Friday, July 12, 2013
Behold a new breed of Woman
Lonely Himalayan Bear made a brilliant point in several guises.
I am afraid I missed the point many times, which is why he had to present the same point to me in several takes before I finally caught on.
LHB, I never said I was a bright spark ;-)
The point he makes is essentially this: that MGTOW is not necessarily a reaction to women's bad behaviour. Men have reached a state of play where it is rational - a choice (Hey, what's good for feminism is also good for 'masculinism') to GTOW which is absolutely nothing to do with women.
I guess my first reaction to this notion is, 'Hm, this is one almighty coincidence, isn't it, that when woman go AWOL, men decide to GTOW. Interesting'.
Well that's a simplistic view of a very pertinent point, I know.
I missed what LHB was really trying to say, but he was patient enough to try, try, try again until I could see his point finally :-)
The following helped my understanding of where he was coming from:
"Women NOT marrying is not the problem; often women that DO MARRY are the biggest deterrents :-) Everything I needed to learn about marriage and female psychology (outside of books, that is), I learnt by observing heterosexual couples around me. Many of them were traditional, religious Hindu couples wedded under Marriage 1.0 laws in the "culturally deep-rooted" Indian nation. It was all like a never-ending play where I saw Briffault's law, Weininger's thoughts, Schopenhauer's opinions, Manu's teachings (Hinduism), Menckenian philosophy and Esther Vilar's book being played out several times before I actually even encountered those literary works."
Well, this made me sit up, because I was under the impression that the current state of play (women hooking up with the bad boys instead of rewarding the good boys) was enough to derail an already failing system.
But oh no. As LHB points out, there is more that is undermining the good name of marriage.
I think I see what he means. Let's try and smoke out this new monster (actually, a very old monster).
And now I am reminded of a phrase I used to use a lot months ago. I used to say a lot of this:
"Virginity is not enough."
LHB is describing a phenomenon which is being played out by women who would have been the archetypal perfect brides. Tarditional Hindu women? There are no better women than traditional Hindu women!
(Hey, not even traditional Catholic women, lol).
So what's the problem?
And it is important to say, this problem predates feminism, but certainly has been updated, upgraded and rebooted big time by feminism.
Here is my take on the problem:
First of all, this problem seems to be distinct from the ills of the contemporary SMP because as LHB points out ad nauseum until I 'got it', it involves women who should have been perfect wives, from a bygone age.
Who are these women... who should have made for excellent wives, but who caused generations of men to want to curl up and die whilst simultaneously sucking it up and manning up because they felt compelled to?
Who are these women who rode on the coat-tails of other women of their generation and hopped onto the 1950s 'kept woman' bus but who didn't deserve to be on that bus?
You see, there were lovely, beautiful (in every way) honourable women of that era. So for LHB to pinpoint this errant minority (um, I hope this was indeed a minority but I have no way of knowing for certain) sounds rather like heresy.
But it is not heresy.
On the surface of things, these women possessed at least two of the following positive characteristics: they were virgin brides, good-looking, demure, charming women with some but not excessive education who were sought after by many men but settled for the men of her choice, men who satisfied their 'lists'.
Anything wrong with this picture?
Absolutely not. So far so good. Things should be exactly like this.
But these woman were hell to live with.
I think this is what LHB was getting at.
I have two theories on this.
The first is that I think there is a natural tendency for women's 'tolerance' levels for men to drop as they get older. This is not a criticism of women as such. It is but an observation.
I described this phenomenon here (link - hourglass device). Whilst I think there are many factors that cause a rapid decline in the sand within this 'hourglass devce', I think perhaps it is prudent to accept that there will be some decline, unless the woman in question is making a concerted effort to be a saint. Many men notice this decline in the form of denial of certain privileges :-), getting roughed up by law enforcement on the whim of 'er indoors, or getting downright kicked out of the home when she is well and truly done with him.
Deplorable and regrettable, yes.
My second theory is that women evolve much faster than men on an emotional level. Men largely stay the same emotionally. Women swing a lot from day to day, month to month, year to year.
Maybe it is the hormonal changes associated with lunar phases :-) childbirth, etc.
The point is that a woman who seems to have 'changed a lot' may appear to have 'tricked' a man because he 'didn't see it coming'. This is a common response amongst stunned and shocked recently divorced men.
I make no excuses - I am just trying to understand what may be going on.
How can this problem be solved?
The first thing to say is that for sure, feminism is not helping the situation, because the woman (even if she is not the type) is egged on by laws which enable her to do as she pleases to the detriment of everyone else. These laws are the woman's enemy in the long run, but at the time she is busy taking advantage of them, she is blinded to this possibility.
We need a new breed of 'super woman'.
Bellita and I made (independently of each other!) the point that at this stage of the game in the current SMP, a woman needs to really show that she is the bees' knees before she will be taken seriously by any man as a good prospect for marriage, whoever she is.
She needs to be far better than what a 1950s woman had to be, to be 'wifed up'. This is the price ALL women have to pay now.
Voilà, we are where we are now.
And the tragedy is that many men won't just say, 'well I am MGTOW because there are skanky young women about'.
No, they are also saying 'well, my mother was seemingly the perfect wife and mother, but my father still wants to kill himself every three months'...
There is one thing that feminism has gifted women: the proximity to men at the workplace for large numbers of women may be seen as a bad thing in general, but I say, why don't we put it to good use?
The 1950s housewife had no way of knowing what it would be like for a man to be out all day 'slaying dragons'.
The modern woman does, by default. She has had to slay a few dragons herself.
When she empathises with a man who has just gotten grief from his boss, her words of empathy carry far more weight than those of her grandmother.
A modern woman may lack the understanding of men that the 1950s woman naturally got from her own mother, but the modern woman has the proximity that the 1950s woman was simply not allowed for fear of adverse consequences for her :-)
If only the modern woman can still avoid those 'adverse consequences', she can take full advantage of this proximity to really study men 'in the wild' as it were, with little need for top-up 'second-hand information from third parties:-)
All the other rules of femininity apply. The modern woman can only add to the repertoire. There is potential for a fulfilling life as a woman, with all the strides made to provide women with 'choices'. The key is to know that choices are not endless, and that each choice has a consequence down the line.
What we need is a new breed of woman who has the ability to use the quirks of modern life to her actual advantage rather than capitulate under all these 'choices' that Mama Feminism brought her.
Modern woman needs to be the Cinderella whose feet fit whatever shoe modern life throws at her.
It begins with a certain empathy and understanding of men and a refusal to succumb to the 'all men are bastards' chorus.
This, I think is what was lacking in those pretty, slim, virginal 1950s women who somehow despite all their apparent gifts still managed to wreak havoc for their unsuspecting entourage.
They somehow managed to give marriage a bad name in an era when this should have been impossible.
But they managed it, because there was a critical mass of excellent women around, so much like all children benefit from the herd immunity that immunised children provide (if theay are the majority), these unfit women were carried along on the tidal wave of the goodwill of their good sisters, much to the eventual pain of the 1950s man who could not tell the difference between a 'good one' and a 'bad one' because 'well, they all look the same to me'.
But now, modern woman stands very much alone, as she is judged not with the positive reflection of her critical mass of good sisters ('cos there ain't a critical mass of good sisters no more :-) she is judged as a stand-alone entity (if she is lucky).
Worst case scenario - she is judged with the negative reflection of the increasingly critical mass of her not-so-great sisters.
This is the unintended consequence of the legacy of our errant female ancestors, yes.
We are where we are now...
Modern man has much more than the unlucky 1950s man: he has the ability to study modern woman. This same proximity thing works both ways :-)
So, LHB, the problem you describe should never be the modern man's prolem in this current era.
For you guys have a tool your fathers did not have.
Whilst modern woman is more than capable of restoring the good name of marriage,
1. It would take a great deal of personal effort, prayer, guidance, divine intervention :-)
2. It may not make any difference to the atrtitude of men, because the die has already been cast.
3. But she really does need to do something. Because she needs marriage. Even if she doesn't know she does.
Wouldn't it be fun to beat the 1950s woman at something... just so we could say we could...