Tag Archives: workplace

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

341. Ties that bind, or not! —Their drives

     Sweetheart love, the sweetest, melts into smooth flowing and enduring love, the deepest. But spouses have opposing natures and primal urges that conflict beneath the love they share.

She’s driven to nest, nurture, and nestle with loved ones, and he’s the primary target in the early years.

But further, she expects him to produce, provide, protect, and problem-solve to assist with whatever she needs.

His naturally independent nature responds: He simply does the best he can. His best fades, however, if she fails to fully respect his primary self-interest, next.

He’s driven to make himself significant, to overcome Nature and other barriers, compete with men, succeed in the workplace, and shape human events. It’s his role in life, and progress and accomplishment are their own rewards.

Her naturally grateful heart responds: If he’ll do those things on my behalf, I’ll reward him for husbanding and fathering. 

Merging these natural differences compatibly leads to cooperation—good! Failure to recognize and respect these differences leads to competition—ungood!

Leave a comment

Filed under sex differences, 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

238. From feminine mystique to feminist mistakes — Part 3

        Patriarchy is natural. Throughout history no matriarchy ever arose, but our American foremothers came closest. Our forebears converted and integrated immigrant patriarchies into a female-friendly, family-centered society.

Our Judeo-Christian value system empowered husbands to dominate workplace and society and enabled wives to dominate home and culture. This empowered our foremothers to promote manly significance and indirectly shape the future without violating the natural dominance of men.

Single men were minor players in cultural development, because most men married or sought marriage. Single women adopted, upheld, and even uplifted the virtues of Womanhood as spreader of all that is good.

Husbands fulfilled wifely expectations for a more civilized life. They tamed Nature, built wealth, managed single male excesses, observed rule of law, customized family-friendliness, and brightened the future for children.

Our American foremothers knew themselves and the male nature; they honored and exploited both. They pursued separate but equal genders.

Generation after generation made the USA more female-friendly. More law and order, security, generosity, compassion, wealth accumulation. Less male aggression, abuse, violence. Greater individual responsibility for family, fathering, husbanding.     

Women harnessed masculine energies to favor female-friendly and family-centered life. Without such wifely leadership, men don’t settle down to help women fulfill female hopes and dreams. As women go, so goes society.

Our foremothers never let up. Mothers tamed boys, girls civilized teen boys, and wives domesticated husbands. And that’s missing today.

[More on old school America appears in posts 218 and 204 below. Scroll down or search by the number with dot and space following it.]

1 Comment

Filed under Sociology 101, Uncategorized

218. From feminine mystique to feminist mistakes — Part 2

As women goes, so goes society. That’s the story of America.

     Over several centuries, our foremothers took America from male-centered to family-centered. It peaked in the late 20th Century.

     Husbands built American political, legal, and economic greatness. They dominated both workplace and society. But wives dominated home, family, and culture. (Society is what people do, culture is why they do it.)

     Wives/mothers shaped and policed the social landscape with family-centered values, because they had the freedom and respect to do so. They dominated the home. They gained dominance of the family as industrialization occupied husbands, and universal education occupied kids, outside the home.

     With the help of spinster teachers, married women came to dominate the culture by standardizing and spreading common family-enhancing values—especially marriage, monogamy, morality, and equality of education.

     They also promoted mutual gender respect by pushing feminine as female identity and manly as male identity. This empowered the genders as separate but equal. Parents were enabled to unify compatibly and, thus, maximize benefits for children.

     Except female teachers, single people contributed virtually nothing to the cultural values that guided husbands at work. Married couples made family enterprise the supreme institution. Most men sought marriage and succeeded.

     Wives advised husbands on ways to brighten the family future—build society around families and weed out evil. This uplifted society. Many generations of such wifely influence smoothed the rough edges from male domination.

     Family-centeredness evolved smoothly. However, it peaked after revolutionary zeal spread from Marxists to feminists after the 1960s. Changing America to fit feminist theory now moves society to female-centeredness. The Dark Side of Feminism wipes out family-centeredness.

     How foremothers did it is next post facto for this title.

[America’s move from mystique to mistakes also appears in post 204. Scroll down or search by the number]

Leave a comment

Filed under Sociology 101, Uncategorized

173. Female dominance: Gone! — Part 3

Men dominate society and the workplace. Women dominate the family and culture; they dominate the values that govern how men dominate society and workplace. Having this power provides women with two options.

1. They can make sex available for little or no price of commitment. Sexual freedom and feminist endorsement of sex for the sake of sex rationalize this alternative into reality.

Free and easy sex in the social marketplace energizes the masculine drive for conquest, which translates into more scores for the sake of sex and belt or bedpost notches. Energized conquerors energize females to provide easy, frequent, and convenient sex.

The effect is this: It opens the conquering door wider for males and makes females compete with each other for boyfriends instead of competing with men for husbands.

2. Females can make sex available at a commitment price they determine will be enough to fulfill female hopes and dreams. Chasteness, chastity, abstinence, celibacy, and whatever else one chooses to call sex-free courtship works best. Our foremothers proved this system works.

Sex-free courtship forces males to rethink their pursuit of sex. It conditions their thinking to measuring each female’s price against his masculine agenda. It adjusts their thinking toward more domestic responsibility than sex for its own sake. This creates the female advantage of energizing women to compete for permanent husbands instead of temporary boyfriends. Raising the stakes for all men makes better husbands.

After marriage, women relinquish dominance to their man in order to keep him. They live with whatever influence they won earlier by delaying conquest until his devotion arose.

The first option makes women unhappy and miserable trying to live with a man. The second option our foremothers proved workable and compatible: It enables men to dominate directly through their nature. It also empowers women to dominate indirectly through cultural values.


Leave a comment

Filed under How she loses, 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