Tag Archives: feminists

2824. Love is Never Enough — 04: The Root of Love


As we recognize love, it all originates in the heart of individual females; it’s a derivative of inborn self-love plus the primal motivation to spread love to others. A female’s motivation comes from this psychological and physiological fact, she loves herself for sharing her love with others. Spread discreetly and wisely to those nearby, her love also produces what she needs and wants out of life.

If women expect to be loved more or better, they have to first pump some more into the world around them. How many who complain about men and children today are doing that?

Men have nothing comparable to female love. The key to the male nature is respect. He’s born lacking in self-love but loaded with self-respect, but unlike women who willingly like to share, males give their respect to the extent that it’s earned.

Before Christ’s ministry, love had little impact on ancient world events and was, therefore, not very effective in promoting the interests of females. Christ legitimized love as the main theme of life on earth, and women learned to take advantage.

Western civilization developed on the back of Christianity and the endorsement and spread of love by women. Mothers taught their boys why and how to love, girls how to love better. It accelerated development of Western civilization, promoted our American spirit of individual freedom, and was backdrop in the eventual founding of our unique constitutional republic.

I can’t resist editorializing, but you should receive this heads-up.

Both Christianity and Western civilization are under attack by huge anti-Christian and anti-American political movements. You don’t see much of it except in results that degrade the American culture. The media keeps it well hidden from the public. Future generations of women will find their love much less effective at producing what they need and want. Politicians claim women will be more powerful even than men, but does that match the interests of women? Individuals don’t get to decide; others decide for them.

If everyone becomes part of a political class, a hierarchy automatically develops (already operating). Where would you expect to be? In the upper 20% ruling class? Or the bottom 20% ruled class? Is one better than the other, or will you be told that all are equal?

Without Christ’s love as standard, what will love be like? Become? It will evolve into what? More blame and class hatred? Without Christ’s love to help females soften the male nature, how else can women not be fully dominated and mistreated?

Feminists think they have a solution. In future generations, men will be different. Wherever they can impose themselves in elementary education, feminists and racial activists are now indoctrinating boys to be different personality-wise. In a major educational movement, school children are already being taught about the evils of white male privilege, blamed for racism, and justified by blaming those long gone.

Little boys blamed for things in which they had no responsibility, because they will always be innocent by virtue of birth and sex. Of course, it’s all political to gain power over the public on behalf of leftist activists.

Teachers now indoctrinate little white boys into a less aggressive and more compassionate female-like personality, and to fill by design a more passive role in society. Is that what women need? Men acting as low-initiative little men to do female bidding? Think about it! Will future women be ready to run their lives without the help of a mate of their own color?

Last time I looked, women don’t marry wimps, but that’s what feminists and racial activists are indoctrinating via the education system. White wimps apply social pressure for white women to marry color, and thus let whites die off for lack of white men’s ability to replace themselves. A global but colorful rearrangement of power.

For the gals living today, the effects will come too late. You still have to interact with men who have been propagandized into being blamed and becoming disrespectful of women, not yet delicately brainwashed into being feminized men to fit political purpose.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under courtship, dear daugher, How she loses, marriage

2821. Love is Never Enough — 01: Introduction


I begin the new year with this new theme. Love is never enough. I may have bitten off more than I can chew. I will have to hunt and peck my way through the gigantic female problems that flow out of it, but I’ll keep chewing till readers say stop.

Why is love never enough? Christ’s teachings are under attack and pastors take no public offense. Love has been discredited by political activists and undergoes replacement by sex. Women contradict themselves daily. Relationships function with fractious love. Men don’t live by love unless females teach them how to thrive with it, and newer generations of women have lost both interest and ability.

Love is a humongous subject in all its forms. I focus only on one form: LOVE AS MOTIVATOR AMONG COUPLES. Motivation to act, to reveal or follow one’s emotions about their appreciation of each other. Specifically, how does one show love and how does a loved one react and respond in today’s social marketplace and domestic scene?

You see, if you love someone enough, it’s normal to expect they should love you back? At least that’s how many women think; their love can overcome all else. Desperate probably amid lack of knowledge of how to do it anyway, women forget or ignore that men function primarily on respect rather than love.

Well, humans work this way. The lovee takes in and responds differently from what the lover gives and expects in return. What she gives she does not get back. Two minds do not work the same, most not even alike. Far too often in modern times and between the sexes, minds work opposite one to another.

Thus, love is not nearly enough for couples. Without her love dominating a relationship, it means her man dominates it. Men don’t know how to breathe success into a relationship, but they try it anyway, and couples breakup regularly as the result. A man dominating a relationship—very different from dominating his woman—goes contrary to how the sexes are designed, but women stifle their ability by not focusing on things other than expressions of love.

Love is not even understood by women who spread it; they seem to have given up the ability to understand the effects of sharing their love. For example, excited, she shows her man some affection but she doesn’t hear him mumble: Hell, yesterday you said I was a pig. As the result of such contradictions, love currently fails to provide what women expect out of life.

Christ empowered women by legitimizing love as a powerful social and political influence, if just used as He exemplified it. More powerful social and relationship influence flowing from female love generates greater influence in the affairs of mankind, and so love helps provide women with political influence. But how close to Christ’s examples do modern women live?

I don’t expect women to live like Christ. He leads by example and models the best life for us to follow. I hope to just explain this to women. Their lack of success in relationships, marriage, and life is caused by their drifting too far away from what men define as a good mate. Men expect a good woman, so how does she become good as potential mate?

Feminists claim she’s already a good woman, and men continue on their way of further subjugating women with sex for pleasure.

6 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter, How she loses, marriage

2271. Dark Side of Feminism: The Swamp of Ill-feeling


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.

12 Comments

Filed under courtship, Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Feminism: OOPS!, sex differences

2169. Chivalry — Recovery is Everything and Overdue


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.

Male Nature:

  • 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.

Female Nature:

  • 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.

 

13 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Feminism: OOPS!

2168. Chivalry — Another Casualty from the Dark Side of Feminism


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.

 

10 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Feminism: OOPS!, Sociology 101

2097. Compatibility Axioms #521-530


  1. Sexually active women highly value hunks for looks, which causes them to capture men poor for keeping. Experience with many sex partners—easy for hunks—weakens a man’s spirit for devoting himself to one woman. Each score leaches out of him a little respect for female self-protectiveness and regard for a woman’s interest. [191]
  2. It’s social custom especially regarding sex. Each new generation of females works harder to duplicate males. Females initiate everything more and more, but males retain the leadership role. They help females lower female-friendly values, standards, and expectations and to demean themselves just to please males. (And a new generation emerges with different values about every six or seven years.) [191]
  3. Women act and try to date like guys. They accept ‘whatever’ to keep a relationship going. They try to participate and enjoy masculine fun and games. They let desire to not offend a man override their nature—for example, tolerate embarrassment that offends a woman’s natural modesty. Her value as any man’s keeper weakens from not standing up for herself better if at all. [191]
  4. Girls and women adopt masculine-style sexual freedom. Females devalue virginity. Girls ditch it, and mothers don’t try hard to prevent its loss to make their girls more popular. Women think of themselves as sexually adventurous. They dismiss chastity that makes males try harder, that earns masculine respect, that primes men to devote to one woman. [191]
  5. To demonstrate their independence from men, women reject feminine virtue, duplicate masculine behavior, and even demo baser behaviors in public. By acting more like men, women hope to be more appealing. In fact, successful relationships revolve around differences between the sexes that couples reduce to compatibility. [191]
  6. If women refuse to honor the male gender as more worthy than the female gender, they kill what it takes for men to respect women as more worthy than men. It’s far more attitude than fact, appreciation than trust, approximation than precision. Caution: The reverse never happens, because men don’t respect women that portray no gender uniqueness. [196]
  7. Feminists believe that male and female infidelity are the same and equal. Not so. He cheats, and she breaks down emotionally and seeks outside help. She cheats, and his sense of significance plummets. This makes her obsolete. He maneuvers to be rid of her—sometimes harshly or violently. Of course it’s not fair, but men aren’t females regardless of how feminists hope to change them. [196]
  8. Men bond with a woman and strengthen family responsibility by making themselves useful and proving their worth as rescuers, protectors, providers, problem solvers. But his woman’s insistence on her independence turns him toward escapism in big toys, expensive adventures, irresponsibility, females. To the degree he’s not needed, he’s free and looks to have pleasure. [196]
  9. Mothers imply it. We all tend to become like those with whom we associate. Feminists for three decades claimed men to be selfish lovers, inadequate mates, and poor responders to female needs. Now, women accuse men of being irresponsible lovers, mates, fathers, and family men. They also claim that men are ignorant of female needs, wants, hopes, dreams, and relationship-building. ♫ Ta da ♫ Men no longer make good husbands. Just as feminists claimed. [196]
  10. Feminism makes the worth of men decline in female eyes. Consequently, the reverse happens too. Women receive less respectful, harsher, and even abusive treatment and then try to compensate with cheap and easy sex to satisfy men into being more reliable at helping fulfill women’s needs. It doesn’t work very long for a woman. Or does it? [196]

2 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics

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.

 

6 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics