- Celebrity worship is female love to a fault. Wanting terribly to love someone, they lack a proper person. Girls go ga-ga over pop stars for lack of boyfriend and it’s exciting to them. Women worship celebrities for lack of having no one available or worthy enough of absorbing all their love.
- A woman’s worshipful admiration of celebrities demeans her self-respect and makes her individualism and independence dissolve in the eyes of others. Using unknowns as role models reveals her lack of respect of friends and family as worthy role models. (Those closest to her think they’re good enough and wish she could see it, but she doesn’t.)
- Progressive is the political umbrella under which Marxists, communists, socialists, fascists, anti-constitutionalists, anti-American liberals, and New World Order advocates hunker down, rely on propaganda to disguise their ideologies, and work together to hide their intentions from the people. Conspiracies abound, nothing happens accidentally, ideological differences arise only behind closed doors, those with power to act are never wrong, and one step back is okay if it follows two steps forward. Also, alert the public to what’s coming so that by the time it arrives, it’s old news, the media can ignore it, and public anger has lost its heat.
- Masculine appreciation of the female gender and a man’s love of a woman begins with self-respect that enables respect of someone else. Feminine appreciation of the male gender and a woman’s love of a man begins with her self-love that enables her to share it with someone else. (We can’t share or give what we don’t have in our hearts.)
- The subject is political correctness. Without constitution-based authority, people resent being told how they must act. They find ways to resist the expectations of people who evidently don’t respect them in the first place. A predominant majority of people accept and eventually find reason to conform to laws and social norms when they are free to choose. They are motivated to satisfy others because they are respected and trusted to live by their conscience. It used to be the standard American way, when mutual respect birthed mutual trust.
Category Archives: Feminism: OOPS!
In the minds of men, you are no more attractive than you think you are. If you don’t look at least like a 9 or 10 in your mind’s eye, men won’t see you that way either. And men aren’t very eager to marry an 8 or less.
Upgrading yourself to a 9 or 10 requires a lot of mirror time and persistent appearance in public. You should attire and groom yourself until you fill with determined pride, fulfill and even expand your natural desire for vanity, and are guided by the need to appear your prettiest to all who see you.
If you don’t routinely dress up and look your best to stand out in every situation, then you miss many chances to meet good men of interest to you. If you don’t do it without regard for comfort, convenience, and cost, then you don’t pay the price of making yourself appear interesting enough to them.
How you appeal to men as a potential mate determines your lifetime destiny much more easily than sex appeal. Based on the nature of men, gals with the greatest potential to be invited to marry appear as a 9 or 10 to themselves and then use special techniques to confirm and retain that rating while dating and beyond:
A. Her attractive face, friendly demeanor, and eagerness to smile outshine sister females, which easily leads some man to believe that he can capture the best of the rest.
B. Her attractive body reflects a strong spirit of personal pride and determination, which keeps his curiosity attuned to her interests and his imagination attuned to pleasing himself in ways that he expects will please her.
C. She’s more feminine than sister females, which signifies that she appreciates high standards and likely intends to be more faithful than others.
D. She’s too modest to display hints of sexual willingness and purposely acts contrary to the habits of sister females, which means she’s her own woman.
E. Out of her behavior sprouts mysteries of what’s really in her heart, which attracts him to more deeply involve himself with what motivates her, which inquisitiveness favorably keeps him near her in order to settle both his curiosity and imagination.
As they date, she inherits other burdens to sustain the 9 or 10 rating. Here are a few suggestions:
- She’s unwilling to be talked into something against her belief or character, which makes her more likely to be predictable in his future.
- She has an attitude that sex is far less important than other relationship matters, which teaches him that she has strong values, high standards, and specific expectations that may help sustain any marriage they may enter.
- She doesn’t try to convince but only to be convinced, which puts her in the role of buyer, which silently teaches him that he must be the seller if he wishes to win her.
- She listens well and teaches herself how to get every man talking about himself, which enables her to judge much better his character and future promise as her husband than by her talking.
- She understands the principle that there’s no such thing as motivation; there’s only self-motivation, which keeps her from going overboard to get her way at his expense.
Every successful relationship starts with how she makes herself appealing and thereby appears to him. And they run into each other and start relationships in the most unusual places and unexpected times. That’s why she shouldn’t leave home without the conviction that she’s as close to a 9 or 10 as possible.
I aim at the gender level, ladies, so don’t take it personal except the sentence surrounded by asterisks.
The male and female natures inherited at birth have been socialized and domesticated into habits that work contrary to how we are born. Default conditions are ignored because of pressures designed by political activists. I don’t alibi for either sex but blame Feminism to explain how and why compatibility has sunk into the swamp of ill-feeling toward the opposite sex.
Feminists taught women to blame men for female problems. Doing so put women in the role of acting contrary to their nature, contrary to where their heart leads them. *As the direct response, single women soften their natural hard-headedness and married women harden their soft-heartedness.*
Men aren’t as much offended as they are disappointed in females. Men think: I want to cooperate but with all the crap you pull, why should I?
As women go so goes society and we all do what makes us feel good about ourselves; women do it with little regard for how it registers with men. The combination causes men to harden up their hard-headedness and refuse to soften up their natural hard-heartedness. Men are disappointed because they are discouraged from being heroes to the opposite sex, which gives every indication of being in distress but undeserving of masculine help.
Feminism changed all women; it’s now a universal spirit. Women can’t resist being convinced that they deserve better than whatever men produce and provide. They measure men by how men treat them instead of how men measure themselves by what they accomplish. That difference rocks compatibility.
Adopting feminist thought, women don’t or can’t abandon their natural motivational baseline, which bastardizes their motivational drive and produces results that further confuse the female mind, and which earns disrespect in the male mind.
She tries to bond with sex but men don’t. She abandons modesty to be liked and men don’t respect her. She forgoes mystery that fires up the male imagination and favors full disclosure that kills male curiosity. She expects boyfriend to be loyal to her but she doesn’t first earn his respect. She expects husband to be faithful but tries to change him. She builds his castle on fashion and her reputation with women and disregards his desire for a functional recovery and resting place. She weakens his comfort and daily recovery by insisting to keep a perfect appearance within the home. She tortures him with petty requests to do what she can easily do herself. She commands his presence without respecting his other obligations. She doesn’t respect his family but she wants them to do what she expects. She ranks her children over her man and expects him to peacefully play second fiddle to her music score. She ignores her heart by letting others convince her its undependable to protect and promote her interests. She wants to make sure he knows that her needs and wants are more important than his.
By trying to either be more like men or get them to act more like females, women confuse themselves. They are unable to produce the outcomes they long for. Men wish it were otherwise, but modern women are propagandized to listen to women instead of men. It’s more a gender than individual happening; by blaming men, women escape guilt for causing relationship failures. Much as the radical feminists anticipated it five decades ago.
On the other side of the ledger, the male nature stubbornly rejects feminist theory. Men stick to mostly following their nature, which of course is never all that admirable to women. Men learn in life that particular behaviors annoy the heck out of women and—when inclined to please their woman—they avoid the annoyances. However, when blamed, they easily convince themselves that ‘I don’t appreciate what she does, why please her?’, which pushes them back toward their self-centered, hard-headed, and hard-hearted nature.
So, what else is new? He takes me for granted. He never shows enough affection. His job comes before me. He won’t help with housework. He won’t help enough with the kids. He won’t clean or pick up after himself. He’s a slob around the house. He spends our money on his toys. He’s so selfish he doesn’t know the meaning of ‘us’. He wants sex whether I’m ready or not. He never wants to take my family into consideration. He loves our daughter but expects too much from our son. He thinks I should be able to handle a full-time job and housework with no help and no problems. He talks a good game but doesn’t produce when the chips are down.
Those are symptoms of men who don’t care if they annoy their woman or they purposely do it out of some real or imagined spite. Men aren’t that opposed to cooperation unless they want to save face.
Blaming a man shows disrespect and men tire easily of it. They expect to be respected and appreciated and to measure it by her displays of obvious gratitude, which also endorses his likeability to her and her willingness to be loyal to him.
Thus, the pointy finger of blame continues to mock compatibility and flood the already full swamp of ill-feeling toward the opposite sex.
- Loose and shapeless bras and sweats provide comfort, but unadvertised assets generate little curiosity. If she has no incentive to show herself off to the max, then he figures his max will not be required. So, she starts off in the hole. 
- Women dress erotically to capture a man. They attract attention and may be taken off the shelf and even taken home. But eroticism promotes sex, not loyalty for the whole product. 
- A keeper advertises and packages herself to keep sex in the background, because that keeps male minds focused on her star quality. 
- Cleavage draws a man’s eyeballs downward and his thoughts to nestling there. Good advertising works! Does the rest of her appearance sell her for much beyond sex? 
- Modern females make sloppy, careless, and slovenly fashionable. They slouch a lot as men do. They do this although men feast with their eyes, and husbands expect a wife they are proud to show off. 
- There will be never enough money until you have so much that ‘enough’ is never thought of. 
- Control of money will always be more important than amount available. It requires a decision process. We call it the pain that heals, or simply ‘budgeting’. 
- The budgeting process keeps a couple focused on improving their lives. With the force of self-imposed rules, it pushes them to do in the present what they need for their future. 
- Feminism promotes ‘get in his face’ as the way to protect a woman’s interests. It nullifies her natural strength for shaping a man’s behavior. 
- Men don’t voluntarily abandon the hormonal urge of being a man. But they enlarge their roles in life when coached to do so by one woman. Since improvement requires a man to change, respect is her key to the operating room, submissiveness her surgical instrument. 
NOTE: At a reader’s request, Gentleman Eric wrote this article. He informs us of some fallout of Feminism made radioactive by men set on revenge.
Others will say this better, but thank you, Eric.
Roosters, Gamecocks, and Capons
‘He rules the roost, she rules the rooster’. So it has been throughout history. Radical Feminism, encouraged by the Political Left, imposed a new paradigm which excluded the rooster. But the male gender did not disappear; however types of males who were once on the fringes rose to prominence.
Now a rooster follows the male nature; defending and providing for his roost, while performing other necessary work. But reactions to Feminism gave us the Manosphere which produces the Gamecock, a rooster who is bred for fighting and competition; and the Capon, a neutered rooster whose only purpose is to be eaten. The Manosphere—which once stood for the rights of men and the dignity of women—has fallen under the misogynist trends of these two types. The Gamecock is represented by the Game movement; the Capon from the so-called Men’s Human Rights Movement; both of which deny male/female compatibility, and both of which accept the terms laid down by the feminists as cultural norms. There is considerable homoeroticism latent in both movements, especially among the MHRM.
Both generally hold a form of gender supremacy, but it is the Game Philosophy which has the most pernicious effects on gender relations (the MHRM is essentially the mirror image of male feminism, which produces Capons as well, though of a different sort).
Not only does Game teach men how to disqualify themselves as suitable husbands/fathers, the male behavior it promotes reinforces the same negative stereotypes of men promoted by the Feminists. Why it is also dangerous is because, like feminism, it employs sexuality as a weapon.
Thus, the Gamecock, true to his namesake, treats gender relations as a war—not the healthy spirit of conquest which is part of the male nature—but indiscriminate conquest for its own sake. The Game blogs are replete with ‘relationship advice’ that sounds like psychological warfare. And to underscore the tendency, they despise all men outside of their movement as inferiors. But stripped of their neologisms, pseudo-scientific rhetoric, and general pompousness, one sees a common thread running through all their writings: a genuine hatred for women in general. This, in spite of their obsession with sex, is deeply apparent. By extension, of course, the Gamecocks feel nothing but utter contempt for traditional masculinity. In fact, being referred to as a white knight or being accused of behaving with chivalry is considered an insult among their ranks—they laugh at men who respect or value women, because (to their minds), the female nature is inherently corrupt.
By inherently corrupt, the Gamecocks do not mean the corrupted attitudes of modern women miseducated and disinformed by Feminist culture—what they mean, and explicitly state, is that to be born female is equivalent to being born with a corrupted nature. By their logic, it follows that men are completely justified in controlling that nature, either through force and fear because the corrupted feminine nature will not respond to goodness.
CSW [chaste single women] can avoid entanglements with the Gamecock by being, well CSW. The Gamecock’s only relationship goals are sex and control and he has no power over women who value themselves and their sexuality. Foiled in his attempts at manipulation, the Gamecock falls away and focuses his efforts on easier targets. Since he has no capacity to sustain a relationship, he typically has no desire to continue pursuit of anyone who doesn’t feed his narcissism.
The one type of Gamecock who does pose a danger to women is the one who wraps Game in a cloak of Christianity. The Churchian Gamer—and there are many of them—pose a threat because Christian women may be duped by the pretended Biblical sanction to the Gamecock message. Perverting such concepts as female submission, women as the weaker vessel, the husband as head of the household, &c the Churchian Gamecocks coax otherwise well-meaning women into the Game stratagems.
I use the term ‘Churchian’ because it must be understood that the religion of these men and their camarilla of disciples is Game and not Christianity. It actually resembles, in its teachings, contortions of Scripture most closely resembling the Gnostics. A good way for Christian women to avoid the Churchian Gamecock is to note the absence of a central Christian tenet: any discussion of Love. One can literally search in vain on Churchian Game blogs to find this word even mentioned. If a man talks endlessly about women’s Christian duties of things like submission and obedience, without mentioning either love or reciprocal male obligations, chances are he’s been influenced by Churchian Game.
By all means, stay CSW, if you deserve a rooster instead of a Gamecock or a Capon!
Separately, Eric adds some history to it.
“I actually coined the ‘Gamecock’ term back in my Manosphere days, and opponents of Game still use. It used to be that the Manosphere had an element of bloggers who were trying to fix the relations between men and women. There still are a few, but they are a minority.
“I thought the ‘Capon’ term fit for male feminists and their counterparts in the MHRM. The MHRM used to be A Voice For Men but they’ve largely veered into accepting feminism as the norm, but want feminist social/legal standards to equate to men: ‘Equal Injustice for All’ as their opponents aptly describe their position. It’s essentially male feminism that supposedly wants men to be equal feminists, unlike the traditional male feminists.
“Capons are more common in Europe, but it is a neutered rooster (it’s meat is considered a delicacy, they taste somewhat like pheasant LOL). So I thought it was an apt description of these types, since they behave like eunuchs, the same way that Gamers behave like gamecocks.”
If you read the first post on this subject, #2168, why have we as a culture so readily accepted the intentional murder of chivalry at the hands of feminists? More importantly, how do we recover if the feminists were to let us? Or why should we even try?
I talk much about the character and custom-setting deeds of our forebears and how society’s female-friendly standards shrink. Perhaps chivalry could help right our sinking cultural ship, so I describe the road to recovery.
Chivalry indirectly leads to female happiness in one of life’s cause-and-effect natural phenomena. The process that follows is produced by both sexes following their hearts to live according to the natural condition they inherit at birth. It’s what instinct and intuition lead men and women to do naturally. It contributes greatly to general compatibility that leads respectably to enjoyable mating and indirectly to better fulfillment of girlhood hopes and dreams.
However, the practice has to be taught in childhood. That’s right. Both sexes need to have the benefits of following one’s instincts reinforced. God provides no owner’s manual until old enough to study the Bible. So, parents have to close the gap.
- Women are born to earn happiness over time. Men are born to earn satisfaction through daily achievements, and chivalry provides significant opportunity for both sexes.
- His actions generate his feelings. A male who practices chivalry develops over time a deeply-rooted belief that he should unconditionally respect females, which includes the desire to give unconditionally, which enables him to eagerly find favor with a female, which energizes him to put his convenience momentarily at the disposal of a female, which makes him feel good about himself, which earns self-admiration, which provides satisfaction that he did the right thing. His chivalrous actions program his heart with those feelings (so long as the process isn’t interrupted by female signals that his effort isn’t welcome, in which case his will power and determination have to say ‘don’t quit’).
- To boy or man brought up to be chivalrous, it becomes a duty. They are automatically responsible for distressed or otherwise discombobulated females. Fulfilling one’s duty is not an event that deserves reward, and men don’t appreciate unearned gifts. Consequently, women don’t know much about rewarding a chivalrous act, even though mere acknowledgement is sufficient when a guy does his duty.
- It’s a hard and fast belief developed in childhood. Teaching boys that females are weaker and, therefore, to be protected makes males feel stronger, which opens the male heart to helping, which opens the door for chivalry, which defines a new duty, which energizes males to earn female favor, which produces a male at her disposal, which makes females feel superior, which puts her in the role of boss, which confirms she’s not the weaker sex, which guys can accept unless it’s verbalized.
- As you’ve read so often on this blog, women are born to be happy but they have to earn it. It comes from each woman’s gratitude for herself compounded by gratefulness for others in her life. Treated chivalrously, she becomes grateful for who she is and what she deserves, which adds to her sense of self-importance and ability to pass her gratitude on to others.
- Chivalrous actions make a female feel superior. Her heart becomes programmed with respect and gratitude, which makes girls and women more grateful for themselves, which contributes to their happiness. Indirectly, chivalrous men help women find happiness. Also, his actions program her heart with respect and appreciation for males.
However, the foundation of chivalry is a delightful charade based on male eagerness to deceive themselves about females. Men are extremely unwilling to acknowledge any superiority to women; it’s inconsistent with their natural sense of dominance. By focusing solely on physical abilities and calling females the weaker sex, men can ‘prove’ to themselves that any superiority attached to the female gender is inconsequential. Chivalry confirms the weakness of one sex, which strokes the ego of men, and lifts any burden from men to admit otherwise. That’s the female-friendly charade that men develop to win female favor, but also to protect their own sense of significance.
Which begs the question, isn’t Feminism designed to highlight the superiority of women? Sure, but it doesn’t work except with the power of government imposed for legal, political, and economic advancements that become toxic when brought into both social and domestic relationships by well-meaning women with unrealistic expectations.
History proves the sexes can live compatibly. Men can’t and won’t do so when women impose their superiority to get their way. Either women keep their superior nature to themselves and avoid reminding men that it even exists, or men resent, resist, and often retaliate. To admit women are superior is to admit manly insignificance, which by nature is a man’s greatest fear that ranks with her fear of abandonment, which is what he does when she goes too far.
I submit that men or boys who are raised to be chivalrous, are not the same males who are abusing and disrespecting women and children on a regular basis. True chivalry, when ingrained in a boy, serves him throughout life. It provides a sense of satisfaction when he is able to help, please, win their favor, or delight women and children. It also serves as an internalized insurance policy against him becoming an abuser. Men can’t hit women, if taught to be chivalrous in boyhood.
Observe these Italian boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2OcKQ_mbiQ and watch to the end.
You saw with the Italian boys how easily a charade can be turned into more safety for females. One simple admission, females are weaker, which enables males to ignore female superiority as long as it remains inadmissible as evidence for females to get their way. It’s easily and best taught in childhood. That’s next as this series grows from two to three installments.
There’s more coming on mid-life dating, but let’s take a break. Guy Jr. and I collaborated on this subject and two part series for weekend reading.
Women are givers, men are takers. Right? However, bet you never thought of these social processes that leave women craving better men made worse by the death of chivalry.
The spirit of Feminism stirs masculine indignation against feminists; which spreads as non-feminists fall for propaganda and adopt feminist values and expectations; which causes masculine disappointment in womanhood; which stimulates loss of unconditional respect for the female gender; which over time morphs into fury and anger at individual women who show men disrespect; which stirs ambitions for revenge; which intensifies as women blame men for social ills and domestic incompatibility; which convinces men that female uniqueness is valuable only for sex; which kills masculine desire to be more giving; which terminates incentives for gentlemanly behavior and energies for chivalry. Even momentarily, men are unwilling to yield their convenience as symbol of higher regard for women than themselves. Self-centeredness, selfishness, and more taking prevail among men.
Domestic incompatibility soars as women face off against men made uninterested and inadequate for helping to fulfill female hopes and dreams.
History records it this way. The suffragettes planted the seeds, Women’s Liberation fertilized it, and feminists reaped the political fruit trying to emasculate men and thereby destroy patriarchy. Due and well earned in legal, political, and economic arenas, women’s advancements at men’s expense spread toxins into social and domestic arenas, which today makes couples incompatible.
Feminists killed the social construct of ladies as cultural opinion leaders, which pushed men to abandon gentlemanly behavior. Feminists rejected unconditional respect for females to symbolize their demand that men accept the political superiority of the female gender. Needing to appear as dominant leaders, feminists rejected chivalry, belittled gentlemanly courtesies, and shamed the unconditional respect of men for the female gender. (I can open doors myself, I don’t need you.)
Women accepted feminist propaganda and watched as ladyhood died of feminist ridicule. Women abandoned femininity as a featured attraction to capture a man for mating. Men lost interest in female hopes and dreams.
In the name of attacking manhood, womanhood was victimized by radical feminists. Chivalry disappeared along with the death of masculine thoughts that women deserved special attention and treatment just for being the weaker sex. Feminists could not admit to being the weaker sex, even though it’s a misnomer based solely on physical differences. As women proclaimed less need for men and greater strength for femaleness, they got what they wished for. Independence from men except for sex, which also nullified any need for chivalry.
I think it purposeful. Feminism killed the unconditional respect of one’s gender for the other sex that our forebears had developed and had become the greatest protector ever devised for women and children—respect solely because they are women and children (and who gets in the life boat first). Mutual respect for the opposite sex was demeaned and lost trying to benefit women at the expense of men.
Loss of mutual respect at gender level magnifies the loss at individual level. Undesirable relationship outcomes for females depletes the benefits of men in their lives. Witness the death of chivalry, fading away of gentlemanly behavior, and disintegration of harmonious family life—all tied together in a neat radical package.
The fallout today? Boys taught to be chivalrous such as in scouting discover they are emasculated in the eyes of girls and women. After a few unsuccessful efforts to demonstrate gentlemanly or chivalrous behavior, they just quit. Without female encouragement, they turn to easier ways. For example, this ultimate insult for women as quoted from the Manosphere, “there is unanimous agreement that you should never buy dinner for a woman as a date before you have had sex with her. This is probably the most unanimous point of agreement across all Game material from all sources.” Can you think of a bigger opposite of chivalry?
Chivalry triggers unconditional giving of oneself by a man, which minimizes masculine selfishness and neutralizes his role as taker, which symbolizes unconditional respect of women, which recognizes a certain superiority of the female gender, and which puts his convenience momentarily at the disposal of a woman. No wonder women appreciate chivalry and wish they had it again.