his wife for emotional support:
Dalrock, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this. I’ve heard it talked about in the Manosphere a lot about how men cannot rely on women, even their wives, for emotional support, especially if it involves the men demonstrating any sort of weakness. Basically, the idea that you are her shoulder to cry on and she is NEVER your shoulder to cry on. Redpill guys chalk it up to female solipsism and the idea that they are the most responsible teenager in the house.
It is true that a husband shouldn’t just dump his feelings on his wife, but the concern here can also be overstated. The first thing I would suggest is changing the way you view the situation from one of frustration/disappointment towards women to one of empathy towards them. Imagine working for a small firm and having the boss/owner tell you all of his fears for the business. If you are relying on that job to support your family this could very quickly become unsettling. The same is true if your surgeon, dentist, or airline pilot doesn’t communicate confidence and a command of the situation.
Your wife (and even your girlfriend) wants you to be her rock, especially if her own emotions are storming over her. This is a profound gift a husband can give his wife, and should not be seen as something negative. A wife also relies on her husband for protection and financial support of the family. For these reasons there is a limit as to what kinds of things and more importantly how, how much, and how often you talk about these things with your wife. This isn’t because there is something wrong with women, it is due to the difference between men and women, and more importantly the nature of the roles of husband and wife.
However, this doesn’t mean you should shut her out when something is troubling you, it just means there is a balance. Especially after you are married for a number of years, your wife will know when something is troubling you. If you pretend that nothing is bothering you, or refuse to discuss it at all, this could be even more unsettling to her. Just like with all communication the key is to understand how what you are communicating is impacting your audience (her). What you don’t want is for the received message to be “you are in danger because I’m not fit to be your husband”. This is true even in cases where there is real danger that she needs to understand. In those cases you want to communicate clearly about the threat, but not push her into hopelessness. The message should be, “problem X exists, and we’re going to solve it” (or if a solution isn’t possible, replace solve with manage). The way to manage this is to communicate not just through well chosen words, but with your tone of voice and body language.
I embedded a clip from the movie Unbreakable in a post I did on vulnerability Game. In the clip he communicates strength and protectiveness, while also communicating that something troubled him, as well as “I need you”. She knows that she is safe and loved, and she also feels connected to her husband. You don’t have to physically pick her up, but pulling her toward you and letting her feel protected in your strength is something which should become natural to you when you sense that she may need this.
If you keep these things in mind, and pay attention more to what she does than what she says, you will get a gut feel of how much and what types of things you should be communicating to her. As a man looking to marry you can also keep this in mind when choosing a wife. Some women are going to be a better fit for you than others in this regard. If she needs more alpha aloofness than is natural and comfortable for you, you either need to change your own comfort zone or (more likely) find a better fit for both of your sakes.
It also sort of goes along with the idea of “Man Flu,” where women seem to be unable to show empathy for their husbands when they are sick, and the idea that women seem incapable of showing empathy towards men in any context.
There is some feminist ugliness here, and it is something else to consider when choosing a wife. You don’t want her to baby you, but you do want a woman who can feel empathy. A wife should also avoid indulging in the feminist urge to strip her husband of his manhood. A wise and well adjusted wife should instead feel protective of your masculinity, just as you should feel protective of her femininity.
I’m asking because I go to a church that is real big on being “vulnerable” and that if you are not constantly talking to your friends and especially your wife about all your struggles and weaknesses, then you are being sinfully self-protective and “un-spiritual.” I’m not married yet, but this is something that really bothers me because in relationships past when girlfriends would beg me to “open up” and “express my emotions more,” I would do so. I thought I was doing the “spiritual” thing but in retrospect it may have been a bad idea to be vulnerable. I wonder if it caused them to lose respect for me.
This kind of teaching comes from the same place as the push in parts of Europe to get men to sit down to pee. The idea that men and women are the same isn’t biblical, and of course it isn’t true. I can understand your frustration at having gone through this, but I would encourage you to see your new understanding of this not as something to be bitter about, but something freeing. As Cane Caldo points out, you aren’t losing pretty lies (lies are inherently ugly), you are gaining a beautiful truth. Feminists inside and outside the church had to sell this false message for decades because what they are asking men to do doesn’t feel natural, because it isn’t natural. It took generations of deception. Healthy well adjusted men aren’t emotive like women, and we aren’t chatty. Men tend to communicate much of our message non-verbally. When we do speak, we tend to use fewer words*. There is nothing wrong with this, and if you do this well as I noted above you will be lovingly meeting her needs.
And all I was opening up about was depression, it’s not like I was opening up about thoughts of pedophilia or something really deviant and pathetic like that. One of them in particular was very critical and neurotic and our relationship was usually her criticizing me for every little thing until I apologized (back when I was on the blue pill). She often wanted me to open up, but looking back on it I think she was just probing for weakness. So I guess my question is, can your wife really be your friend in addition to her being your first mate? And to what extent can you be emotionally vulnerable in a marriage without it compromising the headship/submission dynamic?
I think I’ve addressed everything here except the specific issue of depression. I would say the same basic advice I suggested above would apply, in that you probably want to let her know if you are struggling with something and give a bit of detail, but you don’t want to overdo it. This doesn’t mean you won’t be emotionally close with her. In fact, doing this right makes you closer. As you experienced, doing it according to modern conventional wisdom will destroy your closeness. If you need help you should get it, but that should probably be mainly from a male friend, a counselor, etc.
*One thing I would suggest is to practice using the tone of your voice to lead others. If you are in a position of leadership this is easiest, but you can even practice this with ordinary interactions. You will find that if you speak with a deeper (but still natural) voice you will tend to get people’s attention better than speaking louder. My father has a great trick where he speaks more softly when he really wants to get your attention. A deep voice spoken calmly will tend to calm people (if they are fearful of something this only works if you demonstrate that you understand their concern), and just as most people’s fathers demonstrate it is possible to also use inflection with a deeper voice to communicate volumes with a single word. This is an ability men have been taught is inappropriate for us to use because it is seen as “unfair” to women to capitalize on our natural strengths as men. However, women have their own methods of communicating which are different than men, and either way it makes no sense to abandon our masculinity because feminists are envious of it.
See Also: Headship Game
Good post. There’s a lot to digest here. This is actually one of the most measured and better-written essays on this topic.
[D: Thank you. This is a challenging topic.]
I am always impressed by females who can pee standing up (oh yes they can) and think that in the interests of equality that there should be unisex urinals. This would stop the endless queues (that only women seem to create) that prevent prompt departure from public spaces whilst one waits for ones companion to reach the front of the queue [Trans into American: Line] and would encourage conversation. Europeans are very strange, happily I have never been there.
One of the more cringe-worthy habits of Americans which tragically you are successfully importing is (subject to what Scott may say) the Freudian habit of washing your dirty linen in public, letting it all hang out and thus emburdening everyone else with your problems. This was very fashionable a while back but actually no one, whatever they may tell you, wants to know.
…and what, by the way, is the difference between Therapy and Analysis. So far as I can tell the only material difference is that one is more expensive than the other and I have always considered that the Roman Catholics seriously missed a trick by providing the Sacrament of Confession (their own version of Therapy) for free. I am thus reminded of the wonderful line in the first Crocodile Dundee when on the subject of personal anxiety, it is explained, that you go down the pub, you tell Wally, Wally (who has no discretion) then tells everyone else – end of problem.
Wow, this is the first post like this you’ve done in a while. Great post.
“So I guess my question is, can your wife really be your friend in addition to her being your first mate?”
I think it is like being a parent. If you have a real good parent-child relationship and they respect you as the parent then you can build a friendship on top of that. But if that respect is not there, then forget trying to be their friend and concentrate on being the parent. Likewise with the husband-wife relationship.
Frighteningly true. It shouldn’t be this way but it is. If a man gets into a fight with his boss (arguing about something, perhaps a business decision that was made that he disagrees with) and the husband knows that it will all blow over tomorrow, best he not mention to this to his wife. Because if he does the first thing she is going to think is that my husband is about to lose his job because he argued with his boss which means no income from him which means we can’t make the mortgage payment which means we are going to be thrown on the street and (etc, etc.) Of course, none of that may be true, but he is no longer the “rock” in her mind and she starts to lose confidence in his leadership, lose respect for him as a man. There are a lot of things that men can’t tell their wives (unfortunately.)
Just a couple of other thoughts I wanted to get down.
The issue here is balance. You can’t get overly emotional and distraught at everything. A man simply does not have that option. At the same time, a husband cannot completely shut off his emotions or shut her out of his emotional life. The most difficult thing for a man to do in this situation is to strike the proper balance.
It also depends a lot on the individual characters and temperaments of the husband and wife. They should be — hopefully — well suited to each other and understanding of each other, so that he can come to her with emotional difficulties he has.
Another problem here is that men don’t usually emote or “share” unless it’s big, and I mean a BIG, problem. As in, husband has lost (or is about to lose) his job. Or he has just been diagnosed with a life threatening illness. Or he is severely injured and/or ill, and will be laid up for a long time and needs to depend on his wife or others to care for him. Or someone very close to him has died and he is in a lot of emotional pain. Or he is struggling with depression.
He has to show his wife that he knows it’s a problem and that it’s under control, and that he can bring it under control if it is not already under control. He needs to come up with a plan on how the problem will be solved or managed.
A major issue and strain on the marriage will ensue if the problem goes on for weeks or months or years. FOr example, he is struggling with depression and it’s not getting better, and he is in a funk for months or years. Wife’s patience WILL wear thin with that, even if he is trying to improve, even if he desperately wants to get better.
Of course, the problem is far, far exacerbated due to the relatively low quality and character of many women now. Many of these women cannot handle it when a man gets into any form of hardship or problem, and bail when the storms are on the horizon. So a lot of it has to do with the individual woman’s character, and how much she loves him, and how bonded to him she is. This is one reason why the bonding is so important. When the storms come, the bonding from sexual attraction keeps her there with him — even when it gets bad.
Another issue here is the one IBB just mentioned.
Regardless of how husband brings up the issue that’s troubling him, the wife’s thought processes are going to go there. A part of her is going to go into full on freakout/crisis/panic/emergency mode, even as she nods her head thoughtfully and caringly at him, even as she sits down to help him map out how to solve the problem. A part of her is thinking
“OMIGODOMIGODOMIGOD we are going to DIE we are going to STARVE Whataboutmewhatabouthekids we’re gonna lose the house we’re gonna hafta go on welfare I nevershouldamarriedthisguyIamsoscrewed whatamigonnado”
A big part of how this goes over is Wife’s strength of character, how she recognizes this in herself, and how she manages this.
deti,
Exactly. This is the nasty side-effect of unilateral divorce law. Someone very close to me was diagnosed with Cancer and (as a result) lost his income and when on disability. His wife’s way to cope with a dramatic reduction in income from her husband (and his impending death) was to divorce him, take half his disability, and start sleeping with another man. Now this could not have been helped (he HAD to tell her that) but because we have changed laws regarding marriage she felt perfectly justified in doing what she did. The vows about sickness and in health, for better or for worse, those were only vows he had to keep, not her. That is the character we have in many women now.
“As you experienced, doing it according to modern conventional wisdom will destroy your closeness. If you need help you should get it, but that should probably be mainly from a male friend, a counselor, etc.”
The importance of this in the husband wife relationship cannot be overstated.
A wife is a helpmeet, a lover and a companion. She is NOT a therapist, a drinking buddy, or a confidante. Keep your male friends close through a marriage because you’ll need them for just this situation. If you need help beyond that, get a therapist or counselor.
I was going to write a post on this. But here’s the concise summary. Your attitude matters:
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/your-attitude-tells-me-everything-i-need-to-know/
You can discuss your emotions logically and from a place of leadership if you want her to offer her opinion on the matter or she wants you to open up. This is fine.The problem you run into is when you start discussing emotions and becoming needy. Indeed, if you start relying on her as your rock and for support then that is unattractive.
You can discuss emotions as much as you want. But don’t lean on her for emotional support, and let her lean on you for emotional support. Females go to other females for emotional support. If you’re going to her for emotional support you’re not acting like a man you’re acting like a woman. That’s why she loses attraction for you.
Indeed, discussing emotions with women can be a great way to build trust and intimacy in a relationship. Just don’t expect support, and don’t get into a state where you want or need support. If you want emotional support talk to friends who are men.
More stuff I have to unlearn from psycholgist school about marital “communication.”
Thanks alot, jerk. 🙂
By the way, I sent you an email a couple of day. Love to get your feedback on something.
Gonna disagree on this one.
Wife is divorcing me. One of the key things, she says, is a time when she went to the doctor and got a diagnosis for one of our children for a permanent condition she has. Basically the diagnosis put a name to what we knew already, and doesn’t change any treatment. Regardless, wife took it hard on the inside anyway. She made it clear to me several times that the fact I wasn’t a negative Nancy beta blubberer on this issue was a dealbreaker for her.
Now she is leaving me for another man, so this could just be another rationalization. But basically she set the tone, it’s time for negativity and blubbering. She didn’t want my leadership. She’s very dominant anyway, but offering reassurance and being strong was not what she wanted.
Women want it all. Always, even when one thing contradicts another.
If I may reduce it to a simple statement, the frame should always be:
1) Here is the problem
2) Here is what I plan to do about it [or] have done about it [or, as appropriate] what we need to do about it. That goes for unsolvable problems: you may not be able to, say, cure a parent’s disease, but you can say what actions are appropriate or are being done. You can always amend if a better idea is presented; that is not to be discouraged, and best of all using this frame encourages that.
To the extent you feel safe or are asked to speak to how it all makes you feel, you can speak to that a bit, but ALWAYS return to the frame.
I must say, except for a one-weekend clinical experimental program in college for which I volunteered to join the test group, I have never been to any church or similar gathering where feel-pukes were mandated or considered something men were obliged to do.
She made it clear to me several times that the fact I wasn’t a negative Nancy beta blubberer on this issue was a dealbreaker for her.
Keep in mind, making it your fault absolves her of blame.
http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/
Hypergamy doesn’t care about male vulverability.
I actually think a significant part of the problem here is that as men have become less masculine and of lower character, women have become less feminine and of lower character as well. That has led to marital strain and breakups that might not otherwise have happened.
It has always been the case that men go through problems. Since time immemorial, men have gotten injured or sick. Men have suffered crippling emotional pain. Men have lost jobs, lost money, lost their entire net worths, been on years-long bouts of unemployment, fallen on crushing financial times. (See The Great Depression, for example, 1929-1938 (roughly).) Yet a lot of marriages managed to remain together. That was mainly because of the strength of character of many of those individuals in the marriages. They stayed together even though it was bad because they took their vows seriously. She saw that he was going through a tough time and even though she didn’t want to have sex with him, she made a promise to him, and she was determined to see it through. He was going through a tough time and he knew it, but he didn’t complain all the time (mostly because he had no one to complain to). They found ways to make it work; and they found them together, one way or another.
Pingback: Talking about your emotions with women | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Striver,
Wow man, I’m sorry. That sucks. Really, sucks. I don’t know your situation at all but your wife is going to have a real hard time explaining her unilateral frivorce to your daughter about this “dealbreaker” of hers, particularly if your daughter hears your side of it. I think in a few years, that will be a “dealbreaker” for your daughter in wanting to have relationship with her mother. I know I wouldn’t speak to my mom if that is the reason she gave for frivorcing my dad.
Probably. Again, I don’t know your situation (only you and your wife do) but if I had to guess, her “dealbreaker” was nothing of the kind, just a hamsterization on her part to justify frivorcing you because she doesn’t want to sleep with you anymore and wants to have s-x with another man. Either way, my deepest sympathies to you.
They very last time I went to “Care Group” at my old church we discussed anxiety. I got dirty looks for saying I didn’t really struggle with anxiety and another girl beat herself up over not being able to find any ways she was being anxious.
I’ll confess that I sit down to pee. Mostly because I like sitting.
“I go to a church that is real big on being “vulnerable” and that if you are not constantly talking to your friends and especially your wife about all your struggles and weaknesses, then you are being sinfully self-protective and “un-spiritual.” … in retrospect it may have been a bad idea to be vulnerable. I wonder if it caused them to lose respect for me.”
They did lose respect for you. Those church leaders are sabotaging your ability to succeed with women. It may be malicious–they don’t want competition from other men–or it may be accidental, if they’re Alphas by circumstance. Most likely, there are women embedded in the church leadership driving this trend.
Leave that church. It is already dead. If you want to talk to the leaders about this then you might point out how sharing his feelings didn’t work out for Job… or how showing weakness ruined Samson… I bet Solomon was vulnerable with his wives who led him wrong, too. Or you could simply ask for Bible references. If they try confession then point out that only applies to sins.
Fight or flight.
deti,
I want to believe this is true, that women took their vows more seriously back in the day. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough information to make this claim. Back in the day, there was NO frivorce. Forget unilateral, there wasn’t even no-fault divorce. If you wanted to divorce your husband, you better have had a d-mn good reason as to why you want to leave that marriage and the judge better see real fault on his part for you to get those cash and prizes. His being out of work during the Great Depression would never have qualified. AND society would have shunned you for being divorced. You were a pariah. So sure, there were far fewer divorces (a tiny fraction of what we have now), but was that because women took those vows seriously (and they changed) OR was it because they would never have been granted divorces and have gotten no cash and prizes and women haven’t changed a bit? Or maybe something in the middle?
Subjects like this reinforce the importance of having a good relationship with God in these type of matters. Who better to learn how to be a rock from? Your wife is only human.
About being a rock.. What about a woman who is overcome by those storms of emotion, especially when bad/difficult things happen, then says she feels like her boyfriend/husband “doesn’t care” because he’s not showing much emotion? When in reality, he’s trying to be the “rock.”
Now she is leaving me for another man, so this could just be another rationalization. But basically she set the tone, it’s time for negativity and blubbering. She didn’t want my leadership. She’s very dominant anyway, but offering reassurance and being strong was not what she wanted.
Hmm. Sorry to hear that. Hang in there and keep your head in the game during the divorce process.
If your wife is very dominant (which is not very feminine), then that could explain her lack of need/desire for male emotional strength. There *are* women like that, but they aren’t that common. It seems like you were married to one. Women like that have a very hard time, I think, because it’s very hard for them to find a man who fits — often it can be a hyperdominant, borderline abusive, type of guy, because all other guys kind of get run over by her. Still, it’s hard to imagine that this is *really* the reason she’s divorcing. It sounds more likely to be a rationalization or “her story” more than the reality, especially if there is already another guy in the picture.
Your wife (and even your girlfriend) wants you to be her rock, especially if her own emotions are storming over her. This is a profound gift a husband can give his wife, and should not be seen as something negative.
As a woman, I agree completely! It is a very profound, beautiful, selfless gift that a woman should graciously accept while at the same time understanding what a difficult gift that it can be for her husband to give sometimes. But at the same time, it is a gift. It should never be demanded or expected, and when life does ultimately become too much for her husband, she needs to be prepared to step up and be there for him too. Someday, the couple may find themselves in dire circumstances far from their support network. If he needs a shoulder, the woman should be ready to do the very best that she can for her husband, regardless of whether or not it makes her feel uncomfortable or insecure.
[D: Welcome. Good insight.]
Regarding communication, I think it goes both ways. Both Dalrock and commenters here have excellently described reasons a husband can overshare with his wife to the detriment of the marriage.
I would add that a good wife, as first mate or helpmeet, should also refrain from over-sharing to the detriment of her husband’s decision-making ability, unless more information is requested of her by her husband.
For example, a wife’s tendency to be verbose (nothing wrong with this generally) can sometimes confuse important information with less important information. Another example is when a wife provides too many options to her husband that ultimately delay decision-making. Lastly, but certainly not least, you may need your wife to address a family issue on behalf of you, her husband, and the broader household. you may not have time to listen to the entire sequence of events resolving the issue. You may only have time and/or energy to find out it was resolved. A wife needs to grow to an ability to sense when this is the case. Obviously if she doesn’t sense this, then you respond lovingly, either listening or lovingly asking to discuss the finer details later.
From my perch, opening up is something women think they want because they don’t differentiate what they value themselves with what they need in men.
At the end of the day, what this means is a woman whom you cannot trust, and who hasnt shown an ability to keep her mouth shut from time to time, but rather leaves a mess of her feelings on your hands ALL of the time, is one you should avoid.
Holding back for the benefit of a husbands ability to make good decisions, which requires trust and maturity, goes both ways
There is a recurring theme running through the early comments on this post/thread like a drumbeat. It’s best summed up by
@thedeti:
“He has to show his wife that he knows it’s a problem and that it’s under control, and that he can bring it under control if it is not already under control. He needs to come up with a plan on how the problem will be solved or managed.”
In other words, the exact opposite of “I don’t want you to solve my problems. I just need you to listen to me.”
This seems to suggest that women want their problems solves. Most problems are not currently life threatening but brought about due to other circumstances. I always thought that in marriage, a struggle was meant to bring the couple closer together. Now it looks like the man must solve or manage the issue first and then ask for support from his wife. Where is the inherent partnership in marriage if the husband must choose his finely laid words lest his wife divorce for looking weak?
In the time of real danger, the man should be able to directly speak and the women must follow, no questions. Else, you will probably end up dead.
Which brings us back to the real problem. Women breaking their vows because society has given them the power to judge their husband’s ‘fitness’ via their own subjective feelings.
At work I sit down to pee, because we have those ridiculous ADA complaint urinals made for midgets 3-4 feet in height where most folks miss and it goes on the floor. I’d rather avoid all that. Unsightly and rather unsanitary I think.
fh,
Errrrr…. sort of. But having been married for more than a decade, its more complicated than that. Let me give you the necessary If-then-elses….
IF there is a problem that she created and it is “small-sh-t” THEN she can’t fix it, it really isn’t much of a problem, and when she lets you know about it she is just being a woman, is telling you just to vent, and she doesn’t want you to solve it…. just STFU and listen and be her rock.
ELSE IF there is a problem that she created and it is “BIG-sh-t” which means it must be solved or managed THEN you are only hearing about it because SHE couldn’t solve or manage it which means YOU must step in and give her a list of solutions for which to solve/manage the problem, and she picks or chooses from that list OR just complains more to you about it if she doesn’t like those choices (and she won’t).
ELSE IF there is a problem that you created and it is “small-sh-t” THEN then don’t sweat it, you two are just talking to communicate and she just wants you to listen to her vent…. STFU.
ELSE IF there is a problem that you created and it is “small-sh-t” THEN just solve it, she doesn’t want to hear about it… don’t tell her, heed the advise on this thread
ELSE IF there is a problem that neither you nor her created and it is “BIG-sh-t” which means it must be solved or managed THEN you are going to have to sit down with her and listen to her ways to solve or manage, provide your own list to solve or manage, and come to some consensus and she is going to be more attracted to you if one of your solutions to solve or manage is the one she likes the best… (you are her rock)
ELSE IF there is a problem that you created and it is “BIG-sh-t” which means it must be solved or managed THEN you better offer some solutions to solve or manage or else your wife might just fall to pieces right there. This might be one of those incidents where her way to fix the problem is to frivorce your @ss.
On edit…
ELSE IF there is a problem that neither you nor she created and it is “small-sh-t” THEN then don’t sweat it, you two are just talking to communicate and she just wants you to listen to her vent…. STFU.
ELSE IF there is a problem that you created and it is “small-sh-t” THEN just solve it if it needs solving, she doesn’t want to hear about it… don’t tell her, heed the advise on this thread
Thank you for the kind words! It matters to know that one is upheld in victory with the truth rather than believing oneself crushed by unfortunate facts. It matters to yourself, and it matters to everyone around you.
@thedeti
The Christian husband and wife have great advantage here because the truth is that a husband is not in total control of his own destiny. He cannot, for example, determine whether he shall be made redundant, nor can he solve the problem of unemployment if he is; as someone else must decide whether to hire him at another job. But he can still demonstrate with his words and actions the faith that he and her are under control, and she–just like he–should be faithful to be under control. You have to model it. This is the flip-side to Dalrock’s great advice to “pay attention more to what she does than what she says”. She is paying more attention to what you do (including tone, body language, numbers of words) than what you say.
Thank you for this, you definitely answered my question. I am Ayatollah1988, by the way. I guess I was accidentally not signed in as my usual “Brookes” when I asked the question.
You don’t share anything with a wife. That is what I have learned through 15 years of marriage. My wife and as I have learned speaking to various men over the years wives are of absolutely no emotional value when it comes to support for any kind of issue. Any man has issues she is bailing or at best just add herself to the issues you are having. Kind like the loving and supportive wife in the movie American Sniper.
I make it a point to never discuss politics, philosophy, or any sort of business ideas with my wife, nor my feelings about them. I don’t talk about the things that frighten me, nor my concerns for future events. I simply discuss my plan and goals, and what I’m doing to get there. She can have input on that without truly knowing the “why.” This is my sphere, the world outside of our family. She can concern herself with the inner world, and be much happier for it. I can be the rock she seeks when she’s afraid.
As a man I have to figure out how to mitigate my own fears, and I’ll do it by talking with my guy friends, my dad, or just plain think it out or even pray. There’s no one else to go to, nor should I try to shove my burden off on another. It sucks, but that’s a man’s life.
@Greyghost
That was brutal. As I understand it the real story was even worse than portrayed in the movie.
”True vulnerability is not a value-added selling point for a man when it comes to approaching and attracting women. As with all things, your vulnerability is best discovered by a woman through demonstration –never explaining those vulnerabilities to her with the intent of appearing more human as the feminine would define it.
Women want a bulwark against their own emotionalism, not a co-equal male emoter whose emotionalism would compete with her own. The belief that male vulnerability is a strength is a slippery slope from misguided attraction to emotional codependency, to overt dependency on a woman to accommodate and compensate for the weaknesses that vulnerability really implies.
I know a lot of guys think that displays vulnerability from a position of Alpha dominance, or strength can be endearing for a woman when you’re engaged in an LTR, but I’m saying that’s only the case when the rare instance of vulnerability is unintentionally revealed. Vulnerability is not a strength, and especially not when a man deliberately reveals it with the expectation of a woman appreciating it as a strength.”
Why sharing true vulnerability should be only among trusted men. This used to be done in fraternities and other all-male associations before feminism destroyed that.
@Bluntobj
”As a man I have to figure out how to mitigate my own fears, and I’ll do it by talking with my guy friends, my dad, or just plain think it out or even pray. There’s no one else to go to, nor should I try to shove my burden off on another. It sucks, but that’s a man’s life.”
It sucks because it contradicts the falsehood that men should confide in women in this regard and he will be supported as a result.
That is one heck of a case statement innocentbystanderboston, but quite am accurate description of managing the wife logic tree. It is amazing the male brain needs to perform that entire algorithm at the same time as mowing the grass or fixing a tire.
“How to play it” this discussion is it is.
If wife was truly committed to her husband it would be an issue not.
I don’t understand the whole “don’t try to fix it. Just listen to me vent,” thing.
If someone actually has a actionable solution that hadn’t occurred to me before, I want to hear it. I think this response actually happens when the solution being offered is not helpful or is one that I have already realized for myself, and for whatever reason, discarded.
Take this scenario for instance.
Sally has a dress with no pockets. It’s her favorite dress. She loves it.
Sally also *loves* pockets. Everything else that she owns has pockets.
Sally says to Joe “I hate that this dress doesn’t have pockets”
Joe says “Then why do you wear the dress? Why not give it away and only wear your other things with pockets.”
This is annoying. Sally has already decided that she loves the dress *so much* that it’s worth it to her to wear it even though it doesn’t have pockets. The lack of pockets is less important. Joe’s advice is less than useless to Sally, because in accordance with Sally’s priorities, taking it would be *worse*.
This is where Sally says to Joe “Don’t try to fix it. Just let me vent.”
Or, Joe might say, “Why don’t you sew some pockets into the dress.”
This might be the second category of information. Where it actually is something new and actionable that hasn’t occurred to Sally before. In which case Sally will probably embrace this clever idea.
Or maybe such an obvious solution has also already occurred to Sally, but she’s afraid that it will ruin the look of the dress. And she’s already decided it’s more important to her to maintain the look of the dress as is than to get the pockets. In which case we’re back to “Don’t try to fix it. Just let me vent.”
@Adam
This is a good point. It does help if she can do this when appropriate, and it is greatly appreciated.
How much should a husband share with his wife?
It depends on how well he knows his wife (and women in general). If he is under the impression that women are mysterious and no man can understand them, then he should share as little as he can with out being flat out dishonest. Volunteer only what is needed for a given situation. DO NOT tell her things based on feelings (hers or yours). When in doubt, leave it out.
If he does understand how women think (particularly his wife), then he probably already knows what is edifying verses destructive when discoursing with her.
@Reluctant Neo
This isn’t so much about stoicism as about not getting dragged away by her emotions. What she is looking for is a feeling of assurance that her emotions won’t wash you both away. Sometimes this means responding to fitness tests, but other times it could simply mean redirecting her negative emotional pattern to something positive. In many situations playfulness is both effective and appropriate. Or grab her hand and take her to another room or to see something outside, etc.
Wow! This really is a well written and thought out essay. Another home run.
I was always taught that a husband and wife team was one unit and the two should share everything. One soul, two bodies, or two hearts in one body, something or other like that.
I used to believe that. For marriage to survive men need to believe that. The Churchian Church needs for men to believe that. loving and supportive wives need for their men to believe that.
Men are best served doing their venting with other men, be they friends, brothers, father, uncles, etc. But make sure said men can be trusted not to blab to their wives about what’s going on with you. Because that can and does get back to your wife. Confidentiality is important.
“Men have lost jobs, lost money, lost their entire net worths, been on years-long bouts of unemployment, fallen on crushing financial times. (See The Great Depression, for example, 1929-1938 (roughly).) Yet a lot of marriages managed to remain together. That was mainly because of the strength of character of many of those individuals in the marriages. They stayed together even though it was bad because they took their vows seriously.”
I am tiring of this romanticized nostalgic view of the past that people were just more moral back then, of stronger stock. I am thinking its more they just didn’t have the “anything goes” culture, the pill wasn’t readily available, shame was heavily enforced. Its not that people were innately morally better back then, they just didn’t have as many chance to sin. Women standing by their men during the Great Depression is probably more cause she has no other options than the romantic notion that its for the “vows”. Stay with him or leave him–either way she would be dirt poor and struggling at least if she stays with him its some sort of company and misery loves company. Plus couples probably stayed together cause they simply couldn’t afford to divorce. The absence or lower rate of divorce does not mean relationships are healthy or people are thriving.
What we are seeing today is men and women in the raw–remove social standards and the modern culture is the natural human state–fallen.
I was always taught that a husband and wife team was one unit and the two should share everything. One soul, two bodies, or two hearts in one body, something or other like that.
1 Cor. 10:23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.
Some times a man’s wife is his neighbor.
Dal,
“This isn’t so much about stoicism as about not getting dragged away by her emotions. What she is looking for is a feeling of assurance that her emotions won’t wash you both away. Sometimes this means responding to fitness tests, but other times it could simply mean redirecting her negative emotional pattern to something positive. In many situations playfulness is both effective and appropriate. Or grab her hand and take her to another room or to see something outside, etc.”
This is great advice. My wife loves it when I do this, and has told me so specifically. Her performance in her professional life has markedly improved due to that influence.
One thing to keep in mind is that just as many men are belatedly learning how to properly fulfill the masculine role in marriage (and elsewhere), so too are women with the feminine.
I noticed that when I was in the ER my wife was unusually reticent and unsure of herself. We talked about it later and she said she was worried that she didn’t know how to be a good nurse and take care of a man. Turns out she very much wanted to and now that she has some specific things she can do, really takes to it. I make sure to fulfill my masculine role so that this isn’t the default arrangement.
I could have easily mistaken her reticence for hypergamic disgust, but once we talked about it she was very affectionate.
“I am tiring of this romanticized nostalgic view of the past that people were just more moral back then, of stronger stock.”
As one grows older, one realizes the most tiresome thing of all is avoiding the truth.
Moral stock goes in cycles; it’s as natural as the cycle of birth, growth, decline, death, and rebirth. Nothing to get worked up about.
I’m single and just kind of starting to get kind of serious about marriage/relationships, and I must say reading this has been very interesting and enlightening.
I am tiring of this romanticized nostalgic view of the past that people were just more moral back then, of stronger stock. I am thinking its more they just didn’t have the “anything goes” culture, the pill wasn’t readily available, shame was heavily enforced.
The two aren’t necessarily incompatible, in my view. I am a firm believer in the doctrine of Original Sin (and Total Depravity for we Calvinists out there), so no one ever (well, since Adam ate the fruit, at least) was less inclined towards sin than we are. However, living in a society that enforces virtue outwardly can lead the people of that society to be more “naturally” guided towards truly living a life of virtue from the inside out. So, many of those people of generations past genuinely took their vows seriously as a matter of personal honor precisely because it was so heavily reinforced socially. This is one of the things that is so important about forming social groups to resist the tides of Modernism.
It takes a lot to lead a life of virtue. One little thing out of place can lead to a collapse of virtue for many. However, the more things in place, the more people will struggle inwardly to genuinely be a virtuous person.
At work I sit down to pee, because we have those ridiculous ADA complaint urinals made for midgets 3-4 feet in height where most folks miss and it goes on the floor. I’d rather avoid all that. Unsightly and rather unsanitary I think.
Not me. I would stand on principle alone, even if I had to where plastic covers on my shoes.
God’s will for family size
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=949637
About being a rock.. What about a woman who is overcome by those storms of emotion, especially when bad/difficult things happen, then says she feels like her boyfriend/husband “doesn’t care” because he’s not showing much emotion? When in reality, he’s trying to be the “rock.”
Always remember: women want fried ice.
Paraphrasing from things I’ve read elsewhere on these blogs:
She wants to believe in her image of who he is.
That would translate into – she isn’t interested in finding out who he really is.
The successful man will feed her things that support her image of who he is.
Then I have this thought: do all of the things said in this thread apply to women who are doctors and professors and middle managers and presidents of companies? If not, why not? What makes the difference? One quite successful woman surmized that women turn out different when they are taught to look for solutions rather than simply standing there and giving in to the waves of emotions that want to overwhelm them. “My father taught me, ‘when your little red wagon breaks, fix it.'” That works better than standing there crying. Or, if you are more particularly succeptible to overwhelming emotions, then cry while you are fixing it. But fix it. And if you don’t know how, seek out the training that would allow you to fix it. I don’t remember who the woman was that said all of this, but her point was that she learned this approach from her father. And I’m guessing he didn’t say this to his daughter “lovingly”. I’m guessing he said it matter-of-factly. But it was a very loving thing to do for his daughter. And for his son-in-law.
@RichardP
It’s a bit more simple than that, CEOs (let’s delete the rest, too feminine), surgeons, engineers, and coders are more left brained. And frankly, more masculine in their thinking style. The same way male teachers of grade 1 or male nurses tend more towards a feminine thinking style. So it’s really about where each individual falls on a continuum.
I also notice that the type of thinking tends to run in families, so two technical parents have children that are far more masculine from birth regardless of gender. All of my colleagues that are female engineers or vice presidents come from families where both parents were in “male fields.” Certain amounts genetics and brain structure and definitely the other bits from male modeling. Can’t tease out the mix.
Nothing important to add, but wanted to express gratitude for a reasonable tone and an important article.
I think a lot of the great, subversive truths of the androsphere get lost in the zealotry, and this is one of the most common.
Dear Striver:
Not to be rude, but your wife is a cunt. This is important to accept for your own sake. It’s also the reason your wife doesn’t fit the profile.
Articles on this blog are written for normal people. Your wife clearly doesn’t fit the profile.
You will soon pay for the mistake of marrying this cunt. Accept the fact that you made a horrible mistake, and take your punishment. The hidden reward in all this is the chance to find a normal person to settle down with, or just to embrace the single life.
People who have psychological problems will always find some excuse for their lousy behavior and they’re skilled at projecting the blame for their own failures on others.
You failed too, when you chose that cunt to marry. She obviously wasn’t worth the investment. Don’t repeat your mistake.
Regards,
Boxer
This is a good article, thanks Dalrock.
I read recently in a marriage book that a husband lets his guard down with his wife more than with anyone else, and therefore, she is often the only one to see his weaknesses so clearly. And a wise wife will not resent him for that, but learn to build him up in the ways he needs it most.
@seriouslyserving:
“therefore, she is often the only one to see his weaknesses so clearly. And a wise wife will not resent him for that, but learn to build him up”
That’s more than a man seeks. Not kicking him when he is down (or merely appears to be down in her eyes) would be quite enough. Men are fairly low maintenance. And never refusing a husband sex covers a multitude of unwise wifely tendencies. Do that, and the man will take care of the rest himself, especially if he turns to the Lord for strength instead of to himself or to his wife.
‘My wife and as I have learned speaking to various men over the years wives are of absolutely no emotional value when it comes to support for any kind of issue. Any man has issues she is bailing or at best just add herself to the issues you are having.’
That wasn’t true with my mom and dad. She stood by him through a lot of his struggles. The truth is much like men…women are much weaker these days too.
@Francine
I don’t understand the whole “don’t try to fix it. Just listen to me vent,” thing.
I identify well with this train of thought (irrational as it is). From my perspective, unless I have honestly created a problem that I need my husband to resolve for me, what I am actually looking for when I bring up my dilemma is a simple empathetic response from my husband. I want him to react to the problem, not fix it (again, unless it actually needs a solution). The reason that I may be “verbose” is because I am rewording and rephrasing the same problem in different formats in order to find one that my husband will react to the way that I want him to. I want him to respond with “That is unbelievable! I can’t believe that this is happening to you!” or “Oh honey, you must feel awful! Come here, let me hold you!” Naturally, this response is never the actual response I receive, instead, I receive a simple, obvious solution or an admonishment to do things differently next time.
On another note, I have been reading here for almost 2 years. Thank you for so much for all of the great articles, Dalrock.
“I don’t understand the whole “don’t try to fix it. Just listen to me vent,” thing.” was supposed to be quoted, my apologies.
This is an interesting topic, and as always you give it thoughtful analysis, Dalrock. I can only speak from my own experience. My wife is always very solicitous and supportive if I’m not feeling well physically. But if it’s emotional pain I’m going through, that’s completely different. Once when I was going through a phase of sever depression, I decided to open up to her, and it backfired completely. Her reaction was not just cold; it was full of scorn. Since then, I’ve been very careful to conceal from her any such feelings. I’m convinced that when women say the wish men would open up more, share their feelings more (i.e., be as emotionally incontinent as they are), they are simply lying. They want us to “open up” and say what they want us to say, to follow a set script. I’ve come to believe that women are programmed to feel scorn for what they see as weakness in men. If I have the flu or something, then I can recover from that, but if I’m on a bad funk emotionally, she simply challenges me to “man up.” I simply don’t believe women when they add to their long list of our faults the fact that we don’t “open up” more with our feelings. If they were honest, they would admit that they don’t want us to.
Off-topic, but I stumbled upon a mention of the Christian movie “I’m in Love With a Church Girl” and wondered if anyone had seen it. According to Wikipedia, it’s about the trials and tribulations of “wealthy drug dealer, Miles Montego” who “meets a nice Christian girl” and eventually wins her hand. Wiki: “Reviews from mainstream media were negative while the response from Christian media was more positive.”
I’m convinced that when women say the wish men would open up more, share their feelings more (i.e., be as emotionally incontinent as they are), they are simply lying. They want us to “open up” and say what they want us to say, to follow a set script. I’ve come to believe that women are programmed to feel scorn for what they see as weakness in men. If I have the flu or something, then I can recover from that, but if I’m on a bad funk emotionally, she simply challenges me to “man up.” I simply don’t believe women when they add to their long list of our faults the fact that we don’t “open up” more with our feelings. If they were honest, they would admit that they don’t want us to.
That’s because when you do that, you compromise your ability to be her rock — can’t be her rock when you’re an emotional mess yourself, so it makes her feel emotionally unsafe. So, yes, don’t do it.
When they say they want us to “open up”, in my view this means they want some amount of reflectivity of their own emotions — not so much that you are impeded from being the rock in the storm, but enough so that they know you are listening and emotionally cognizant of what they are emoting (without approaching it with a “fix it” mentality). It doesn’t mean they want you to open up and emote a lot about *your* emotional situation — that undermines your ability to be the rock, and undermines your entire value to her emotionally.
Re: the above, the Wikipedia breakdown did not mention the thoughts of the unmarried, law-abiding single guys in the congregation with a crush on the church girl, regarding her wooing by the sexy ex-con.
Agree with greyghost. Unless you are lucky or skilled enough to be in a relationship with a truly supportive wife, don’t say/share anything of import with her. Blue pill man thinks he is operating in an equal partnership, with mutual love and respect. Thinks his wife will appreciate his sharing of concerns with her, when in truth women generally appreciate nothing but expect everything. Red pill man knows his performance is all that matters (h/t Rollo) unless he was lucky enough to find a unicorn, who still must be lead properly. The problem isn’t that women will bail in stormy weather; it’s that they won’t bail to help the captain keep the ship afloat. Instead they abandon ship. If the captain couldn’t keep the ship from sinking all on his own even though he was giving the correct orders and steering a good course through the weather, he was failure as captain.
tl,dr Keep your mouth shut.
“You don’t want her to baby you, but you do want a woman who can feel empathy. A wife should also avoid indulging in the feminist urge to strip her husband of his manhood. A wise and well adjusted wife should instead feel protective of your masculinity, just as you should feel protective of her femininity.”
Yes, this… its always beautiful to me when a wife guards and protects her husband’s masculinity when talking with her family or her friends, or on social media etc. Some women will use times like these to ridicule their husbands or show how incapable he is compared to her – you don’t want this! And this is so important for any men out there not yet married:
“If you keep these things in mind, and pay attention more to what she does than what she says, you will get a gut feel of how much and what types of things you should be communicating to her. As a man looking to marry you can also keep this in mind when choosing a wife. Some women are going to be a better fit for you than others in this regard. If she needs more alpha aloofness than is natural and comfortable for you, you either need to change your own comfort zone or (more likely) find a better fit for both of your sakes.”
I believe if you can’t confide in your wife, you won’t experience the best parts of intimacy and journeying through life together.
Love this post Dalock! Love how you talked about this subject
@Roger “If they were honest, they would admit that they don’t want us to.”
I don’t think that women are in touch with the fact that they’d rather men hold in the “scary feelings of doom.” I think they **honestly** believe they want men to open up – but they don’t take into account how they would feel afterwards towards that man & his emotional state. Its so sad… I actually did this to my brother maybe 2 years ago… he was going rthrough a depression and opened up to me, and apparently I brushed it off and told him basically that all people go through hard times and that he just needs to get through it like everybody else. He reminded me of this and my response later on when we talked later on – he pointed out how I had acted. But it was like I didn’t even know what I was doing…. Very strange. But it did hurt our relationships a little me acting like that. So honestly, I don’t think women understand why they do the things they do – unless the man points it out.
Yet another topic where it is a mistake to congeal on a set of rules of thumb.
How many men have wives that pursue them with inquiry….that constantly ask ask ask them about the painfully obvious stress inducers in his life, who are women the preachers say have “the gift of mercy” (constant state of empathogasm) which is endless yammering about the woes of this person and that person but zero tolerance for even the most tangible problem that occurs in her own family.
Deti mentioned that marriages held together through the Depression and many recessions, someone retorted that those times were not fraught with frivorce. The later is paramount.
This is a caliche pit that Ive bedded down in before and by fate drawing likes together, know several men who shared the caliche mattress (relax, these are big pits, no one was driven to change sexual orientation)
These wives taunted the men during financial crisis. They grill the men on what has been paid and what has not, they ask from a position that assumes but for the man just not taking the time to write the checks so to speak, all would be well, never seeming to get that you cannot pay $1000 with $100. They add infinite weight to the burden the man is carrying. Yes it comes from the wife’s worry as mentioned and I hasten to add, the women sincerely do not even know they are doing it. Attempts to explain it to them by asking them why they do not think in those terms when they furrow and whine about friends John and Jane and their financial issues, its as if the women are being asked for the atomic number and valence of Osmium.
All to say that its like all of these strategies. The response of the wife is MAYBE correlated at some %, maybe a causal response to the man in some (lesser) %, and definitely trending towards lower %’s within a large age cohort. Younger couples are faring better, however it is with a dearth of stoic men not a resurgence. Men and women are making simpler lives while creating a sense that they are in control of every minutia in their day, thoughtfully considering what to eat, how to be fit, when to walk in a park and “experience green space”, budgeting time for and with kids ion blocks of minutes…..etc. This is all far more appealing to women than men, but the marriage benefits in that the design for the marriage lowers conflict and keeps the woman’s worrying mind proactively engaged.
Back on point…the man who is up against a woman who mines for things to break his stoicism, then mines his breakdown for the things of her discontent is not some outlier. Its important to realize that in many ways, you have the spouse you got, and rare is fundamental change. Managing yourself or managing her may need to include managing information, and even avoidance of engagement on some topics. For the man walking in from work each evening naively expecting respite despite daily finding interrogation and veiled blaming in the form of “if you’d just handle things my way we wouldn’t be in this mess” admonitions. So then, this woman wants a stoic man? These are mere shit tests that he can adroitly game around?
In very general terms, absolutely men ought not use wives for crying shoulders barring huge events…death of parent, etc. But there is a creeping idealism in the flow of hard and fast recommendations. Just as men here may have wives that seem to respond to their strength or DO respond to it, there are men whose wives will never relent because of some self assurance he exudes….even if the man has repeatedly dug them out of financial messes and guided the family through difficult times.
lgrobins said:
Absolutely.
And finally, to end on a positive note, Dalrocks suggestion of using playful humor is the one tool that has the widest application. Unless the wife is herself one of these so called stoic women whose jaw is clenched and whose lips are pressed as thin as a meniscus, most women will react to well crafted humor. This strategy has holistic impact. It cuts the bad and it builds the good because shared humor is crucial cross-linking in the backbone of marriage
girlwithdragonflytat
Exactly. That is all why the correlation of stoic 1920’s men and low divorce is not very compelling evidence. Not saying its good to be vulnerable, not saying it wont be better over the long term if he plods along with council other than the Mrs. But like so many things we talk about, much depends on the Mrs.
Indeed, you can;t expect this from a wife.
What you must demand and insist upon is obedience. She doesn’t and can’t ever take responsibility and leadership, but she MUST obey. PEriod.
“Not to be rude, but your wife is a cunt. This is important to accept for your own sake. It’s also the reason your wife doesn’t fit the profile.
Articles on this blog are written for normal people. Your wife clearly doesn’t fit the profile.
You will soon pay for the mistake of marrying this cunt. Accept the fact that you made a horrible mistake, and take your punishment. The hidden reward in all this is the chance to find a normal person to settle down with, or just to embrace the single life.” Boxer
“She turned on me” as the saying goes. During courtship she was very supportive. I had issues starting in a relationship in the first place, she was very patient, worked with me. Very supportive at the time.
Then we had kids and as often with women the kids come before the husband. I could live with that. Divorce is a whole ‘nother ballgame. Lessening of interest, I expected that.
As far as money issues, I talked about my job with her, some concerns I had. Again, she was very supportive, assuring. This does not match up with what I read here, that I should protect her from things. That might work with some women, but she was never like that.
She had a great job before we married, owned her own home. She’s not a nitwit, she knows what life is like.
I had very little experience with women when I met her, but still, I would have needed a PHD in psychology to read her. She worked in upper management when she worked. She’s very good at putting on her nice face, as a number of women are.
She definitely has a selfish, impatient, cold side. Just didn’t think that ran as deep as it does. Now I know.
On the whole “be strong, be a rock” issue, we did not have a lot of stressful problems. A couple. I think it was more of a boredom issue for her. Some have compared women to teenagers and teenagers rebel WHEN THEY HAVE SECURITY. They rebel against the safety. Women rebel against safety when they are bored. You can’t just protect them and give them safety. I guess there needs to be threatpoint as well. This works with kids too. For kids to remain a functional part of a family, there needs to be some level of fear. Respect is based on fear at some level. I gave my wife security, but she clearly didn’t fear or respect me. Men have to cover both bases. Women will attack multiple flanks.
@Empath
I’m glad to see your input here. Where would your advice differ? I assume our difference isn’t with “If you keep these things in mind, and pay attention more to what she does than what she says, you will get a gut feel of how much and what types of things you should be communicating to her.” My guess is you would modify the paragraph that begins with:
Is my guess correct?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/06/prescription-painkillers-to-blame-for-spike-in-deaths-of-white-women-over-past-15-years-study-says/
Dalrock writes, “Your wife (and even your girlfriend) wants you to be her rock, especially if her own emotions are storming over her.”
Dear Dalrock, over 75% of divorces are initiated by women. Would you contend that this is because the man is not being enough of “a rock?” In your view, when women file divorce, is it typically the man’s fault for a) being not enough of a rock, or b) too much of a rock?
Do you contend that if men simply manned up and became more “rock-like”, their wives would no longer blow up the families? Is the divorce epidemic and decline of the family the fault of men?
Dalrock continues, “This is a profound gift a husband can give his wife, and should not be seen as something negative. A wife also relies on her husband for protection and financial support of the family.”
Dear Dalrock, Have you heard of the feminist movement? Have you heard that women are now outearning men and receiving more advanced degrees? If women are receiving more of the jobs and making more of the money, how is it that a wife relies on her husband for protection and financial support? Does she not have the corporate state? Are single women, who are earning more than men, in constant danger without a husband to “protect them?” Danger from what? Too much money?
‘What you must demand and insist upon is obedience.’
Better to test her on that before getting married. Not so much demanding but making a request that is not sinful and observing that she does it. If they make a free will choice there, that’s a good sign.
Hopefully you won’t have to demand that often because she knows what God says her role is in a marriage.
“She turned on me” as the saying goes.”
The more I read from you, the more the assessment from others is confirmed.
Here’s what happened: Your soon to be ex wife is a woman of very low character and is probably a narcissistic sociopath. She always has been and there was nothing you could do to change this. (The only thing one can do with a sociopath is to escape her or manage her.) After a marriage with a normal course and the usual ups and downs, she eventually ran into another man who expressed overt sexual interest. She found him more sexually attractive than you, for whatever reason. That attraction, coupled with a combination of low character, sociopathy, narcissism, selfishness and boredom, caused her to blow up your marriage.
Dalrock, I’m going to agree with this posting but only partly. I think you underestimate some of the issues that will arise when attempting to share anything beyond the most day to day, or humdrum, of things with a woman.
One problem as I see it is a bit subtle: a man cannot know necessarily when he is about to share too much. It can be like a tightrope walk – fail to “share” and be accused of being closed, too private, not open, etc. but share even a tiny bit “too much” and find out when a barrage of insecurity is incoming for quite some time afterwards. And since this depends almost entirely on her mental state, her emotional state, her moods, what is a safe level of sharing one day is way out of bounds another day. And to compound this, once a man shares ‘too much” it can never be walked back, ever.
There’s also the issue of confidences. It should go without saying that a marred woman should know how to keep what a man tells her private. It should go without saying, but…it needs to be said. Because breaking a confidence is like breaking a raw egg – it’s messy to clean up and it ain’t ever going back in that shell again.
Women demand that men trust them. But women should be trusted as women, i.e. not very much. A man who trusts a woman to keep her word, as he would trust another man, will be disappointed sooner or later, and that disappointment will lead to regret, and possibly even bitterness.
PS: Speaking softly does not work in situations where everyone else will not stop talking. When people will. not. stop. talking. there are few options, ranging from “speak louder than anyone else” (and be accused of shouting, etc.) to “leave the area and let the oh so smart people sort out their own problem” (which means, essentially, you get to solve a bigger problem later on). Speaking softly wil work with people who have been trained to listen. It fails with the rebellious, the defiiant, the spaced-out, the self-centered, etc.
Dalrock
If you keep these things in mind, and pay attention more to what she does than what she says, you will get a gut feel of how much and what types of things you should be communicating to her.
There is a caveat that needs to be added: at that moment in time. Because what is true in the first years of a marriage can become false after jobs change, or incomes change, or children are born, etc. It is of critical importance to realize that women will change, and change quite dramaticallly, in the space of a few months due to events both outside of her and inside her (pregnancy being a major one). And what was a working “gut feel” can turn into a total misreading in that time. Which puts a man once again on the wrong side of the “you never share” tightrope.
@Boxer and Striver: Disagree that the wife is a ‘cunt.’ She is a woman who has lost attraction. Nothing more, nothing less. AWALT.
And on the constant probing for weakness and then when finding it using that as an excuse to detonate? That is a big fracking AWALT.
*De-lurk* This post just strengthens my belief that marriage and women simply aren’t worth the trouble. If you can’t open up and be honest with your own wife then why marry her? If you can’t be honest about your feelings/thoughts because you’re worried it will make you look weak and your wife to lose attraction for you then your wife is a selfish, useless, child. If you’re dealing with issues in life and you have to tip-toe around to accomadate HER emotions because she needs you to be her “rock” then you are basically playing father figure to a grown woman. Sorry but NO. Life and marriage is not all about catering to HER feelings and what SHE thinks or what SHE wants or what makes HER happy or what makes HER feel safe or what turns HER on. I can understand a woman (or man for that matter) not wanting to deal with a whiney complainer but that isn’t what this is about. This is fundamentally about men not being able to be honest about their own humanity because their woman can’t handle it. If that’s the case then she has utterly failed as your helpmate. Men are being told they should just accept this behavior when instead, women need to be called out for their failure and lack of maturity.
This also goes back to one of my central complaints with “game” in that men are supposed to behave in a way so as to accommodate a selfish woman’s emotions with the vain hope of keeping her attracted to you. If this is the case then you are being passively led by a self-centered child whose affections are conditionally based on your ability to keep her amused. No woman alive on God’s Earth is worth that much BS – especially if that woman dares call herself a Christian. Either she loves you for who you are or she doesn’t. No woman is worth sacrificing your dignity and sel-respect for….
The women studied the men’s faces secretly – for the corn could go as long as something else. Remained … after a while the faces of the watching men lost their bemused.perplexity. and became hard angry and resistant. Then.the women knew that they were safe and there was no break. Women.knew deep in themselves that no misfortune was too great to bear if there men were whole. John steinbeck. Grapes of wrath. Chpt. 1
Dear Dalrock,
You end the post, as we all predicted, with a link to “Headship Game.”
Are you still of the opinion that men must learn “Game” so as to provide proper Headship?
Do you believe that Christian women need to be “gamed” so as to keep their marriage vows? And thus, do you agree with Oprah that a woman can blow up her family if a man doesn’t apply game?
It’s always interesting to see, and listen about, the peculiar disconnect in women’s behavior when they repeat the classic “you need to show your feelings” trope. It’s something they say they want, but instantly and instinctively despise the very second it actually happens. I am convinced that it played a large part in the swift (3 months) nuclear implosion of my longest (15 years) and possibly happiest LTR. My last girlfriend (1 year) once said she’d have liked to see me cry one day. She said this in earnest, with no trace of irony or sarcasm. In fact, she said it in the middle of a long speech about how much she loved me. By then, I knew enough to reply to her, “Keep on dreaming, ’cause that ain’t gonna happen”. I feel very strongly this female tactic is taken straight out of Mao’s Hundred Flowers strategy. That is, cajole the dissidents (or, in this case, the weak men) to come out in the open, so they can be eliminated more quickly while sparing the trouble of having to find them out.
girlwiththedragonflytattoo
I believe if you can’t confide in your wife, you won’t experience the best parts of intimacy and journeying through life together.
For what definition of “confide”? Here, have a totally contrived example with some basis in reality.
A man is sitting in a house, at the top of the staircase to the second floor where the bedrooms are. He’s looking around in a thoughtful way. His wife asks, “What are you thinking about?”. There is a pause…
What he’s thinking about is the recent home invasion robbery that happened across town that turned ugly. He’s thinking “There’s a clear line of sight from this corner here right down to the bottom of the stairs. If I reinforced the downstairs windows and added an extra bolt to the front and back doors, plus a burglar alarm system, that should slow down intruders enough to give me time to wake up and get the shotgun. Hmm. If I was lying prone there I’d have most of the corner as concealement. If I took off a couple of feet of wallboard here and replaced it with 1/2″ steel plate and then re-wallpapered over it, I’d have cover so that if I was shot at from the bottom of the stairs, I’d have a better chance of surviving. The closet behind me doesn’t have much in it but behind the closet is the kids room, so I should put something in that closet to stop any stray bullets. With some extra shells for the shotgun, I could stop two or even three attackers from coming up the stairs. We should start keeping a fully charged cell phone in our bedroom ready to dial 911 in case of a hot robbery. This is not a likely threat, but if I can’t stop home invaders on these stairs at night, I will have failed to protet my family and I’d rather die than fail that way”.
How do you think that man would answer? Most likely he’d shrug and just say, “Oh, I wasn’t thinking of anything in particular”. Because some, or all, of the above would be upsetting to most women.
Women say they want men to confide in them, but it is not always true. There are some things women do not want to hear – Dalrock made that clear in the O.P.
I actually did this to my brother maybe 2 years ago… he was going rthrough a depression and opened up to me, and apparently I brushed it off and told him basically that all people go through hard times and that he just needs to get through it like everybody else.
It is possible that the message he received from you was simply “I can’t handle this, don’t want to hear it. Don’t ever talk to me about this again”. That might not have been the message you intended to send, but since men rarely want to talk about such things with anyone, even a relative by blood, and it can seem like a huge risk to take to talk to anyone about such a thing – a dismissal can seem more permanent and cold than intended.
This post just strengthens my belief that marriage and women simply aren’t worth the trouble.
For 90+% of women in western countries absolutely. IMO most women in the US, Canada, and the UK are NOT marriage material and could be ruled out by N count alone. I picture the essay and many of the comments as applying to the remaining few who may actually be wife material as well as those from other cultures that have not yet been ruined for marriage.
GBFM –
Dear Dalrock, over 75% of divorces are initiated by women. Would you contend that this is because the man is not being enough of “a rock?”
Are you still of the opinion that men must learn “Game” so as to provide proper Headship?
I don’t think this is what Dalrock is suggesting (apologies to Dalrock if I am over reaching). I think the idea is that things could work better using these tools then otherwise so long as the recipient is a woman not bent on destruction. No one can make a harpy tow the line under the conditions we currently live in, but a woman who hasn’t played the harlot or morphed into bridezilla the feminazi might actually be edified by the advice that Dalrock has given. Granted this type of woman is rare in our society, but they do exist. FYI, I’m very confident that appropriate foreign models are more plentiful than their domestic counterparts.
@GBFM
Are you still of the opinion that men must learn “Game” so as to provide proper Headship?
Do you think a person needs to learn anatomy and surgical technique before operating on somebody? I’m not a doctor but I’m quite competent to perform some basic surgical procedures. With more complicated procedures there’s a good chance the patient will die because I didn’t know what I was doing. Marriage is kind of like that and game is simply recognizing what women (the patient) are really like and recognizing that certain techniques (game) yield generally predictable results. Just like there are good ways and bad ways to close a wound and they yield different results, there are good ways and bad ways to handle a marital relationship.
All women already have the ability to blow up their marriage for any or even no reason at all. As you’ve pointed out, 75% of the time a marriage is blown up it’s the woman doing it. The question is why they do it, not whether they can. I would say that in the vast majority of cases it’s because she lost attraction to her husband and then developed attraction to someone else or decided there was somebody out there for her that was more attractive. Game is simply a set of guidelines and techniques that help a husband maintain his wife’s attraction to him.
Do you contend that if men simply manned up and became more “rock-like”, their wives would no longer blow up the families? Is the divorce epidemic and decline of the family the fault of men?
Paracelsus’ law says “The dose makes the poison.” That’s the first rule of toxicology. I’ve seen plenty of marriages that would benefit from the husband being more rock-like, but it’s also possible to be too rock-like. Everything is in the calibration, recognizing what women are really like in a general sense; knowing how to apply the tools and techniques to give them what they want and need and finally to learn exactly what levels they should be applied to the individual woman. Being rock-like is partly about her comfort (protection) and partly about masculine dominance.
@Striver: “Wife is divorcing me. One of the key things, she says, is a time when she went to the doctor and got a diagnosis for one of our children for a permanent condition she has. Basically the diagnosis put a name to what we knew already, and doesn’t change any treatment. Regardless, wife took it hard on the inside anyway. She made it clear to me several times that the fact I wasn’t a negative Nancy beta blubberer on this issue was a dealbreaker for her. Now she is leaving me for another man, so this could just be another rationalization. But basically she set the tone, it’s time for negativity and blubbering. She didn’t want my leadership. She’s very dominant anyway, but offering reassurance and being strong was not what she wanted. Women want it all. Always, even when one thing contradicts another.”
Almost the identical circumstances here, except that my ex-wife left me for a hypothetical other man (whom she thought she found within a month of the divorce being final). Of the three reasons she cited for divorcing me, two are relevant to this post. One was the same as yours — a daughter with a genetic disorder, the news and consequences of which I accepted with markedly more equanimity than her which she therefore interpreted as “not caring.” (I was encouraged by our first (of many) marriage counselors who told me that, on the contrary, it was clear to him that I actually loved our daughter more than my wife did because my love wasn’t wrapped up in how our daughter performed or progressed, but simply in who she was.) This became a familiar pattern: if I didn’t get as upset as her or wasn’t as urgently troubled as her at any particular parenting issue, it wasn’t because in good faith I simply had a different but legitimate reaction; instead, it was because I was cold and uncaring (and unspiritual). The second issue was finances, another subject on which I could never win. If I shared when we had financial difficulties, she freaked out (and of course blamed me). If I didn’t share because I knew she would freak out, then when she later found out I was a deceiver. In my last meeting with another of our marriage counselors, he asked me what I was going to do about the marriage given my wife’s attitude. I told him that I would stick with it for the sake of our four kids, but that I would not even begin to expect any improvement unless and until we had so much money that there couldn’t possibly be a financial issue. Ironically, the year before she divorced me we had our best financial year ever, even paying all of our oldest son’s college tuition without any borrowing.
I can’t say whether you and I were married to typical or atypical women, because I’ve only ever been married to the one (though similar or worse stories sure seem awfully common). I can say that we were both married to women of low character, as it turned out. As someone else here has pointed out, it may well be that Dalrock’s advice in the OP is excellent advice if the wife has some character but is of less use if the wife is like ours.
I reject the simplistic conclusion that Striver’s and my divorces can be explained as situations where we failed to maintain our wives’ sexual attraction to us. I don’t know Striver’s wife’s sexual behavior, but my wife was frigid from day one of the marriage — never had an orgasm from any source not only during the marriage but also in her entire life before the marriage. And this frigidity could not have been predicted based on her pre-wedding behavior; while neither of us would have wanted to go all the way, we certainly engaged in plenty of mutual heavy petting during our 4 years of dating and engagement. Within just a few years of marriage, she became a sexual refuser, and remained that way despite all the marriage counseling we received. A friend asked me after the divorce if I thought she’d ever remarry and I snorted and said not unless she found a man who wasn’t interested in sex. As far as I know, the guy she married a year after our divorce is interested in sex, so I don’t know what she did to snow him.
@Anonymous Reader
The husband having such thoughts should say, “I was thinking about how to defend our home from a robbery.” Done. No weirdness. No lying. No misdirection. He didn’t shut her out, and while the odds are high that she’ll simply move along, there is a good chance that she’ll ask him how to go about that.
The trouble in your example is not a woman’s penchant to worry about home invasion. The trouble is that the husband doesn’t have basic social skills, so he feels like his choice is either to spaz-out with a ten-point hypothetical centered around the application of steel wallboard, or lie. If he dumped that anxious fantasy on another man, at best that man would think it a strange joke. Harsh as it may sound to the sympathetic: That husband needs remedial training in social skills because if he goes on years saying, “I wasn’t thinking of anything in particular.”, eventually she will begin to believe him; believe that he is thoughtless and boring; uninterested and uninteresting.
I’m with thequietrebel. The Bible speaks of Eve as Adam’s helpmeet. Where is the wife helpmeet in this scenario? I’ve been married for over 30 years and I have never “shared” my fears about career, or any other family threatening concern with my wife. Why? – because it was clear early on that my wife couldn’t deal with it and didn’t want to know about it. I always thought the reason I had to do this was because I had made a poor choice of wife. I hadn’t been discerning enough in my choice of a helpmeet. But, I thought, well, I chose her and I’m responsible to deal with the consequences of my decision. So I did what had to be done; sheltering her from my fears.
Now Dalrock’s post reveals that, no I didn’t make a bad choice, THEY ARE ALL LIKE THAT and men just need to figure out how to game them with humor and distraction (while dealing silently with crushing stress ourselves). Good God, How are these creatures a helpmeet if they can’t be there when you really need them, what good are they? Sure, I can learn how to manage my wife, but then how is she my helpmeet? She just becomes one more problem I have to deal with, one more rock on the wagon. This starts to sound like another “man-up” lecture….
This should be required knowledge for every male to pass the 8th grade and should be standard man stuff in general. MGTOW
Dalrock you are a huge supporter of MGTOW right up there with the youtube stars. And your support is based on logic and reality you never say MGTOW but the product sells founded in pure hard responsible decision making as a man.
@Anonymous Reader//Cane Caldo
“The husband having such thoughts should say, “I was thinking about how to defend our home from a robbery.” Done. No weirdness. No lying. No misdirection. He didn’t shut her out, and while the odds are high that she’ll simply move along, there is a good chance that she’ll ask him how to go about that.”
That’s more than likely what my husband would choose to say… plus probably a little more detail. He is actually a Police Officer… he confides in me a lot but definitely not **all** due to his confidentiality issue.
The fact that he lets me in and chooses to tell me some terrifying and fascinating things that happen all the time on his job actually make things more interesting and lets me know and understand why he is the way he, and the things he faces at work.
CH just did a post last night I believe about things like that – my husband does almost all of the emotion things on that list (I actually pulled it up when he got home and teased him about it 😀 )
Men can use their emotions to draw women in… but it is probably harder than I (as woman) would know.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/the-seductive-value-of-emotional-range/
F***you That same bitch loses the kids pays CS gets a restraining order put on her. Basically treated like a man in a divorce and husband gets real sexy real fast and in a lustful hurry.
@David J. “This became a familiar pattern: if I didn’t get as upset as her or wasn’t as urgently troubled as her at any particular parenting issue, it wasn’t because in good faith I simply had a different but legitimate reaction; instead, it was because I was cold and uncaring (and unspiritual).”
I’m so sorry for what you and Striver have/are going through. I’m not sure if this is an AWALT thing or just common, but in my experience, we have, in the past, had issues over things like that – where I actually felt that since he didn’t express as much emotional craziness (like I was capable of doing) then he TRULY didn’t care as much as I did. It was really hard to get over that kind of thinking pattern… I had to trust that he did – to believe in him that he did care. I’ve read somewhere that women start out their marriages viewing their husbands as being against them or doing things to purposefully hurt or be separate from them. When in reality, the husbands aren’t doing things to undermine the marriage closeness at all, the woman is usually projecting her own fears onto the situation. It was pretty hard getting through that, but once we did, it made it a whole lot easier to know and have a deep trust that he was good, that he did care… that I wasn’t alone in dealing with our struggles whatever they be at that moment.
Dalrock
I cant articulate a tangible difference of position here that is big enough to worry about. I contend though that there are so many inputs to a woman’s way of comporting with her husband that, even if he has watched the tapes and knows the other teams playbook, on a given day they will call a different play. Also, the players cycle on and off the team as time passes. Sometimes there are more good ones, sometimes less. Same with women and marriage. The “well gamed woman” has the potential to go off the rails as much as the uber faithful man has the potential to bed a mistress. Comparison chosen with intent.
There is nothing flawed about the advice, and frankly, there is no better advice Ive seen than to deploy some strategies based on observation. A man who has never experienced the utter insanity of a woman’s maelstrom of emotions and how it over takes her being and how she manages to box in EVERYTHING…..even the best honed strategy….leaving him to grow non communicative, that man chose a very good spouse, meaning luck and/or divine providence.
The bold is scary. Because an empathy craving (emotion experiential craving) wife will incorrectly assert that something is bothering him, because she has a drive as compelling as the sex drive in men to get to the empathogasm, and her husband is, after all….right there….so he oughta be the fount of empathy at that moment. That same woman , if she is correct and he is troubled, can turn right around and be a wonderful comfort to the man, nurturing him through terrible times. its all over the map, hence my statement that (I should have added: while the advice is sound) the advice is the advice we have, there is only the other choice, the one the church wants us to follow as men emoting and crying and gnashing our teeth openly. Given those, yours is far superior.
AR
More than just her tendency to change with time. Men do too, we just usually don’t change the steadfastness of commitment. Like the Dr. of Theology/Psychology told me, men view wedding as an event, splitting time. Women view it as the day she can start working on perfecting the man. As she changes his willingness to lean in and g’head and be dad and employee etc even if she has little interest in what he does with his time in order to provide, while if she dislikes the changes in him and he doesn’t yield she will bolt. The thing is people sort, marry, even the most careful man who chooses the best woman can awake and find someone he never knew beside him.
JDG
So, its about game or is it about finding one of these snowflakes then claiming your game kept them from melting and reforming as an icicle.
Art Toad
In other words GBFM is correct. You’ve merely restated his point. Ironically you make his point even better than he did in his brief remark.
Dear Striver:
I don’t mean any disrespect, but it’s funny to read these two sentences, immediately adjacent to one another:
1. I had very little experience with women when I met her, but still, I would have needed a PHD in psychology to read her. 2. She worked in upper management when she worked.
I have very little knowledge of marriage, but I know if I was going to take the plunge, I’d steer well clear of any candidates in “upper management”. I’d also steer clear of HR drones, PR hacks, saleswomen of any kind, and attorneys.
If you decide to do this over again, try to focus on plain jane chicks who seem family oriented, and aren’t career driven. Date down into early 20s girls who like animals. If you’re cool going outside your ethnic group, you can find lots of immigrant girls (West African, Eastern European, Asian) who have a healthy respect for their fathers and have been taught to shut the fuck up.
Also, yes, your wife is a cunt. You can tell her I said so.
Pay her off and be glad to get rid of her (whatever the cost you’re getting a bargain). Sorry for your kids, who have such a shit mother. That’s not entirely your fault, but own a bit of it.
Best,
Boxer
Bradford
I meant to say what you said and I forgot to, that there is a man-up lecture in there somewhere. Good poinr. I know Dalrock has some way of seeing it otherwise, and he may even tease out some consensus if he can explain that away, the man-up feel to it, but I also have to think he can understand why it could look that way
…How are these creatures a helpmeet if they can’t be there when you really need them…
The wife’s duty is to assist you, so delegate to her tasks that are within her abilities that will help you in accomplishing your goals. She isn’t supposed to take the place of God where you run to her when you are afraid. Go to God with your fears and concerns and for council. Ask Him and he will provide. And seek advice from wise men who are righteous. There is wisdom in many councilors. Sorry is the man who places his wife on a pedestal.
@girlwithadragonflytattoo: Good for you, truly. May your tribe increase. For a while (years), I thought that on any given issue, if I could get a third-party’s input (marriage counselor, pastor, supposedly respected friend, financial counselor, etc.) that would either agree with my handling or at least vouch for the reasonableness of my handling, she would relax on the issue and maybe even start giving me some credit. Entirely vain hope. She’d fire counselors, pretend the pastor didn’t say what he said, lose respect for the friend, etc. An unbelievably frustrating, unwinnable trap — and, in hindsight, an entirely predictable, inevitable end.
JDG
delegate to her tasks that are within her abilities that will help you in accomplishing your goals. She isn’t supposed to take the place of God where you run to her when you are afraid
Surely you see the vast space between delegating minutia that is helpful and leaning on the wife as if she is the creator of the universe. I hardly think anyone was suggesting the wife become an object of one’s existential faith.
“Artisanal Toad says:
March 7, 2015 at 2:05 pm
@GBFM
Are you still of the opinion that men must learn “Game” so as to provide proper Headship?
Do you think a person needs to learn anatomy and surgical technique before operating on somebody?”
Right here Artisanal Toad is stating that in order to lead as a Christian, one must learn the “anatomy and surgical technique” of the gina tingzlzlzoozolzol.
Well, as Dalrock begins by asking, “How much should a husband share with his wife?”
And concludes with, “See Also: Headship Game”
Then the correct answer to “How much should a husband share with his wife?”
appears to be
. . .
…
…
wait
for
it
wait for it
….
the correct answer appears to be
. . .wait
for
it. . .
“All twelve inches!”
Now this will not change the court systems nor educational system nor churches nor universities which have deconstructed the spiritual and traditional code of honor governing women, thusly necessitating Dalrockian/Oprah game in order to try and preserve a modern “marriage.”
A long-term, more foundational approach would be to reclaim the court systems, educational system, churches, and universities, but I don’t think there is much hope of anyone returning the Great Books for Men to the center and circumference of our educational systems in this lifetime.
So a gamey Dalrockian band-aid is probably your best bet to feel like you are restoring the culture by learning a bit of ginat tingzlzlzoz anatomy, reading some Cosmo tips so as to better serve the baser desires so as to better preserve the churchian marriage, while sharing “All twelve inches!” 🙂
@JDG
I can delegate small tasks of no consequence to a paid housekeeper, why would I marry someone of so little value? I guess I interpret the term helpmeet as something more substantial than you do; certainly less than the God I rely on, but more than someone who does the grocery shopping and the laundry for me. Perhaps a helpmeet would be someone who also relies on God and is willing to stand with me in the breech when the sh*t hits the fan.
@thedeti
“Keep your male friends close through a marriage because you’ll need them for just this situation”
This. A thousand times over. It is extremely important to keep your close male friends your entire life. These trustworthy confidants can help you see and correct the mistakes you are making because they are looking from the outside in. One of a woman’s major shit tests is to try to put wedges between you and your male friends and brothers. It is a HUGE indicator of a beta mindset to forsake ones friends for a woman demanding you do so. This is one of the first major relationship mistakes many men make.
@JDG
Just re-read your comment and wanted to make a few more comments. First of all, I don’t appreciate the shaming language about running to my wife in fear. I never implied that was my desire and you didn’t need to throw that in to make your point. Frankly, having read many of your comments, I am surprised to see you take a cheap shot like that. Secondly, as a man married for over 30 years to the same woman I have indeed learned the value of Christian brothers for council. That being said, I don’t see how having expectations that my helpmeet actually help me in life’s trials in some meaningful way Is the same as putting my wife on a pedestal.
has anyone heard of “no fault divorce?”
does dalrock et al. think that a bit of gamey game can defeat the corrupt system?
rather, the wise will see that exalting gamey game over the true teachings of Christ and Moses is EXACTLY what they want you to do.
keep up the good work! 🙂
Dalrock concludes with, ” However, women have their own methods of communicating which are different than men, and either way it makes no sense to abandon our masculinity because feminists are envious of it.”
Dear Dalrock, indeed this is true!
But why have men abandoned the churches, universities, courts, government, and culture?
Does this make sense?
Like Hamlet, I feel like I am the only one who is saddened by the death of our true KINGs:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-Homer-Classical-Education/dp/1893554260/
So, its about game or is it about finding one of these snowflakes then claiming your game kept them from melting and reforming as an icicle.
I don’t know anything about game, but I do know that my wife responds to my actions. If I go soft on her, she reacts in the manner predicted by many of the folks around these parts. If I stay steady as a rock, she also reacts accordingly, and there is peace. Still, I don’t credit any of that to failure or success of my marriage. My job is to edify my wife and to build her up in Christ, and this is what I try to do. I would say my initiations and her responses set a tone, but that is all. I think it contributes to our growth as Christians and determines the quality of time we spend together more than anything else.
As to failure and success, I believe that in general women tend to stay faithful to men they need for survival. This is one more reason NOT to give women complete autonomy as has been done in first world nations.
Furthermore, I think vetting a potential wife is critical, and should be done very carefully and with much prayer. Also, “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.” So advice from wise men regarding a possible bride might not hurt.
Finally, I believe God works in ways we cannot always see, but we (all of us) have to do our parts. Every good gift is from above, and my family prays and reads most every night together as a family. We also pray together nearly everyday before meals and work. We put our trust in God, and we’re trying to live it. What ever good thing we have is by God’s grace, even though we do not deserve it.
But as you say, that is how it is with a snowflake. I have worked with couples where nothing would deter the woman from destroying her family. Nothing. In almost every case the woman was unfaithful. Those types of women are bent on destruction. Whether it be for the sake of tingles or some other madness, they want what they want. It’s rebellion plain and simple.
There have also been women that were in the middle. The were obstinate, but willing to at least listen to reason now and then. It really helps when their pastor and their peers are holding them accountable in those cases. That and prayer. Prayer always helps IMO.
“Good God, How are these creatures a helpmeet if they can’t be there when you really need them, what good are they? Sure, I can learn how to manage my wife, but then how is she my helpmeet? She just becomes one more problem I have to deal with, one more rock on the wagon.” – Bradford
Exactly. This entire conversation points to one fundamental question most of those who espouse Game never seem to answer – namely “why should I?” There is myriad advice on HOW to “game” your wife/girlfriend (some of which I do think contains certain wisdom) but I’ve yet to see an explanation of why I would want to be with a woman that I have to game in the first place. If I have to be, what amounts to, her stoic Father-figure then what is she to me but another child I have to take care of? Yet I am expected to stand before God and man and commit my heart, my strength, and my life – even down to my dying breath – to a woman whom I have to “game” just to keep her interested in me since being honest would make me less of a man in her eyes?!? Instead of her being a blessing to me from God, she is then nothing more than a frustrating burden which I would better off without. It blows my mind to realize the expectations women have for men as their potential husbands but none of those women can explain why those same men would ever want them in the first place….
In Hebrew… that word for “helpmeet” was really ezer kenedo… it is only used in the OT when the person is calling on God for help during a dire time of need… no kidding. That’s what Eve was supposed to be for Man… a literal “Life Saver.”
We’ve really failed men.
@thequietrebel
As a Christian man, husband and father of three grown children there is only one reason I can see for marriage and that is to have children. Though they can be a heartbreak, they are they only things in this earthly life that can be your treasure. As all would agree in this blog, your wife will never “complete you.” Building your life around her is a fool’s game. In order to father three wonderful kids I became father to four, my wife being the “most responsible teenager in the family” until my oldest son reached 20 or so. In order to hold my family together until the kids were grown I prayed a lot and did what I had to do to keep my wife from blowing things up. Now with all three out of the house my wife knows she has no leverage. Some very mild dread game keeps things quiet. But where is my helpmeet?
EXACTLY thequietrebel & Bradford!!!
“I’ve yet to see an explanation of why I would want to be with a woman that I have to game in the first place. If I have to be, what amounts to, her stoic Father-figure then what is she to me but another child I have to take care of? Yet I am expected to stand before God and man and commit my heart, my strength, and my life – even down to my dying breath – to a woman whom I have to “game” just to keep her interested in me since being honest would make me less of a man in her eyes?!?” YES!
I missed Dalrock’s wedding, but it probably went something like this:
I, (Bride/), take (you/thee) (Groom), to be my (husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse (as long as you don’t share your emotions), for richer, in health, to love and to cherish; and I promise to be faithful to you until death parts us or your game no longer makes my gina tinzgzgzzlzlzozolzoz.
I, (Groom), take (you/thee) (Bride), to be my (wife), to have and to hold and to game from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; and I promise to be faithful to you until death parts us, or until my game fails to make your gina go tinzgzlzlzozoo. You can share all your emotions with me, but as the rock of the family, I will never share my fears nor misgivings with you. My job is to keep you happy and fed and clothed and housed, and as the rock of society, even should you leave me for another who makes your gina tinzgzlzozozlzozo, I will continue to keep you happy and fed and clothed and housed, funding your further dalliances, as is the Law of this Land.
Well, I guess some marriages do need some game these days . 🙂
Shiver
If you don’t have kids with your future ex don’t even sweat it. Have fun with it. Tell her you still love her and maybe we can work it out. If she comes back to you start acting like a little pussy (after protected ,or pull out sex of course). “I still can’t get over that you were with that guy” “I think I’m going to be sick” Good ones to get back to fucking boyfriend “what can I do to make you happy?” “I just want us to be together as a family with the woman I love” “I know I can be a good husband to you” “How do think it makes me feel knowing you are sleeping with that guy?” When she closes off the stink hole start the get back together game and see if you can hit it again. If you can pull that off I would say you had some game. Get the divorce and know there is no wife by law.
bradford says:
March 7, 2015 at 5:39 pm
I just re-read your comment and then mine. Apologies. I meant no offense. Once again I should remember to be extra careful when commenting while sleep deprived, or perhaps just refrain from commenting until after I’ve slept.
I wrote this: “She isn’t supposed to take the place of God where you run to her when you are afraid.”, because I have seen many men who put their wives on a pedestal do just this and foolishly assumed that you were doing the same thing. Again I apologize.
I just want to add that when I first married my wife I too was disappointed as you mentioned in your post at 3:38 pm. I am actually astonished at how your words literally conveyed my thoughts at that time, and for the same reasons. And this was a woman not corrupted by feminist thinking.
Like you, I learned quickly not to entrust to her the burdens that I bore. Instead I relied on my pastor, a few close male friends, and God. I learned through that experience that although my wife could not bare the burdens* that I sought to share with her, but she had other strengths (which I use to our advantage).
* Over time she has become more adapt at sharing some of the weight, but I’m careful not to over do it. She truly is the weaker vessel.
This entire conversation points to one fundamental question most of those who espouse Game never seem to answer – namely “why should I?” There is myriad advice on HOW to “game” your wife/girlfriend (some of which I do think contains certain wisdom) but I’ve yet to see an explanation of why I would want to be with a woman that I have to game in the first place.
Paul himself said it was better to not marry than to marry *unless* you burn with lust/passion, in which case you are better off marrying because otherwise you run a big risk of committing serious sin due to giving in to your unrequited love. So, that’s the “why”. If you can manage being unmarried and not burning with lust and committing lust-related sins as a result of that (e.g., porn, masturbation, hooking up, hookers ,etc.), then you may be best off not marrying, per Paul. So, that’s the “why”, and every man needs to figure out himself on which side of Paul’s calculus he sits. I personally don’t buy the current interpretation that only .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, if not less, of men are the ones who shouldn’t marry, but nevertheless it’s a calculus that needs to be undertaken with honesty and integrity in order to determine on which side you lie.
@JDG
No problems. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
GBFM, I at times find you a hard read but you have nailed the hell out of that. That is it. I would say 90 plus percent of wives out there are booty calls at best. Surrogacy and artificial wombs are the wave of the future for men serious about raising children.
Quite rebel. As a man you are ultimately alone and shouldered with responsibility for the wife and kids. Anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something. A good wife is a wonderful thing. However you have to recognise the limitations of the relationship. You must view yourself as a rock overlooking the ocean. The ocean is mercurial in her moods but relies on the rock for her boundaries. The rock does not change with the oceans moods. With that being said I understand your anger in being lied to your entire life. And I understand why atlas may not choose to take up the burden. Nor can I find much fault in those that shrug. I’m just grateful for those men who don’t shrug. “the world is what it is and you are what you are”
girlwithdragonfliytattoo
He is actually a Police Officer… he confides in me a lot but definitely not **all** due to his confidentiality issue.
Interesting. Over the last 20 or so years I’ve known 10 or more cops. All were married at some point. Two (2) still are married, in all the other cases the wife filed divorce after 5 to 8 years. The two that are still married have special women. I hope for your husband’s sake you are a special woman.
The fact that he lets me in and chooses to tell me some terrifying and fascinating things that happen all the time on his job actually make things more interesting and lets me know and understand why he is the way he, and the things he faces at work.
NAWALT.
Some women are easily frightened. Whether due to an overactive imagination, or insecurity, or trust issues, or childhood problems I’m sure not going to suss out. But some women do fret all day, every day, about something. No matter how much church they do, they fret, they worry, they construct catastrophic scenarios at the drop of a bobby pin. It’s no service to tell them anything beyond pleasantries, because anything like the words “cancer” or “robbery” or “accident” are just fuel. I can’t imagine what it would be like to be married to someone like that, but I do have the unfortunate experience of watching such from the outside.
A friend of mine currently works in a local Emergency Room. He can’t say much, but he did note once that there’s a clear division in humanity, some people want to know everything about a condition or a procedure as early as possible, others don’t want to know anything, they just want to close their eyes and have things “go away” or be “all better”. The former seem to be much less common than the latter. (This is an analogy, for certain slow readers.)
There are women who genuinely want to know things about their husbands, and they are women who say that but who freak out at almost anything that is unexpected. What the latter really want is a story, a play-acting, an image, or even a lie. Based on a totally unsceintific sampling my opinion is that the first group is very rare, and the second group is extremely common.
CH just did a post last night I believe about things like that – my husband does almost all of the emotion things on that list (I actually pulled it up when he got home and teased him about it 😀 )
I usually read CH on a regular basis, but haven’t been able to lately. Thanks for the pointer.
Men can use their emotions to draw women in…
Without reading the article at CH I cannot intelligently comment, but will observe such a “drawing in” often requires a great deal of real-time observation and parsing along the lines of “Can’t tell her that, maybe a little of this…wait, she’s starting to get agitated better dial it back…wait, now she’s tuning out maybe I need to dial it up” on a continuous basis. Somewhat like being a standup comic, maybe. Except there’s no back stage to retreat to.
but it is probably harder than I (as woman) would know.
You’re approaching unicorn status.
Novaseeker
That is a tangential answer at best. Once or twice removed from the funtion of what is being discussed. Game and how to comport in marriage is not addressed when Paul says if you burn with lust then you need to marry. Paul is not, in that admonition, expressing any instruction as to how to be married, but rather why to be married. Certainly not why to be married AND deploy game.
If you like to bring in other scripture, and there are ample, that addresses the how-to of marriage and links it to game, please do so. Words mean things. The meaning is generally limited to what words are used and how those words interrelate. In the referenced words of Paul, there isnt a wit about game, for game, against game, or for that matter related in any way as to how to order a marriage
@quietrebel
This entire conversation points to one fundamental question most of those who espouse Game never seem to answer – namely “why should I?”
Because if you take a wife, God said to. In Genesis 3:16 the woman was CURSED. “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” Two other times that word desire is used, once in Genesis 4 where God told Cain that sin desired to overcome him. The other in the Song of Songs where the word desire is used in terms of sexual desire. One is a desire to control, the other is a desire to have sex. Scholars have argued for a long time how that word should be translated.
Readers of this blog should know that it’s both. The wife will constantly fitness test her husband and in ruling over her he needs to both pass the tests and game her. The amused mastery, the push-pull and even a bit of mild dread. To rule is to dominate and part of the curse is she needs to be dominated. When that happens her desire will be sexual. So, according to God, AWALT and they constantly test because they have a need to know not only that he’s fit to rule but to get the reassurance that he will rule over her. This is why supplicating behavior is such a turnoff for women. Because of the curse. I would even go so far as to say the curse is the foundation of the AF/BB hypergamy, and that truly is a curse on women.
@Empathologism
If you like to bring in other scripture, and there are ample, that addresses the how-to of marriage and links it to game, please do so.
Last time I did that, Dalrock deleted the post, but here are a few.
In Ecclesiastes, the teacher said that he looked for a righteous man and found one in a thousand, but there was not a righteous woman to be found. AWALT
Ephesians 5:22-24 makes it very clear that the wife is to be in absolute submission to her husband. That didn’t just pop up out of no-where, it comes straight from the curse. The cute modern argument that particular passage is to be taken in the context of Ephesians 5:21 got shot down hard in Numbers 16. By God.
God allowed a man to take more than one wife and provided His regulations for it in the Law. If that isn’t the ultimate in dread game I don’t know what is.
Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Read Revelation 3:19 and then look up the word chasten. In some versions it says “rebuke and chasten” while in others it says “reprove and punish.” Rulers enforce discipline.
1st Timothy 2:16 says women will be saved by having children. Children need to be raised by both a father and a mother, but the mother now has all the power in terms of being able to nuke the marriage.
Women today are angry, depressed and miserable because they got the state to step in and keep their husband from ruling over them, even though according to the curse they need that Gaming the wife is therefore an act of love and it’s about the only thing a husband has left because we all know that a little slap and tickle can easily lead to a DV conviction.
The curse will not go away until there is a new heaven and a new earth, and while a Christian woman has the Holy Spirit and can become an overcomer, she has to work at it. Yet, she’s swimming in a sea of feminism and cultural marxism with huge leverage against her husband and a state that makes him all but powerless.
@ GBFM, “Greek wisdom?”
I don’t want me or my male relatives to get nicknamed “chickpea” while we are in “school”.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(1Co 1:22-25)
empathologism says:
March 7, 2015 at 4:49 pm
I just saw this. Yeah, my bad.
@thequietrebel
To answer your question, (paraphrased) why is it even worth getting married if you continually have to game your wife?
From my perspective, the answer is love and faithfulness.
Both wives and husbands are called to treat each other in ways that require effort. Who has the harder role probably depends on the individuals in any given marriage.
But I make the effort for my husband because I love him and want to please him. And when I don’t have those loving feelings to motivate me, I fall back on faithfulness to my vows.
Maybe all this talk of gaming your wife is scaring you off marriage a bit, and I don’t blame you there. But there is so much beauty and joy to be found in a marriage where you can be truly vulnerable with each other. I guess the challenge is in choosing your partner wisely, and continuing to depend on God throughout the marriage.
Best wishes.
Pingback at this thread: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/how-much-should-a-husband-share-with-his-wife/. Hundreds of us have discussed this issue in depth and Master Dalrock came to the same conclusion but expressed it best of all.
Several posters on /r/marriedredpill have framed the emotional sharing when and where as a dialectical contest between Shit Tests (testing your shit often in a rude or nasty way) and Comfort Tests (testing your commitment often in a pleading or whiny/scared way). If she is Comfort Testing share more emotion. If she is Shit Testing agree and amplify/be mysterious/aloof more.
@Bradford: “Good God, How are these creatures a helpmeet if they can’t be there when you really need them, what good are they? Sure, I can learn how to manage my wife, but then how is she my helpmeet? She just becomes one more problem I have to deal with”
Plus they are literally programmed to Shit Test and become the most bitchy and unpleasant precisely when you need them the most. I would not go so far as to say what good are they but the point is a good one. I for one would expect a helpmeet to be naturally eager to offer a BJ when she senses your tough day, but sadly the Lord’s definition of helpmeet and mine appears to differ.
@Bradford_GBFM et al: “Sounds like a Man Up lecture” I disagree. The underlying point is that you cannot dump negative emotions on your wife. You cannot project uncertainty and you cannot rely on her to be your therapist/helpmeet. This was never a problem in all of human history because everybody knew that you didn’t upset the women with emotional things you cannot control- not without a plan to keep her safe. You guys hear ‘man up’ but I hear men are supposed to be in charge and we are men with burdens to carry because that is the way of things.
I think the real objection is that some of you guys shared to much and lost. Gentlemen, own your shit…and remember:
She can be your lover or your mother. Pick one.
@Artisanal Toad
This entire conversation points to one fundamental question most of those who espouse Game never seem to answer – namely “why should I?”
Because if you take a wife, God said to.
Sorry, but no. God never said the woman not to obey her husband or frivorce him because he opened up to her (not because any other reason either). God never said the man to endure a stressful situation without expressing their feelings only because the little lady feels uncomfortable and wants to have a daddy instead of a husband.
My grandmother never felt threatened because my grandfather expressed his feelings. My grandmother lived in a period of extreme poverty after a war and had to work as a slave going from town to town with a donkey, selling cheap things to impoverished peasants from dawn to dusk to have a bit of money to buy (bad) food.
An American woman (one of the most pampered beings in the Universe) feels threatened because his husband is not a zombie without feelings? Tough luck. Get used to it. You won’t die because of that. I live in Central America and the cleaning lady (approaching 60 year old) walks four kms to take four buses and go to my home to clean my house. And she doesn’t complain about that.
So, according to God, AWALT and they constantly test because they have a need to know not only that he’s fit to rule but to get the reassurance that he will rule over her
Well, the interpretation of Genesis 3:16 being about woman trying to control her man has always seemed far-fetched to me . But, for the sake of argument, I can accept that. This does not mean that the Bible teaches that:
– This fight for control takes the form of fitness test.
– The solution for this fight for control is for the husband to apply Game and be her rock.
(This could be called “the Roissy biblical exegesis”).
It seems obvious to me is that the solutions for this fight for control is for women to obey their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24, as you quoted). There’s no “but”, “if” or “when”. Obey her husband with no qualification. Does she feel insecure because he opens up? Cry me a river. People have bad feelings all the time. You won’t die about that.
Look, I understand the statement: “Apply Game to your wife to avoid frivorce”. In these decadent times, this could be necessary.
But the idea is becoming “Apply Game to your wife because,, otherwise, your wife has bad feelings (the assumption is “you must do anything to avoid your wife having bad feelings”). Or “Apply Game to your wife because God said so”. This is a Stockholm syndrome: it is not that we think that things are so bad that we have to apply desperate measures. It is that we think that desperate measures are normal. We have internalized feminism and the Opprah gospel.
younggodlywoman,
Seriously, your best bet here is to (and I use a technical term) STFU.
Men (most all men) are by nature fixit-people. If want want something fixed, then tell a man all the details of what went wrong; if he’s related in some way to you I guarantee he will arise to try to address the way in which you were wronged.
If, IF you don’t want that, then please just STFU about it! Suppress the details. Instead, tell the man in your life, “Some colleague at work said something very nasty to me today, and I’m feeling just terrible about it” and then just STFU about the rest. Even the biggest Neanderthal will probably get from that the ideas that (1) you are needing some comfort, and (2) you don’t see the situation as something that someone can “fix”.
JDG,
I do think that the husband should share with his wife the fact that he might want a sammich.
You men who are complaining that husbands shouldn’t have approach interactions with their wives with thoughtfulness are deliberately missing the point. Dalrock didn’t lay out a system of rules that husbands must follow. He gave a small piece of advice about how husbands, generally, can share their inner thoughts with their wives and get a (generally) positive reaction.
People who are looking for a system (that’s how many got interested in Game and the Manosphere in the first place) cannot accept that Dalrock didn’t intend one here. To them, he must have a comprehensive system in mind because to those people everything is a system. Whatever is not currently understandable as a series of binary choices must be ultimately reducible to such in the mind of the introverted and self-referential; nothing is organic; nothing is numinous; nothing is relational; nothing is spiritual. It’s all just material and data.
I think the crux of the disagreement/confusion is this issue: Women are not Men; Men are not Women. What is “useful” in relational communication and what is not? How does this stem from their roles within a Marriage?
We live in an age of hamstrung Men and emotional-children Women. We’ve striped out the understanding of what works from the culture, so we’re all flailing around a bit as we learn. Without understanding what to place upon the other, Bradford’s point is quite apt. Women are worth nothing more than a booty call to a Man. That’s where the disconnect exists, and I don’t think we’ve quite filled in the details yet.
“Like Hamlet, I feel like I am the only one who is saddened by the death of our true KINGs”
There is only one true KING, and His ways are His own. Despair is arrogance.
“But why have men abandoned the churches, universities, courts, government, and culture?”
You could as well ask why the Israelites abandoned the Promised Land, or the Carthaginians Carthage.
We are a conquered people, and not for the first time, but nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. He will provide that which we need.
@imnobody00
It seems obvious to me is that the solutions for this fight for control is for women to obey their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24, as you quoted). There’s no “but”, “if” or “when”. Obey her husband with no qualification. Does she feel insecure because he opens up? Cry me a river. People have bad feelings all the time. You won’t die about that.
You still have women on a pedestal and think they’ll act rationally, be loyal and have empathy. Nothing could be further from the truth. God cursed all women and as far as the curse is concerned, AWALT.
The entire point of what I was saying is that even though the women were commanded to be in submission to their husbands, they are in rebellion and they (the vast majority) don’t. They now have the ability to leverage the power of the state to support them in their rebellion. The question becomes, ‘what is a husband supposed to do in an environment like this?’ I have several answers to that, some of which cannot be discussed on this blog.
When one recognizes the reality of hypergamy and solipsism; and that women’s emotional patterns change with their ovulation cycle, it becomes clear that gaming them and guiding their emotional patterns is an excellent way to meet her needs and keep her out of trouble. In order to effectively give the wife what she needs, the husband needs to understand the true nature of women. That means swallowing the very bitter red pill.
As previously stated, the word “desire” used in Genesis 3:16 is only used two other times in Scripture and has two separate meanings. Observation of women should show everyone that the meaning of “desire” in 3:16 cannot be an either-or proposition, that it should mean both. Simple observation demonstrates that all wives fitness test their husbands. For the man who has internalized frame control and understands what he’s dealing with, its water off a duck’s back. For a man who doesn’t understand what is happening, who pedestalized his wife and supplicates to her, his failure to pass these tests spells the kiss of death to her attraction to him. With no attraction, a vast array of options available to her and a culture that says divorce is perfectly OK, what is the expected outcome?
Oh- and you can add a church that will support her in her sinful rebelliousness when she violates 1 Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 by (legally) divorcing her husband. Matthew 5:31-32 clearly demonstrates that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce, and where in all of Scripture is the wife given the authority to divorce her husband? 1st Corinthians 7, if he is the unbeliever who will not consent to live with her. Even then it doesn’t say ‘divorce’ but rather it says she’s free. Then, just for good effect, Paul reiterates in 1st Corinthians 7:39 that the wife is bound to her husband for as long as he lives.
We start with God’s Word, which says that ALL women are subject to the curse. THEN we look seriously for what the curse does and we observe the real actions of women. We observe the hypergamy, solipsism and AF/BB behavior. That, sir, (at least in my opinion) is evidence of the curse. “Your desire will be for [the man] and he shall rule over you” could be translated to “Your desire will be for Alpha and he will dominate you.” There is a large contingent of evo-psych people who claim this is an evolved behavior. Not me, I think hypergamy is part of the curse. Women did not evolve this way, they were cursed by God.
Show me any place in Scripture that contradicts that. Then try to tell me that the observable data of how women act contradicts that.
Novaseeker,
Sure, but then also please note that Paul wrote those words when frivorce was so foreign a concept it didn’t even enter into mens’ worst nightmares.
“To answer your question, (paraphrased) why is it even worth getting married if you continually have to game your wife? From my perspective, the answer is love and faithfulness. Both wives and husbands are called to treat each other in ways that require effort.” – seriously serving.
The implication of what you are saying is anything but love and is instead more akin to enabling a spoiled teenager in their selfish behavior. Therein lies my disappointment. The very concept of Game is based on the reality that women today are nothing more than selfish, overgrown 15 year olds whose fickle emotions and/or “tingles” have to be managed so she doesn’t fall out of love with you. My point is why would a sane man ever marry if his only reward is the stress, loneliness, and misery of being stuck with a woman with whom he can’t relax and let down his guard. This Godless world is hard enough to deal with. Rather than being able to relax and be himself, he’d have to continually keep himself in check while striking a careful balance of Father/Lover to keep her entertained – not to mention dealing with fitness tests born out of her selfish insecurities. At that point, however, the relationship is no longer focused on honoring God but is governed entirely by HER emotions. It seems this is what men are being encouraged to accept rather than hold women accountable and expecting them to grow up.
I agree with iamnobodyoo when he stated that the answer to having to game your wife is for her to submit and obey her husband but, unfortunately, that is something few women (including Christian women) have ANY intention of EVER doing. The idea that a man being honest about what he thinks or feels would somehow make him less of a man in the eyes of his wife because it might affect her “tingles” is a pathetic joke and makes her utterly useless as a Godly wife….
Artisanal Toad: “You still have women on a pedestal and think they’ll act rationally, be loyal and have empathy. Nothing could be further from the truth. God cursed all women and as far as the curse is concerned, AWALT”
I don’t think he has them on a pedestal. What imnobodyoo may be saying (and he can correct me if I’m wrong) Is that women – especially Christian women – should “woman-up” and do as God commanded them instead of expecting men to cater to her selfish emotions. Doing so would solve much of the apparent need for Game. As far as the curse goes, their curse was one where their “desire would be for their husband” which means they would seek to control him rather than submit. Instead of trying to learn how to manipulate their sinful nature (which is what Game appears to be), women should be called out on their sin and failure as women. Granted, this is something we can likely all agree isn’t going to happen in today’s world or today’s Church.
Artisanal Toad: “When one recognizes the reality of hypergamy and solipsism; and that women’s emotional patterns change with their ovulation cycle, it becomes clear that gaming them and guiding their emotional patterns is an excellent way to meet her needs and keep her out of trouble. In order to effectively give the wife what she needs, the husband needs to understand the true nature of women. That means swallowing the very bitter red pill.”
Therein lies my problem. What benefit is it to a man to put up with this from ANY woman? If she needs this kind of “managing” then she is nothing more than a child and is unfit for the honor and blessing marriage was intended to be per God’s design. Also, if this is the best a man can expect, then Paul was right when he stated that it is better for a man not to marry at all. At this point I’m persuaded to believe that NO woman is worth any of this.
“As far as the curse goes, their curse was one where their “desire would be for their husband” which means they would seek to control him rather than submit.”
No, that is not what desire means, especially in this case.
“Therein lies my problem.”
My guess is your problem is in your name.
@thequietrebel
What can I say? What you describe is not the case in my marriage.
My husband is free to relax and be open with me, and I don’t think any less of him for it. Sometimes this does result in temporary loss of feelings of respect, but that’s where the faithfulness comes in. I respect because he is my husband.
I don’t think Dalrock is advocating enabling women’s selfishness, I think he is trying to encourage men to be the best husbands they can be. Similar to how a female blogger might encourage Christian women to not fart in front of their husbands, as this spoils their image of their wife’s feminine beauty. Sure, sometimes you can’t help farting in front of your husband, but as a general rule, you make this effort because you care about him.
@thequietrebel
he’d have to continually keep himself in check while striking a careful balance of Father/Lover to keep her entertained – not to mention dealing with fitness tests born out of her selfish insecurities.
What you call selfish insecurities are the result of the curse. It comes as part of the package. This didn’t just happen recently, women have always been like this. It’s only been in the past hundred years that women have been able to leverage political power and rob their husbands of the ability to truly rule over them. Now they’re miserable, angry and depressed.
The idea that a man being honest about what he thinks or feels would somehow make him less of a man in the eyes of his wife because it might affect her “tingles” is a pathetic joke and makes her utterly useless as a Godly wife….
Perhaps you need to meditate on 1st Peter 3:7. Your own comments should cast new light on what it means when wives are identified as the “weaker vessel.” Perhaps that verse doesn’t refer to women being physically weaker than men, but emotionally and rationally weaker. The study of game says this is true and they should be treated accordingly. They can be a tremendous source of joy when they’re getting what they need and they can be bitter, angry hags when they don’t. Which is more loving: to give them what they need, or to treat them as if they were men because you want them to have the loyalty and empathy that men do?
Again, they are the weaker vessels and are to be treated accordingly or your prayers will be hindered. If you study the curse, observe the data and meditate on the women being identified as being the weaker vessels, who knows what might happen. You have to ask yourself why she is the weaker vessel. 1st Timothy 2:15-16. Genesis 3:16. What are the observable effects of the curse? Considering the language of the curse, an obvious answer is hypergamy AF/BB. How did men deal with it in the past? Women were under the authority of men who loved them and protected them from their own urges. Men who had the ability to enforce their discipline on the women. Today, the women are free to run wild and the only real “tool” left in the (legal) toolbox for husbands is to game them. But, it’s always been that way, the only difference is when women knew they’d face real penalties for stepping out of line it made their husbands much more dominant. Dominance is attractive.
I could find you plenty of movies from the 1930’s – 1950’s that showed a husband spanking his wife. This demonstrates that corporal punishment of wives was an accepted part of the social construct. McLintock comes to mind, with John Wayne and Maureen O’hara. And who can forget the famous scenes of Desi Arnez spanking Lucille Ball? Spanking a disobedient wife was not uncommon a couple of generations ago and the women knew it. Personally I think they liked knowing there were boundaries and penalties for crossing those boundaries. Now it’s known as domestic violence and the husband is automatically arrested and punished.
The very concept of Game is based on the reality that women today are nothing more than selfish, overgrown 15 year olds whose fickle emotions and/or “tingles” have to be managed so she doesn’t fall out of love with you.
You make the same mistake again. Women have always been like that because they were cursed. They can grow and mature over time if managed properly and submit themselves to Christ, but the difference between the women of yesteryear and today is that today they can call on the power of the state with the fairly sure knowledge they’ll win and the husband will pay a stiff price. It’s a real temptation, along the lines of a social model of giving children machine guns. As we all know, this will not end well.
My point is why would a sane man ever marry if his only reward is the stress, loneliness, and misery of being stuck with a woman with whom he can’t relax and let down his guard.
Hold fast to your frame and internalize the various aspects of game and you won’t be rewarded with stress, loneliness and misery unless you happened to marry one of the cluster-B types. Once you have internalized this stuff it will simply come naturally and it won’t be work. You will be able to relax, but the reality is that no ruler can ever let his guard down unless he’s with his trusted men. Even when she’s blissfully happy she will unconsciously slip in the fitness tests. That’s the effect of the curse. Expect it, deal with it.
@thequietrebel: “she … is unfit for the honor and blessing marriage was intended to be per God’s design.”
I invite you to consider the wife that Adam’s father gave to him: God knew what Eve was going to do to Adam, yet he created her anyway. God knew that Eve would not bring honor and blessing to the man she was made for, yet he created her anyway. God could have made Eve so that she would have behaved differently, so that she would have actually brought honor and blessing to the man she was made for. He didn’t. Plus – reference has been made above to scriptures that assert that a good woman cannot be found. That is the Bible stating this as truth. How does any man construct a marriage with an ungood woman that is an honor and a blessing? Your statement that I quoted above is the Churchian interpretation. The question I just asked is the reality that God created: How does any man construct a marriage with an ungood woman that is an honor and a blessing? There is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, and it is a different lesson than what we learned in Sunday School.
@AT: I’m really enjoying your posts in this thread. You are stating a truth that goes against what we were taught in Sunday School, and many don’t want to accept it.
@desiderian: “No, that is not what desire means, especially in this case.”
I invite you to educate yourself. If I have misunderstood your meaning in the above quote, then please forgive the following. The word “desire” used at this spot in the Bible is an English word – an English word used in place of the original Hebrew word. The Hebrew word (teshuqah; Strong’s Hebrew 8669) used in this spot in the Bible is used in only two other spots in the Bible. In one, the word is used in a description of sin crouching at the door, wanting to overpower the person who comes out. In the other, the word is used where a person is describing her beloved’s want for her. Those are the only two uses of this Hebrew word upon which the translators could call for an understanding of what meaning this Hebrew word should be given when God says Eve will teshuqah Adam. If you know absolutely the intended meaning of this Hebrew word in this spot, you are admitting to a certainty that the translators do not assert.
@ Unknown: Someone above, or in one of the links provided above, made the assertion that women rebel when they feel safe (simplified version). Like Eve did in the safety of the Garden, where everything she needed was provided for her. A lightbulb went on when I read this. God curbed Eve’s tendency to rebel by thrusting her out of the Garden and into a place where the ground was cursed so that it would not easily give up its harvest. Took away her safety net so she would be more dependent upon – therefore beholden to – Adam. Dread game at its best. The original social crash and burn, back to nature, so that woman would need her man for survival. That’s a parallel to many of the comments re. social crash and burn on these blogs that I hadn’t considered before.
An excellent article Dalrock. It has broad implications for the church, viz:
A man grows up in an intact family. His female role model is his mother. She has a biological (strong) bond to him. He loves her and due to the bond, inherently trusts her. In his home, his sanctuary, he can be himself. It is natural, over the course of time, he confides in his mother.
The relationship he has to his father is a social (weaker /artificial) bond. It is this bond that shows him he must get educated, learn a trade, socialise, understand work and his place in the world. He sees his father about things outside the home, while he looks to his mother for emotional support.
When he leaves and marries, he forms a social bond with his wife. It is NOT the bond that he shares with his mother, yet due to the intensity of sexual attraction, he feels it is. he makes the mistake of confiding in her, as he would his mother, and this wears down his wife’s attractiveness to him. By the time his children are born and his wife forms biological relationships with them, he is shell-shocked. Statistics tell us that affairs occur at or around the birth of a new child in a relationship. This is entirely understandable.
What is needed is for the father’s social circle to enforce Genesis 2:24:
” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”
Only other men understand manhood, and part of manhood is this emotional conditioning. A newly married man cannot expect his wife to be as empathetic as his mother. It is impossible. He must rely on himself, and perhaps his larger male social circle.
I learned this the hard way. I had a rocky marriage but it survived. While I remember my best friend from church, considerably older, talking about the nature of women, I thought it was simply old fashioned sexism. I ran into a great deal of trouble assuming my wife was playing by the same set of rules I lived by. Yes, I was Blue Pill.
I was exceptionally glad when one of my best friends told my son when he was 14 that “As you grow up, you have to put distance between yourself and your mother. The apron strings have to go.”
My son is in his late teens, living in another country, and strongly opposed to the pedestalisation of women. I glad he is.
Civilized society is supposed to handle what game is used to do. Game is a gift a man gives a good woman. But this quote is what is driving the sexbots, the “grass eating” men, surrogacy, artificial wombs and MGTOW in general. Thoughtful men have come to that conclusion.
As written before “she” is a helpmeet. She is not needed. The same technology that made it comfortable for women to rebel will make it possible for men to bear children with out her. That is the only reason to even bother with women right now anyway and women know it.
‘Go to God with your fears and concerns and for council. Ask Him and he will provide. And seek advice from wise men who are righteous. There is wisdom in many councilors. Sorry is the man who places his wife on a pedestal.’
Important advice here. When you take God out of a society and your relationship…women may well turn into your god. Which is a job they aren’t capable of (as well as men).
‘For 90+% of women in western countries absolutely. IMO most women in the US, Canada, and the UK are NOT marriage material and could be ruled out by N count alone.’
Not only is their innocence ruined…it also takes a tole on their ability to empathize.
I tell you there is something about a woman that is still innocent and pure. She is much more powerful than those who decide to be sexually adventurous.
@RichardP
@AT: I’m really enjoying your posts in this thread. You are stating a truth that goes against what we were taught in Sunday School, and many don’t want to accept it.
I speak the truth as I see it. Period. I recall a rather contentious discussion on SSM’s blog over a year ago in which you made the comment that everyone was simply arguing their catechism. Nothing has changed. Very few people make the commitment to study the Bible with prayer, and reach their own conclusions with the help of the Holy Spirit. Those who do are often labeled as heretics.. I have been labeled as a heretic many times and some have suggested that I needed to be killed. (Special orders of the Knights of Malta, allowing them to kill heretics, the fifth set of vows). Bring it on dudes. You have no idea what’s waiting for you.
@Greyghost
May I suggest calcium carbonate? Bitterness is acidic. You need a buffer. Seriously. Damn this insomnia.
And you wonder how much of that behavior is influenced by women’s finding that government is now the rock-solid provider that will always be there for them.
Ironically, at the time of strength in government largesse and careers, 1.5 million women have dropped out of the labor force since last February, despite the “growing economy.” I was up all night working on server things that you can only do on a Saturday, and had a chance to check a number of websites for information/latest techniques on fuzzy matching of ngrams, syntatic or otherwise (deep/machine learning things.)
I kept coming on to similar requests of experienced programmers from various young hopefuls, for help in creating scripts to find similar phrases in small (3-5 page) text documents. Essentially, home-brew automatic plagiarism detection. The devs making the requests were somewhat inexperienced, usually trying to set up something simple that could process a lot of papers in a hurry.
In other words, for the better part of a year, and it’s accelerating, colleges and universities are planning to start taking more and more of their classes online. This is new. There was a big boom in plagiarism detection about five years ago (even some of the biology guys had algorithms), then it stopped. Now it’s suddenly happening everywhere, and not just academic conferences… regular faculty putting their own stuff online if the administration won’t.
Who do you think gets displaced by this, given half of women’s jobs, and three quarters of their wages, are from education/healthcare/government?
Only other men understand manhood, and part of manhood is this emotional conditioning. A newly married man cannot expect his wife to be as empathetic as his mother. It is impossible. He must rely on himself, and perhaps his larger male social circle.
Pretty much this. Being your helpmeet does not mean being your mother. Being a woman’s “rock” is also not “Game”, by the way, although unfortunately it does appear to be a behavior that many men who have grown up in our culture of compromised masculinity seem to need to learn to do, which is really what lies behind the question here. If you scroll back 70 years, most men had no issue being a rock in this culture — it was just standard issue masculinity. Yes, I realize that in *other* cultures (Latin American, Southern European, Middle Eastern), male emotional expressiveness does not compromise masculinity, but in Anglo culture it does, and this is still mostly an Anglo culture, with Anglo ideas about masculinity, even if the current debasement of masculinity is the norm. That is, it is the Anglo version of masculinity which is debased here, and therefore when your masculinity is restored, that’s where it’s going — moving it to a Latin type of masculinity with full on emotional expression may work in certain subcultures of the US in particular better than in others, but it isn’t the baseline.
This sounds like “man up”, because in part it is. If you’re not comfortable with what is typically masculine expression in this culture of the non-debased variety, the problem likely stems with being raised with the debased version of masculinity, which has been internalized in you. Purging that and replacing it with the actual non-debased masculinity is what is called for in cases like that, and that can look and feel like a call to “man up” — which is fine, I think, really, if it’s what’s actually needed.
‘Again, they are the weaker vessels and are to be treated accordingly or your prayers will be hindered.’
Yes it seems that men along with women have forgot about this fact in light of the new ‘strong, empowered’ woman.
‘A newly married man cannot expect his wife to be as empathetic as his mother. It is impossible. He must rely on himself, and perhaps his larger male social circle.’
When it comes to reliance a man should stick to three people.
‘God, close male friends or family, himself’
A wife relies on you.
I looked up “ezer kenedo”, which was brought up by dragonfly and first hit brought this
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/ezerkenegdo.htm
and the last paragraph is going to irk some….
“The Torah Study for Reform Jews says, “From the time of creation, relationships between spouses have at times been adversarial. In Genesis 2:18, God calls woman an ezer kenegdo, a “helper against him.” The great commentator Rashi takes the term literally to make a wonderful point: “If he [Adam] is worthy, [she will be] a help [ezer]. If he is not worthy [she will be] against him [kenegdo] for strife.” This Jewish study also described man and woman facing each other with arms raised holding an arch between them, giving a beautiful picture of equal responsibility”
more here
http://www.the-generous-wife.com/2012/09/23/why-i-dont-use-the-words-help-meet/
It seems most sites are take “ezer kenedo” as a case for equality and bolstering the case for Christian feminism.
@novaseeker
You stated what you believe a helpmeet isn’t (your mother, no disagreement here). What DOES being a helpmeet mean in your opinion? Just an honest question.
‘It seems most sites are take “ezer kenedo” as a case for equality and bolstering the case for Christian feminism.’
Perhaps. I think a good way of looking at it is…when a man embraces masculinity he becomes strong. When a woman embraces femininity, she becomes strong. Put them together in marriage and they strengthen each other and are equals based on the fact they take the proper role.
If it is a case that woman should act like a pseudo men well that just weakens her and her husband.
You stated what you believe a helpmeet isn’t (your mother, no disagreement here). What DOES being a helpmeet mean in your opinion? Just an honest question.
A wife provides help to you in your life mission. She helps in various, tangible ways, such as raising children, tending to domestic life, helping keep things running, bringing things to your attention and so on. All of these are tangible and *do* make doing your life mission easier than if you were doing it alone. They are very much in the “helpmeet” and “caring” modalities for a woman. But being your emotional support in a specific sense of listening to you emote about your emotional situation isn’t really one of the things you should, in my view, be looking for in a wife. A wife provides emotional support in *other* ways — i.e., by supporting you in your mission (gives you confidence, which boosts your emotional state), by expressing physical affection and sex (also boosts emotional state) and even to some degree by her own emoting with you, which helps to create a bond of intimacy from the *women’s* perspective which reflects on you by being a positive for your emotional state by feeling that sense of intimacy from her. All of that falls under the rubric of “emotional support” as a helpmeet, but really doesn’t include a wife dealing with your own emotional state in a raw and direct way — at least not very often.
‘A wife provides emotional support in *other* ways — i.e., by supporting you in your mission (gives you confidence, which boosts your emotional state), by expressing physical affection and sex (also boosts emotional state) and even to some degree by her own emoting with you, which helps to create a bond of intimacy from the *women’s* perspective which reflects on you by being a positive for your emotional state by feeling that sense of intimacy from her.’
Yes…if a wife focused on being supportive, intimate, and being open…a husband wouldn’t have to resort to dumping all his problems on her in order to get an emotional connection.
ArtToad
I know the scriptures. While your response may have been for the benefit of others, you’ve still not gotten any closer to defending the existence of the “G” (game) chromosome. Regardless, I’m not further circling that drain even if i am the one who flushed in the first place.
Cane
You may be right about missing the point. I was an early equivocator but think i explained when i responded to the host that I was not quibbling over his advice, I was, inadvertently, quibbling over turning his general advice into more game narrative. I’ll quibble with you here in that I dont see the objection to approaching “interactions with their wives with thoughtfulness.
Its there in certain extreme angry woman haters when they derisively rain manure on any and every thing that might be asked of a man in order that he have a wife and treat her well. But I didn’t pick any of that up here from married men. So we are sashaying back and forth between a couple of objections that are not really a part of the dialog so far.
@novaseeker
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your description of the wifely emotional support in *other* ways gives me something to think about.
Regards
Dear Dalrock,
You write, “It is true that a husband shouldn’t just dump his feelings on his wife, but the concern here can also be overstated. The first thing I would suggest is changing the way you view the situation from one of frustration/disappointment towards women to one of empathy towards them. Imagine working for a small firm and having the boss/owner tell you all of his fears for the business. If you are relying on that job to support your family this could very quickly become unsettling. The same is true if your surgeon, dentist, or airline pilot doesn’t communicate confidence and a command of the situation.”
Are you stating that marriage is fundamentally a business–an economic arrangement–as opposed to a spiritual covenant?
Where does Moses or Jesus state that marriage is more akin to dentistry or “working for a small firm.”
If, as you stipulate, marriage is primarily a business arrangement akin to booking an airline ticket, sans the Mosaic/Christian spiritual dimension, why not just hire prostitutes and house cleaners? Such hired help will not complain if you share your feelings, as much as the modern Dalrockian wife/hired help!
The initial question of this post is how much of his “inner self” should a man share with his wife and the answer amounts to “not much”. She, being the weaker vessel, might have her image of his strength and stability compromised which would cause her to lose attraction for him. Therefore it is better for a man to learn how to Game his wife and “keep his frame” in order to appease her insecurities and hold her attraction while seeking the support he needs from elsewhere. This then is chalked up to the curse of Eve.
And people wonder why more men don’t get married……
I don’t believe that women’s hypergamy and solipsism is a direct result of the curse – sin, yes – but the curse? No. The curse involves 2 very distinct things: pain in child-birth and “desire” (more reasonably translated, “control” as a commenter re-iterated above) for her husband. With that said, my protestations are two-fold. Game, by it’s very nature, exposes women as weak, self-centered, immature children who must be “managed” and are therefore unfit for the responsibilities and sacrifices required of Biblical marriage. This being the case then, why should a man who values peace and his own dignity even consider marriage? Second, Game comes across as a means of excusing women’s sinful nature instead of calling them out on it and expecting them to grow up and act like adults. This is especially repulsive if said woman is a born-again, confessing Christian who claims to have surrendered her sinful nature to the Cross. Game merely allows women an excuse not to put on their big-girl panties and “woman-up” (a reality society and the Church sadly encourages). The converse of this would be a woman being told she needs to learn how to Game her husband so he won’t do what comes naturally to men and sleep around. In reality, the man would likely be called out as a Christian and told to deny his sinful nature and exercise self-control – in other words, “grown up”. Women, on the other hand, are given a free pass while men are told to learn Game to help manage their wives selfish, childish, and sinful behavior.
I don’t begrudge women’s natural attraction to masculinity any more than men’s natural attraction to femininity. But what’s being said comes across as something else entirely and it is something that paints women in a very bad light and reveals them as undeserving of a man’s time or energy – much less lifelong Biblical marriage. If I’m being told I need to learn Game to successfully hold a woman’s interest even after marriage then my response is, if I have to Game her then why would I want her in the first place?
Does this mean that if your wife doesn’t perform her duties you can fire her and get a new employee?
‘Game, by it’s very nature, exposes women as weak, self-centered, immature children who must be “managed” and are therefore unfit for the responsibilities and sacrifices required of Biblical marriage.’
Actually what you speak of is universal human nature. The person focused on God slowly becomes the opposite of those things.
“It is true that a husband shouldn’t just dump his feelings on his wife, but the concern here can also be overstated.”
Just dawned on me when I read that again–why is it “feelings” for men and ‘feeeeeeeelings” for women. Male feelings are to be acknowledged, but woman’s are not….
Maybe why women don’t want to hear it is they are just ‘feeeeeeeeeelings” that can change like the wind, but then again I guess its only female feeeeeeelings that are fickle.
That’s bull. What gives you, or a wife, the right to determine what ‘man enough’ is? If you don’t raise your men, don’t expect them to be men. The problem lies with you and men like you who expect men to simply ‘get it’ or else they’re not man enough and deserve to be divorced.
If you want masculine men then the culture must mold masculine men. This all points to a fault with how men are being raised and what they’re being taught by their mothers, since most fathers are non-existent. This entire article from Dalrock is nothing short of the ‘man up’ and game your wife, lest her feelings and attraction triggers demand she divorce you. There is nothing different from this aspect than one from a feminist divorcing her husband because he doesn’t measure up to her ideal.
@lgribins said, somewhat atypically for her, imo:
‘Just dawned on me when I read that again–why is it “feelings” for men and ‘feeeeeeeelings” for women. Male feelings are to be acknowledged, but woman’s are not….
Maybe why women don’t want to hear it is they are just ‘feeeeeeeeeelings” that can change like the wind, but then again I guess its only female feeeeeeelings that are fickle.’
No. You misunderstand in my estimation.
The reason for the difference is that women are vastly more likely to let their feelings justify/validate their actions and behavior. Feelings rule.
Men are much better, in practice, at letting their feelings be the cherry on top of the sundae, rather than the ice cream.
Men, in general, neither marry nor divorce on a feeling. Women do both, providing ample evidence that feelings can never be trusted to that extreme degree.
We see this especially when an ex-wife regrets her decision to frivorce a good man. Which feeling should she trust? Answer: none of them.
It only appears to be about fickleness, but it’s more about the underlying truth: which feeling can you trust? The feeling that it’s right to marry him? The feeling that it’s right to divorce him? The feeling that it was wrong to divorce him?
Men may experience similar swings in their feelings, but since they don’t let the feelings take over, they appear less “fickle”.
Bill Bennett: Man up and marry the sluts.
Dalrock: Man up, game, and then marry the sluts. And then game them some more. Remember that you are running a small firm, and your employee can blow it up and take half the assets at any second and destroy said firm, if you don’t man up and game them and kneel before their gina tingzlzlzolzozozoz.
Dear Dalrock, where in the real world can employees of a firm blow it up and seize half the assets if the CEO shares bad news regarding financial prospects? Indeed, said employees can leave, but not with “half the firm” and guaranteed monthly payments for life. If you are going to compare modern marriage to “a firm” why not do it honestly?
Dalrock: Remember, that in marriage, you are captain of an airplane. At any second the passenger could blow up the plane. Thus, in addition to flying it, you must never share your deeper thoughts nor feelings with said passenger regarding bumpy weather ahead, as doing so may cause them to blow up the plane, which will be your fault. Instead, just let them keep walking about the aisles and hit their head when you encounter the turbulence.
Dear Dalrock, you compare marriage to “captaining an airplane.”
What captain would ever let a passenger aboard their aircraft knowing there was a 50% chance the passenger would blow it up, which would only augment if said captain did not learn “game” so as to keep said passenger’s gina tinzgzlzlzzing throughout the flight?
Is this really your view of “Christian” marriage?
Marriage is different due to the spiritual component. In other words…if God is involved in the marriage, you shouldn’t have to rely on game. Game is just bits of truth about human nature during this particular period of history…God is universal truth.
Thanks Empath. Good to see we are on the same page after all.
@Cane Caldo
Indeed. What baffles me is I can’t imagine a man wishing he had an outlet to emote like a woman. We don’t do this with other men, and I doubt for most men, for the vast majority of men, there is a sense that this is a problem. It isn’t natural for us, which is why feminists have had to spend so much time and effort claiming that we are defective, unmanly, if we don’t emote like women. Being told that this isn’t required, that emoting like a woman isn’t the definition of manliness, should be a great relief.
Thank you. Well put.
I also gather from some of the comments that there is a charge that I don’t understand the nature of what has been done to marriage, specifically by the culture, the laws, and the church. Next I’ll be charged with being unaware that there are issues with the message of the movie Fireproof. I think much of the objection is the question was how much to share with a wife, and how to love a wife, and I didn’t respond with “Don’t get married”. Ayatollah/Brooks didn’t ask whether he should get married. If he had, I still wouldn’t have told him not to marry; I have made it no secret from the very beginning of the blog that I am staunchly pro marriage. Had he asked if he should marry I would pointed to previous posts where I have done my best to outline both the risks and rewards of marriage.
But I think in some comments at least the concern goes a step further, to a charge that “Dalrock is saying I have to get married and Game my wife!” You don’t have to marry. If you do marry you don’t have to use Game in your marriage*, or even agree that such a thing as Game exists. Similarly when I noted in the past that some may choose a strategy other than marriage, a strategy I was careful to point out that I don’t advocate, I was likewise accused of telling men who fear marriage that they can’t marry. Clearly the argument isn’t with me here, but an unwillingness to choose between the available options. Marry, don’t marry, I have no investment in another man’s choice. Marriage has always come with great risk, but now our legal, social, and religious institutions are dedicated towards undermining marriage instead of supporting it. On the other hand, for a moral minded man not marrying means giving up a great deal.
The original question posed a subtle dichotomy. Modern Christian culture teaches that to love our wives we must be emotive, chatty, and vulnerable. The manosphere (or at least the more bitter elements of the sphere) teaches that in order to increase the chances of a successful marriage we must not love or be close to our wives, and instead think of them as children. My answer was to argue that there really is no dichotomy here, and proposed how a man might love his wife while increasing the chances of a happy and emotionally close marriage.
*A loving husband should want his wife to feel attraction and romantic love toward him, but if your wife loses attraction for you (falls out of love) and divorces you as a result, it isn’t your fault she has chosen treachery over honoring her vows.
@KP,
I am assuming that your first sentence: “Seriously, your best bet here is to (and I use a technical term) STFU” was intended as advice for a woman in a relationship. If however, you were referring to me ShuttingTFU in this thread, then please disregard this comment.
I appreciate the insight into the male mind when you say that most men are fix it people. I also think that this furthers my point in disagreeing with @Francine when she says that a woman who is using the phrase “I don’t want you to fix it, I just want to vent” is wanting to vent because she must have thought of all solutions already and therefore is simply wanting her husband to lend an ear. On the contrary, women aren’t naturally inclined to fix problems, we are inclined to become anxious, or frustrated by problems. I think that the phrase “I don’t want you to fix it, I just want to vent” would be much more suitable to a man if the reasoning stands that said man had already thought of all possible solutions and is now just expressing frustration.
Personally, I have to repent to my husband quite often for this manipulative tendency that I often indulge, which is why I thought it wise to offer my perspective. When I am feeling extreme emotions that I choose not to control, I will firstly try to get a reaction from my husband by explaining the dire situation that I have created or encountered, this is because I am expecting* him to feel the exact same horror that I am feeling and it turn, legitimize my sinful behavior. Of course, my husband does not tolerate such pettiness and so if I continue to indulge my emotions, secondly, I will move on to anger and use expressions like: “you just don’t understand” and then I will try to explain it in a different way, not because I truly believe my husband does not understand my situation but because I failed at receiving the desired empathy that I was seeking.
I appreciate your advice to “Suppress the details. ” This advice will serve me well in future emotional situations when I humbly do seek the Lord’s strength to not indulge in such a destructive sin of attempted manipulation of my husband for a potential pay out of empathy. It is a constant struggle for me to keep on the emotional straight and narrow and yet, I do understand the importance of keeping at it. Thankfully, my husband is quick to forgive upon repentance.
*expectations ruin relationships!
Dalrock writes,
“Marriage has always come with great risk, but now our legal, social, and religious institutions are dedicated towards undermining marriage instead of supporting it.”
Actually, the ancients devised the civilizing institution of marriage to mitigate risk, and to allow the risk-taker to own the rewards.
Dalrock writes, “but now our legal, social, and religious institutions are dedicated towards undermining marriage instead of supporting it.”
Why is this? How can we change this? A bit of “headship game” perhaps, and all will be solved?
Above Desiderian states that the reason that our “egal, social, and religious institutions are dedicated towards undermining marriage instead of supporting it” is necause Jesus Christ willed it so.
“desiderian says:
March 7, 2015 at 11:39 pm
There is only one true KING, and His ways are His own. Despair is arrogance.
“But why have men abandoned the churches, universities, courts, government, and culture?”
You could as well ask why the Israelites abandoned the Promised Land, or the Carthaginians Carthage.
We are a conquered people, and not for the first time, but nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. He will provide that which we need.”
So basically “we are a conquered people.” Christ Jesus wants it this way because he “loves us.” “Despair is arrogance.”
So man up, learn some game, marry the sluts, and game them some more. Do not despair about the fallen culture nor being conquered, as such despair is “unmanly.” Man up, accept that you have been conquered, and accept that modern marriage is a trip to the dentist, or piloting an airplane which welcomes those who wish to blow it up aboard.
@GBFM
You have misunderstood me. I was saying only dentists should marry.
Dalrock @ 12:38 pm:
“…if your wife loses attraction for you (falls out of love) and divorces you as a result, it isn’t your fault she has chosen treachery over honoring her vows.”
This is what all this really comes down to. It isn’t that men should tiptoe around their wives’ sensibilities, it’s that our society pushes her to distrust & betray her husband and husbands need to make the practical point of not giving her additional motivations.
There was a time the laws pushed good behavior, not bad behavior. That’s a huge part of how those Depression-era marriages held together. Once a wife sees her husband bounce back from hardships and adversity a time or two, she learns he really is quality. In today’s EPL world, she’s likely to jump ship and never learn his true worth.
Quietrebel, I asked the same question you did–why should a man sign up for this insanity?–and my answer was, he shouldn’t. The Manosphere showed me how I was an AFC waiting to happen. Lifetime celibacy is cruel but not as much as the alternative.
No Christian escapes life without suffering for doing good.
@Artisanal Toad
The entire point of what I was saying is that even though the women were commanded to be in submission to their husbands, they are in rebellion and they (the vast majority) don’t. They now have the ability to leverage the power of the state to support them in their rebellion
I think we have to distinguish between:
1) How things are meant to be (and they are in a normal situation) and how things are commanded in the Bible.
2) How things are in Western society right now.
As for 2), we agree. We have to do anything the little lady wants lest she divorces us. This means being her daddy, applying Game and keeping her haaaaappy. This way the woman can only live a childish fantasy and don’t grow up beyond the mental state of a 15 y.o.
(Yes, I know most of you say that a woman cannot grow beyond a 15 y.o. But I have evidence of women in other countries and in other generations of grown-up women. This is not a biological curse but the state of our culture. If boys were absolved of any responsibility, they would also refuse to grow-up)
As for 1), I disagree. You make a mixture of Bible and popular evo-psych so you can claim that this is an eternal state of things, instead of a byproduct of today’s Western culture .
Show me any place in Scripture that contradicts that.
I don’t have to. Show me any place in Scripture that contradicts the existence of an extraterrestrial civilization in Mars. This does not means that the Bible supports an extraterrestrial civilization in Mars.
The one who makes a claim has the burden of proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Then try to tell me that the observable data of how women act contradicts that.
I don’t have problem in accepting hypergamy in women. But your Biblical interpretation twisting a Genesis verse to fit it in a preconceived evo-psych idea of yours is a very bad Biblical exegesis. Sorry, but there is no evidence that the writer of Genesis was referring to fitness tests when writing this verse. Maybe you can read that
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Exegesis-A-Beginners-Handbook/dp/0664227759
God cursed all women and as far as the curse is concerned, AWALT. Not me, I think hypergamy is part of the curse.
Yes, men’s polygamy is also part of the innate behavior (AMALT) but this does not mean that women are forced to supply young sex partners to their husbands to avoid divorce.
You still have women on a pedestal
Nothing could be further from the truth. But you are giving women a pussy pass and I am not willing.
and think they’ll act rationally, be loyal and have empathy.
I don’t think women can be loyal and have empathy. But I’m positive that they can act rationally when they have incentives to do so. In societies where a divorcee does not get cash, prizes and her children, the number of divorcees is tiny. Somehow these women are able to curb their hypergamous instinct, their tingles mechanism and their deep desire of an Alpha, when they know they are going to end up in poverty. Go figure.
ArtToad
I know the scriptures. While your response may have been for the benefit of others, you’ve still not gotten any closer to defending the existence of the “G” (game) chromosome. Regardless, I’m not further circling that drain even if i am the one who flushed in the first place.
Cane
Dalrock, why am I in moderation? Have I said something offensive? Thanks in advance for your answer.
Forget it, Dalrock. I see that there was the number of links. Apologies.
Dalrock writes, “Imagine working for a small firm and having the boss/owner tell you all of his fears for the business. If you are relying on that job to support your family this could very quickly become unsettling. The same is true if your surgeon, dentist, or airline pilot doesn’t communicate confidence and a command of the situation.”
Yes Dalrock, I would prefer the small firm’s owner to lie about the firm’s reality. That way, I would be able to make absolutely no preparations so as to better support my family. 🙂
While Jesus teaches, “The Truth will set you free,” this is a bitter pill for the Dalrockian school of Dentistry=Marriage to swallow. 🙂
I was always of the understanding that surgeons and doctors had to be 100% honest with patients.
I always thought that facing up to the facts was a “manly” thing to do.
Achilles: “As I detest the doorways of death, so too do I detest that man who speaks forth one thing while hiding in his heart another.”
Dalrock’s blog: “Achilles was a Pagan and the Truth will only cause your wife to set herself free while blowing up the airplan, and taking half your property and future alimony payments, as such is the nature of the “flying dentistry practice” modern Christian marriage entails. ”
lzozozoz
@Novaseeker
Pretty much this. Being your helpmeet does not mean being your mother.
Agreed. Being a husband does not mean being her daddy either. Of course, you don’t have to be a whiny baby either but this idea that you have to micromanage the emotions of your wife so she does not feel threatened or insecure is not biblical or healthy.
YGW
On the contrary, women aren’t naturally inclined to fix problems, we are inclined to become anxious, or frustrated by problems. I think that the phrase “I don’t want you to fix it, I just want to vent” would be much more suitable to a man if the reasoning stands that said man had already thought of all possible solutions and is now just expressing frustration.
I disagree with the bold part, if its meant to be complete. She may well get anxious, but her goal is to have an empathy experience. Nothing creates empathus-interruptus more than fixing a woman’s problem when she could have milked it for empathy/sympathy for hours or days.
My rule is that if my wife begins to complain about an interpersonal problem with a….friend….sister….etc….there are no obvious linear logical fixes, therefore I get it that maybe she wants to talk through it for her own sort of brainstorming exercise. But if it is tangible and can be fixed, I am not going to allow it to be about emotions, or at least i will not be a participant. My wife came around to my way of thinking. Because I wasn’t going to change my mind.
@GBFM
GBFM should take his own medicine!
Should there not be honor, respect, and charity in both business and marriage? Among the teachings of the law, do not many of them concern the interactions between buyer and seller, master and servant, man and wife? Is there not continuity among those teachings so that one who is faithful in little things will prove faithful in greater; where if sin creeps into one area, does it not spread, and bring seven more sins into the clean places?
You, the scourge of Bernanke, have mistaken the fundamentals; which are neither marriage nor business. The fundamentals are: Love of God above all, and love of others as yourself; as testified and (importantly) demonstrated by Christ? Did he dump all his hopes and fears on the disciples, or did he take care in His statements and draw them into a conversation, invite them to walk with Him, and was that not leading them like a good shepherd; like an instructive teacher; a like a protective father, and like loving husband?
@Dalrock
True story: Yesterday’s home invasion narrative made me laugh and that drew my wife’s attention. I read the staring down the stairs narrative aloud, and she laughed. Then I asked her how does one use the social skill of conversation if what needs teaching is social skills. She didn’t have a better answer, but we had a good chuckle. Together.
Today, after church, I was sitting on the edge of the bed and staring into the closet. I was thinking on how better to foster peace among my sometimes unruly children. Mrs. Caldo, seeing me, inquired again what I was thinking about. I replied, “I’m calculating the cost to cover the entire house in 1’2″ steel plating.” We laughed. Together.
I was saying only dentists should marry.
Cool….cause I always say only dentists should trade oil futures. Who knew we were both on about dentists.
@Empath
I think I understand, and I wasn’t referring to you, specifically.
I chose that phrase (“interactions with their wives with thoughtfulness”) deliberately because–while it communicates the idea of a man being deliberate and self-controlled in his interactions with his wife for both their benefit–it does not have the lure of Game; chief of which is the shimmer of manipulation. Like other lures, some men bite because the shimmer looks tasty. Other men get caught because they have been provoked to a reaction strike.
Dear Cane Caldo,
Your argument is with Jesus Christ.
While Christ overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the temple, you and Dalrock are suggesting that we base marriage on the bottom line considerations of “running a firm or dentistry practice,” as opposed to the higher ideals and the Word of God.
Your argument is with Jesus Christ:
Treasures in Heaven
(Matthew 13:44-46)
19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Your argument is with Jesus Christ.
22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Dalrock & Cane Caldo: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and your modern dentistry practice/marriage.
Ergo, man up, become a flying dentist, and learn how to game the slut so she doesn’t blow up the plane, even if you don’t know how to actually perform dentistry nor fly, as our Lord Mystery teaches us that confidence is all.
I understand your hatred of Homeric Honor as “Pagan,” but your hatred of the same manly Honor expressed by Jesus is a bit puzzling. ???? 🙂
Dalrock writes, “You have misunderstood me. I was saying only dentists should marry.”
My bad. I thought you were saying that “only flying dentists running a firm with bad financial projections” should marry. 🙂
[D: No. That would only be if he wanted to trade oil futures.]
The problem I have with this whole line of thought is that it places all the power in the hands of the wife to determine whether her husband lives up to her ideal and leads her as she determines she is to be led, in other words, the headship of the husband has been replaced with the control of the woman to measure his worth as a man and discard him if he fails to deliver because obviously, he’s not man enough if he shares his deepest thoughts with the woman meant to be his helper. Instead, he is the leader and leads as he sees fit and if he leads as she married him, she should stick to her vows, for better or worse.
Women will and have used this exact idea to divorce their husbands and destroy their families and you give them more ammunition? I’m sure all those divorced men just needed to practice headship game and all would have been well, right?
GBFM, remember Dalrock is our host. If his analogies don’t work for you then just don’t use them. Mockery is uncalled for.
Why, is home invasion funny? Is preparing for a possible home invasion funny?
@GBFM
No, my argument is with you who stores up books and pagans and mammons; you who bears false witness against his neighbor; saying they said things they did not say; you who spouts without sense, but hides another meaning in his heart.
If he did trade oil futures and went long and the oil price dropped over 60%, bankrupting him, obviously showing that he wasn’t man enough to trade the futures market, should he tell his wife or keep it to himself until such time as the debt collectors come looking for payment?
@Feministhater
The only power that is placed in the hands of the wife is the power to submit to her husband. She can refuse that power, and many do.
Those women who refuse to be submissive have always done this. Our modern culture of divorce is but one iteration on the theme of rebellion since there have been husbands and wives, fathers and sons, masters and servants…since mankind. There are many instances in the Bible where women (who could not divorce) still destroyed themselves and their families…but especially themselves.
American divorce laws are bad, but the practice of them is worse. Without the practice of them, the divorce laws of man are void.
Farm Boy – I do think that the husband should share with his wife the fact that he might want a sammich.
Absolutely! And I think he would be wise to make sure she is the sammich making type before he marries her, otherwise he is asking for trouble.
@feministhater
Forgot a response.
It can be. It is certainly funnier for a husband to install armor plating under wallpaper than for a wife to make her husband a sandwich.
Ha! Right on cue.
RichardP,
“I invite you to educate yourself.”
Heh, no thanks; this Leningrad Codex sitting up on the shelf was enough for a lifetime and a half. Even with the very limited exegesis you offer here*, I fail to see much of an argument for the case you’re trying to make, which flies in the face of both the English sense and any other Hebrew interpretation I’ve ever heard, not that either of those things is dispositive.
* – you can’t just grab a full Hebrew word out of Strongs – you need to use BDB or nowadays a good computer program to find the three-letter Hebrew root and go from there.
Haha, glad to know that torture, robbery, theft, rape and possible death are funny to you. If you found his idea of installing steel plating to be ridiculous, say so and provide a reason and a solution. I know, mocking is far more fun and you must be able to AMOG infront of your wife, else she might lose attraction for you.
Here’s some more material for you and your wife to laugh about..
GBFM,
“So basically ‘we are a conquered people.’ Christ Jesus wants it this way because he ‘loves us.’ ‘Despair is arrogance.'”
Do you contest any of these premises?
“So man up, learn some game, marry the sluts, and game them some more.”
That is one conclusion to draw from those premises, but it is not one I would make. Game certainly beats anti-game, but the equanimity that flows from a life of spiritual discipline beats both. This was the appeal of the martyrs.
“Do not despair about the fallen culture nor being conquered, as such despair is ‘unmanly.'”
All despair leads to results that are unmanly; but despair itself is ungodly, and we are called to Godliness in and through Christ Jesus.
“Man up, accept that you have been conquered, and accept that modern marriage is a trip to the dentist, or piloting an airplane which welcomes those who wish to blow it up aboard.”
No, acceptance is distinct from perseverance. We are more than conquerors in Christ, not less. Conquest is temporary, the reign of Christ is eternal.
@Feministhater
There’s that systematic reaction strike by socially stunted men against the lure of Game I was talking about.
Wife-made sandwiches prevent more in-home horrors than you can possibly fathom. Why do you laugh at them?
desiderian says:
March 8, 2015 at 1:08 am
“As far as the curse goes, their curse was one where their “desire would be for their husband” which means they would seek to control him rather than submit.”
No, that is not what desire means, especially in this case.
As I understand it, The Hebrew term rendered “desire” (tesuqa) is found only three times in the Old Testament: Genesis 3:16, 4:7, and Song of Solomon 7:10.
Many scholars believe that in Genesis 3:16 the term is negative in nature, occurring in a context of sin and judgment. In Genesis 4:7 sin itself is described as desiring to have Cain. God describes sin “like a crouching beast, ” hungering and preying on Cain. In the Song of Solomon the term is positive in nature, in the context of joy and love, referring to the bridegroom’s desire for his bride.
So below are the three passages where this Hebrew word is used in the Bible:
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
Gen 4:6 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
Song 7:10 I am my beloved’s,
and his desire is for me.
Why are these scholars wrong about the negative connotation of tesuqa in Genesis 3:16?
‘While Christ overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the temple, you and Dalrock are suggesting that we base marriage on the bottom line considerations of “running a firm or dentistry practice,” as opposed to the higher ideals and the Word of God.’
I like the idea of basing marriage on the reference of Jesus and his church….as St. Paul mentions.
What is different from your shaming to any shaming used by feminists, manginas and Churchians? You’re just another Driscoll. Nothing more. You simply stand there and tell men to man up and be more like you. All the words you sprout, all the innuendos, all the conflicting mumbo-jumbo psyche talk is just you amogging your way to game your wife. It’s pathetic.
Just stop, for once, just stop.
GBFM,
Despair may be ungodly*, but I’ve now remembered I had a different point in mind. The argument that “despair is arrogance” has proven a remarkably effective depression cure since I first heard it – wish I could remember where so I could give proper credit. Despair is based on knowledge that it is not (a) man’s to know, i.e. the general spiritual condition of all mankind and/or the future.
See Tolkien’s Denethor or Job’s response to God speaking to him from the whirlwind.
* – that argument is made more difficult (for non-Arians) by the witness of the Gospels.
JDG,
“Why are these scholars wrong about the negative connotation of tesuqa in Genesis 3:16?”
The burden of proof for a reading counter to the traditional one and or the clear sense of the text that we have is on the exegete. That hurdle is not cleared in the examples offered.
@Anonymous Reader “I hope for your husband’s sake you are a special woman.” I hope so too, I really do try, but I’m not perfect definitely. We’ll be married 8 years in August so I like to believe that we’ve gotten past that major threat statistic that most couples get divorced within the first 10 years. We’ve known each other for 10 years now & work well together as a team.
“There are women who genuinely want to know things about their husbands, and they are women who say that but who freak out at almost anything that is unexpected. What the latter really want is a story, a play-acting, an image, or even a lie.”
I’ve seen that kind of thing with women in their marriages – and I feel sorry for the husband because I don’t think they will be able to achieve true intimacy together. To me, that is an immaturity on the wife’s part – and if she truly does want him to be able to confide in her (most women do crave that deep closeness – the most intoxicating thing for a woman is believing she understands her man), she has to decide if its worth tempering her responses with trust and controlled emotions. Freaking out or over-reacting when her husband shares the truth is immature, and will possibly make him not confide in her about that topic again.
I identify with your emergency room analogy so much – and I definitely tend to fall more into the group that would like to know everything up front – probably to a fault! Almost all the women in my family needed c-sections when giving birth, so I felt compelled to watch one to make sure what I was going to go through. It wasn’t pleasant, but at least I knew what was going to happen. And sure enough, I needed to have them, so it prepared me mentally to see it beforehand.
@Feministhater
It’s a bummer that you didn’t answer the question.
See, sandwiches can be funny. The lengths some wives (perhaps all wives sometimes) will go to avoid making sandwiches in submission is sometimes downright hilarious. Likewise, some men (perhaps all men sometimes) will go to extravagant lengths to prove they are the serious leaders who should seriously be taken seriously. That’s funny.
Because the truth is that God stoops way down to the “servile” level of concerning Himself with providing our daily bread, and “lord’s” over us His protection so that not a hair on our heads falls except that He allows it. It is our task and pleasure to barely participate in this by doing the little part that He commands, and which we can’t even manage on our own; basically to give our thoughts to these tasks.
Because we’re human the best way to really give our thoughts (hearts) to these tasks is to do them; like children practicing to build with blocks, or learning little chores so that one day in the real world we can participate meaningfully in the outer world. The physical world (sandwiches, bullets, etc.) are the myths that teach us about the Spirit; which is real. So it’s vital to not lose the myth so we continue to be really instructed, but at the same time: The stories we tell ourselves can be funny when we recall that there’s so much more feeding and protecting going on over our heads than we can possibly imagine.
This right here Artisanal Toad was outstanding. Game is a replacement or work around for an insane society. Are women worth the effort? Nope The best way is to just work all the way around women period.
Just dawned on me when I read that again–why is it “feelings” for men and ‘feeeeeeeelings” for women.
Quick! Somebody call the WHAAAAAMBULANCE! Guys! Keep all your comments the same for both sexes. Alright?
Seems to me the bigger problem isn’t so much women…it’s the state and the court system.
How well is game going to work when you have to go toe to toe with those guys?
Dear Dalrock, you compare marriage to “captaining an airplane.”
You have misunderstood me. I was saying only dentists should marry.
LOL!!!
And lawyers. Only dentists and lawyers should marry.
It is certainly funnier for a husband to install armor plating under wallpaper than for a wife to make her husband a sandwich.
I’ll have you know that sammich making is serious business.
@Feministhater
Since I’m feeling froggy, I’ll continue jumping on the same point…
I said way above:
The importance for a Christian man who believes the Bible to not be unequally yoked cannot be overstated. In fact I understated it when I said that Christian husbands and wives have great advantage. I do not see how they stay married without it! And I think perhaps they do not, and that is what we are seeing; that there are a great many marriages between believers and unbelievers who do not know that about themselves. If that be the case, then the only thing for the believer to do is to play their role as an example for the unbelieving spouse, neighbor, and–in this case–enemy. All of whom are to be loved, and for whom Christians hope for repentance that their souls might be saved. For believing husbands, that’s going to be loving his wife with understanding (with thoughtfulness and care), washing her with the Word (that she might believe it all and fully), and honoring her (and her sandwiches!) as the weaker vessel. THEN, once she has faith in Christ, he can embark upon the task husbanding her through all sorts of trials and tribulations. Providentially, it’s the exact same routine as he has been practicing up to that point.
Game, which has woefully distracted you, doesn’t have anything to do with it. I do not say you are socially stunted to put you down, but so that you might recognize that because you see poorly in this area, you are being lured away from the Truth!
Wife-made sandwiches prevent more in-home horrors than you can possibly fathom. Why do you laugh at them?
Exactly! A sammich a day keeps the hamster at bay.
@JDG
desiderian says:
March 8, 2015 at 3:51 pm
The burden of proof for a reading counter to the traditional one and or the clear sense of the text that we have is on the exegete. That hurdle is not cleared in the examples offered.
I for one would be grateful if you would set aside “the burden of proof” and make a case for the other meaning.
See, sandwiches can be funny. The lengths some wives (perhaps all wives sometimes) will go to avoid making sandwiches in submission is sometimes downright hilarious. Likewise, some men (perhaps all men sometimes) will go to extravagant lengths to prove they are the serious leaders who should seriously be taken seriously. That’s funny.
You, sir, have a clear perspective. Everyone has to deal with the pride of life or else live with the fall out.
@Desiderian
The burden of proof for a reading counter to the traditional one and or the clear sense of the text that we have is on the exegete. That hurdle is not cleared in the examples offered.
Upthread I made the argument that in Genesis 3:16 the word desire is best defined as a combination of both other uses of the word in both Genesis 4:7 and the Song of Songs 7:10. I believe the desire to choose one or the other is a false dichotomy. This is based on the observable fact that women unconsciously engage in behavior that is generally known as fitness testing or sh!t testing. I have never met a single husband whose wife doesn’t do this on a regular basis. AWALT and that satisfies the control aspects of the definition in Genesis 4:7
However, we can also observe that the men and husbands who pass these tests are attractive to the women and that stimulates a physical desire in the women. That satisfies the definition in Song of Songs 7:10. Therefore, I posit that the definition in Genesis 3:16 is a combination of both definitions. and he shall rule over you is the key to the definition. I am not a believer in evo-psych because I completely reject evolution as a preposterous faith-based religion that has been thoroughly debunked. I refuse to believe God created woman out of man to be his helpmeet and companion and intentionally created these awful traits we see in all women. To me, the only logical and rational explanation is the curse in Genesis 3:16.
Back in the day, rule number one at our laboratory was “Read the data before you write the report.” Please tell me how I have failed to clear the hurdle.
@iamnobodyoo
I don’t have problem in accepting hypergamy in women. But your Biblical interpretation twisting a Genesis verse to fit it in a preconceived evo-psych idea of yours is a very bad Biblical exegesis. Sorry, but there is no evidence that the writer of Genesis was referring to fitness tests when writing this verse.
As I just stated to desiderian, I am looking at the data and trying to get the best fit with the model. If I understand what you are saying, God intentionally created Eve to be a challenge to Adam. I reject that. The best fit between the observable data and the model (what Scripture says) results in finding that the hypergamy is the result of the curse of Genesis 3:16. I have taken classes in exegesis in seminary and while they followed the standard model of dispensational theology, I am now of the Covenant theology perspective. You might want to pick up a copy of “That You May Prosper” by Ray Sutton and read it. You can download a copy for free here:
http://www.garynorth.com/SuttonCov.pdf
It seems from your latest comment that we are much in agreement, but it appears we are in a bit of a disagreement on cause and effect. Girls under the strong and wise leadership of a Godly father can be trained up well and be prepared to be good wives. This suppresses their hypergamy but does not eliminate it. Under the headship of a strong and Godly husband they can grow and mature to become Godly women with the help of the Holy Spirit.
I know I’ll get lambasted for saying this, but the culture and legal system that gives women so much power also prevents the production of real yeomen. Women say “where are the men?” and the answer is “You produced a culture that stifles boys and prevents them from developing masculinity.” I’ve talked to numerous elderly people who grew up in the early 1900’s and the men talked about walking to school with a .22 rifle, which was placed in the coatroom and retrieved after school ended. The boys hunted and engaged in shooting competitions as they walked home from school. Boys fought over disagreements in the schoolyard and after school. Today these are behaviors that would get the child arrested and expelled, possibly with criminal charges pending. I could go on and on.
The system is broken and there are no political solutions. There are only personal solutions.
I have been discussing this post with Scott for a little while and here is what I think.
I would agree after really taking a hard look inside myself–women are lying when they say “men (or my man) need to open more. Be more accessible. Emote more.” It is what we have been told we are supposed to want.
I do not want him to talk about his feelings for the sake of talking about them, and yes he looks a little weaker to me when he does. I want to know he has things handled. I want him to say “kind of a bad day at work today, got me down a bit. But I took care of it.”
–or–
“We are going to be short this month. You will spend only X dollars on groceries for the next X weeks until we get caught up.” End of story.
He can tell me he is worried about the money, but I want him to tell me what he is doing about it (and tell me what my instructions are). You are correct, Dalrock. It is a very difficult fine line of showing some vulnerability (without being a driveling emotive woman) while also showing strength and protection.
If that makes me seem like a raging unempathic female, I am sorry. I think I can still be a helpmeet by not being one more thing added to the already long list of things he has to worry about all day. I can take care of his children, his house, his affairs at home without incident. I can be sweet, loving and accessible to him when he gets home. He says when I am this kind of wife I am like a battery charger so he can off and fight dragons.
Mychael, I’m glad to see you add your input into this thread… 🙂
Everyone who posts here by definition has a profound respect for Dalrock’s unique talents and gifts.
When history is written, Dalrock’s blog will have done far more to spread the tenets and spirit of Christianity than all the pop-churchianity books and Driscollian/Olseteenien preachers combined. More than all the “catholic forums” and “Christian womenz” selling sex and “how to manipulate via sex” advice.
Dalrock has always been a gracious, kind, and humble host, and thus he has fostered not only a collection of excellent articles, but also a forum–a bit of a “Bible Study” group for men concerned with their culture and society. Perhaps one of the only ones in the world.
In the coming years I imagine Dalrock will publish a book or two which most everyone will buy and laud. His message and insights deserve to be spread.
And yes, if I ever do decide to get married, I will probably follow the advice here to treat marriage like a flying dentistry hedge fund trading in oil futures. It is certainly no worse advice than what a churchian minister might provide, and has an air of “caution” about it, carrying the deeper message that “modern marriage ain’t easy.”
Everyone here has learned a lot and seen a lot of Bible passages quoted over the years, with flakes and phonies being called out–where else can you get that? 🙂 So thanks to Dalrock and all for all the hard work.
da GBFM
OK, sound the amber alert. I think the stoats and weasels grabbed the GBFM and replaced him with a doppelganger. Witness the evidence:
*A grammatically perfect comment.
*Absolutely no snark at all.
*No penis references.
*No reference to gina tingzlzlzoozolzol
I have Badger, Mole and the Water Rat on alert.
“I do not want him to talk about his feelings for the sake of talking about them, and yes he looks a little weaker to me when he does. I want to know he has things handled. I want him to say “kind of a bad day at work today, got me down a bit. But I took care of it.” – Mychael
Wow. Well, thank you for at least being honest about it. But do you not realize how this makes you or other women who think this way look? If your husband is fine with it then I wish you both the best, I really do. But how are you ever going to stand in the gap for your husband and intercede for him before God when you don’t even want to know or hear what he might be going through? Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with men “emoting like women” but is instead about a man’s wife being his trusted friend and confidant (two shall become one and all that). This makes women look like insecure little girls who need their Daddy to tell them everything is going to be okay. The idea that even in marriage a man is still fundamentally alone makes me wonder why any man would sign up in the first place….
At least you’re being honest. Basically, you want him to pretend to ‘need you’ while not really actually needing you, except as a nanny.
I get that women want their husbands to be problem solvers and not whiners but there is always a time when you need to talk/rant and clear your head so that you can solve your problems. A wife is meant to be his helped, is she not meant to help with his problems and help him solve them? Would this not make him a better leader, by actually asking for help when he needs it? No, course not, they don’t want to hear he has problems, only that he had problems, which he solved without worrying her pretty head over it. Only sandwich making is to worry over..
How much of this weakness can you take? I can’t imagine what soldiers did when they got back from war if that is what they got told for sharing their emotions..
How much of this weakness can you take?
This is an interesting question, I guess. But it seems like a trap for frivorce minded women. If my husband were to lose all his limbs and was bedridden in our house crying himself to sleep every night from depression, I would still be faithfully right by his side until one of us died.
The whole point of my comment was that ideally, I get nervous if Scott comes home and vents with no purpose behind it. And, since I grew up generation X and ultimately took the “red pill” later, I used to encourage him to be more “accessible” and to talk more about his feelings.
In the end, Scott doesn’t really like talking to me about his internal processes because he actually feels weaker. He prefers to project power and protection, and is sort of relieved that I stopped asking him to “open up” more.
I certainly want to know when something is bothering him, but mostly I want the cliffs notes version and the solution (ie what I can do to help). Usually, the “what I can do” part is something really easy that I can do.
As for him feeling alone in this world, even as a married man, I guess you would have to ask him. But he really gives me the sense that he is glad we dispensed with the demands for more emotion talk from him. It’s just not his style.
@GBFM
Agreed!
Feministhater, I think a caring wife does worry about her husband, his emotions, and the things that stress him (that’s why she is **supposed** to be there to make life easier by making sure there aren’t MORE things for him to worry about that she can take care of herself)…. I think women should be praying for their husbands in those areas (and if he confides in her, she then knows how better to pray for him). Femininity can’t **restore** masculinity though, so if he is feeling weak due to overwhelming emotions and stress, he can try to go to her with it, and she can earnestly sympathize and care about him during that time, but she will see that he is “weak” inevitably (even if she doesn’t judge him for it – it will just be fact), and she won’t really be able to do anything truly effective about it. So him continuing in indulging in his emotions with her will not help anything – he won’t feel his masculinity restored and she won’t be able to truly help and they will both be frustrated with each other.
He would need to go to a male mentor (I’m guessing) to restore his sense of masculinity. She can help him by being empathetic, and letting him know that she has utter confidence in him, that she knows he can handle it ultimately. And that will give him strength in a way, but I don’t think she alone can fix his problems. Male friends, confidantes and mentors are the best thing for that – my husband has had to do this and my brother also.
Perhaps you don’t understand men too well. When a man asks for help, it’s because he is at his wits end and actually needs help. To be dismissed on such an occasion by the woman who is meant to be his wife is going to be quite destructive to any marriage.
If he already has the solution and just needs you to do your part. The he has already solved the problem and doesn’t need to talk about it or figure it out. Which is basically you saying that you would prefer him to go find the answer somewhere else and then come tell you how he solved it.
This might work for awhile but there will come a time when you and Scott have a problem that doesn’t have an easy or workable solution. That would be the time you and he would actually need to open up to each other and be honest, however, you have already conditioned him to never open up to you because he appears weak, he’s even internalised it to the point that he now wants to project it.
@thequietrebel and @feministhater
Command is a lonely position and that’s why you need other men who hold similar rank if you need to commiserate about your problems. Command is the hard seat at the head of the table and it doesn’t have cushions. To be a husband is to be in command of the family. Accept that and deal with it or walk away and quityerbitchin.
@thequietrebel
Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with men “emoting like women” but is instead about a man’s wife being his trusted friend and confidant (two shall become one and all that).
Reflect first on 1st Corinthians 6:16. A man can be one flesh with a whore. That doesn’t make her a friend or confidant, although I’ve known of cases in which a married man had a much closer relationship with his mistress than with his wife. I simply put that down to polygyny- he had two wives and was much closer to the one than the other. Then reflect on 1st Peter 3:7 which states that women are the weaker vessels. You are making the argument that you want her to be like a man. No. She’s your wife and you have to love her in the manner that she needs and recognize that she’s the weaker vessel. This is why men need men as friends, which is extremely difficult in this feminized culture.
A serious study of Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1st Peter 3:1 demonstrates that the husband – wife relationship is a special form of the master – servant relationship because that is the relationship between Christ and the church.
@feministhater
At least you’re being honest. Basically, you want him to pretend to ‘need you’ while not really actually needing you, except as a nanny.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you’ve ever been married or in the military. I don’t think you have any idea what it’s like to come home to an interrogation and the subsequent drama bombs that plenty of wives inflict on their husbands. A husband with a wife who understands that emotionally, there is a certain “need to know” threshold is a beautiful thing.
A wife is meant to be his helped, is she not meant to help with his problems and help him solve them? Would this not make him a better leader, by actually asking for help when he needs it?
Leaders ask for help from equals or superiors. They command and instruct juniors, assigning them tasks to be completed that will help him complete his mission. In terms of delegated authority, the wife is your junior. There are certain things you can confide in with your wife, but the nature of women means there are certain things you can’t. I don’t think there’s anyone who’s been in a command position in the military that would disagree with that point. Morale has to be maintained and the commander cannot allow himself to look weak simply because he has a need to rant or vent. That is simply not done in front of the troops because while it may make the commander feel good to be able to do so, it damages everyone in the long run if the troops reach the conclusion the commander is weak. Again, this is why husbands need strong male friends.
AT
Stick a pipe in it. Your earlier advice was to marry a whore because I burn with passion. No one needs that.
FH
As I recall, specifically it was a repentant slut, not a whore. You’re unicorn hunting rather than being realistic about what’s out there. Further, my advice was far more specific to the point that Dalrock deleted the post. The point, however, is we’ve got some obviously Godly ladies posting and you’re trying to pick them apart because of your bitterness over not being able to bag a unicorn.
I’m willing to bet I know the statistics better than you, but consider this question. The prostitute who washed the feet of Jesus with her hair and anointed him with expensive perfume because she was repentant… would she be marriage material? Yes or No.
nope
This is why men need men as friends, which is extremely difficult in this feminized culture.
I find this to be a much larger hurdle to getting my social/psychological/emotional needs met then other in the current state of affairs.
I listen to people talk about their feelings all day–most of the men. By the time I get home, I am “talked out” and I just want a drink on the counter, a hot meal, my children in my lap, and as little talking about emotionally charged things as possible.
But I would want that even if I wasn’t a mental health professional.
“The prostitute who washed the feet of Jesus with her hair and anointed him with expensive perfume because she was repentant… would she be marriage material? Yes or No.”
Probably not in today’s legal environment.
Maybe you could just be bowling partners and hook up now and then.
Then you could repent too, and go find a better candidate for a wife?
If a prostitute gets right with God…that’s good for her. Is she marriage material…no.
Only slightly OT, but the Nissan superbowl commercial #withdad is an indictment of virtually all modern Christian productions. It glorifies fatherhood and paints fathers in a strong, masculine role as providers and leaders. Tied in with Harry Chapin’s song “The Cat’s In The Cradle” it presents a series of contrasts. I see a SAHM and a father who gives his son attention when he’s home. An F1 driver, tall and good looking with a high-risk profession that can be quite lucrative. Alpha. By the end of the commercial the son looks to be about 16, so obviously the wife didn’t nuke the marriage after the requisite 10 years. There is a point in the commercial (right before he wrecks) in which he’s obviously discussing his concerns about driving on a wet track. The wife responds “but you’ve driven on a wet track before…”
Two ways to interpret that. Either she doesn’t care and is telling him to get out there and fight because that’s what keeps the money coming in, or she’s trying to reassure him and boost his confidence. I think it illustrates the discussion of this thread in what a husband can share with his wife. Only the husband knows his wife well enough to know what he can share and what he can’t.
The shot of the photo taped to the dash of the car demonstrates why he’s doing it: for his family. That Nissan would be the one to produce one of the first family and father positive productions with high visibility I’ve seen in a long time is an indictment of Christian media.
Two ways to interpret that. Either she doesn’t care and is telling him to get out there and fight because that’s what keeps the money coming in, or she’s trying to reassure him and boost his confidence. I think it illustrates the discussion of this thread in what a husband can share with his wife. Only the husband knows his wife well enough to know what he can share and what he can’t
Got it. The first time I deployed, I told my wife I was scared. She said, “but you’ve trained for it. You have met the people you are going with. You are ready.”
This was not her minimizing my fear and telling me to man up. It was recognizing out loud what I already knew to be true. It was a vote of confidence in me (and the unit).
In fact, when I am deployed, this idea of not wanting to burden her with my “feelings” is particularly pronounced. She cannot do anything about it when I am 10,000 miles away. If I fall apart downrange, she is even more helpless and vulnerable. No way that does anyone any good.
@Scott
I’m to the point that I’d love to go back downrange and I’m actively looking for a contract. That, however, is not something I can share with my family. They already think I spend too much time shooting and reloading; and don’t understand that shooting is a perishable skill. Use it or lose it. Hmmmmm. Kind of like women and the concept of game. Use them or lose them. Where’s Tam the Bam when I need him.
@Mychael: It was said up thread that good women will protect their husbands masculinity and we appreciate the demonstration. I believe almost all women share your response to her husbands weakness and you were the most honest I have ever seen on this point.
Thank you for the kind words GBFM.
@Mychael
This is key. There is not only a misunderstanding of what men naturally want, but a closely related misunderstanding of what closeness really is. Cane’s description above of the laugh he shared with his wife after church is a perfect example. He was thinking of something which concerned him. His wife no doubt had a pretty good guess what it was, as they have been married for many years, not to mention that parenting is a shared concern. When she asked, he joked about something he wasn’t concerned about, and they shared a moment of closeness. Closeness doesn’t come from the sort of over talking Opus notes way upthread as a distasteful American habit. Husbands and wives share the ultimate closeness, the mystery of one flesh, and this doesn’t require a single word. It isn’t that talking isn’t important, but that we have elevated talking and especially emoting to perverse levels. Part of this I think is the absurd notion that sex needs to be “purified” through various oprahfications. Closeness can be talking non stop about the funny or fascinating things the two of you experienced during your respective days, or is can be two words bringing back a shared memory about something one of the children did long ago. At times closeness can also be feeling perfectly comfortable not saying a word. Closeness can mean walking up and silently rubbing your spouse’s shoulders because you know that this is something they need. It can mean all of these things, and more. But what it doesn’t mean is the husband goes on a tearful bent on how moved he is about sunsets and dolphin safe tuna, and his wife finally knows he is the man she has always longed for.
“If a prostitute gets right with God…that’s good for her. Is she marriage material…no.”
Rahab in the Bible… saved the spies and married a Jewish man. She was Boaz’s mother – and although it doesn’t talk about her anymore, that fact that she believed God and changed and raised a son like Boaz (so successful and full of great character that he represents God’s characteristic of the “Redeemer”) says a lot about past prostitutes.
I’ve known some prostitutes and past prostitutes… they are some of the most honest women you will find. Some of them are very “red pill” because they know very well what men want emotionally from women, and they know how the pitfalls of marriage because the married men that go to them confide in them what they wish their wives understood.
Most find themselves in that position because of sexual abuse – at least the few that I’ve known it’s been a factor, and the statistics I’ve seen – not sure how reliable though – say 75% were sexually abused.
That’s why I just don’t condone slut-shaming… I’ve known some of those women and it is very sad how they got there. That coupled with the sex-trafficking that goes on with women from other countries, or children in India that are sold as sex-slaves as young as 5 years old, you just never know their background.
So many separate issues to respond to. So I will ask some questions as my response. Rhetorical questions all.
1. Most (but not all) Christian sects believe that the Father and the Son have co-existed from the beginning. Assuming that they did – when did God know he would need to send his Son to earth as the final sacrifice: not until after Even bit into the forbidden fruit (and boy was he surprised that she did)? Or from before the foundation of the world? (Which choice do the words in the Bible support?)
2. When did Eve decide that there were benefits to be had from disobeying God and getting her husband thrown out of paradise: after God “cursed” her by saying her “desire” would be to her husband? Or before she tooks steps toward the forbidden tree, to consider it and conclude that it was beautiful to look at? That is, do we have any evidence that would allow us to conclude that Eve possessed a spirit of rebellion before she was “cursed”? If the answer is “yes”, then how could we conclude she could be any worse after the “curse” than before it.
Note: I agree with the folks who say that the only thing God cursed at this point was the ground. Because that is what the Bible says. Folks who study this issue say that God was being descriptive in his statements about Adam and Eve at this point, not presecriptive. That is, he was merely verbalizing how things were, how he had created Adam and Eve to be. He was not prescribing to Adam and Eve modes of behavior that would be new to them at that point.
3. If God prepared the plan of salvation from before the foundation of the world, how would that have worked out if Adam and Eve had never left the Garden?
4. Would God’s plan of salvation have been necessary if Adam and Eve had not left the Garden? If the answer to that is “no”, then that suggests an answer to why God knew what Eve would do to Adam, but he made her anyway. Was creating Eve and her daughters to be the way they are an integral part of God’s plan that had been made from before the foundation of the world, including the plan of salvation?
5. We have hit rock bottom, so to speak, when we cry out: “I can’t do this by myself. I need God.” Wiser folks than me suggest that this is the cry we were created to utter. How do any of us ever get to this place when we forever “have everything under control”? Perhaps God gave us a push in this direction by creating Eve and her daughters to be the way they are?
6. I have yet to meet the man who has been married for a while who did not agree that Eve’s “desire” for Adam embodied both meanings of the word as described elsewhere in this thread.
And, finally:
7. Why do we think we deserve a better wife than the one that Adam’s father made for him?
@girlwithadragonflytattoo
I’ve only worked with male prostitutes (who were still active), and frankly they had all been quite severely abused, homeless, and turned to that because at 14 you can’t get a job. Lots of drug addiction too, so the whole thing is just extremely sad.
The problem with the “slut-shaming” in this context is that it means that people can’t change. And if change isn’t possible, why would they ever leave their sin? I certainly wouldn’t like to have all my sins tattooed across my forehead and be branded as irredeemable.
Another thought, Jesus didn’t hang around with “upright citizens” too often. He preferred the big sinners probably because they were honest about who they were and what they had done.
Isa yes, the one male prostitute I’ve known personally had a demon for a mother who would beat him as an infant!!!!!! Insanity the amount of abuse people inflict on their children.
Coincidentally, his mother was a Christian who went to church every Sunday… probably someone who looked down on prostitutes… even though she was working to do the damage to create one.
Slut shaming is you don’t marry those women. It is not a reason to burn crosses in their yards or to abuse them. It also doesn’t mean they are not going to heaven. There for that slut may not be going to hell but she sure as hell isn’t getting a ring from me. You ladies need to realize the context of todays society this conversation is taking place in. Any man that gets into any kind of relationship with a woman his well being is up to her by law. Just the way it is.
Scott,
“Got it. The first time I deployed, I told my wife I was scared. She said, “but you’ve trained for it. You have met the people you are going with. You are ready.”
This was not her minimizing my fear and telling me to man up. It was recognizing out loud what I already knew to be true. It was a vote of confidence in me (and the unit).”
What you’re doing here is the male equivalent of female fitness testing. You’re testing your wife’s capacity and willingness to be a feminine, supportive helpmeet. As with female fitness tests, this sort of male testing runs a great risk of being misinterpreted (in the first case, as mannish bitchiness, in the second as effeminate wishiwashiness). A little goes a long way, and I suspect that the best marriages don’t need them at all.
Romney famously bombarded his wife and anyone else who would listen with these sorts of tests before the second debate, then went out and face-planted when Crowley tested his fitness for the Presidency instead of joining the helpmeet parade.
Pingback: It Has Come to This | Spawny's Space
JDG and RichardP,,
“I for one would be grateful if you would set aside “the burden of proof” and make a case for the other meaning.
6. I have yet to meet the man who has been married for a while who did not agree that Eve’s “desire” for Adam embodied both meanings of the word as described elsewhere in this thread.”
The only use of the word – and again, the exegesis presented here is cursory at best – that could conceivably have anything to do with dominance is the Cain example, which itself could certainly be read in ways that have nothing to do with it either. Even granting that reading, the reading you suggest for the Genesis passage flies in the face of everything we know about female sexual desire.
There is a sense of “possession” that the two may have in common, but that is distinct from dominance, especially in the latter context.
I’ve now in fact been married a while, and my wife has no desire to dominate me, sexual or otherwise. Quite the opposite, in fact. She or I will occasionally catch her channeling her mother, then we share a good laugh.
I asked an older couple this question an they said if you can’t share everything with your spouse then the marriage isn’t strong.
“Mychael, I’m glad to see you add your input into this thread…”
Likewise.
“I asked an older couple this question an they said if you can’t share everything with your spouse then the marriage isn’t strong.’
One cannot share what one does not have in the first place. See above:
“What baffles me is I can’t imagine a man wishing he had an outlet to emote like a woman. We don’t do this with other men, and I doubt for most men, for the vast majority of men, there is a sense that this is a problem. It isn’t natural for us, which is why feminists have had to spend so much time and effort claiming that we are defective, unmanly, if we don’t emote like women.”
Should chaste Christian women be willing to marrying reformed playboys, greyghost?
Pingback: What is closeness? | Dalrock
Should chaste Christian women be willing to marrying reformed playboys, greyghost?
What are the odds on both of those very rare individuals meeting each other in our society? Well, if it did happen, the odds on a reformed playboy nuking a marriage are likely to be much lower than a reformed slut nuking a marriage.
Should chaste Christian women be willing to marrying reformed playboys, greyghost?
The decision to not marry a slut is based on law. A woman can wreck a mans life regardless if the man is “good’ or bad. In fact the more honest and committed the man is to his relationship with a woman the more brutal the law is towards the man. The Churchian church feels the same way calling themselves Christian or not. A chaste “Christian” woman can marry who ever she wants just like they do now. It is just a matter of gina tingles. She is not going to have her kids taken from her. She will never get tazed or shot by the police. She will never be kicked out of the house, and never pay CS. The worst that can happen to her is she doesn’t collect money after the divorce. Even during the marriage she is under no obligation legally, culturally or even spiritually to her husband any way.
Now to answer the question. If the gina tingle is there so what she is not risking anything. A man risks all just being in a relationship much less marriage. Now from a pure emotional stand point That man is more likely to have the ability to pull tail outside of marriage.
You don’t marry a slut, a reformed slut or a repentant slut. You don’t put a ring on it. The damage is done. She has no ability to bond to you and her emotional state will be your cross to bear and it will destroy you. You simply don’t marry a woman who gives to other men for free what she expects you to pay for.
‘Rahab in the Bible… saved the spies and married a Jewish man. She was Boaz’s mother – and although it doesn’t talk about her anymore, that fact that she believed God and changed and raised a son like Boaz (so successful and full of great character that he represents God’s characteristic of the “Redeemer”) says a lot about past prostitutes.’
It says a lot about repentence and the grace of God….which I have no problem with.
Can someone spell out to me the value that a wife adds, because I’m not seeing it.
Everyone knows the sex dries up after the first year. Even if it doesn’t, she’ll get fat and old disturbingly quickly.
There’s no question of them bringing in any net money.
These days women refuse to do any housework. At best you’ll be sharing it. At worst your carefree bachelor life will be replaced by a bunch of make-work and ‘honey do’ lists.
This article develops the picture by suggesting a wife won’t offer any emotional support, care, or nurturing.
I’m really casting around to find even one positive to offset the compromises, nagging, expenditure, restrictions, and Damocles sword of divorce.
@sandals with socks
No. But if you are looking for even handedness here you won’t find it. Unlike the warning to men not to marry sluts/reformed sluts, no one objects to warning women not to marry players/reformed players (including the players/reformed players themselves). Everyone can see that this is wise advice, and there is no hand-wringing. Much of the reason for this double standard is that everyone knows very few women will take such advice. Women aren’t shamed into marrying players the way the culture shames men who don’t want to marry a slut.
@sandals with socks
“I asked an older couple this question an they said if you can’t share everything with your spouse then the marriage isn’t strong.”
Now watch this ugly manipulation:
1. A couple doesn’t speak by itself, like a choir. Probably it’s the wife’s opinion.
2. By “spouse” you mean “wife”. It’s the standard frame: the husband is the suspect, and the wife the persecutor, trying to get him to “confess”.
3. “The marriage isn’t strong” – here we have it. Listen, pseudo-Christian “relationship expert”. The marriage is strong. It is a sacramental union put into place by God. You must mean something different, like for example “your opinion how much the man should be afraid of his wife >leaving< him".
Yes, you like to say euphemisms like 'leave', but in many cases I hear about the men would just dream to only be 'left' (alone). But hypocrite broads, like "sandals" shake their heads and utter in a moralizing tone "oh, their marriage wasn't strong enough".
There isn’t one generally. It seems you have to find one who does care and does offer positive attributes. I’ve said quite clearly in the past that I think that 80 to 90% of men should just not marry for they are just not attractive enough to keep one of these women.
As a man you must be good looking, wealthy, cocky but not too cocky, confident, not share too much emotion, be a wonderful father, be a loving and understanding husband, do your share of the house work, protect the family from danger – don’t get too serious about that though, she might just laugh at your seriousness of family safety.
The only, and I mean only, reason for a man to marry is that if he burns with desire he cannot use any alternative but a wife.
I’ve already done the mathematics and while I’m unhappy about it, I will have to continue to burn with passion and learn to control my desire. I will sin from time to time but I know I would be a completely unfit husband and I will never marry a current modern day Churchian women.
xtc:
“Can someone spell out to me the value that a wife adds, because I’m not seeing it.
“I’m really casting around to find even one positive to offset the compromises, nagging, expenditure, restrictions, and Damocles sword of divorce.”
When you get down to it, and after all the dross and crap is cut away, most men still want one woman long term in their lives. And yes, it’s more difficult finding one who doesn’t have one dealbreaker or another. You’ve listed those dealbreakers, and certainly those are problems that will likely eventually torpedo a relationship.
Yes, there are men who will seek and not find. Yes, there are a few men who won’t commit because it’s a sex smorgasbord for those few men, and they don’t have to commit because they don’t have to. But at least now, most men want a woman, and commitment is how they attract and keep her. The prime problem is that women usually find themselves in the power position in finding, navigating, and maintaining relationships. This is partly by societal design and partly by men checking out. The answer is not to let any of those dealbreakers into your life. It means men expecting more from their women and accepting them more than just for having a regular sex partner. If having that “higher” standard means going without, then that’s what it means. If it means waiting, then that’s what it means. If it means confronting your woman’s bad behavior directly (and most of the time it will, because you can’t let bad behavior slide, ever), then that’s what it means. If that means ending a marriage where she’s getting everything and you are getting nothing, then that’s what it means.
On the female side of the equation, it means women will have to not be any of those “dealbreakers”, or catch themselves when they fall into those behaviors. It means more of them will have to wait longer or accept less attractive men (which is already happening in droves).
‘Can someone spell out to me the value that a wife adds, because I’m not seeing it.
I’m really casting around to find even one positive to offset the compromises, nagging, expenditure, restrictions, and Damocles sword of divorce.’
If you treat marriage like a business or a state bound contract…realistically there isn’t much value a wife would bring.
If you treat marriage like a sacrement where God is involved…the wife brings the ability for you to love another person and to bear children. She can also help you along the way those times she can within her abilities.
So basically when it comes to marriage it’s a question of love…or monetary value.
Tradcon sez “Man up and marry those sluts”.
Feminist says “Man up and marry those sluts”.
Nothing to see here, move along…
“. It means more of them will have to wait longer or accept less attractive men (which is already happening in droves).”
Women are accepting less attractive men than themselves? Pffsh! They may think they are but really its a matter of overinflated egos.
sandals,
Ummmmmm, generally yes… I’ve noticed that women want (prefer) to be prettier/more-beautiful than their boyfriends/husbands are handsome, if for no other reason than to have some power in the relationship. If she “thinks” she is more attractive to the opposite s-x (than you are) then (in her mind) she has leverage in the relationship because she will instinctively think that YOU will want to be with HER more than SHE will want to be with YOU. This is especially important if the man is smarter than her or makes more money than she does.
Now maybe that is a bit of the overinflated ego (like you said) but it tends to be the rule.
Women are accepting less attractive men than themselves? Pffsh! They may think they are but really its a matter of overinflated egos.
I frequently see women paired up with men more attractive them themselves. Rarely do I meet one of these that knows it (or at least admits that she knows it).
JDG,
Whether or not she knows it that he is far more s-xually attractive to women than she is to men, isn’t really relevant. He will know it. He will know if he is a 7 from a looks standpoint and she’s a 3.
The difference here (I think) is SMV vs MMV. If the two of them are married (or looking towards marriage) and she was/is a 3 and he’s a 7 (from a looks standpoint), then (obviously) she had/has an extremely high MMV in other areas (
…same religious faith as him,
she’s very educated or intelligent,
he’s a widower and this woman was very loving towards his children,
maybe she just truly obeys him in all things,
maybe she has an excellent job,
maybe her parents had a lot of money to dower upon their son-in-law,
perhaps she had a notch count of 0 when they married or [perhaps the opposite] a high notch count but as a result she is extremely excellent in bed,
perhaps she just didn’t age well and he did,
etc….
) you get the idea. Bottom line is that they are married or going to be married. So it doesn’t really matter. Her MMV is all that mattered.
But if they are only dating (and say, he is not interested in marriage) then her MMV doesn’t matter that much. Then (possibly) if things aren’t going to progress towards marriage one could argue that with her having such a low SMV perhaps what keeps them together is JUST the s-x? Perhaps she puts out (on demand) and does whatever he tells her to do (something he will never get from the truly beautiful women?) Maybe because she is so ugly, she has to step this level up if she wants to be with a man more attractive than she? For the man who is not Christian, that might be just enough to hold it together.
Or maybe it’s something else?
I don’t know. In my experience, women like to be better looking than whomever they are paired with. That tends to create more balance in the relationship. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t workout the other way (it does) but only when it is the otherway, quite often it is because the man knows he is getting something else in the deal that he wouldn’t if he was holding out for the truly beautiful woman (beautiful on the outside.)
Attractiveness in a man is based on more than physical appearance. https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/a-mans-perceived-physical-attractiveness-is-fluid/
I say…woman up and stop being sluts!
@younggodlywomen, I’m not sure if I totally understand what you are saying.
For me, if I am experiencing a problem that I find very upsetting, and that I feel helpless to resolve, and I’m in full anxious-fret mode: if I tell my husband about it and he has an insightful solution that I hadn’t thought of, I am all over that! It will literally stop me in my fretful anxious tracks and I will gape at him in awe at his cleverness. Poof! Anxiety gone! Replaced with total delight in my husband.
Are you saying that if your husband responded to you with something you hadn’t thought of before that would actually fix your problem, you react differently?
Now on the other hand, if he were to give me a flippant response, (like the “why don’t you toss the dress” variety) I think I’d be insulted and frustrated by his patronizing and lack of engagement. If he doesn’t want to hear me talk about it anymore, he should just tell me so. Which, frankly, is what he does. A flippant response to an earnest request for either a solution, or lacking that, empathy, is passive aggressive IMO. If he thinks I don’t deserve empathy for some reason, or is currently incapable of giving me the response I am looking for, then he should tell me that straight out.
@Francine
tl;dr version: If my husband tells me what I want to hear, that is cool. If he tells me what I don’t want to hear, that sucks.
” I’ve noticed that women want (prefer) to be prettier/more-beautiful than their boyfriends/husbands are handsome”
Oh I’ve no doubt that’s what they’d prefer.
@xtc
Can someone spell out to me the value that a wife adds, because I’m not seeing it.
Everyone knows the sex dries up after the first year. Even if it doesn’t, she’ll get fat and old disturbingly quickly.
What “everybody knows” isn’t usually the case. I married a 22 year old woman who was enthusiastically SOD (sex on demand) for our entire marriage (17 years). As a rule it was daily and frequently it was literally “morning, noon and night.” If she didn’t get it past 48 hours she was perfectly willing to call 7:4. She didn’t get fat even after far more pregnancies than “normal” women are willing to put up with. She cleaned like the white tornado and was a fairly good mom to the kids before she flipped out. She actually added a lot of value to the both the marriage and me as a homeschooling mom… until she decided to check out and to hell with the effect on the family. And this is a supposedly “seriously committed Christian woman.”
It was only after she divorced me (her NPD played a large role in that) that she got “depressed” and blimped to the tune of over 100 extra pounds. Granted, it makes her tits look great after nursing all those babies, but now-days she’s a pill-popping malignant bitch, a beach-ball with arms and legs, post-wall and using our children to milk the state for everything she can. Angry like you can’t believe, bitter as bile and refuses to own the fact that her life is what she made of it. I’ve gone as long as almost 2 years without being able to see our children because the divorce court judge is in love with her and hates me (literally) because I won the first couple of rounds as a pro se and got the case stayed by filing a federal action. Should have seen that coming, but I didn’t understand Stockholm syndrome and parental alienation back then.
I tossed out a few questions upthread and got the standard responses.
I personally know men who married virgins, attended conservative churches faithfully, were good enough providers that they could have a SAHM and the woman still nuked the marriage simply because she could. I know another guy who married a prostitute, took her out of the lifestyle (moved several states away) and they’ve been together for 26 years and counting and have 4 awesome kids who are all now adults.
The difference? The wife who nuked her marriage was a good Christian girl, while both the other guy and his ex-prostitute wife are agnostics. I know both families fairly well and prior to their divorce, you could not have paid me to spend time with the Christian couple. The agnostics, OTOH, accept the fact that we have different beliefs and are OK with that. We’ve had some really spirited debates about evolution and I got them to watch some videos on YouTube that blew their minds. The Christian guy was essentially run out of his church while the wife who nuked the family and their children are loved on and supported.
My take-away point was the difference between what the “Christian” wife was being taught in church vs. what the prostitute wife knew from cold, hard reality. The first is living in a fools paradise, the second completely understands that marriage is a hell of a lot of hard work and is committed to making it work. The so-called Christian woman nuked her marriage and the whore has a successful family. Which one will play with cats and which one will play with grand-children?
This is NOT an endorsement of the “Man UP! and marry the slut” campaign in any way. It’s just me pointing out that women are the way they are. The unpolluted ones certainly have a better chance of finishing the race well, but the culture and legal system have truly polluted the environment.
I still believe [that which cannot be discussed] is an effective way to deal with so-called Christian sluts and turn them into effective wives, because the land (just as in the time of the Patriarchs) is overrun with temple prostitutes. Then it was the temple of Baal, today its the temple of higher learning. Sure, there are some decent girls out there, but how do you really know if you married a virgin? Gonna trust her word when she says using tampons busted her hymen? It’s possible to get a so-called “vaginal virgin” that’s had anal and oral with dozens of guys and truly thinks she’s a virgin. Heh. Really. Look at the culture and deal with it.
That’s dramatically feminine. I assume you’re talking about polygamy — as you have been for months.
You can take a second or third wife if you want. I won’t hassle you. I’ll promise you that it won’t be the fun experience you seem to think it will be.
Imagine you’re spinning multiple plates, and now imagine that you are married to all your hoes, and you can’t ever stop spinning those plates. You are a trained ape, and you have to spin, and spin, and spin, for the rest of your life. What’s more, these bitches all know each other. You piss one of them off, and all the hens will get together and commiserate and strategize about how to make your life hell. That’s polygamy.
Keep punching that time clock, too. Your twelfth child just got born. Welfare was cut off at number four.
I have cousins and uncles that are in that situation. They grow old before their time. Please don’t take my word for it, though. Try it out for yourself and see how you like it. heh
I actually agree with you here. Reading history jaded me to the idea of the supposed golden age. The idea back then was that if she was a bona fide virgin, you could try to knock her up quick, and then if you won the sex lottery, you’d have an eldest son who would be your heir. Subsequent children were always considered momma’s baby is daddy’s, maybe…
Today, we have DNA tests, so the old usefulness is questionable.
I think virginity as an indicator of future fidelity is a moderately useful but inflated principle. Many technical virgins are right now looking for a job as a stripper, and there are plenty of decent women with a few notches who would probably make good wives. How to find a good woman? I have no idea. I haven’t found one yet.
Regards,
Boxer
@Boxer
Though we come to this point from opposite sides of the divide, I think we have some common ground.
That’s dramatically feminine. I assume you’re talking about polygamy — as you have been for months.
No, years, and no, not polygamy. The correct word is polygyny. Not feminine, more an acceptance of reality. You’re reality is composed of your personal experience. Mine is different. You cite examples from your own family. I will not stoop so low as to cast aspersions on your family, but do you truly believe your family is representative of all people who have more than one wife? Is that arrogance or hubris?
Imagine you’re spinning multiple plates, and now imagine that you are married to all your hoes, and you can’t ever stop spinning those plates. You are a trained ape, and you have to spin, and spin, and spin, for the rest of your life. What’s more, these bitches all know each other. You piss one of them off, and all the hens will get together and commiserate and strategize about how to make your life hell. That’s polygamy.
I’ve done this, but from the wrong perspective. First of all, they weren’t hoe’s. Yes, they had an N-count. That was Southern California in the early 90’s. Doh! However, I was fairly selective and I learned to seek meetings with family sooner rather than later. Especially with the father. I found that I always got along with the parents better than the girl. Weird. I swear I could have banged lots of these girls mothers easier than their daughters.
I’ve actually been really close to polygyny in my BC years. I lived with three women. I was in the armed forces and on short deployments they kept each other happy (not lesbian, more like commiserating together). My last major deployment broke it, I was gone for 8 months and they came unglued. Too much time away, no social support, and I didn’t understand the dynamic back then.
I am not a trained ape. I’m simply a man who has been on both sides of the fence, so to speak. However, men who are monogamously married have to spin and spin for the rest of their lives as well, given this legal environment. That’s part and parcel of marrying anything but a unicorn. Yes, with three women you can give an offense to one and then they have three blocks of ice to thaw out rather than one and well do I know that. BTDT. The girls will readily pick up an offense for the others. Boy, do I know that. More than you can imagine. However, on the same note, you have to actively restrain them from stabbing each other in the back until the situation reaches a point of equilibrium. Women are vicious.
However, the innate programming still controls. I don’t need welfare for my family and I have for all of my life refused to accept any overt government “programs” designed to enslave me. Years ago I wrote a check that essentially said “payable in any amount up to and including my life” to the US government. That should be the foundation of society, but unfortunately, it isn’t.
” I’ve gone as long as almost 2 years without being able to see our children because the divorce court judge is in love with her and hates me (literally) because I won the first couple of rounds as a pro se and got the case stayed by filing a federal action. Should have seen that coming, but I didn’t understand Stockholm syndrome and parental alienation back then. ”
Who has the Stockholm syndrome, your kids?
You said your wife suffers from NPD. She could also have another more serious psychiatric disorder like schizophrenia and she could have had a psychotic break.
” It’s just me pointing out that women are the way they are. The unpolluted ones certainly have a better chance of finishing the race well, but the culture and legal system have truly polluted the environment. ”
How do they have a better chance when all the examples you gave are evidence that they don’t? Marriage is Russian Roulette and always has been. Back in the old days people were socially pressured to stay together for the sake of the kids, which means back then you would have had to stay with your psychotic narcissistic wife and suffer. At least now you are free.
Dear AT:
You can cast whatever you want on them; but, you’re wrong if you think these are just a few people I happen to know. There are whole communities of people living “the order” — and it generally doesn’t look much like “Big Love” on HBO.
This is a different group of polygamists than the ones my people were born into, and the dysfunction is pretty much the same.
Anyway, I don’t judge my extended family who lives the principle, I just feel sorry for them. Really, some people seem content to be miserable, and I would never want to keep someone from making a horrible, lifelong mistake; so, they have their thing, and I have mine. (They think I’m a sinful, unbelieving apostate, so the score is even).
With respect mate, that’s nothing like polygamy. You didn’t have community pressures or legal codes that punished you when things went to shit. You all had a good time, and walked away when things fell to pieces. You think you can do that if you’re married to all these women? Had you actually been in a polygamist lifestyle, you’d still be dealing with these women, and these same bitches (older, uglier, fatter, looser than ever) would be riding you into the grave.
You’re not a trained ape because you’re not actually living the principles you’re pretending to espouse. You will be a trained ape when you have two or more women who will be calling the tunes as you dance for their amusement. Do you really think that sounds like fun? If so, don’t let me stop you.
Marriage to one woman seems pretty difficult (even a decent woman is often trying). Why would you think dealing with three different women would be better?
Best,
Boxer
Now on the other hand, if he were to give me a flippant response, (like the “why don’t you toss the dress” variety) I think I’d be insulted and frustrated by his patronizing and lack of engagement.
This sounds like you don’t respect your husbands authority. He is your husband. If he doesn’t want to engage you, maybe you should respect that. Perhaps engaging you at that particular time is a bad idea and he knows it (but you don’t). Also, if he wants you to get rid of the dress then get rid of it, and then make him a sammich. You’ll feel better.
I personally know men who married virgins, attended conservative churches faithfully, were good enough providers that they could have a SAHM and the woman still nuked the marriage simply because she could. I know another guy who married a prostitute, took her out of the lifestyle (moved several states away) and they’ve been together for 26 years and counting and have 4 awesome kids who are all now adults.
The difference? The wife who nuked her marriage was a good Christian girl, while both the other guy and his ex-prostitute wife are agnostics.
Actually, I would say that the “good Christian girl” probably nuked her marriage because, like most SPWL Amerikan women, she was BORED. Too many Amerikan wives who are SAHMs, married to beta pack mules, have had it far too comfortable for far too many generations (the darker parts of me hope that the people who invented modern homemaking appliances back in the ’40s and ’50s are enjoying a particularly toasty corner of hell).
@Francine
“Are you saying that if your husband responded to you with something you hadn’t thought of before that would actually fix your problem, you react differently?”
No, I can’t say that I would act differently in this scenario, what I am saying is that this scenario is not the norm. The default underlying motivation of a wife using the: “I don’t want you to fix it, I just want to vent.” phrase is that of manipulation, like I explained, using myself as an example. This phrase is uttered from a woman whose thrown her arms up because no matter how many times she selfishly (she’s in denial about that part) rephrases her circumstance, she is still not receiving the empathy that she is fishing for under the guise of “giving an account of the various details of her problem.” Even if there were a concrete solution suggested by the husband, it would more than likely just pile on to the wife’s frustrations because not only is she not getting her empathy, but she must cease the pity party if a solution is suggested. @Empath said it flawlessly: “Nothing creates empathus-interruptus more than fixing a woman’s problem when she could have milked it for empathy/sympathy for hours or days.
You say: “if I tell my husband about it and he has an insightful solution that I hadn’t thought of, I am all over that! It will literally stop me in my fretful anxious tracks and I will gape at him in awe at his cleverness. Poof! Anxiety gone! Replaced with total delight in my husband.
This is wise of you! It is however, not the reaction that most women will have in the much more common situation- complaining solely to have her husband react with sympathy and assurance of her wrong feelings. In a situation where a selfish wife actually needs her husband to solve her problem, then yes, yours would be the default response, but those situations are hardly worth mentioning considering they happen virtually never when compared with the infinite amount of times that wives give an account of their day’s problems in search of empathy and rightfully, do no cash in.
As the above “conversation” between Francine and younggodlywoman illustrates, men, it’s really this simple:
All women are attention whores, all the time. Positive or negative attention, doesn’t matter.
Pingback: My Response To Boxer | Artisanal Toad's Hall
@Boxer
I replied to you on my blog because Dal doesn’t want me discussing my “pet theories” on his blog. If you want to respond, do so there. Thanks, and all the best, Toad.
Pingback: How much should you lean on your wife? | Honor Dads
Well, as a child of divorce I can attest that if you want to stick a knife into your kids and twist it, there is no better way to do this than to get a divorce.
I’ve seen a lot. No kidding. We all have our problems. My husband and I are no exception. So you learn to live with them. Sometimes they’re solvable. Sometimes they’re not. Sometimes they can come from a wife who isn’t the terrible horrible slut you all are talking about; sometimes she’s stuck in an infantile behavior mindset because of events that occurred in the past….particularly if she had a Mom with whom she couldn’t cut the apron strings until they were finally cut agonizingly and she lost all her family of origin relationships thereby — meaning they wouldn’t even speak to her or talk on the phone. And she firmly believes that the only way she’s “worth” anything is if she tries to be exactly like her mother-in-law….she has to cook like her, clean like her, have the same likes and dislikes as her…..she’s a chronic pleaser and then gets frustrated because she can’t “please”. This can also eat away at a marriage. Maybe the chronic pleaser isn’t the kind of wife you have come across, but I’ve come across a pandemic of them, and I’m also a recovering pleaser myself. These wives can be SUPER sneaky and habitual liars, which they will do mostly out of fear. They’re scared of their own shadows. The husbands find they can’t really share anything with them because these girls (you can hardly call them women because they are immature) simply can’t be trusted. If the husbands wrong them in any way (and even the best man has a very hard time not wronging them, because they literally beg you to mistreat them practically), they remember the incident forever, and it becomes part of the foundation for them continuing to act this way. They have no skills for becoming adults, so they remain trapped in childhood, marinating in bitterness that they’ve accumulated because they know this isn’t right, but they don’t know how to get out.
The guys who stick with this through thick and thin and help pull their wives out of this muck deserve the Purple Heart. It’s horrendous.
I guess my point is that with someone like this, it’s crucial to share as much of your life as possible in the manner that lets the girl know that you (1) have it under control, but want to include her in the plans you are making, and (2) expect her to learn to take on adult behavior about problems as they come up. When we hit the Recession in our home, we shared it together and got creative. We now make some of the best homemade soap in town (if I do say so myself) and people love it. I found remnants at the craft table at Wal-Mart for a dollar a yard and outfitted our daughter (we only had one at the time) for way less; boys’ clothes came from a thrift store. I have a whole section on my blog about frugal living; check it out if you like; I washed cloth diapers for years and hung ’em on a clothesline because we couldn’t afford a higher electric bill. This is how the wives help the husbands come through the Recession. It’s fun, it’s creative and it gets your mind off your troubles while living on way less.
I know I’m way late to this thread and I’ll say straight out that I haven’t read all of the responses – there are *a lot* – so I may be repeating a point or unintentionally wading into the middle of an argument, but here’s my two cents worth of experience:
My husband will often tell me about things that are bothering him or issues at work, perhaps because he’s a person who’s helped by verbalizing problems in order to work through them. I’m happy to say that I can usually either ask the right questions in order for him to see new aspects / solutions or can help him to approach what’s being addressed in a novel way that allows new solutions to reveal themselves.
There has honestly never been anything that has brought me to a panicked, “Ohnowhatarewegoingtodo?”, mostly because (as I’ve told him when he’s been particularly worried) I know that we’ll always be OK. If he looses a job, he’s a talented, intelligent, and motivated guy who would do anything within his power for our family – we’re not going to starve.
A bit counterintuitively to some, my faith in him seems to reassure him of his own abilities and helps him recenter rather than piling more concern and worry onto his already burdened shoulders.
There’re probably many marriages out there that wouldn’t work well with out level of disclosure (and I’m completely open to the probability that he may not share everything with me), but I thought I’d echo the point that there’s a range of levels of sharing and that the crux may be finding compatibility.
Pingback: Man up and share your feelings. | Dalrock
Why would any man want to willingly get into any of this crap just to have woman in a relationship? Nothing said here is of benefit to a man…… only responsibilities, and have to really handle everything mostly on your own…..Where is the idea of a helper or partner? Seems like she would be nothing but an overground child with the benefits of being an adult without the work to actually be one……
Pingback: Links to posts for Christian husbands. | Dalrock