Tag Archives: women

2090. “Darling” — Cultural History


I said that I wouldn’t bore you with it, but here it is anyway.

Until the 1960s or thereabouts, men routinely used casual pet names especially for younger females—darling, honey, etc.—to gain friendly attention, show recognition, and pass appreciation and even affection. Indirectly it endorses the likeability of the female and stamps friendliness on the male. Women knew when they were being hit on disrespectfully, and they had both ways and courage to handle it.

Then along came the feminists. They condemned all men as connecting sex with their use of popular pet names. For example: Hey, sweetheart, how about you and me? Tonight! Your place or mine? As if that were the only way that pet names were used. And if not stated, feminists claimed it to be implied.

Feminists pressured and taught women to demean and humble men for doing what makes both men and women feel good about themselves. As a main tactic of their political movement, feminists attached sexual overtones to usage of such terms, and a new social process evolved to enlarge the political correctness movement. Friendliness in men was cast as always suggestive of sex to which women were taught to take offense. It indirectly and feminists directly reminded women that all men are dangerous and therefore not respectable.

Prophecy soon overwhelmed custom and it went like this. Feminists called manly personal endearments sexually suggestive and offensive. Suspicions arose easily. Women resented, withdrew, and defended against pet names even to calling it sexual harassment. Friendliness became guarded. Compatibility became dubious. Harassment claims took men to court and Human Resources company discrimination against men reversed common sense. Trust faded and respect soon followed. Lack of respect for women followed lack of respect for men. The threat of sexual harassment charges soon locked men out of passing compliments to women. Men went silent, less friendly, less compatible, and women turned to women to learn about men, which exacerbates female problems.

Complying with the feminist agenda and fashion of women sticking together, women smothered the friendly pleasure of men. It drove a spike of doubt into the spirit of compatibility, which lost much of its inborn manly attention, responsibility, and dependability.

Men accept doing things the feminist way because feminist-inspired cheap and easy sex compensates. Women don’t handle it as well. A man’s love is founded on unconditional respect for the female sex and conditional respect for his love object, both of which are now closer to vapor than devotion.

And so, the use of pet names and female-friendly terms of endearment passed on. Men changed their behavior due to legal and social pressures for the improprieties of a few that feminists claimed to be universal. Political correctness was born about the same decade. It also started the male-female wars that have now morphed into the political so-called war against women. The love and respect of men for women is reduced somewhat by the lack of friendliness that pet names used to generate.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics

2089. “Darling”— It’s Time for a Comeback


My self-gratitude articles stress that women lack gratefulness for themselves. Recently a lady reminded me of something Her Majesty Grace emphasized for years. Women do not receive the attention, recognition, and compliments they routinely expect or deserve from men that showers friendliness on everyday situations.

We need to re-initiate a customary practice that used to do exactly that, albeit indirectly. Men should tromp on political correctness and restore routinely the use of generic pet names when dealing with women. Such as these: honey, sweetie, darling, sweetheart, sweetie pie, sugar, and a few others that don’t come immediately to mind. I’m not talking about hitting on them but sprinkling everyday speech routinely with affectionate honors.

For example: Good morning, darling (to a friend). Or: Thank you, sweetheart, I appreciate you saving me on that point. Or: Hey, honey, I saw you dancing last night. You looked great. And, darling, that dress was a wowser. Or: Hey, sweetie, haven’t seen you for a month. Let’s grab a coffee. Or, Sweetie pie, you deserve a treat. Let’s you and grandpa just go get some ice cream. Or: Sugar, you fed me like a sweetheart should. Just like mom used to. If you weren’t married, I’d sweep you off your feet and marry you in a heartbeat.

When done sincerely and without ulterior motive, it automatically adds friendliness to a situation.

Looking back to earlier years, I well remember that I felt good using such friendly terms. I’ve done it a few times recently and felt the same way, good about myself passing on some special attention and perhaps light-hearted affection. (Being PC, I suspect it’s much more easily acceptable to women since I am so old relative to them.)

I have resurrected the practice for me. So, ladies, if I call you darling or sweetie take it as the pleasant friendliness intended. I will easily flip those complimentary terms around without thinking. Just a new habit. If you don’t appreciate such attention, just let me know and I’ll exclude you.

Farewell for now, you sweeties of every kind. It’s great chatting at you. I shall not bore you with what I threw out, namely a thousand words of old and new school history to justify my decision.

 

19 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter

2060. Female Blessings at Birth — 58-60


I return to the project of asking for your agreement/disagreement on the long list of blessings that women inherit at birth. This is the 20th group of three blessings, and I’m grateful for your earlier responses.

With each item, do you agree that you and other females inherit it at birth? Or, is it something you and others learn later in life? False means that the item is missing completely from your heart, or it’s something you learned during life, or you just don’t think women are born that way.

In case you’re new to this blog or wonder why I compiled the list. I hope to close the gaps and shortcomings in the following causes and effects so that modern women can figure out better ways to lead better lives.

  • A woman’s happiness depends primarily on the gratefulness that accumulates in and shines outward from her heart.
  • Women can only be as grateful for others and things as they are individually grateful for who and what they are as a person, woman, wife, mother, girlfriend, granny, friend, church-goer, encourager, Christian, Jew, American, Korean, employee, and on and on and on…. The key term being grateful for self, self-gratitude.
  • Women will or should be more grateful for themselves as individuals. They need only acknowledge just how magnificently they have been designed, endowed, and energized to be the key players in life. That is, born to be compatible with themselves, others, and particularly a lifetime mate.

Where I explain or add comment with each blessing, perhaps I could be wrong in your eyes. Feel free to challenge me. I’m not trying to be right, just searching for and trying to describe truth. I search for the blessings that empower and encourage women to use their irresistible force to override the immovable object of male dominance, the superior sex vs. the dominant one. Women deserve it but they have to do most of the work to keep the battle of the sexes balanced in their favor.

I continue to ask for your opinion to confirm or deny, true or false.

58. While I never thought of it in these terms, I recognized early in childhood that dad’s authority status was higher than mom’s and parental authority exceeded that of children. While it didn’t keep me from challenging everything in life, recovery from my mistakes was aided by their superior ability and status. I am grateful for only driving them out of their minds instead of me out of their hearts. [Guy adds: After the conscious mind opens in the third year, girls become sensitive to the role that authority plays in their lives. They have the ability to automatically acknowledge authority figures, and how they will respond to the use of authority. Of course it doesn’t take long before they also learn to test authority figures, perhaps even to play one against another. Success breeds self-respect and self-confidence. Failure provides lessons learned as part of self-development. They learn quickly that authority can aid self-development. Boys are not born so resilient or quick as learners.]

59. The more I am grateful for others, the more important I am to myself. [Guy adds: And self-importance pumps self-gratitude into your heart. IOW, by finding gratefulness outside yourself, you magnify it within. You inherited the ability at birth—you can be grateful for yourself just by continually looking and finding it elsewhere. And, your happiness flows from gratefulness, both for self and others.]

60. Unless I can do nothing about it at the time, I love the ‘renewed self’ that pervades my spirit when I spend time ‘fixing up’ at a mirror. It encourages me to purposely make up to please myself for being so pleasant to look at. [Guy adds: It’s powerfully useful first thing in the morning. Departing the mirror with uplifted spirits encourages you in the role of importance to family and leads you dynamically to help others achieve success and you to achieve importance in the day’s events.]

Example for your response: “60-F ” works okay to reflect your opinion of false to that one item. Also, comments are welcome and desired, especially if you take exception to anything.

 

2 Comments

Filed under feminine

2055. Romance — His Side of the Story


Romance to women is payday for living graciously important lives on behalf of their man. Romance to men is pre-conquest attention and what leads up to and includes foreplay. The gap is huge and requires relationship experts to close it. Although not instinctive to men, women can make it intuitive to them.

Not needful of romance, men don’t easily comprehend the criticality of it in their lives. Even worse, they have great difficulty making sense of it. Thus, men routinely leave women adrift in a sea of puzzlement, anxiety, and doubt about the worthiness of their man.

So, in reality, the male’s shortcoming about romance brings out each woman’s need to improve her man, which is the same as putting the hook of marriage in her mouth. As a man shines brightly as marital candidate, his shortcoming as a romancer makes him even more eligible. She invites herself to change him after the altar. Tsk Tsk! Far better to teach him before conquest.

Men are not eager to participate in romance. They take or find various exceptions:

  • Men suspect they should but can’t master the art sufficiently well to meet female expectations. They can see that certain things make their woman feel romanced. They pick up bits and pieces of the art from other women. But they also pick up the lack of conviction to practice it routinely or steadfastly. They feel guilty for awhile and then forget it.
  • Womanly viewed romance includes the willing exchange of feelings. Just the event thrills women but not men. They have all manner of reasons for not exposing their feelings. The most influential being that they are born that way. Another is that disclosure makes them competitively weaker, which goes against their primal nature.
  • Men dodge romance partially because women push them where they are not ready to go. As women participate, they seem to suck men into faster relationship development than men like. Scary resistance sets in as women try to get commitment before a guy is ready for it. Thus, romancing a woman can become a virtual trap or opportunity to fail or both.
  • Her romantic impatience pressures him to change into her model of what a romancer should be or do. Not being inclined to feel guilty about emotional matters, men simply forget to try very hard.
  • In this day and age, the road to frequent and convenient sex elsewhere is too easy to waste time on female-expected romance. (Dating is virtually extinct on college campuses, and men are the cause but not responsible.)
  • Even if they do romance a woman, they feel vulnerable to being compared to other guys with other women, much like performance in bed. That’s a threat to their competitive reputation with men, which threatens their sense of significance. So, they just try to get by with the minimum of whatever is required to bed her.
  • Because they lack sufficient skill, soft-heartedness, and perceptiveness about romancing women well, men see little opportunity to earn self-admiration.
  • Romancing a woman does not make a man love her more. More devoted to her, yes. But giving or receiving romance plays but a very minor role in his love. His love is based on respect for who she is and what she does plus her likeability to have and be around. Likeability being based on her attractiveness in his eyes and what comes out of her mouth.

Men don’t inherit romantic skills at birth. Women, however, have all the reasons for men to initiate romance, and so they blame men. Blame makes it worse; it excuses women from responsibility for how men treat them. If men don’t know how, why, or when romance is expected, how do they learn? They need to be taught.

Just the term romance reminds men of foreplay and what it leads to. Of course a few other passing signs of attention and affection are necessary to gain a woman’s acceptance. But for the most part, the lead up to and foreplay are a guy’s notion of romance—including husbands of many years.

Many, many men are romantic at heart. Yet, except for greater willingness to try to do right things by women, they haven’t much incentive to express romance. They might embarrass themselves. They might be in the wrong about a woman’s willingness to accept their fumbling for proper words. They are naturally resistant to expose themselves, because it can be used against them and threaten their role as dominant member of a couple. They are even more resistant if women in their culture are typically critical or mean-spirited.

The romantic-at-heart man has many female-friendly traits and habits. Generally, women adore him for it. He has learned the enjoyment of masculine soft-heartedness, which reduces the hard-headedness among females he deals with. He teases young girls and it brings out their prettiness and confirms their importance to themselves. He is sensitive to female sensibilities, eager to find attractiveness in others, appreciates loveliness in natural things, honors her modesty as priceless trait, and proves himself friendly toward others. Mean-spiritedness is either lacking or suppressed among women he deals with.

In the end, the more alpha the male, the less willing to share his innermost feelings. Romantic-at-heart alpha men depend on their actions rather than their words to convey their devotion. Immortalized by Hollywood’s western heroes of yesteryear. Alpha non-romantics specifically hide their feelings behind facades that make body language practically unreadable. They use their hard-headed nature to suppress any soft-heartedness that may creep into their thoughts. Their women can expect romance to mean foreplay, period.

However and forever, the romantic man is still an ardent member of the male gender and fits in with the others. Generally, he also is super-reluctant to expose personal feelings for many manly reasons. 1) He refuses until and except as he detects a woman’s willingness to not laugh, reject, or disdain what he has to say about his deeper feelings. 2) His competitive nature says don’t reveal his full hand to competitors, and each woman is a competitor until conquered by him personally. 3) Even after conquest, to expose his feelings reflects weakness and makes him vulnerable. It lasts until his woman breathes sufficient cooperation into their lives and it converts his spirit from competition to harmonizing with her. 4) His dominant nature says don’t enable a mate to interfere with his dominance, and women have been known to try when they are aware of his deeper feelings. Women are also known to use all the leverage they can muster from receiving new information. In fact, it’s a constant urge residing in each woman’s heart; she can improve him. To do so, of course, is to tamper with his sense of both dominance and significance.

Concluding, men have natural and learned tendencies to not be eager and perhaps even avoid being romantic as visualized in female dreams and expectations. It confirms men as immovable but subject to ever present irresistible force by females. It never ends. She wants better pay for her graciously important life and expects it in romance dollars. His romance earning power is often so poor that he qualifies for under-employed romance insurance, which women provide out of their soft-heartedness, self-gratitude, and patient hope for better romancing ahead.

 

23 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter

2054. Romance — Her Side of the Story


 As with so many things, the sexes differ dramatically about romance. As with affection, they have social contradictions that I tag with medical terms. She has romance deficit disorder. He has romance delivery disorder. Her story today, his tomorrow.

Women are born to be romanced. It confirms their self-importance, stimulates the satisfying disclosure of feelings for one another, generates self-gratitude, and provides conviction (without insurance) they are on the way to happiness. Romance is women’s payday for living graciously important lives, and they expect to be paid frequently according to the depth of a relationship.

Romance means exclusive attention, sweet compliments, whispered affections, expressions of devotion, reminders of her importance, confirmation of her worth, affirmation that her prettiness registers as beauty with someone, and actions that specifically confirm and don’t contradict the foregoing. Women can imagine a gazillion ways that men can convey and demonstrate such ‘simple’ things.

The opposite of men, her imagination stirs her curiosity. Her imagination can and often runs wild about a new guy of interest. Curious about why he doesn’t respond to her romance expectations, she finds no fault with herself. Instead, she easily blames him as inadequate romancer and in need of improvement.

Women take personally a man’s lack of romancing her. Consequently, they blame men as inadequate, which transmutes in practice as lack of respect of men, which weakens women’s influence, which makes men less interested in paying women for living graciously important lives.

On two counts, his lack and her curiosity, blame outweighs lack of romance as the culprit in modern day relationships. Women can live with lack of romance better than lack of a man. Lack of romance dulls her side of a relationship. Blame, however ruins his side. Blame spurs her into finger pointing mode; which spurs her to take to her mouth; which offends him; which generates resentment, resistance, and often retaliation; and which far too easily pushes him into departure mode.

I advise women to drop the blame game, period. It is always anti-female to finger men as faulty. Not that they aren’t, just that they don’t take kindly to women doing it and especially their mate. It inevitably works against her because her blame-based best intentions have negative influence.

Women can and should develop their own training techniques. She has to make it her habit to train men to romance her. It starts at first encounter, becomes vital in dating, and fully develops in courtship. By the time they become engaged, his habit should be well established to participate with her more closely, more affectionately, and more intimately. Effectiveness training her man determines the frequency and worth of her future paydays.

This question will arise so I shall answer ahead of it. How do you train a man to be a romancer? 1) Follow your heart, female instinct, and feminine intuition. Follow not what you think you’re owed, due, or need. Follow not what others tell you to expect in response to your initiatives. Follow not what your girlfriends do. Follow not what you wish for. Do what makes you feel more like a woman when you do something with him or yourself. If you hurt, wait for his solace. If you’re happy, don’t over play it. If he gets uncomfortable with you, let him dig himself out of the hole. Keep your self-interest as first priority; he has to catch and capture you. Reverse that last sentence and automatically poison your female nature for guiding you.

2) Require him to earn your affection, love, and worth as potential mate. Make him the seller and you the buyer in everything. If he does it with words, it doesn’t program his heart to favor you. If he does it with actions, you gain the maximum benefit of his heart programmed to your favor.

3) Gently and smoothly invite cuddling when just sitting around. Don’t push on him for anything. He must be lured. Let him get familiar with how easy you are to please when close together. Don’t tell him but gently and slowly encourage him to realize how important physical closeness is to you. He doesn’t need it; he has to learn to like it in his own heart, patiently slipped in by you. Don’t whisper sweet things to him expecting him to do the same; he won’t. You should hint and plant seeds that sweet words inspire you to greater things as date, girlfriend, fiancé, or wife. You can be especially effective while cuddled if you talk and act more as you did when he married you. He doesn’t want to talk or hear about the wedding; he wants to hear and see you duplicate yourself as his fiancé.

4) Regularly and frequently use a phrase I coined twisted to fit whatever the situation: Men are never more handsome than when they please their girlfriends/fiancees/wives with (as appropriate) sweet talk, whispers of devotion, violets, hand-picked wild flowers, cuddling up for TV, surprises, unexpected date night, date night just concluded, little gifts, unexpected thoughtfulness, waltzing her around the kitchen, singing to her, holding a pleasured smile in front of her face. Use it at every opportunity for even the slightest things that touch on romance.*

If you haven’t figured it out by now, “men are never more handsome” programs both hearts with appreciation of the other. It sweeps up many romantic ingredients into daily habits at whatever stage of relationship development.

Women know what they want and expect as romance from a man. They don’t, however, know how to get the quality or quantity they expect. Men don’t know much about what romance means to women. Even worse, they can’t figure out how to deliver whatever it is that women expect. It may become understandable with tomorrow’s post about his side of the story.

——

*The phrase works best when kept in third person, i.e., using ‘men are’ and ‘wives’ rather than ‘you’ and ‘wife’ or ‘me’.) As written it’s a compliment. As ‘you’ and ‘me’ it’s sucking up which earns suspicion rather than appreciation.

Also, until he becomes a more romantic guy, I suggest these not be used with the ‘men are never’ phrase: helping with the dishes, opening car doors, washing her car, taking out the trash, setting the table, planning for visitors. Unless, of course, she feels those things are part of romancing her.

 

6 Comments

Filed under feminine

2050. Single Women Don’t Pay — IV


Her Highness Cinnamon asked for more about paying date costs. What about gray areas? Complicated financial situations? The only right answers are what’s right for the people involved. Exceptions and gray areas always exist and people do what’s in their best interest. Whether that’s the best for their relationship may become questionable when examined under the microscope of their respective natures.

Our basic natures are hardwired in ways that often rise up to haunt our decisions. Example: She pays for dinner and he never calls again. Or, he pays, calls her, and she never answers. Such risk can’t be eliminated, but knowing more about how the sexes are born differently makes it easier to minimize risk, develop compatibility, and foster continuing relationships. All of which are of much greater interest to women than men.

Consequently, my analysis of human nature endorses men paying all dating costs except for the cost of her preparation. Analysis reveals how people behave according to the default conditions they are born with and before they overwrite their hearts with contrary lessons learned in life. Each person must figure out what’s best for them at the time, place, and date. Hopefully in what follows, women will figure out ways for them personally to reduce the risk of losing candidates before relationships develop.

College men either started or refined the art. Men propagandize women into accepting that men take all the risk when they pay. However, men don’t explain their measure of risk, which is that the guy pays but gets no sex. IOW, men twist social argument to imply that dating is prostitution in action and men are unwilling to pay. The risk is too high; he might not score the first date. If he does score and goes back, they don’t date but hang out and share costs. Propagandized females ignore their hearts. They fall for the scam. They lose the ability to earn masculine respect from which manly love arises. They lose some ability to be likeable enough for men to want to proceed into the future with them.

So, let’s examine the motivational forces that linger in the background of dating.

  1. Men are normally the bigger risk takers. However, not with dating. Women crave dates to find mates and accept a much greater risk than men. It attests to natural female courage to date while not fully understanding the nature of men.
  2. Both sexes make easy whatever they have in mind as personal objectives. He looks short range and present oriented for results to either bed her or get a return date. She plans to explore the long range and his potential; she looks for promise of an extended relationship. He’s looking to sell, she’s looking to buy. Buyers don’t pay until they’re sold on seller’s product. Men hide their product by indirectly implying and perhaps encouraging women to think that marriage is behind a door that she can open under appropriate conditions that she must demystify. She can’t open a door to see what she gets until she yields sex, and even then he chooses the door. That’s when she discovers that his product is either 1) prospect of serious commitment and extended relationship, 2) her new role as booty, or 3) she’s dumped. Women should not pay to face three closed doors, when the odds are 2-1 against her—and she still has to morph 1) into marriage.
  3. Mutual motivation: While each date partner seeks to impress the other favorably, they do so while peeking through opposite sides of the same keyhole. He looks for sex and she for lures or links to marriage. It breeds insincerity from the get-go. Who is more likely to be insincere? The short-range or long-range thinker? I presume the short but that’s another story. For the opportunity to be insincere more easily than women, men should pay for the advantage. It’s not equality, it’s fairness. And men standup for fairness as diligently as women standup for equality.
  4. Their apparent reason for dating is to have a good time introducing themselves and exploring each other’s personality and character in face-to-face encounters. All done with having fun as the common denominator. But men expect and become the seller on dates. They market the promise of good togetherness, sell themselves as prime leaders, and choose venues and arrangements as marketing tools; as is the seller’s duty. Why should she pay seller’s expenses before she decides to buy what he’s selling.
  5. Selling is a process and not a result. Women are processors and do well at it. Men are producers and try to make processes more efficient. Which means that he changes over a series of dates with one woman; it’s an ‘admin cost’. She shouldn’t pay for the seller’s privilege to change his approach.
  6. His natural male purpose for dating is to check her out for access to sex and determine her likeability for further pursuit. IOW, his nature pushes him to uncover her weaknesses with the least expenditure of time, effort, and money. That puts a burden on him to initiate and to do so efficiently for his own sake, but it has marginal or zero benefit for her. He leads, subsumes his dominance into charm, and it denies her reasonable room to explore him except for what he chooses to reveal. He’s far more privileged for gaining knowledge about her; she’s limited for gaining knowledge about him. The proof is also in this pudding: She never knows if he will call again, but he’s not bothered that way. Therefore, he should pay for the privilege of exploring who she is and can be in his life. He pans for gold; she pays to make herself look golden just for him. Consequently, he should absorb responsibility to pay for the privilege of her presence on a date.
  7. Her natural female purpose is to help him determine just how worthy she is as potential girlfriend and how her potential for mating is superb.Her nature guides her to avoid bragging and to proceed more passively, which adds to his burden to initiate and then weigh her responses. He’s in the driver’s seat, she’s the passenger. If she proactively tries to convince him of her worth in his life, it turns him off. It begs the question, why should she pay when her options are limited to being the passive date? She has to accept what he gives. He judges her by what he uncovers. She judges him by what he discloses. As the passive participant, why should she pay when she is so limited in what she can accomplish or uncover about him—all of it being relative to how simply the same thing works to his advantage.
  8. Women primarily have fun on dates but it isn’t reusable. They learn little too, because sellers do the talking and shape the exchange of knowledge. Men primarily gain knowledge, which is reusable as he ponders future dates with the same woman. Men should pay for advantage gained.
  9. This would work to a woman’s disadvantage, but it’s an interesting thought. Why don’t women disclose how much they pay to prepare for a date? Because they sense in their heart of hearts that it’s the wrong thing to do. That relationships don’t develop well when money is brought into the equation. Better to develop the relationship and then deal with money issues after cooperative teamwork and hopefully devoted connections have been brought together out of romance.

In the final sweep up of such things, a woman dresses up at significant expense. She provides benefit to a date’s eyes, pleasure, and reputation for dating someone who thinks enough of him to dress well. After all, we dress according to the importance of the event in our lives. OTOH, men generate similar effect for their dates by spending on them. Her girlfriends measure her importance by how her dates spend on her. Never equal, but it’s highly fair when they both spend to make themselves look good and thereby impress the other. He pays date expenses, his duty. She pays preparation expenses, her duty. In both cases, the duty to impress, please, and focus their attention on each other as unique makes dating pleasurable. More so when they exploit their different natures rather than depending on lessons learned earlier in their lives.

 

5 Comments

Filed under courtship

2045. Submission #03 — A Brighter Future Awaits


As shown earlier, logic and reason so favored by men actually turns the dark days of “You shall submit” into a greater day of “If it pleases me I will.” The real world takes on quite a different hue when wives are freer to harmonize their relationships. The numbered situations described below provide a deeper understanding of the problems wives may encounter trying to figure out how to make their submissive nature work to brighten their husband’s submission-expected future.

Remember that this entire series is framed within the primal nature of men and women without considering their personal situation or connections. Women have to figure out their situation from principles they can use.

The situations that follow make women aware of the multitude of challenges that can develop. Each requires her attention. No condition ever stands alone in a relationship. However minutely, each spouse has an interest in what the other thinks and does. For every right decision, there is another person who can and might judge it differently. Mistakes are ubiquitous because someone does something and the other calls it wrong, often without thinking. Therefore, in most of the following situations, recovery is possible for women and not an issue for management by men. Locked narrow-mindedly into the concept of ‘submission’, men philosophically have little or no talent for relationship management. Women, however, have the in-born adaptability to bond multiple home voices and conduct them harmoniously.

And you say, ‘but a good alpha male knows how to provide the leadership that leads to harmony’. And I say, don’t believe it. Alpha-determined leadership does not make harmony with the leader’s spouse involved. It just slows her except when he accedes to her silent, unobtrusive, unchallenging, indirect, but respectful leadership. OTOH, it can stop her breathing harmony into their home.

Women shine when they are fully aware of their situation. It keeps them focused on doing a harmonizing job and works best when their husband has been conditioned to listen.

  1. Major differences exist between these two terms. Submission is energized by competitive intent, the man’s staked-out side of life. “I’m the boss.” Submissiveness is energized by her cooperative spirit. “Us comes before you and me” is part of a woman’s life until she is driven away from it or learned otherwise earlier in life.
  2. Men expect female submission, but the female nature dodges it. Women expect to employ their natural submissive spirit to do what they think is best. When disagreements turn into competition, husband intends to dominate. When wife smoothes competition into cooperation that doesn’t offend his masculine prerogatives, husband goes along to get along. It takes awhile for men to learn it, but if they want their castle to resound with harmony, they must pay more attention to her. Otherwise harmony among multiple personalities will not prevail under the males’ hard-hearted leadership.
  3. Women live by and foster submissiveness, when they like themselves as female, their man as a mate, and their relationship for permanency. It helps capture a man, hold him, and prove that women don’t play the male game of competition but are very willing to play the far more harmonizing female game of cooperation.

Can you use some more wife-promoting situational awareness? Come back tomorrow.

 

5 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics