Tissue-Paper Walls

A few days ago a first time commenter left a comment on an old post of mine, A Must Read Story. There is a small part of her rather longish comment that I want to examine. The key part is in bold:

it’s very difficult to have high self-esteem when you do everything “right” but still have poor luck with the opposite sex, and it creates a very lonely feeling when you follow your values but end up getting victimized for it. Our society is simply set up so that selfish people appear to get ahead–that goes for Chads sleeping with hundreds of women, and the slutty girls having “fun.” Eva is the equivalent of the beta male looking on confused, and just because you can’t imagine a woman sharing that experience with you, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. In fact, most women are profoundly insecure. The ones who are open about it–like Eva–haven’t learned the lesson that YOU perceive all women to be adept at–hiding their feelings and vulnerabilities.

Most women are profoundly insecure.

That little tidbit is the subject of today’s post. I’ve written on it before, in my post Beta Farming. I explained my reasoning at the time of why women might be insecure. Some of my reasoning:

Much of this insecurity comes from the gap in physical prowess between men and women. We men are much more capable of defending ourselves and imposing our will on our environment than women are- at least at the individual level. But whatever its source, it has a profound effect on female behavior. Women are constantly, and often at an unconscious or subconscious level, trying to alter their environment to make it feel more secure.

Having thought about it more, I can think of additional reasons for female insecurity.  One of them is that women know (mostly at an unconscious level) how vulnerable pregnancy and child-raising makes them. Another is that women, again unconsciously, realize how limited their peak fertility and SMV window is. They worry about optimizing that time, and covering for when they are no longer at their peak. There is plenty of room for speculation there, and my commenters can feel free to contribute.

However, I want talk about how the insecurity should be handled. One of the problems with that insecurity is that ill-intentioned men can exploit it. Often times quite easily. And course, it usually isn’t entirely unwillingly. But exploitable it still remains.

At the same time, I think that this insecurity is something that good men can relieve or buttress. They can, in the right scenario, build up women’s confidence in a positive way. This can help women resist that lure of exploitation or build up a wall against it. Men can supplement the tissue paper or paper mache walls that women may have with walls of stone and gates of iron.

Unfortunately, our society isn’t exactly eager to see this happen. Fatherhood has been trashed, both as a social as well as a legal force. Fathers are essentially powerless to protect their daughters these days, especially when they are older. Likewise, our society does its level best to keep women away from actual good men, who though few in number still exist. Certainly it tries hard to keep women from marrying such men when they are young.

Now, what I am saying gets awfully close to white knighting. I will admit that gives me pause. All the same, I think the argument is potent indeed that strong men are needed to protect women- from themselves. But for that to happen men need actual power to go with that responsibility. Our present cadre of White Knights, especially in Churchian circles, is what you get when you take that power away from men. Men become modern caricatures of Don Quixote, assaulting windmills left and right and ignoring the real threats all around them.

I will leave with two questions I want to pose to my readers.

First, what methods can be used to protect women, assuming the necessary social structure was in place?

Second, if that structure is not in place, how can it be created, or what workarounds can be used if it cannot?

 

The Gamma-ization Of Superman

I have been meaning to write this post for some time after numerous discussions withNSR, but never got around to it. However, Cane Caldo’s latest post, The Judgement of Freaks, finally convinced me to get something down on electronic paper. Cane’s post exams Sci-Fi/Fantasy fans and their nature and how it interacts with the market. The part that interested me was this:

But if we talk about the collective of fans, a great many of whom are strange and ill-formed, then I must say that it does have to be this way. What these strange and ill-formed SF&F fans want is a structure of the superficial. The less substantive the better, for under it they can do a couple things.

1. Transform their crippling weirdness into a minor flaw which is subsumed under the temporarily-irrelevant category of real life.
2. Practice a wide assortment of perversions disguised as make believe.

That’s why there are so many freaks in the comicbook store. That’s why there are so many freaks at the Star Trek conventions. That’s why there are so many freaks at Renaissance festivals, comic conventions, anime conventions…there are a lot of freak conventions.

I have no idea how much experience Cane has with this sort of folk. I’ve always had the impression he was a jock in high-school, and not the nerd type. Unfortunately, I was the nerd type, and so I am all too familiar with these freaks. And freaks they are.

Oh, not all of them. I’ve been to comic shops and conventions and Ren fairs and the like. Not everyone there is a freak. But plenty are. Perhaps even a majority at many of these events/places. The thing is, this didn’t always use to be the case.

Years ago comics used to be much more “mainstream,” for want of a better term. But somewhere along the way that changed. Both the fans and the writers started to shift in their overall make-up, and it shows. This structure of the superficial became more predominant, and then finally dominant. Depth is out of the question in most places, and what “depth” you do get is typical SJW political drivel for the most part. The exceptions are just that, exceptions.

From my perspective comics started as a form of light fantasy entertainment. Superpowers sort of took the place of magic, and allowed for fun and interesting characters and stories. But then as the fandom and writers changed, this shifted. Light fantasy morphed into what I can only think is escapism. People created weirder and weirder characters and situations because they themselves were weirder and weirder. As for the existing characters, they were transformed in varying ways, few of them good.

Superman provides an excellent example of this. As originally conceived and as the character was written in the golden and silver age, Superman fits many of the qualities that are often in these parts called “Alpha.” I mean, really, he is the Alpha. Strong, confident, dominant and admired/envied by everyone. And of course women throw themselves at him.

But over time the character of Superman has changed. Some of this might owe to the Comics Code, put in place in the mid 50s, which made things “tamer.” However, I think that only helped lay the groundwork- it didn’t actually lead to the character changing. Instead, it was a new generation of writers (and the fans with them) that transformed the character.

An interesting fact that NSR told me is that DC Comics originally figured they had only a 3-5 year run with most of their readers, who happened to be young boys. After that the boys would start getting interested in girls and their interest in comics would wane. Apparently that influenced the business model. However, at some point super-fans showed up and started to make noises about continuity and the need to collect every comic and the like. Over time these fans became writers, and they started to change the character.

I mention this because it seems to me that the super-fans, if we can call them that, evidently didn’t get caught up in the whole “chasing girls” thing. This to me suggests that they were “out there”, perhaps in a socio-sexual way. Enter Vox’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy. I don’t subscribe to it in full, but I think there are some useful descriptions there. Here is the description of Gamma:

The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there… sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects.

What I suspect is that over time many of the writers in the comics world started to fit this description. Their own nature as “Gammas” influenced their writing. They projected some of their own nature onto the characters they were writing. This is something you can see in the character of Superman. Some examples of the changes:

• Superman was always an alien, but he still fit in while on Earth. During his Gammization, however, two things happened. Some writers had him basically disregard his Kryptonian heritage- an example of deliberately denying pride in one’s ancestry. Other writers went to the other extreme, and emphasized his alien nature. They made him feel as if he was an outcast/outsider- which is just how many of them happened to feel.
• The way that Superman interacted with women, especially as Clark Kent, changed. In the beginning Clark was always mild-mannered, but his bumbling nature with women was also a disguise. Superman actually enjoyed pretending to be the fool who didn’t “get” women. It was all a joke to him. But over time that disguise sort of disappeared, and he lost his humor at playing people. Instead he was confused and conflicted with how he should interact with women. This can be seen in the original Superman movie from the 70s.
• After 1986, Superman was often displaced within his own comics. Other characters would be the ones taking all the action, and he would just stand there. Along with this came a huge decrease in his power. While Superman certainly had some “power creep” in the early days, he was almost neutered once the Gammas took over the writing.

There is more, but those examples in particular stand out. Putting all of it together, we have seen Superman as a character be twisted by a wave of writers less masculine , and more freakish, than the ones who came before. Of course, he isn’t the only character so affected. And it is important to note that many comics writers from the start were freaks who wanted ways to live out their perversions- see the character of Wonder Woman, for example.

Unfortunately, I see this trend only continuing. So those of us who enjoy the old comics- the light fantasy and not the shallow escapism and perversions of today, are sort of out of luck. At least we have the old ones to enjoy.

In Defense Of George

In my recent posts The Way We Met and None The Wiser I was accused of being uncharitable towards George and the young woman he had been infatuated with for a long time. Looking back, I can see that this was true. Pretty much nearly every inference was drawn against both George and the young woman on my part. I implied that he was being foolish, and pointed out numerous indicators that she was probably poor relationship material. Mind you, I didn’t accuse her of being malicious or manipulative. [One thing to keep in mind is that she always appreciated his good qualities; they just didn’t matter until she saw him as sexually attractive]. Rather, I just pointed out that she was questionable as a partner, and said George could have probably done better.

People came to a lot more conclusions about the two of them than I was intending with that post. This is my fault- I tried to do too much in a single post. My original focus was on how the young woman’s change in feelings towards George was based on his SMV growth over anything else. However, at the same time I also  devoted space in the post towards expressing sympathy towards George, in that I believed he was making a poor choice by entering into a relationship with her. Given that I had included photos of them, that put me on morally shaky ground- especially without any defense of them in that post or admonition against coming to unwarranted conclusions.

Today I will, in the spirit of fairness, offer the defense I should have included from the beginning. I will draw all the inferences in their favor this time. Of course, to do that I need to cover where I drew it against them. So what where my inferences again? Here they are:

• George was a Beta Orbiter
• She has had numerous bad relationships where George had to help her pick up the pieces- a.k.a., she had numerous failed sexual relationships in the past
• She believes in soul mates
• Her mother was probably a divorcee

Those are the big ones, anyways. So lets flip them around, and then extrapolate on what they mean.

The first one is about him and his behavior. If we assume the best about him than he wasn’t infatuated with her for 10 years. Instead, he was using that time to build himself up, and perhaps consider other options as far as female company are concerned. In those ten year he was a friend, but not someone stuck in the friendzone. This conclusion would make George more confident and aware of his own value. His decision is not the product of years of frustrated pining for a woman who ignores him, but a more deliberate, and hopefully informed choice.

For the second inference, and first red flag, we assume that those were not sexual relationships. Perhaps the reason they ended badly was because the young woman wasn’t sleeping with her boyfriends. It would certainly be understandable to see how she could have numerous failed relationships if she was saving herself for marriage. Given how rare chastity is these days, most men she would run across, including the “Christian” ones, would likely dump her if she wasn’t putting out. Now, if this were true- that the reason for her failed relationships was because she was saving herself- then it would be a huge green flag. It would be a huge sign in her favor, one that George would be a fool to ignore. [There is of course the whole frigidity thing, but I believe that is reasonably rare as to be a minor concern- especially since she is still in her 20s.]

The third inference was the most solid of all- that she believes in soul mates. For those curious, that is not a good thing- those who do believe in soul mates are more likely to divorce. To draw it in her favor would mean to assume she was just making a figure of speech. She didn’t really mean soul mate in the typical -pagan- way of looking at it. Rather, she just wanted to say that her relationship with George felt like it was destined.

Finally, we have the fourth inference. To infer in her favor would be to assume that her mother was a widow. In this case, she did have a father, but lost him at some point. Hopefully it would mean that she had a strong and positive male influence in her life. Also, it would mean that she would have a living example in her life of how marriage is “until death do us part.” This is not so much a “green flag”, but would obviate the harm that comes from being a child of divorce.

If all four of these points were true- George wasn’t a Beta Orbiter, the woman wasn’t sleeping around, she didn’t believe in soul mates, and her mother was a widow, then it would change how we would view the relationship. George wouldn’t be a fool. After all, she appears to have long recognized his good qualities- he just needed to become more attractive for them to really shine. He would be in a relationship with someone who valued those qualities, who valued her body, and who saw that marriage was until “death do us part.” Compared to your average American female, she would be well ahead of the pack. One could even argue he would be a fool not to pursue her.

And that brings my defense of George and his woman to a conclusion. If you can see other ways to buttress that, feel free to add them in the comments below.

None The Wiser

One of the important points which I raised in The Way We Met that I think bears repeating is that the woman gained no wisdom in the process. She didn’t come to any great realization that she needed to accept George. As I explained:

You see, reading the piece and looking at those photos tells me that the woman here wasn’t having issues accepting that she was supposed to be with George. Rather, the problem from the beginning was that George just wasn’t sexually attractive. He was too “Beta”, if you will. Since he wasn’t sexually attractive to her, his other great traits meant jack. However, as the years passed by George grew in confidence, and it shows in that second photo. Eventually his attractiveness grew to the point where she no longer dismissed him as a sexual partner. At that point his other great traits were able to come to the forefront[…]

It is a not infrequent refrain these days that women “wise up” when they get older. This is why they ignored “nice guys” and “good men” for so long, only to start paying them attention once they get older. Beforehand they were young and foolish. After some worldly wisdom sets in, they realize the error of their ways and shift their attention and affection (and impliedly their attraction) towards such men.

Nothing could be further from the truth in nearly all cases.

What is really happening is that women are adapting to changes in the sexual markeplace as they get older. At least, changes as it relates to their change in position vis-a-vis age. For ease of reference, Rollo’s chart again:

As women age their value in the SMP declines.  Depending on the woman, this can be a gradual shift, or a disturbingly rapid one. Meanwhile, as a general rule men increase in value over time. Due to a variety of factors their LAMPS/PSALM attributes will increase as they age, making them overall more and more attractive to women. So when young, very few men have a high SMV, at least in relation to women.

Now, at the same time remember that women are far, far picker than men when it comes to sexual partners. They find far less men attractive out of the general population than men find women attractive in the general population. In addition, the woman’s own SMV will affect how she views the attractiveness of a man. The higher her SMV relative to that of the men she meets, the fewer and fewer she will find acceptable/sexually attractive.

Taken together, this means that when women are young and are at their peak, they tend to pick find only a handful of men to be attractive. [Again, there are always exceptions, but we are talking about the general population here.] Those men are almost never “nice guys” or “good men.” In other words, guys like how the woman described George. It is these men who women tend to favor with their affections.

However, as they age, and men increase in their SMV value, and women decrease in SMV value, this all shifts. All of a sudden a bunch of men who otherwise weren’t attractive in the eyes of a woman suddenly start to be more and more attractive. Many will actually reach the threshold where she actually rates them as attractive. At this point the man becomes a viable option, and all his other traits “click in to place.” Think George.

All of which brings us back to the point of this post- women are none the wiser at the end. They change, sure. But that change comes about from their decrease in relative SMV, and their understanding of their change in SMV. Otherwise, the real change takes place in the men she considers her peers. They are the ones changing… by becoming more attractive to her.

Wisdom requires a certain amount of reflection and self-examination. And that is simply not happening here. Instead, women are just adapting reflexively to changes in the SMP around them. They are not developing a newfound understanding about “Beta” traits. They are not suddenly finding them sexually appealing. Don’t let anyone fool you with notions that women naturally get wiser when they age- especially when romance is concerned. Keep a level head, and hopefully you will avoid a potential pitfall which others will try and lead you towards.

The Strain

There is a terrible condition out there now that is afflicting many western men.

If not treated, it can lead to a lifetime of suffering, and in some circumstances, even death.

Even worse, many men do not realize that they have it.

What is this awful malady, pray tell?

It is Oneitis.

 

To give it my best try at describing it…

Oneitis is the belief that one single, specific, identifiable person out there is THE ONE for you and you must wait until that person finally recognizes this; that is, that single person is your soul mate whom you must, nay, are destined, to be with and it will become so in the end, despite your soul mate not realizing it at the time.

 

A person with oneitis will forsake all other possibilities and options to be with The One. This “crush” will override reason and can blind someone to the glaring red flags found in their “soulmate.” This is, of course, terrifyingly disastrous for the person with Oneitis. They will endure unnecessary frustration, angst and misery.

This can come about several ways. For one, they will ignore other, better romantic options. Two, they will give more and more power over to the other person if a relationship does develop. Three, they will be blind to the flaws in the other person, even when such flaws should compel a reasonable person to run away.

Now, all of that is descriptive. Here is the prescriptive part of the post:

Readers, Commenters and Fellow Bloggers, warn your male friends and family about the dangers of Oneitis. Tell them that is is deadly, and can and will ruin their life.

Explain that there is no such thing as a “Soul Mate.” It is pagan nonsense. Point out how it clouds reason, and blinds them  to other, better possibilities. Remind them that there are BILLIONS of women on this planet- there are plenty of other options out there. Help them understand that it is highly unattractive to women, and will only frustrate their romantic endeavors.

Do the men in your life a favor, and help cure their Oneitis. The whole world will be better off for it.

The Way We Met

[See update at the bottom of the post.]

I ran across the following story via a friend. Apparently it is part of some Facebook feed called The Way We Met:

“I was best friends with George for 10 years before we started dating. We met in High School and developed a really special friendship over the years. I always felt more comfortable telling George something than anyone else I knew. He became my most trusted companion and we hung out all the time. People who didn’t know us always thought we were dating. When we went our separate ways for college, we didn’t talk as much anymore but our friendship remained just as strong. George was always there for me after every bad relationship ended to help me pick up the pieces. I would often say to people, “I think friends can be soul mates, I really think George is mine.” It was odd how we would say the same thing at the same time and always knew what the other person was thinking. I always knew how much George meant to me, but it wasn’t until after my Mom got remarried that I started to look at him in a different light. The day of my Mom’s wedding I came down the stairs and he looked up at me with a big smile and said, “You look beautiful baby,” and then kissed me on the cheek. I don’t know why but something about that moment has always stuck out so strongly to me. The rest of the evening I kept staring at him and thinking about how handsome he was, what a gentleman he was, and how much I cared about him. We danced with each other all night and I realized how perfectly we fit together. It felt like home. After that, it took a couple weeks of nervous deliberation but we finally decided we wanted to be together. It’s crazy to think that my soul mate has been with me this whole time, I just wasn’t ready to accept it yet.”

There are a couple of images that accompany this. They are side by side for comparison:

Now some of you might recognize these images. That is because I featured them in my recent post, Telling Photos. Now that I have included the text that accompanies the photos we can finally start with the making of sense.

So what do we learn from both of them together? Here are a few things:

• The guy (George), was a beta orbiter for a long, long time.
• The gal (whose name I don’t have), had numerous broken relationships. A reasonable inference can be made that [those relationships, or at least some of them, were sexual, although it is not certain].
• The gal believes in Soul Mates. Ouch.
• The gal’s mom was either a divorcee or was a widow. That is not good news for good ol’ George [if it is the latter].
• They are probably somewhere between 24 and 28 years old.
• George majorly stepped up his attractiveness over those ten years.
• She was somewhat overweight at first, and it seems she has managed to get at least some of that weight off.

[A number of these are red flags. They are indicators of possible problems with her as LTR material. That doesn’t necessarily mean she is poor material, but they should prompt caution.]

Here is the thing- if someone who wasn’t “Red Pill” savvy read this piece, they would probably find it sweet. Those of us who are savvy, however, would probably have an entirely different reaction. I found the story sad, not sweet.

You see, reading the piece and looking at those photos tells me that the woman here wasn’t having issues accepting that she was supposed to be with George. Rather, the problem from the beginning was that George just wasn’t sexually attractive. He was too “Beta”, if you will. Since he wasn’t sexually attractive to her, his other great traits meant jack. However, as the years passed by George grew in confidence, and it shows in that second photo. Eventually his attractiveness grew to the point where she no longer dismissed him as a sexual partner. At that point his other great traits were able to come to the forefront, and before you know it you have this:

“I realized how perfectly we fit together.”

Among other things, this story serves as further evidence in support of Rollo Tomassi’s SMV chart:

What happened here is that the girl’s SMV started out much higher than George’s. However, as time went on his SMV continued to climb and climb. Meanwhile, age has reduced the girl’s potential SMV. However, her (presumed) weight loss had the effect of reducing the effective loss of SMV that she felt. The end result of all of this is that both are pretty close in comparative SMV at the time of this photo.

I mentioned before that I find this sad. The reason why is simple: George is now attractive enough that he can get the attention of decent looking girls (I suspect that while most readers would disagree about the actual number, most would agree that she is at least attractive). Yet what does he do with that newfound power? He goes after the girl he has been crushing on for a decade. A girl with all kinds of baggage (which she freely admits to). A girl whose mother probably was a divorcee. A girl who might very well be reaching her “Epiphany phase,” and thus looking to “cash out”on what remains of her SMV.

George seems like a decent guy, and now probably one with options. He should have focused on younger women with less baggage. Instead he married a girl with more red flags than a Communist parade.

Now that I have fleshed out the rest of this story, I invite my readers to comment further. I believe some good solid lessons can be derived here. Sure, most will already know them, but a refresher course never hurts. Plus you never know, there is always the chance for some newfound wisdom.

*For the record, the couple put all of this out there. They made it public, not me. I am merely commenting on what is effectively a public statement of theirs.

Update: Made a few corrections to try and clarify things; they are in brackets. People came to more conclusions than I was expecting in this post.

Update 2: I wrote a followup post which addresses the problems with this one- In Defense of George.

Beta Farming

In my post Of Fighting And The West, blogger Rollo Tomassi left a comment which included the following gem:

The modern church is a Beta farm and only exists to produce the same masculinity-confused men that the secular world has perfected today.

I want to touch on that issue of “Beta Farming” today.

To start with, I agree with Rollo’s first contention- that the “modern” church is a “Beta farm.” What is taught and enforced in most churches these days is a theology which wrings the masculinity out of men. Most of the time this leaves the young men growing up in church as hapless, servile “Beta” males who exist to do whatever women want.

However, I disagree with the second part. I don’t think that most churches exist to produce these kinds of men. They have other purposes, and not necessarily good ones at that. For example, they often preach a theology which provides moral cover to women and places moral blame on men. All the same, some might have good intentions. Some of those within might genuinely intend to serve the Lord. All the same, the modern church’s purpose has been hijacked. While these churches don’t exist to create “beta males”, that is their functional end purpose at this point (or one of them, anyways).

This all leads to the interesting question of how this all came to be. Reader Lost Patrol left this speculation:

I wouldn’t say the modern church “only exists” to produce hapless men – I see it more as an unintended consequence of having ceded so much ground to secular feminism.

My view is somewhat different- I would argue that this has come about because we have ceded so much ground to women.  As I explained:

The more power women were given, the more natural this outcome was. Once you understand female nature, it is easy to see how this outcome was inevitable once women were given the power and control they were in our present system.

Lost Patrol responded by reaffirming that women were given this power. They could never have taken it from men. The why of men gave women that power I will discuss in another post. But before I close this one I want to cover why this ceding of power to women lead to our present troubles.

My theory is that the present “Beta farms” inside modern churches is a natural result of women influencing matters to reassure their native insecurity. This insecurity is something that I believe most men have no idea about, and even those who have some inkling of its existence usually fail to grasp its extent. I have covered this before, but to briefly sum it up:

Women are far and away more insecure in their lives than men.

Much of this insecurity comes from the gap in physical prowess between men and women. We men are much more capable of defending ourselves and imposing our will on our environment than women are- at least at the individual level. But whatever its source, it has a profound effect on female behavior. Women are constantly, and often at an unconscious or subconscious level, trying to alter their environment to make it feel more secure.

I believe that this behavior is responsible for the “Beta farms” in modern churches. As women were given more power inside the church and its environs, they began to exert their influence. This influence was used to shape how men were raised, and what they were supposed to be as Christians. The goal, whether realized or not, was to create the hapless Beta nice guys who populate most churches these days.

Why? Simple- “Betas” are far less threatening to women. They are safer and do things on women’s behalf. So women reinforce this system to create more and more of these “safe” men. As long as they have any degree of power in a church, they will keep it this way. [Of course, this has the effect of leaving those men as unattractive, but female nature is known for wanting two opposites at once.] If we want to shut down the “Beta farms,” we need to reassert masculine control over the church. Otherwise this wicked cultivation will continue, and likely only get worse.

Masculine Monday- #8

*Men Only*

Short and simple post today, with a short and simple message to men:

Learn how to say “No” to women.

Seriously, if you have trouble with it now, learn to do it. Your life will become so much better for it.

And, dare I say, so will the lives of most of the women who are part of it.

I might be a bit presumptuous here, but I think most men spend a lot of time trying to get women to say “Yes” to various things. But learning to say “No” to when when necessary can get you just as much. In fact, I would warrant a guess that you saying “No” just might be a factor in her saying “Yes.”

This is easier said than done, of course. We men have an instinctive desire to please women. We don’t like it when when are upset. And of course, we are fearful of being tagged a misogynist or the like.  Couple that with a Western upbringing indoctrination, and most men in the West end up as the ones saying “Yes.”

So perhaps some of my male readers would be kind enough to offer their advice on how they learned to overcome all of that.  Guys, what happened you learn to say “No” to women?

[This post was inspired by Dalrock’s recent examination of how many Christian leaders are fearful of telling the women in their congregation “No” in any way, especially the important ones.]

Widows, “Single-Mothers” And Raising Another Man’s Child

[Short post today inspired by a concept broached in Rollo’s most recent post.]

For a long time now I have been bothered when Widows with children are called “Single Mothers” or are lumped together with “Single Mothers.” Frankly, it is insulting to widows and is socially destructive as well. A widow is a woman who acted properly, not destructively. She worked within the social system and was a stabilizing force. A “single-mother,” on the other hand, is a woman who engaged in socially destabilizing behavior and essentially undermines society. [There are a few rare exceptions. A woman who murdered her husband, or the victim of rape, for example.]

With that in mind, I would argue that whatever one’s take on raising another man’s child when the mom is a “single-mother” (a PC device I should probably stop using), a ban should not be applied to the children of widows. Here are several reasons why:

• We want women to engage in socially stabilizing behavior. Marrying is one such behavior. Knowing that they can get married again if their husband dies adds extra incentives to women to marry (and have legitimate children).
• Men who marry and have children but die early benefit when their children are taken care of by a new husband/father. Early death can happen to any man- we never know the hour and all that. There is a genetic imperative for us to want to have children that in turn have children. This imperative is served by our genetic children having a father figure in their lives- especially if we die early. It benefits us to not only know our children will be taken care, but to actually have them be taken care of. Furthermore, this possibility benefits pretty much every married man, whatever his station.
• Men who care about having children will also be more likely to want to marry and have legitimate children. This is beneficial to both their children, as well as society. Probably less pronounced an effect on men as to women, but still beneficial to society.

It is up to any man to decide whether or not to marry a true widow, of course. Further, there are few young widows with children these days, so it won’t be a common concern for men looking to marry (or remarry, if they themselves are a widower).

Also, I think that a similar exception should naturally be made for godchildren. Again, responsible husbands/fathers benefit when we know we are looking out for one another, and our families. That doesn’t necessarily mean marrying a widow- both parents could be dead, for example. But similar reasoning applies all the same.

Commenters are of course free to voice their own thoughts below.

Brief Thoughts And Updates

Just a few quick things for today. First, on Comments.

A.

I tend to be very lenient when it comes to comments. There are a few things I won’t tolerate, however. Here are a couple:

1. Lying about what myself or others have said on this blog. Disagree with what I or others say all you want. But don’t put words in anyone’s mouth.
2. Excessive vulgarity or obscenity.
3. Using sock-puppets, or repeatedly dropping comments from different screen names and e-mail addresses. If you want to comment here, pick a name and e-mail, and stick with it for a while. No one-off comments.

This list is not exhaustive, only illustrative.

B.

Deep Strength has a post up on Tim Tebow’s apparent poor choice in women. I find his analysis to be pretty much spot on. To draw upon some of the ideas I mentioned in this post, Tim is being led on by his Appetites. Thus far he has managed to maintain his chastity, but for how long? Eventually, no matter what, when you play with fire you will get burnt.

Tim needs to reevaluate what he is looking for in a woman. He needs to stop, contemplate Scripture, and pray. He is looking in the wrong places, and until he changes that, things won’t get better for him. Here is some arm-chair advice of mine, some of which was echoed in the comments:

1. Stop dating/courting women who lack virtue. Remember, you can know a tree by the fruit it bears. Plus missionary dating is foolhardy at best. Would a bank owner hire a bank robber to guard his bank, in the hope that the robber reforms? Only a fool would.
2. Stop dating/courting famous women. Really. There are few things more destructive to one’s character than fame. You are unlikely to find a virtuous woman among famous women. Look elsewhere.
3. Start looking for virtue first, and then switch to filter for attractiveness. Starting with a group that will work off the bat, and then going for the best in that group is a much sounder strategy than he is employing.

Really, this is kind of sad. Tim is, at least among Protestant Christians, near the top of the male MMV hierarchy. I am having trouble thinking of anyone above him. If he started looking in the right places, he at least should be able to marry well, despite the present state of the MMP.

C.

Be Feminine, Not Feminist has started a new blog, which you can find here. She is blogging under a new name (her real one, apparently) with a focus on faith. My Christian readers, especially the female ones, might find it of interest.

D.

Cane Caldo has an excellent post up wherein he looks at marriage and the metaphor of the Vine and Branches. Very much worth a read. He has a follow up to it already, found here.

Scott has a post up as well in reply, which I think also merits reading. You can find it here.

I am going to try and respond to both of them as soon as time permits, as I think there is a lot to be discussed on the matter.