Tag Archives: society

2330. Suggestions for Raising Children — Part IV

I interrupt my planned sequence to inject a political comment. We need to teach more and mutual respect as the hinge pin for raising better children. As long as the political class promotes diversity and differences, the mutual respect of commonality dissipates and fades.

As women go, so goes society. But it only trends toward female friendliness when mutual respect rates higher than mutual love as the primary glue secreted by women between individuals. Without mutual respect between both individuals and the sexes, then society goes as men go.

It’s that way today as female friendliness fades away. Because: 1) Women blame men for relationship ailments, which makes them expect masculine respect without respecting men, which leaves women in self-defeat by inaction and lack of initiative. 2) Initiating displays of respect to someone invites if not earns their respect, and the showing of trust is the most believable form. 3) Modern men distrust modern women, which reverses historical experience, and so men are not inclined to initiate anything except joyfully ride the pony of female sexual freedom.

Today, women don’t initiate to lead indirectly and so men lead more dynamically. If women expect different outcomes, they should initiate the showing of respect to men and their gender. Men won’t initiate it. Just showing more respect than they receive weakens their competitive alignment with men and gender dominance with women. They can be blamed all day, but self-interest prevails over the interest of others.

More intersex and intra-gender respect is essential to enable women to once again shape and maintain the cultural values, standards, and expectations that guide people in a female-friendly society.

Historically, wives dominated cultural values. Today, single men dominate, subordinate, and subject women and children to immoral and even porn objectification. Husbands—the most valuable of men—go along to get along pretty much outside the shaping of public interest. The half-century changeover originated with the death of social and domestic conditions that prevailed before the 1960s.

Old school: Women respected men more than the female gender; men respected women more than the male gender. Men sought a dependable wife to provide home and castle and brighten their work and life; women sought a responsible mate to brighten their future. Almost everybody wanted those blessings. Single life was undesired and avoidable because mutual respect for the opposite gender bred trust between the sexes. Trust enhanced individual respect, which expanded a husband’s willingness and ability to love one woman, which bred mutual respect and encouragement, which attracted and taught wives that respect trumps love for the keeping of a husband.

Society settled smoothly into mutual exchange of power and influence. Husbands dominated workplace and society. Wives dominated home and cultural values, standards, and expectations for their mutually anticipated brighter future.

IOW men and women were not at war. Mutual respect bonded them in peace and the raising of children who matured into respectable and respecting adults seeking to find mutuality with a mate. Mother-love earned mutual respect that raised good children. Wife’s respect earned husband’s love that kept fathers at home.

If we can restore the teaching of, high regard for, and expectation of mutual respect among younger generations, then we may be able to reverse the male dominance that trends out of control today. It will take several or many generations, but the first change agents may already have been born.

I leave you with two operational definitions that I use.

Respect — A feeling or attitude of admiration and deference toward somebody or something; the state of being admired deferentially. To those dictionary words, I would add being appreciated and trusted; recognized as an authority on some or many subjects; looked up to as source of wisdom, guidance, dependence, help, responsibility, mental stimulation, and perhaps mental nourishment.

Disrespect — Not appreciated as a person, man or woman, or for the various roles they fill in life. No interest in their opinions. They deserve to be ignored, challenged in front of others, made to look bad, or their opinions differ. Or, they can’t pleasantly reciprocate love or respect.



Filed under courtship, Dear daughter, feminine, sex differences

1996. Self-gratitude — Default Attitudes

Yesterday I posted angelic whipped cream to the self-gratitude sundae. Today I add the nuts of gratefulness. The numbered list of naturally endowed female qualities that women inherit at birth has been revised and enlarged. It’s posted as a separate page at blog top.

Default attitudes reflect the way that God designs, Nature endows, and hormones energize females to function as the superior sex within society built and sustained by the dominant sex. Tomorrow, the cherry of recovery completes the sundae at 1997.


1 Comment

Filed under feminine

1793. Sex Difference Redux— Part 47: Cheater Returns IV

I continue to pose and write as cheated-on wife. My unfaithful husband seeks forgiveness and a return to my bed. This third part of my four-part game plan helps me evaluate and judge his contrition, sincerity, and future value to the family.

Part C — Confuse with the Unexpected

We now live separate lives under the same roof, but I have more convictions about my life than he has about our lives together or separate.

  • I live in a world different than he expects. As wife and husband we are different people than mother and father of our kids. I repeatedly draw distinctions in these roles to clarify and keep the children out of our dispute.
  • I believe that one unfaithful event breaks marriage vows. He claims that he just dented them. So, we’re on new ground. I gently but deliberately take command of the home in which he’s permitted to live. It’s my home, and he disqualified himself as the king. If I neither blame nor accuse him, his guilt may help and promote my queenly ascendency to the throne.
  • I don’t fight with him. I just refuse to engage on his complaints. Mystery helps me.
  • I treat him as if he’s adrift from home and family. He’s welcome to shelter but he’s now an outsider, except that the kids must continue to show respect as before. Their relationship with their father remains the same, if he can keep it. (I recognize that he’ll probably explain our marital differences differently than I do. But kids given one side of an argument often ‘kill the messenger’. And I can’t stop him anyway.)
  • Whether we live separate lives in the same house or he moves out, our relationship starts over by going back to Day One. Should he ever want to return, he has to win my hand again. If he truly wants me, he must prove it with actions instead of wordy promises.
  • I turn home and myself into totally neutral zones. I’m calm but not inviting, pleasant but not encouraging, and simple but no longer a pushover for his charm, apologies, and promises.
  • The day I found out about his cheating, I started to restore myself to the girl he courted and married. Maybe I’ll become even better. This also means I have to view and evaluate him not as vow breaker or cheater but as new Mr. Good Enough.
  • He faces his conscience, and I want to inspire more of it. Whether he separates, divorces, or seeks return to me, one path suits my needs better than all the others: I keep him exposed and let him remind himself of what he’s losing or lost in both kids and me.
  • Living where his money goes bonds him better to family than sending it to us if he leaves. This makes no separation work to my advantage.
  • Confused that my dedication to virtual virginity resists his irresistible charm, he learns, accepts, adjusts, and honors my insistence about no sex, no sleeping together. Otherwise, we’re getting nowhere toward my taking him back.
  • I make him figure out what I’m thinking. I don’t help him by either confirming or denying. The greater my mystery, the greater respect I earn.
  • I never bad mouth or condemn him either to or in front of the children. They will choose sides, and I should expect them to favor the one criticized. I need them on my side and disparaging their father achieves the opposite.
  • I remember this wisdom: He isn’t leaving for the sex down the street, he’s leaving because our harmony (aka chemistry + mutual enjoyment of each other) broke down somewhere in the home. Who’s at fault is of no consequence. So, for strategic purposes I accept blame without informing him. [Guy says: Lawyers will reject the blame idea, but that’s another war].
  • I resist with great calm and stubbornness any charm, apologies, and promises he offers. Every time I buy into his arguments, I lose whatever I gained before. Acquiescent isn’t where it’s at this time. He courts me as I expect, not as he prefers, and he has to figure out the difference. If he won’t work to get me back, he won’t stay with me as long as I wish.
  • Some months earlier I detected that his faithfulness might be weakening. At that time I undertook a weight loss and exercise program. It worked, and I now am shaped more closely to our courtship appearance. With haste I upgrade my wardrobe and manner of dress. I now dress at home and in public to make other men and especially his peers drool. He deserves their pity.

When he supplies other attentions, affections, and appreciations that persuade me he wants me more than sex with me, then we’re making progress. Part D follows tomorrow.


Filed under sex differences

616. WHAT people do, but not WHY.

This post is dedicated to Her Highness Tryin2understandurside. She asked me to explain this statement: “Men dominate society or WHAT people do. Women dominate culture or WHY people do what they do.” Her question triggers the following plus tomorrow’s post, 617.  

WWNH: Women now compete directly with men in both workplace and home. But they’re a long way from imposing matriarchy on WHAT people do.

  • Men dominate the workplace, a major foundation of what makes society operate. Women that pursue workplace success copy masculine standards and live up to manly expectations, or they never gain the organizational and personal influence needed to dominate. Few succeed, and men continue to dominate.
  • Laws, regulations, PC, and administrative fiat lower male dominance in the workplace somewhat. But such interventions go against the male nature, and they cause masculine resentment and retaliation in ways that victimize females.
  • Men default by nature to compete with each other for dominance, and this spirit dominates society. Men try to keep female influence out of sight, undetectable amidst manly interaction. If not kept beneath the radar, it makes men appear weak. Men don’t compete with women, but when they do and she wins, he’s a wuss. If he wins, she’s a victim and he’s an ass. Consequently, women have a choice: Compete and generate poor relationships, or cooperate and promote good ones.
  • Traditionally, our foremothers specialized in indirectly and cooperatively influencing husbands. She sent him to work with her ideas for improving the world around him. Wives wrote the music, and husbands played the tune. Progress he made at work improved society and brightened the future for her and her children.
  • Single men had little influence. Their numbers were small and the best wanted to get married, and so they accepted and copied husbands’ leadership and manner so strongly shaped by wives. This traditional model has faded gradually for fifty years. Numerous single men in the workplace, all less eager to marry, make husbands less numerous and competitive. This makes wives less influential. New women entering the workplace don’t change it much; they face obstacles described in the first two bullets above.
  • The taming of the American West was done by husbands. Society settled down, grew peaceful and stable, and opened opportunities for children. It happened because wives said to improve the quality of life. Women unified around this female goal, and it came to pass.
  • In the final analysis, homemaker wives more effectively influence the male gender than do women in the workforce. Her Highness Sharon quoted Tocqueville writing about 19th Century America, and I repeat part of it: “I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked…to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: To the superiority of their women.” (The full quote is in Sharon’s comment at post 615. The original can be found in Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.)  

Society operates under a masculine structure and value system. However, it is subject to change and alteration. Women dominate the values that make up the most powerful side of our civilization. That’s next at post 617. It looks at WHY people do what they do.


Filed under Sociology 101

436. Do women know jack about Jack? —Part 23

Jack becomes Mr. Right in three steps: First, his Jill picks him more for husbanding and fathering potential than being ‘right’. Second, she shows gratitude for his providing, protecting, etc. Third, she coaches him into good husbanding and fathering. Her successes elevate him to Mr. Right, if he’s to get there. 

♂ Jack is obvious. Commitment you hear, devotion you see.

♂ Except for emotions considered macho and manly, Jack doesn’t easily express his personal feelings. Jill’s prying for details turns him off.

♂ A long courtship without sex separates Jack the player from the Marrying Man. One values her for sex only and drops out when he doesn’t get it. The other values her for Self and stays to the end.

♂ At the cultural level where values are shaped, Jills lead, and Jacks follow. At the society level where values are implemented, the reverse occurs.

As with all of us, Jack performs better when he lives for something bigger or someone higher than himself. Another reason why married men are more successful and live longer than their uncommitted, unattached male brothers.


Filed under courtship, Uncategorized

284. The high cost of cheap sex — 12

  What one generation allows, the next practices.

  Living by high moral standards reinforces a female as right, proper, and courageous. Not living that way makes her easy prey for men.

  If she’s easy with sex, she’s of doubtful quality to the Marrying Man.

  Morality serves women and children much more than men. Highly moral cultural values make society female-friendly.

  Low morality energizes male friendliness and dominance.

  When morality declines, men operate with less female influence. They help downgrade social values further toward masculine interests.

  How females play the sex game dominates the lifestyle of males. Men keep trying to make frequent and convenient sex more easily available. The more loosely women play the game, the more men pressure for even more looseness.

  Men fill the power vacuum caused by women seeking masculine approval instead of holding up female-friendly values against male dominance.

  Females giving in to greater and greater male social pressure forces women to reshape the lifestyle of females and children.

  Men giving in to greater and greater female pressures forces men to reshape the lifestyle of males.

[More about high costs of cheap sex appears in posts 226, 207, 190, 171, 161, 149, 138, 99, 84, 39, and 2. Scroll down or search by the number with dot and space following.]

Leave a comment

Filed under How she loses, Uncategorized

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