Tag Archives: wives

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.



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

2250. Paradise Crumbles While We Argue

At post 2245 Sir Eric asked me to describe my position on gay marriage, which I condemn as morally, religiously, and politically wrong but those are three different arguments for another time perhaps. When Eric asked, I was reluctant to offer my views; I consider gay marriage more a symptom than social disaster, less impactful than the political poison spread continually across our culture aka eating away the moral fabric of society.

Short History. These principles, practices, and traditions preceded that cultural decay:

  • Our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, enabled previous Americans over a couple of centuries to morph two male-dominated religions—Christianity and Judaism—into our female-dominated Judeo-Christian culture. The superior female gender was enabled better than ever before to balance and keep the excesses of male dominance under control. The major albeit indirect influence originated and came from wives and ladies.
  • Wifely dominance peaked and faded with loss of mothers’ influence during the cultural and sexual revolutions of the 1960s. Adolescents emerged as rebels, pursued decadent lifestyles, and established societal expectations. Baby boomers took it upon themselves—in harmony with leftist activists—to change the public venue. Each new generation had to exceed the former. Willingly but without knowing, young females gave up their superior ability to balance male dominance. In the process, they also gave up their relationship expertise and empowered men to take charge of relationships for which men are ill-equipped and relationship permanence today reveals their incompetence for it.

Gay marriage is another political activist display of raising ‘victims” as if from ashes, this time the so-called demagoguery of Christianity. Many more than just the LGBT folks, politicized anti-Americans use issues such as gay marriage to keep us busy and not looking at how they destroy the American system without interference by the people. We argue among ourselves while the edifice (world power), structure (representative democracy), and foundation of the greatest nation on earth crumbles beneath our politically impotent anxiety.

Gay marriage is simply another symptom along the road to losing both our culture and sovereign nation. The process is almost complete. We’re already a communist-led, bureaucratic, regulatory, administrative state* where the dominant values, standards, and expectations are political and unfriendly to those outside the political class.

We’ve been moved from a Christian to a leftist secular nation; from a republic toward a totalitarian-capable police-state system; from state and local responsibility to federal control; from economic planning in the marketplace to central planning at federal level; from common decency to immoral focus; from rule of law to rule of man; from individualism to collectivism; from hetero sex as best for raising children to sex for adult pleasure; from two-party to one-party elections; from right granted by God to freedom determined only by central authority; from liberty for all to denial for those who object to excess government power; from personal responsibility to addiction to government gifts; from women as respectable and permanent mates to temporary pleasure playmates; from common sense judgments to political correctness; from cultural evolution by the majority to culture change by parlaying minority unrest; from morality dominated by respectable women to immorality dominated by narcissistic men; from men who respect women to men addicted to porn; from high and free spirit to depression as normal; from women who can capitalize on their relationship expertise to women who must act more like men to succeed as both playmates and in the marketplace.

Our Judeo-Christian heritage once enabled wives to directly dominate cultural values and indirectly dominate social progress. Now, we find ourselves confronted with cultural values, standards, and expectations controlled more by political imperatives such as political correctness and the death of common sense.

Compared to yesteryear, with the smaller number of wives relative to the population, the superior gender is no longer able to balance the dominant one. Women see their opportunities for happiness smashed on the rocks of men intent on conquering as many attractive women as possible and throwing the conquered aside as relationship debris. So many players, so many alpha wannabes, so few reliable men willing to devote themselves to family life, so little mutual respect one gender for the other, so little respect one man for one woman, and so much pleasure generated in response to desire for pleasure more than desire for compatibility, family responsibility, and mutual togetherness/companionship.

Living for pleasure breeds narcissism, which breeds hatred between interest groups, which helps divide neighborhoods and communities from common interest, which further empowers the political class. Our nation has turned this way for one reason crowded with individual rationalizing.

Christians stay home on election day. They find ways to rationalize away their obligation as responsible citizens. They follow their Christian conscience about the immorality of candidates, policies, and current issues. IOW, if candidates won’t live by Christian beliefs the voter has, they are not good enough to deserve the Christian’s vote. The citizen’s responsibility to vote is thus made irrelevant by the Christian conscience.

The symptoms shown above are the direct or indirect result of central planning by those who hate America. Our internal enemies are so far advanced, they ‘own’ the education system at all levels, have co-opted our elected representatives, forfeited legislative responsibility to the executive and judicial branches, and have reshaped the judiciary to favor minority over majority opinion. In turn, the U. S. and other governments are being combined with big business—such as financial and pharmaceutical—as the future for joint global governance.**

By influencing, persuading, and discouraging Christians to not vote, the Christian majority in the U.S. is reduced to a complaining bunch of do-nothings who primarily blame God by waiting for Him to save us. It’s easier to imagine the roar of lions in the coliseum than to hear support of unified Christian civic responsibility from pulpits. Left alone, we can expect Christians to continue to nullify their political influence by finding excuses to not vote. It’s shameful but just another major reason our country goes to hell in a handbasket carried by atheists, secularists, communists, leftists, Marxists, Progressives, liberals, and other opponents of traditional America and American exceptionalism.


*If you want to read about newly publicized, unbelievable, freedom-denying burdens foisted on Americans, read Charles Murray’s new book, “By the People.” He describes the regulatory and administrative state. It’s the domineering and bureaucratic government within the federal government, superior to state and local governments, and independent of our elected representatives and most of the judiciary.

**Historical Note. The Soviet Union’s experience taught communists two major lessons. 1) The Soviet form of communism failed because they could not overwhelm the middle class. You will note the middle class is being politically and economically reduced in size, unity, and influence in the U.S. today. 2) Central economic planning does not work. Too much blame attaches to government because planners have too little control and producers have too little authority to provide the desired results. Modern-day communists found a better way. The federal government already recruits big business as the middle man. Government central planners determine the results desired, they tell certain companies to make it so, and the companies shape their policies, production, and distribution to achieve the government goals. Example of central planning today. Requirements are for some number of potatoes, hogs, beeves, and corn to be produced next year. Too many potatoes takes away from corn production. Too many hogs eat up too much corn. Too much beef consumes too much distribution resources (fuel, etc.). The corn for ethanol needs to be doubled. And the marketplace cannot be allowed to make the decisions that balance supply and demand. So, government sets goals for the agriculture and meat processing industries and expects that something close to their plans will be the result. All problems and shortcomings thus become the fault of business and not government bureaucrats are already protected from elected representatives (see asterisk above). See how smart the communists are for dodging the bullets that made a mockery of Soviet central planning? Their game plan is proving to be flawless, two steps forward and one step back until economic control is complete and the future darkens for all of us.


Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, exes

2212. Hits: Let’s Quit

On further review, the material I have left on hits is redundant. So, I won’t bore you with it.

However, an informative replacement read. The following was referred to me by Lauren, the main participant in the series “WWNH: Real World,” to whom I’m grateful.

All women, especially wives, may benefit from it. If not for their present relationship, they may better understand what many divorced men more than likely went through.

The author takes her own giant leap out of the feminist cauldron that breeds disrespect of husbands. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/woman-realizes-that-shes-been-accidentally-abusing-her-husband-this-whole-time

Leave a comment

Filed under Dear daughter, How she loses

2104. Will You Respect Me in the Morning?

Sir Eric at 2101 pondered life this way. “This is something I’ve never quite understood: I can’t imagine having sex with any woman I didn’t at least value in some way. It would seem actually to work the opposite way: a woman giving sex to a given man should, in theory, increase his respect for her.

What you say makes you a better man. It has significant appeal to women, and they seem to even shape their lives around that idea. Doing so, however, is flawed.

You probably learned such respectful values growing up; mother or other women taught you. You benefited from old school teachings. It used to be that way and girls knew to capitalize and complete the process to the advantage of females and children. Mothers tamed boys, girls guided teens toward marriage, and wives domesticated husbands for harmony in the home. It aimed at teaching males to respect females by females earning it.

Men don’t need to respect a woman to bed her. How often are you aware of men jumping into bed after taking only a short time to determine how respectable much less respected the women are?

Unless a man is taught in his youth to unconditionally respect women as unique and very different and very respectable creatures, it takes time for him to learn to respect each one. It’s the main disqualifier of masculine-style sexual freedom for women; they don’t earn the respect of men or each man they bed. Yielding sex does not earn masculine respect; in fact, cheap and easy conquest awards her disrespect. Moreover, if she’s easy for him, then she’s not respectable enough to be faithful to him. If the man has not paid his supreme sacrifice, namely yielding his independence on her behalf, she’s shortchanged of his respect.

The nature of man works like this. Men have two very differently motivated sex drives. The first is to conquer attractive women, That primal urge quits for each conquered woman but remains active for others. The second is the normal physiological and psychological urge that women know so well.

To conquerors, the vanquished earn as much respect as they are difficult to conquer; the higher her price, the more respect she earns. It’s not sex that earns respect, it’s her character that controls access to her sexual assets.

Having given up her most prized possession to him in their first sex together, he views her very differently and she’s easily disposable, candidate for booty, or a keeper for another reason. The other reason is respect based on her qualities other than sex. Qualities he can admire as virtues.

As to their subsequent sex, it’s routine because he as conqueror ‘owns’ the ‘right’. He may learn to like and enjoy it and it may entitle her to a great position in his life, but any additional respect that she accumulates comes from other than their sex together.

Female genitalia does not earn loyalty. However, it’s potential for loyalty can be realized, and she is born with the ability and talent. She lures without conquest in ways that produce devotion to her based on virtues that idealize her promise as his ‘support system’ to fulfill his life’s ambitions. IOW, a long chaste courtship which she arranges and manages in order to brighten her future by showing the promise to strengthen his life. As her virtues accumulate in his mind, his respect grows.

Eric’s standard is admirable. While it may not be rare, women are making it more so with masculine-style sexual freedom. Maximum respect of females is mutually exclusive with unmarried sex.



Filed under courtship

2043. Submission #1 — The Introduction

The last of three series on this subject was completed in July 2010. It’s time for something new.

Let’s start at the top. We view life from outer space. God designs, Nature endows, and hormones energize two different sexes. One is dominant but the other superior. Respectively, the immoveable object faces the irresistible force, male gender versus female gender. It’s the historical and highly traditional battle of the sexes.

Expecting women to submit flips the superior sex on its head. Not only that, it makes women mad just thinking about it, even when they hear it in church. Unfortunately, that causes some women to lose their female balance, to blame the men in their lives. Regardless of how pastors explain it, there’s plenty of hope always available in the feminine boodle bag of options.

Since the Holy Bible favors men on the subject, women don’t seem to have a full hand of cards to play. Ahhhhh! But they do. In fact, they hold the superior hand. They have patience, skill, hardheadedness, grateful heart, free will, and abundant opportunities to play. Men have stubbornness, self-respect, hardheartedness, ego, and competitive determination to defend only one position, she must submit. Advantage: wives. Abundant opportunities can smother one position though even well-defended.

The advantage comes from this. When push comes to shove, submission means only one thing to men. It’s their handicap. Not handicapped, women are blessed from birth for this particular battle. They are by nature cooperative and even submissive when in their best interest. Their nature thus provides advantage that enables them to outsmart, outwit, and out-maneuver dominant males. Consequently, submission isn’t a yes or no battle. Women make a game of ‘maybe’ out of it that convinces their man that he has won.

The feminine submissive spirit, often seen by men as unrespectable, is quite capable of conquering a man’s insistence that she submit as he and other men conceive it.



Filed under Culture & Politics

1969. Anger and His Significance

At post 1968 Her Highness Cinnamon inquires if female anger undermines a man’s sense of significance. The natural principle first: Yes, if he has conquered her. No, if he has not.

Yes, because her anger challenges him. It puts them in instant competition. Men avoid competing with their woman and conquest confirms to the male nature that she is his. Conquest earns the natural male right to dominate, which means that expressions of anger at him—even though deserved—are inappropriate.

The male nature recognizes the superior competitive influence—“arguing power”—of females. It is worth the risk of losing arguments in order to conquer a woman, but after conquest it is not. So, competing with a conquered woman, the male nature tells men they will likely lose. That brings up their greatest fear, losing significance in their woman’s eyes, which means their ability is questionable for fulfilling manly missions of responsibility to her. Therefore, competing with their woman is too risky and should be at least avoided and preferably prevented.

The following bullets can be answered in the same way. Yes, if he has already conquered her. It opens the floodgate to competition and likelihood of reducing his sense of significance. No, if they have never had sex together. Competition protects her and he may lose sleep but not significance over a woman defending her ‘un-owned’ self.

  • Refusing sex?
  • Extreme silence, pulling away, refusing to communicate?
  • Continuing to argue after he declares a final decision?
  • Refusing to do as he says after he has demonstrated that he expects his dominant role to prevail?
  • Blaming him? However, add this caveat. If he senses he is wrong, he is still pressured by the male nature to defend himself and prove her wrong. In which case, she is the mother of fault-finding, he is the father of rationalized self-defense, and the competition continues. (For a man to admit wrongdoing to a conquered woman comes from lessons learned in life long after his birth.)

In short, whatever DIRECTLY challenges a husband’s authority and decision-making dominance tampers with his sense of significance. In his mind, he gave up his independence for the responsibility of ruling the relationship. Outside of marriage and without conquest, however, directness serves women better because men are amenable to letting women have their way.

Moreover, lessons learned living inside different cultural value systems make men more or less willing to compete with wives and conquered females, e.g., more within our Judeo-Christian value system and less within non-Western societies.

Women can learn to get more of what they want by trial and error. Before conquest, they compete diligently with men to prevent conquest except under female terms. After conquest, they compete drastically if necessary to preserve their dignity within female standards and expectations. After marriage they cooperate and avoid direct competition with their husband. Competition calls for directness. Cooperation calls for indirectness. Wise women know how to exploit the differences that arise in life.



Filed under Dear daughter

1946. Indirectness: A Wife’s Most Effective Strategy

Even within compatible couples, the masculine preference for directness easily causes confrontation and even more so when women use it. The feminine talent and skill for cooperation makes women the relationship experts and gives birth to their preference for using indirectness. Without it, the man’s game of competition overpowers the woman’s game of cooperation and male dominance reigns at the expense of female dignity.

Women are born with immense talent and skill to use indirectness as a successful technique for dealing with men. It calls for tactics, expectations, and calculated responses centered on someone else in ways that encourage their cooperation.

Indirectness prioritizes patience over impatience, niceness over spitefulness, subtle over obvious, deferred over immediate gratification, calm and smooth talk over harsh chatter, and simpering rather than her spouting orders. It also calls for no insistence on getting her way at this time, delaying arguments until no longer needed, accepting loss of arguments to fight another day and way, finding gratitude rather than fault, smiling when frowns are expected, not complaining about her problems but asking directly for help and pleasantly depending on whatever ‘rescue’ he provides.

Women love easily. It causes grateful wives to predominately live according to their natural soft-heartedness. They routinely rely on it rather than their natural hard-headed ability. Indirectness capitalizes on that tendency. It enables wives to brighten their futures by enabling their husbands to dominate the present. Thus, the relationship expert generates the compatibility that lasts forever.

Translating all that into directness, she empowers herself to rule the rooster while enabling him to rule the roost, which offends a man until years later when he learns the truth and worth of it, which is why the hopes, dreams, and rewards a wife longs for come so much later in marriage.


Filed under How she wins