616. WHAT people do, but not WHY.

This post is dedicated to Her Highness Tryin2understandurside. She asked me to explain this statement: “Men dominate society or WHAT people do. Women dominate culture or WHY people do what they do.” Her question triggers the following plus tomorrow’s post, 617.  

WWNH: Women now compete directly with men in both workplace and home. But they’re a long way from imposing matriarchy on WHAT people do.

• Men dominate the workplace, a major foundation of what makes society operate. Women that pursue workplace success copy masculine standards and live up to manly expectations, or they never gain the organizational and personal influence needed to dominate. Few succeed, and men continue to dominate.
• Laws, regulations, PC, and administrative fiat lower male dominance in the workplace somewhat. But such interventions go against the male nature, and they cause masculine resentment and retaliation in ways that victimize females.
• Men default by nature to compete with each other for dominance, and this spirit dominates society. Men try to keep female influence out of sight, undetectable amidst manly interaction. If not kept beneath the radar, it makes men appear weak. Men don’t compete with women, but when they do and she wins, he’s a wuss. If he wins, she’s a victim and he’s an ass. Consequently, women have a choice: Compete and generate poor relationships, or cooperate and promote good ones.
• Traditionally, our foremothers specialized in indirectly and cooperatively influencing husbands. She sent him to work with her ideas for improving the world around him. Wives wrote the music, and husbands played the tune. Progress he made at work improved society and brightened the future for her and her children.
• Single men had little influence. Their numbers were small and the best wanted to get married, and so they accepted and copied husbands’ leadership and manner so strongly shaped by wives. This traditional model has faded gradually for fifty years. Numerous single men in the workplace, all less eager to marry, make husbands less numerous and competitive. This makes wives less influential. New women entering the workplace don’t change it much; they face obstacles described in the first two bullets above.
• The taming of the American West was done by husbands. Society settled down, grew peaceful and stable, and opened opportunities for children. It happened because wives said to improve the quality of life. Women unified around this female goal, and it came to pass.
• In the final analysis, homemaker wives more effectively influence the male gender than do women in the workforce. Her Highness Sharon quoted Tocqueville writing about 19^th Century America, and I repeat part of it: “I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked…to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: To the superiority of their women.” (The full quote is in Sharon’s comment at post 615. The original can be found in Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.)  

Society operates under a masculine structure and value system. However, it is subject to change and alteration. Women dominate the values that make up the most powerful side of our civilization. That’s next at post 617. It looks at WHY people do what they do.

436. Do women know jack about Jack? —Part 23

♂ Jack becomes Mr. Right in three steps: First, his Jill picks him more for husbanding and fathering potential than being ‘right’. Second, she shows gratitude for his providing, protecting, etc. Third, she coaches him into good husbanding and fathering. Her successes elevate him to Mr. Right, if he’s to get there. 

♂ Jack is obvious. Commitment you hear, devotion you see.

♂ Except for emotions considered macho and manly, Jack doesn’t easily express his personal feelings. Jill’s prying for details turns him off.

♂ A long courtship without sex separates Jack the player from the Marrying Man. One values her for sex only and drops out when he doesn’t get it. The other values her for Self and stays to the end.

♂ At the cultural level where values are shaped, Jills lead, and Jacks follow. At the society level where values are implemented, the reverse occurs.

♂ As with all of us, Jack performs better when he lives for something bigger or someone higher than himself. Another reason why married men are more successful and live longer than their uncommitted, unattached male brothers.

264. From feminine mystique to feminist mistakes—Part 5

Allow me to personalize the male and female natures as Manhood and Womanhood. I wish to describe traditional America before the 1960s.

Womanhood capitalized on male dominance instead of tearing it down. She supported Manhood’s dominance of society (what people do), while she took over dominance of the culture (why people do it).

Womanhood’s goal: One reliable man to help fulfill her dreams for nesting, nurturing, and nestling with loved ones. She sought stable marriage and family. She convinced Manhood to provide the wherewithal and do the hard labor. In return, she rewarded his husbanding and fathering.

She gained status and added personal stature by making herself very different and highly unique. She capitalized on gender differences and exploited the female nature. Her character was shaped around feminine mystique, female modesty, moral standards, marriage, monogamy, manners, virginity, virtual virginity, soft-heartedness inside and hard-headedness outside of marriage,  and whatever else would distinguish her from Manhood.

She taught daughters to mature first, love next, leave sex to marriage, and uplift manliness and masculinity as the way to fulfill female hopes and dreams.

In the process she earned Manhood’s unconditional respect for the female sex. The benefits grew through the decades. Womanhood changed cultural values and the social and domestic environments in such ways that the genders respected the opposite sex more than their own (e.g., my generation).

Womanhood developed American life into a family game. She emphasized separate but equal genders with cooperative rather than competing roles. In her eyes, good character and virtuous actions overwhelmed looks, interests, and words.

For over a century, Manhood was preoccupied on the job with technological and economic advancements. He dominated workplace and society. Gradually adopting wifely-inspired and family-friendly values, however, Manhood gradually yielded dominance of home and culture.

Family dominance was a toss up, but mostly it had the appearance of husband as head, wife as neck, and children as no more than adult-hopefuls. Womanhood accepted and parlayed this truism: Perceptions are reality, and whatever appears to be, is.

Manhood bought into the lifelong married life sought by Womanhood. Family responsibility guided husbands in the workplace and society. With laws, wealth, and leadership, husbands shaped America to his wife’s vision of family-centeredness.

Mutual respect grew as husbands implemented feminine values in society. Husbands in the workplace made America more family friendly. The beginning of the end, however, arose in the 1960s.

[More on old school America appears in posts 263, 238, 218, and 204 below. Scroll down or search by the number with dot and space following it.]

263. From feminine mystique to feminist mistakes—Part 4

The Cosby family and Ozzie and Harriett home exemplified on TV what our foremothers sought and achieved—albeit incompletely and imperfectly. These and similar shows are mocked today by feminists and political activists. Yet, real women before the 1960s were far happier and more successful than modern women when dealing with men.  

Womanhood split in the 1960s. Many women and young girls became radicalized and politicized by the sexual and cultural revolutions. They removed Womanhood from the driver’s seat of culture.

It cost women in many ways: They lost the unconditional respect of men for the female sex. They elevated unmarried sex and played to the manly game of irresponsibility for offspring. They devalued personal virtue and family integrity, and this led to family instability. They motivated men generally against marriage and spending a lifetime with the same woman.

Plus, one great unintended consequence: Women bashed men socially and attacked them legally and politically to tear down male dominance.

The effect: They restored male dominance to prominence. Men now put masculine interests for independence, toys, adventures, and trophies ahead of helping fulfill female hopes and dreams.

Men rather than women dominate cultural values today. It’s done primarily through the pop culture and compounds for the worse into each new generation.

Consequently, modern women and children lose more easily and dependably in this game we call life. Some women don’t know how, and others  won’t pay the price, to strengthen their family with a devoted husband and father.

[More on old school America appears in posts 238, 218, and 204 below. Scroll down or search by the number with dot and space following it.]

238. From feminine mystique to feminist mistakes — Part 3

        Patriarchy is natural. Throughout history no matriarchy ever arose, but our American foremothers came closest. Our forebears converted and integrated immigrant patriarchies into a female-friendly, family-centered society.

Our Judeo-Christian value system empowered husbands to dominate workplace and society and enabled wives to dominate home and culture. This empowered our foremothers to promote manly significance and indirectly shape the future without violating the natural dominance of men.

Single men were minor players in cultural development, because most men married or sought marriage. Single women adopted, upheld, and even uplifted the virtues of Womanhood as spreader of all that is good.

Husbands fulfilled wifely expectations for a more civilized life. They tamed Nature, built wealth, managed single male excesses, observed rule of law, customized family-friendliness, and brightened the future for children.

Our American foremothers knew themselves and the male nature; they honored and exploited both. They pursued separate but equal genders.

Generation after generation made the USA more female-friendly. More law and order, security, generosity, compassion, wealth accumulation. Less male aggression, abuse, violence. Greater individual responsibility for family, fathering, husbanding.     

Women harnessed masculine energies to favor female-friendly and family-centered life. Without such wifely leadership, men don’t settle down to help women fulfill female hopes and dreams. As women go, so goes society.

Our foremothers never let up. Mothers tamed boys, girls civilized teen boys, and wives domesticated husbands. And that’s missing today.

[More on old school America appears in posts 218 and 204 below. Scroll down or search by the number with dot and space following it.]

218. From feminine mystique to feminist mistakes — Part 2

As women goes, so goes society. That’s the story of America.

     Over several centuries, our foremothers took America from male-centered to family-centered. It peaked in the late 20^th Century.

     Husbands built American political, legal, and economic greatness. They dominated both workplace and society. But wives dominated home, family, and culture. (Society is what people do, culture is why they do it.)

     Wives/mothers shaped and policed the social landscape with family-centered values, because they had the freedom and respect to do so. They dominated the home. They gained dominance of the family as industrialization occupied husbands, and universal education occupied kids, outside the home.

     With the help of spinster teachers, married women came to dominate the culture by standardizing and spreading common family-enhancing values—especially marriage, monogamy, morality, and equality of education.

     They also promoted mutual gender respect by pushing feminine as female identity and manly as male identity. This empowered the genders as separate but equal. Parents were enabled to unify compatibly and, thus, maximize benefits for children.

     Except female teachers, single people contributed virtually nothing to the cultural values that guided husbands at work. Married couples made family enterprise the supreme institution. Most men sought marriage and succeeded.

     Wives advised husbands on ways to brighten the family future—build society around families and weed out evil. This uplifted society. Many generations of such wifely influence smoothed the rough edges from male domination.

     Family-centeredness evolved smoothly. However, it peaked after revolutionary zeal spread from Marxists to feminists after the 1960s. Changing America to fit feminist theory now moves society to female-centeredness. The Dark Side of Feminism wipes out family-centeredness.

     How foremothers did it is next post facto for this title.

[America’s move from mystique to mistakes also appears in post 204. Scroll down or search by the number]

209. Female dominance: Gone! — Part 5

Society is action. It’s what we do, and men dominate there.

Culture is values. It’s why we do what we do. Cultural values guide society, and women dominate! Thus, women determine the extent to which society is male- or female-centered.  

Women used to be dominant. Our foremothers built a female- and family-centered culture. Starting in the Sixties, however, younger generations yielded to men. Female-centered cultural values, such as marriage, monogamy, and morality were devalued in favor of greater sexual freedom—the ultimate male-centeredness.

Modern women participate and even enlarge male sexual freedom. This embellishes male dominance with more challenges and flexibility that tear at the heart of what used to be a family-centered culture.

Many willing females seek a boyfriend. This frees up men to please and keep or mistreat and dump each woman they conquer.

Women further enlarge male dominance by exercising female ‘rights’ for sexual freedom.

A primary mission of Feminism was to curtail male dominance and uplift the influence of women. It failed. Male dominance weakened in political, legal, and economic realms, but it worsened among couples.

Male dominance in social realms is reduced only by one thing: Cultural values that drastically curtail sexual freedom for males.

Female-centered customs energetically imposed by women shrink male dominance best. The key lies with this principle: Access to frequent and convenient sex comes only through the institution of marriage.

NOTE: See the last paragraph applied to individual women at posts 198, 181, 169, 158, 147, 136, 125, 96, 70, 51, 44, and 25.

[More on the loss of female dominance appears at posts 194, 173, 159, and 151.]

173. Female dominance: Gone! — Part 3

Men dominate society and the workplace. Women dominate the family and culture; they dominate the values that govern how men dominate society and workplace. Having this power provides women with two options.

1. They can make sex available for little or no price of commitment. Sexual freedom and feminist endorsement of sex for the sake of sex rationalize this alternative into reality.

Free and easy sex in the social marketplace energizes the masculine drive for conquest, which translates into more scores for the sake of sex and belt or bedpost notches. Energized conquerors energize females to provide easy, frequent, and convenient sex.

The effect is this: It opens the conquering door wider for males and makes females compete with each other for boyfriends instead of competing with men for husbands.

2. Females can make sex available at a commitment price they determine will be enough to fulfill female hopes and dreams. Chasteness, chastity, abstinence, celibacy, and whatever else one chooses to call sex-free courtship works best. Our foremothers proved this system works.

Sex-free courtship forces males to rethink their pursuit of sex. It conditions their thinking to measuring each female’s price against his masculine agenda. It adjusts their thinking toward more domestic responsibility than sex for its own sake. This creates the female advantage of energizing women to compete for permanent husbands instead of temporary boyfriends. Raising the stakes for all men makes better husbands.

After marriage, women relinquish dominance to their man in order to keep him. They live with whatever influence they won earlier by delaying conquest until his devotion arose.

The first option makes women unhappy and miserable trying to live with a man. The second option our foremothers proved workable and compatible: It enables men to dominate directly through their nature. It also empowers women to dominate indirectly through cultural values.

[More about female dominance appears in post 159 and 151. Scroll down or search for the number with a dot and space following it.]