Dear Daughter: More nuggets for review.
♦ The earlier in life the better to teach males about romance. This makes teen girls critical in the development of romantic men. [8]
♦ Shapeless and excessively covered boobs shift manly focus to other women. [12]
♦ Romantic love, mostly based on infatuation and lust, does not require a man’s respect. Moreover, romantic love fades after a year or two. [7]
♦ Morality serves women, but men don’t need it. Mothers and other females must see that boys and men live within the moral expectations of women, or male dominance gets out of hand. [18]
♦ Men with a wounded spirit work harder to recover and do better. Women with a wounded spirit seek someone to nurse away their hurt. [4]
♦ Men desire females that other men have not had. With him, it’s beating out all those other guys. [7]
♦ Love to a man means showing respect and gratefulness for who he is and what he does, and that’s what he expects from a woman. [4]
♦ Love to a woman means showing attention and affection, and that’s what she expects of a man. [4]
♦ If she duplicates masculine-style sexual freedom, it makes her the subordinate player in a man’s game. [12]
♦ Hunter-conquerors highly value difficult targets. This makes hardtoget work. [8]
♦ Feminism demeans masculinity to get what women want. Femininity uplifts and honors manliness to get what women need. [1]
When you say that men don’t need morality- I don’t get that….what about what the Bible says about sin? It applies to both men and women.
Yes, please explain when you say men do not need morality…
Ladies,
I wrote: “♦ Morality serves women, but men don’t need it. Mothers and other females must see that boys and men live within the moral expectations of women, or male dominance gets out of hand. [18]”
‘Need’ is the operative word. By disregarding women and children, the male competitive spirit and aggressive nature operate easily without moral codes; men and boys merely fight for power and dominance. War, torture, rape, and pillage come to mind, as does family abandonment, home violence, and gang warfare.
Moral codes and standards level battlefields and the playing fields of home. The females’ most difficult task is getting men to STOP disregarding the needs of women and children. Strong moral standards help more than anything else. The Holy Bible is the greatest expositor, and our Judeo-Christian culture proves it.
Guy
PS. Of course the bible applies to men. Otherwise, we would have no Western civilization.
G.
“The females’ most difficult task is getting men to STOP disregarding the needs of women and children…”
Okay. How can I prove to feminist that this is nto an optional female task? AGM: You can’t prove it to those with religious zeal for their anti-male opinions. Their minds are closed. The perverted notion and philosophy of a “lassez-faire” FREEDOM that is promoted and deeply entrached in the psyche of all Americans- both male and female, make it difficult for many postmodern women to see that even though it is a choice and it doesn’t have to be done- that WE are at fault for letting things get this way? AGM: Freedom is a perverted notion? It empowers one to pursue their self-interest. Postmodern values concocted largely by feminists prevent women from pursuing their self-interest. Not because of freedom, but because feminists killed the cultural values that used to energize men to STOP disregarding the needs of women and children. Is it really true in countries where the women are modest and at home that there isn’t war? AGM: Yes, it’s always the females’ most difficult task. I mean what the hell is up in the middle east then? AGM: Those women are powerless to change cultural values or even micro male behaviors. If what you are saying is true, then all those women who are covered from head to toe, primarily are homemakers and subserivint to their husbands, and gear the boys and girls in the same way, have insane violence going on. AGM: It’s totally a man’s game. If no female influence in cultural values, then no peace and quiet in or between societies.
I think that what you are saying makes theoretical sense and may have proven true in the Victorian eara and other historical times of pre-inductrial America. AGM: You’re correct if you but change ‘Victorian era’ to Judeo-Christian culture that prevailed from earliest America to recently. As postmodern secularists and atheists overwhelm our Judeo-Christian culture with their leftist religious ideologies, our unique brand of Western civilization moves toward the European brand that is now being overwhelmed by Islam.
But you must realize that the main thing here in out country is “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” We are a nation of the INDIVIDUAL. We Americans reject the notion of putting the community before the self. AGM: Not so. We promote that community interests cannot override individual freedom in principle, not freedom for individuals. A majestic difference that’s unique to America. Examine Japanese culture for example. But like I have always told you guy, the feminists are not the core originators of this issue, they are only the loudest banner-carryers for something that polluted out way of life with the idea that in order to be free- all peopel had to be in a posisiton to do whatever it is they please. “Hands-Off” or “Do as we please” the french meaning of lassez-faire, on which capitsalism is founded is the AMERICAN way of life. AGM: It’s a historical subject that I’ve addressed in posts 204, 218, and 238. And so Guy, what you are proposing, while true, does not take into account the major barriers to why we have feminists reacting so angrily to these ideas. AGM response: Angry feminists support their religious ideology. They reject Judeo-Christian values that inspire men to honor women and children more than doing their all-male things.
It’s not just about hating men. It’s about being taught since we were little girls that:
“YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.”
There was never any talk of our actions having macrocosmic consequenses for the “female race” so you need to understand that beofre we even enter the battle of the sexes, there is something bigger that facilitated the destruction of the family.
It’s called American Individualism. Every man and woman is an island. AGM: …and responsible for obeying the law. Individualism built America into a nation of families. Individual liberty was a guiding principle from which flowed Rule of Law and right-makes-might. Judeo-Christian values were a guiding light from which flowed cultural imperatives against adultery and fornication (i.e., unmarried sex). Women honored biblical principles against unmarried sex, and men fell in line. (On the macro level, men do whatever women require for convenient and frequent access to sex.) If men are raping, pillaging, waging war— it’s not womens fault! AGM: True, but only women can prevent it by taming, civilizing, and domesticating men to honor the needs of women and children first. Witness elsewhere around the globe. They are autonomous being that can make decisions for themselves.
RIIIGHHHT?
Well, clearly feminists did not invent indivudualism, nor the notion laizze faire. So now that we are in all of this: How do women accept such a difficlut truth in the midst of such a harsh social climate? AGM: Look to, reinforce, and depend upon the female nature instead of copying men and adopting masculine habits. Return to feminine principles, standards, and expectations to improve relationships and the making of laws. Learn as our foremothers did to exploit patriarchy instead of trying to impose matriarchy. The final objective should not be about the power to do it, but about getting men to promote what women declare necessary for the wellbeing of women and children.
I think I get it. Men don’t “need” morality the way women do because women, as the weaker sex, always suffer disprortionately more from immorality. However, morality, when kept as standards by women acting as a cartel, serve to civilize men.
Your Ladyship,
Precise, clear, and better than I said it. Thanks.
Guy
Hehe- so my economics education works for something!
I know things were generally better back in other eras. But really- were females always holding up virtue- or is that a fairytale. As far as I know- my grandmothers and great aunts got married because they got knocked up and had a shotgun wedding….and a large majority of them ended up divorced.
And then you see all those movies from Henry the V, Louis X, old English films with the kings and they all had crazy affairs going on. Heck even in the bBible there are storied of all kinds of hanky panky going on.
So how much better was it “back then.”?
Your Highness easybreezy,
Your final question is complex enough for a full post. So, I dedicate post #445 in your honor. It’ll be published after 6pm CT January 19.
Guy
PS- Sorry for my poor typing skills!
Your Ladyship,
Your typing skills matter little considering your clear expression of thought. I’ll be working tomorrow morning on response to your previous comment.
Guy
Easybreezy,
“As far as I know- my grandmothers and great aunts got married because they got knocked up and had a shotgun wedding….and a large majority of them ended up divorced.”
I think the major difference between then and now is that your post–if it were to reflect today’s reality–would end at “they got knocked up.” The honor system of yesteryear (be it the father himself or the girl’s father) would NOT permit the “baby daddy” culture of today. A MAN stepped up and married the woman.
Your Highness Stacy,
I posted an answer to Easybreezy. It will be published as #445 after 6pm CT January 19.
I appreciate your continuing input.
Guy
Read any…I MEAN *ANY* financial magazine and they ALL SAY that BOTH men & women fare better, financially, in a dual income situation. THAT’S where the “better” of yesterday comes in. Today, women are LEFT holding the ball…from paying for the birth control to STD tests to dealing with being a single parent.
It isn’t the “through to 18 years old” that keeps single female parents from doing well in life…it’s those “through to kindergarten/2nd grade” years that’s the trip-up. But it CAN be done. “CAN be done” is not the same as “OPTIMAL choice.” And it’s getting caught up in the use/dump/recycle game with, yet, ANOTHER man (and having another child) that is the actual, final nail in the coffin for single moms. THIS is where “back in the day” is better.
No to sound glib, but getting divorced after at least getting the child through to the 2nd grade (and having a dual income/resource household) is a MUCH better position for a woman to be in than doing it on her own the whole time.
Your Ladyship,
Thanks for the wise thoughts so clearly expressed. You’re a jewel in my eyes.
Guy