Tag Archives: men

2147. Three Little Words: How They Work


Those three little words are overrated. Oh, I don’t suggest they not be used. I suggest that due diligence be paid to the likely impact they have on the sexes, because they register differently both in delivery and reception.

A man’s words impact his mind but don’t program his heart. A woman’s words program both mind and heart. Her “I love you” leads her to also act it out, which reinforces that she does love him. It doubles the dosage of obligating her to him, because her heart and mind are much more closely interconnected than those of males.

Men are quite different in how they hear three little and other words. He hears them, but they don’t register deeply within him; they do little to impress him. His ears are not the sensitive and believable sensors that hers are. If her loving actions accompany or follow her words, then he can begin to believe her love. Men believe what they see and figure out; they don’t believe what they are told until they see evidence of actions that support and reinforce.

On the delivering end, a man says, “I love you.” It isn’t the same obligation that her words carry, because unlike women his words don’t program his heart. Unless his words originate with his heart as the result of his having acted over time as if he loves her, his words mean little although they may carry intent. (But what’s that old saying about the road to hell is paved with good intentions?)

That’s why commitment promised by men ends up disappointing women who act on a man’s words. Commitment primarily serves men, because in matters of love their words are relatively cheap while women value them the same way that women value their own words.

Manly devotion serves women, but it requires time, his actions, and her patience for a man to program his heart with actions that please him for pleasing her and that end up favoring her above all others. Her femininity, uniqueness, and patience keep him interested long enough for him to find virtues that accumulate into fascination and to whom he devotes his interest above all else. Then a man loves her (as women wish they would from the get go).

To men, words are for the purpose of getting what they want. They are hunter-conquerors and competitors. Words are their weapons when physicality is inappropriate; when might can’t make right; and when faced with feminine mystique, female modesty, and appealing vanity that they can’t comprehend much less understand well enough to compete for fear of losing.

In other words, the immovable objects of the dominant sex can be moved by the irresistible force of the superior sex when women pay less attention to masculine words, exploit their feminine nature, and induce men into figuring them out rather than the reverse.

 

7 Comments

Filed under courtship

2137. RANDOM THOUGHTS—Group 97


  • Modern women betray their best interests. They abandon their greatest strengths dealing with males: mystery, modesty, morality, manners, meekness, marriage, monogamy, mothering, and a self-imposed and unique majesty that commands respect from males. The fallout spreads across society and men assume greater dominion over women and their home together.
  • Feminism encourages men to spread their seed. Femininity rewards men for hoarding it.
  • Confused but ever alert for another conquest, men watch as females of all ages deal unsuccessfully with their mates. As relationships crumble, men exploit the females dumped into the pool of those so desperate to recover they are easy to conquer.
  • If a man is to compete energetically for one woman to keep for a lifetime, women must have something of greater value than just genitalia.
    Since all women have that in common, he’s lured by other rewards than just sex for husbanding and fathering.
  • Feminism expects men to suppress their masculine instincts and still please women. Femininity expects men to use their masculine instincts to prove themselves worthy of women, children, and family life.
  • Women seek to change their world but do not listen to men. They learn by listening only to women. Consequently, what women know about men is often wrong.
  • Men see things like this. Things don’t change satisfactorily unless men change them or have them changed.
  • Men don’t look for flaws in the woman they marry. Her qualities outweigh her shortcomings, so that’s good enough. Women are opposite. His flaws are both correctable and his being good enough depends on his qualities enabling her to work on his flaws. Consequently, men marry a good woman and expect her to remain good for him. Therefore, he’s blameless if she changes. Women marry a man with flaws correctable by her and expecting to make him better for her. She earns the blame if he turns out different than she expects. Out of that arises the foreigner in their relationship, undeserved blame for the other. Blame and compatibility are already mutually exclusive, and undeserved blame makes it toxic.

 

14 Comments

Filed under sex differences

2122. Alibi for Men?


Do I alibi for men? Probably. Do I alibi for women? Definitely. I know women repeatedly ask me to tell men what they do wrong in women’s eyes. I can answer that directly. I can’t produce results. Men don’t even want to listen, much less accept what other men say about women. Except of course, as they talk, tout, and tip about sexual suggestibility or availability of other than their own woman.

If men wanted to hear about what does and doesn’t work associating with women, more would comment on this blog. But they don’t. It’s self-demeaning to even show interest, like asking for directions, to reveal that they don’t know the essentials at least and the ultimate at best. What a guy may lack in one thing, he expects to compensate with his best or overall traits, skills, and worth. IOW, he’s totally equipped with all he needs. Faking something is preferable and easier than admitting shortcomings, which invariably somehow can be traced to some or imagined lack of sexual potential. And for whatever else they may lack, men keep that hidden first and always.

 

16 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter

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

2025. Likeability — Part I


The point has been made before. The accumulation of negative irritants and minor offenses can dissolve a relationship bit by bit and do it more easily than original reasons for mating can hold a couple together. Major negative influences easily lead to terminal disruption, such as these.

  • Everyday carelessness in her appearance weakens his desire to look upon her as worthy of his investment. Men hate to be reminded that they may or in fact did err, and their imagination magnifies whatever mistake they do nothing about.
  • Emotional outbursts weaken respect. Hers have the most damaging effect because his love is based on respect for her. Her respect of him is not as vital but still accumulates with all the other little things about him that turn her off.
  • Emotional infidelity weakens his desirability, because women refuse to play second fiddle in their man’s life. He’s not nearly as sensitive to her emotional infidelity, but her physical unfaithfulness outweighs all reason for keeping her.
  • Nagging weakens her likeability and indolence weakens his.

In fact, likeability is underrated as marital glue and is the subject of Part II tomorrow.

 

5 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter

2018. Favored Quotes—Collection 41


These quotes reflect the wisdom of ladies who comment on the blog.

“At times I think “yes I am great catch” then comparison, the thief of joy comes along.” [Reading Up at 1972, emphasis added by Guy.]

“The conversation contained the words ‘stop it’ which I would repeat several times over the next few months. I never raised my voice; in fact I spoke much more softly than usual, as I knew he felt as badly as I felt. Neither of us had wanted this type of interaction. I forgave without needing an apology (although he did give one).” [Lauren about Guy Jr. at 1493]

“See I have been waiting for months for an opportunity to use what you taught us on how to thank men. And I did… it was at work in an email to a colleague who helpful. I typed ‘men are never more handsome than when they help a lady who’s under pressure’! You had to see his reaction. I think I made his day :) It was easier in an email though.” [From Cocoa at 1525]

“I think men love the sparkle in a woman’s eye more than cleavage dumping out the blouse. They love a girl who can work hard and make it look easy, who is full of languor and confidence, and yet humble and energetic. They love it when a woman doesn’t talk too much, but only says things that either need to be said or are wanted to be heard. Men seem to like women who have self-respect because it protects them from having to feel guilty for getting away with disrespecting her, since she won’t put up with it in the first place. Men seem to think it’s fascinating for a woman to defend herself, so long as she doesn’t do it in a way that disrespects his manhood. I think my husband appreciates my talents that help him build up his own self-image, such as my fashion sense in helping him dress, my popularity with his co-workers, and my knowledge of nutrition since he’s in the fitness business. He doesn’t seem to care much about what I wear as long as I’m happy with it, or if I show up to his work events to socialize. I think men want a woman who trusts them even more than they trust themselves. Men want a woman to hold them up to a standard of greatness that is in them, but that they have not yet attained, because their love for her motivates them to reach that standard.” [Maria at 1979]

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Dear daughter

1989. Self-gratitude — Where Her Troubles Begin


I figured out why men have little compunction about asking women for hang out and hook up in lieu of dates. Women are willing to be treated less than they deserve—less respect as a person, less worthy as a female, less regard as the superior sex. The dominant sex takes the easier way, because women don’t reinforce their own wishes and brace up their own feelings by standing up for their own selves. Actions change feelings, but women have forgotten how to exploit that principle. Men haven’t.

Men see women as not defending uniquely female values, standards, and expectations. They invite women to help pay for dates without risking loss of face. So, men suffer no loss of dignity by doing what women neither want nor appreciate. When women do stand up for themselves, men must expect and respect it or else they flunk the course of learning how to find acceptance on feminine terms—aka being tamed to honor female standards and expectations.

Women don’t appreciate themselves enough. They don’t protect female sensibilities and feminine expectations by telling men to bug off with their disrespectful proposals. Women just don’t preserve their superior role as females, and the root of malpractice is described in the next post.

 

11 Comments

Filed under feminine