Tag Archives: cooperative

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.]


1 Comment

Filed under Sociology 101, Uncategorized

230. Newlywed Bonding #2 —Virtue as glue

Newlywed life should not be about surviving storms, but learning how to dance in the rain. The dance instructor is virtue. Her gown is adorable femininity. His tux is admirable manliness. Dance shoes are their characters. The dance floor is home.

Daily pressures threaten every home. ‘Virtuous behavior’, as defined in this and future posts, glue a marriage by overcoming daily shock and awe. Couples make it happen, if they identify and dedicate inside defenses against outside threats.

The first and most important defense is this: Live up to things bigger than spouse, self, and even togetherness. This puts each spouse on the right road to virtuous behavior in the home.

Two strategies enable it: Worship God first, honor spouse second, and rank self as next in line. Belief in this ‘chain of command’ solidifies emotions around what’s most important to each spouse.

The second strategy is this: Create a series of principles and rules that lead to goal achievement and squabble prevention. Three arenas are the most vital: respect, money, and teamwork.

Each will be described in future posts. Not as advice, but as concepts that can work. Not as requirements, but as options for newlyweds to choose and use as they see fit.

When a couple can define and adhere to standards and expectations of their own making —aka virtues—then they breed complementary, cooperative, and compatible behavior. It’s the essence of marital glue and the driving force behind hopes and dreams.

[This newlywed series starts at post 224. Scroll down or search by number with dot and space following it.]





1 Comment

Filed under How she wins, Uncategorized

56. Submissiveness—Section 1

I  separate two similar terms but very different concepts—submission vs. submissiveness. They are related but not synonymous. Treating them alike doesn’t just cloud over, it blacks out the vital issues.  

When the subject of ‘submission’ arises, people jump to conclusions. Such as, wife must capitulate to husband’s domination. He’s the boss even before push comes to shove. This makes it arguable, and women rightfully argue unfairness and injustice.

I regard ‘submission’ as without merit. It’s a prop for political advantage and pits women against men. It causes damage, because it’s more arguable than relevant.

On the other hand, ‘submissiveness’ is a cooperative spirit usually expected of the wife, the relationship expert. Regardless of its name and who has it, such a spirit is essential for marriage to work.

Any organization needs a CEO, a final authority who makes the toughest decisions and answers for failures. Two-boss organizations inevitably fall apart, and people—think kids—are confused by two equal authorities to whom they report. It’s so easy to play one against the other.

Without the presence of a submissive and cooperative spirit in one partner, disagreements rise to disputes, which promotes resentment, which causes alienation, which transmutes to bitterness, and makes matrimony crash from acrimony.

More to follow.


Filed under Feminism: OOPS!, Home CEO, Uncategorized

47. Dark Side of Feminism—Part 02

Women might improve their lives living with a man if they face three truths about bringing the feminist spirit, theory, and dogma into the home.

Truth #1—Feminism pushes women to compete with their man in domains he considers his own. Competitive frustration follows when her man does not measure up to feminist-defined expectations about male behavior. This leads to finger-pointing and fault-finding, which escalates over time. Mutual trust and gratitude decline. She’s prompted into nagging, which is just a higher gear for speeding a man out of her life. Even the bible scorns the ‘quarrelsome wife’ in Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24, 27:15-16.

Truth #2—Feminism in the home prompts women to adopt the unique male strength of directness and abandon the unique female strength of indirectness. Thus, women weaken their natural influence. Even worse, men don’t appreciate women that ‘get in his face’, and this narrows the gap between offense and non-offense. 

Truth #3—Feminist thinking in the home inspires women to favor ingratitude for their man’s imperfections rather than gratefulness for his manliness and strengths. Eventually, a man tires, his respect wanes, alienation sets in, and disruption or departure follows.


Filed under Feminism: OOPS!, Uncategorized

10. What’s your game?

Modern women fail with the standard female dream of kissing a frog into princehood. Consequently, many repeatedly search for Right Man only to fail again and again. They do not fail with kissing; they fail after that. They ignore Nature.

The fairy tale only comes to life when the natural makeup of a man and woman are merged into their most compatible and cooperative but not competitive whole. His potential to join her in matrimony makes him a prince. Then, at the altar, his nature requires that she crown him her king.

If she treats him as a king before their wedding day, such as providing sex, she weakens his potential as a forever husband. Crowned before his time, the intensity of his interest passes to other things, and the intensity of his conquering spirit passes to other females. His nature at work.

If she cannot accept him as king in their home, she again pushes him toward the escape hatch. His nature prevails again. 

She can condemn his nature and even get him to change behavior, but sooner or later she will pay a price for doing so.

Leave a comment

Filed under Prince to pauper, Uncategorized

8. Loose lips sink relationships

Women play the men’s game of pursuing sex for its own sake. She steals someone’s husband or boyfriend and expects him to be faithful, after she just taught him the rewards for infidelity.

Women abandon old school wisdom. To focus on his faults instead of affirming him, women reject being grateful for their man. They abandon old school gratitude in favor of expressing their new school dislike of male imperfections.


Women need a man more than men need a woman.

Happiness flows from one’s gratefulness. Wives are happy proportional to their gratitude for husband.

Citing a man’s failure to please her as a woman redounds to her disadvantage. Feelings are a minor item to him, compared to the other more important and manly actions he performs for her. Her complaints about her feelings downgrade her gratitude for him and his efforts, or so he reasons.

It’s unwise for a woman to tell her man he’s got too much on his plate of work and obligations. His natural reaction is to prove otherwise, and this expands his outside commitments.

Men are simple but direct. Women are complex but skilled for indirectness. (See post 512 for exception.) There is very little room for her directness in the domains he calls his own. There is great room for her home and family building, when she shapes his role with cooperative indirectness rather than competitive directness.

A mom’s easiest and worst mistake is this: Focus on children and relegate husband to playing second fiddle.

Her dreams can be toxic. She wants a baby badly before her body clock tells her No! So she feigns unwavering devotion to some man and marries for the wrong reasons. She has already elevated child over spouse—lethal for a lifetime together.

‘Romance’ to a woman means displays of affection that confirm and reconfirm her value to a man and his sincerity and devotion to her. Men must be taught to do such things, and non-sexual and patient indirectness is by far the best method. Timing is also critical, and the earlier in life the better, which makes teen girls critical in the development of romantic men.

Men stopped complimenting women when feminists started calling it sexual harassment. Now, women crave compliments, and most men fear to utter even the most innocent remark.

Dominance is relative in our Judeo-Christian culture. Men naturally dominate the present in both society and workplace. Women intuitively dominate the future in both home and culture. Trying to change this strategic reality leads to splitsville. 

When a woman chases a man, she becomes seller to his buyer. By not holding out for him to meet her expectations as the buyer, she cheapens herself. He buys into her eagerness as seller, but then he departs sooner or later. Too much familiarity early in a relationship breeds too little of his respect for her, and so he rejects staying with her very long.

Girls and women bypass the most effective way possible for learning how to screen and qualify men for lasting marriage—by keeping their legs crossed. Denying conquest to a man forces him to reveal his character over time. If he refuses to honor a woman’s standards and expectations, he won’t do it later in life either. If he gets aggressive, or treats her disrespectfully, he’s only after sex and not her.

Modern women forfeit what men as hunter-conquerors value highly as partner candidate:  She’s a difficult target to conquer and one to whom he’s challenged to prove his worth. Hard-to-get adds value. Round heels lowers her value. Thus, women teach modern men that relationships are, and of masculine right should be, temporary.


Unlike men, women tend to change whatever and whomever they find as inadequate—oftentimes parenting husbands as boys.


Filed under Prince to pauper, Uncategorized