Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Gonads Do Not Determine The Quality Of A Soul
Fausta begins by stating that she thinks men's lives are more difficult than women's nowadays, which I believe to be true if the men are of good character. Some teaser excerpts from her tour de force:
Let's look at 'women are inherently better than men'. If you believe that, you are WRONG. Virtue and character are inherent on each person, and gonads do not determine either; never have, never will.The endless propagandistic screeching about the evil and inherent treachery of men has taught many women to be acutely and deeply defensive in their relationships with men. The trust is gone, and that trust is what is needed in order to establish the type of reflexively loyal and intimate relationship which we naturally desire and of which we are naturally capable. (That's men and women!)
...many many women believe that men can't feel as deeply as women, since men generally don't verbalize hurt, grief, and despair (and I'd even say that the more deeply they feel those, the less they can verbalize them).
So we have a whole industry (network and cable TV, magazine, books, seminars) propagating the idea that women are inherently better than men.
A man who wants commitment and yearns for a reciprocal relationship will be setting himself up for hurt and disappointment if he thinks he can survive in a relationship with a woman who will not surrender herself to his love, or, equally as damaging, if he can not recognize that she is incapable.
Fausta says a great deal in her post, but there are some things I want to say. The first is that by banishing the word "virtue" from our publicly acceptable vocabulary we women have rendered ourselves incapable of recognizing virtue in a man. Fausta's contention is absolutely true if you consider virtuous men. A man who is honest, loyal, hardworking, loving, intelligent and responsible will never get credit for that in our public culture. Oh no! Women just will snort and say "That's what he's supposed to do!" He won't be admired for ten years of such behavior, but he will be scorned and derided for one day in which he fails to live up to his own standards. If he stands by a woman through five years of breast cancer, he'll get a temporary reprieve from the public bastinado he so richly deserves. But let that same man fail to take out the garbage one day, and it will be taken as an absolute revelation of his true character.
Mind you, the feminist culture absolutely will not impose such requirements upon women themselves. You get merit points for sleeping around on a guy, merit points for treating men like hunks of meat, gold leaf clusters for taking them to the cleaners in a divorce, and a Feminist Medal Of Honor for lying to the judge about your husband being a child molester in order to wangle a better divorce deal for yourself. Because really, you know, they are all abusive sex fiends at heart. If it's not true now, it could well be? What's a little false witness amongst the sisterhood?
We have created a situation in which men cannot win, and then we wonder why so many women end up bitter and dissatisfied? Get real, sister. Men are less inherently certain of themselves than women, and they need public affirmation that they are on the right path. They could use a little private appreciation, too. Virtuous men are like perpetual motion machines for women who love and support them. You give them an ounce of love, and they return a pound of loving loyalty, support and deep, unspoken appreciation.
The best thing a mother raising a daughter can do in this society is to teach her to be virtuous, and to make demands of herself to do the right thing towards others. Then, and only then, will the daughter become an adult woman who is capable of recognizing and appreciating a fine man. Because decency is hard. Decency is a struggle! Trying to live a decent life is an epic adventure much more praiseworthy and admirable than climbing Mount Everest. Anyone who tries it will find that out, and in light of the knowledge of her own failures to live up to her own standards will then be able to appreciate the attempt in a man.
Here's the truth: If women want virtuous men, then they need to publicly say that, and live out that truth in their own lives. If women want abusive, useless men, then the best way to produce them is to announce that all men are untrustworthy and vaguely sinister addictions against which every enlightened woman should be on guard. In our public culture, women treat men as if they are food addictions, and constantly go on anti-male diets, fearful that an extra pound of male-appreciation might creep into their psyches and wreck their superbly lean and mean naked-psyche profile in the vast, bathic, confessional world of Oprah, hallowed be her name.
If you marry someone, you will soon realize that you are dependent on them. And sometimes they will be dependent on you. This dependency comes in a variety of forms, such as emotional, financial and psychological. It is not a sickness but a richness, if you choose well. We are all, men and women, in need of something at times. It could be joke, a hand with the chores, a handclasp in the middle of the night, or some concrete act of consideration. (Concrete acts of appreciation and consideration work exceptionally well for men - they rely less on words than acts in assessing where they stand.)
Instead of being scared of men, women should be scared of themselves.
And men will start to notice that this sort of crap doesn't happen to men under Islam. And how the male-supremacist angle of Islamic society promises not only protection but payback...
Most women that I know really disagree with the public "feminine" culture. But we are never going to be quoted or heard in the media of today - and so all foreigners know of us is our media culture, which is a gross misrepresentation of our real culture. If it weren't, there would be no one in the Armed Forces.
I think the infiltration of our media culture into the legal arena is grounds for huge concern. Men are legally disadvantaged in domestic law, and there has to be an adjustment in this.
by banishing the word "virtue" from our publicly acceptable vocabulary we women have rendered ourselves incapable of recognizing virtue in a man.
You've hit the bull's eye on the matter with this post, and particularly with they need to publicly say that, and live out that truth in their own lives.
"Men are legally disadvantaged in domestic law, and there has to be an adjustment in this."
There is. It's called the Marriage Strike and MGTOW (men going their own way).
Stay single. Stay free.
Because human women were and are genetically incapable of it.
On the other hand, if a woman is taught to deny instinct for the first 35 years of her life, she will have a danged hard time learning to exercise those instincts suddenly. All the scar tissue she has built up over those years, combined with the truly devastating messages society instills, will serve as a barrier. That was what Fausta meant by "surrendering to a man's love".
That's what it feels like. You lose a piece of yourself that you can never get back. You are never going to be whole again without him. That's what that "one flesh" thing means. It's true. There actually is a union at some sort of non-physical level. For instance, if I stop off at the store on the way home, I can tell whether I need to buy eggs or Chief No-Nag did just by thinking of him. I usually know if he's getting sick before he does. I admire him. I respect him. I like him. I love him. But we are also joined in a very basic way that I cannot explain to you. It is below mind.
I don't know if you have ever spent much time around animals? I swear to you that this is a very strong and observable trait in females. It's unquestionably genetic.
I could no more cheat on or try to attack Chief No Nag than I could fly. But then, I wasn't raised in a setting that taught me to lie to myself about what I wanted and then blame a man when I never felt instinctively satisfied with the life I had. I was raised by parents who wanted us to understand that we are both animals and something else, and to understand that instincts are not all bad and that thoughts are not automatically wrong.
The Catholic church is right on many points, and this is one of them. It simply isn't healthy for women to be batting around the way our society wants them to be.
I am not denying your personal experiences, btw. This post WAS about your reality. I am just maintaining that there is another, deeper reality which our society denies, and that this denial is brutally painful to both good women and good men, of which there are many. It's as if we are raised to believe that breathing deeply is wrong.
You said, "The best thing a mother raising a daughter can do in this society is to teach her to be virtuous, and to make demands of herself to do the right thing towards others. Then, and only then, will the daughter become an adult woman who is capable of recognizing and appreciating a fine man. Because decency is hard. Decency is a struggle! Trying to live a decent life is an epic adventure much more praiseworthy and admirable than climbing Mount Everest. Anyone who tries it will find that out, and in light of the knowledge of her own failures to live up to her own standards will then be able to appreciate the attempt in a man."
As a father of a young girl who did his best to raise her with the standards you note, I just want to say 'Thank you' for those words and the ones that followed, really struck a chord.
"The Scout Law: A Boy Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent". Sounds like virtues to me.
While being accused of homophobia, the BSA aims to provide activities for young men in a nonsexual context. After a full year of Katrina relief in four states in the South, the Scouts have provided their campgrounds, volunteers, and supplies to anyone who was in need. NOT ONCE has anyone been turned away, regardless of sexual orientation.
A thousand years ago when I was an admittedly less-than-average Girl Scout, they taught the same thing, almost word for word. But nowadays I bet it changed.
I didn't mean to suggest that men shouldn't do the same thing, or that women shouldn't teach their sons the same values. I was just trying to address the strange feminist mutation that has erupted. I don't understand it, but it is obviously toxic.
I think decent men have been trying to tell women that for years.
But women refuse to listen.
Our society simply does not understand that it is possible to scar one's soul. A good friend who has in many ways been an exemplary mentor of the virtuous life (in word and deed) herself once admitted of being scarred in such a way. Her best friend's father had simply left one day. Months later, he returned, and sat back in his chair as if nothing had happened. (In that day, he would have truely been called a cad.) The hurt to her friend and her friends's mom was immense. My friend and mentor took some of that her upon herself. Even though she had a good and faithful marriage, and was raised in an age where virtue still mattered (being of my parent's generation - the "Great Generation") the distrust that was built into her heart is something that has vexed her deeply all of her life. And of of this hurt came 'second hand.'
Simple virtue, simple fidelity and simple (as in unencumbered) love are fragile things. It is no wonder that we have no precious gifts to give or recieve , when all we do is thrash about wildly.
I keep wanting to write about the use of those archetypes, but then I collide with the ugly reality of the archetypes reigning over the ME, and it gets too painful.
Note the "at least one." Three of my siblings married children of broken homes, and a large part of the appeal for their spouses was the fact that my family could DO stable.
I know it's anecdotal evidence, but I know that there are people out there who can treat men and women in an equally good manner while not treating them quite the same. When the call goes out to help someone move, the men are appealed to. The men are invited to the baby showers but mostly women are expected. And the best part is that nobody finds it strange.
(Mandatory disclaimer: This does not mean that my friends do not have dating mishaps, get broken hearts, or suffer from lonliness. I am merely pointing out that such healthy cultures have not been eradicated.)
Incidentally, in Fausta's post on the subject, people are lamenting how they can keep their children from being exposed to these harmful influences, or stating that they'll encounter them anyway.
We accept the reality with which we are presented.
You don't have to watch television. Or read magazines. Or spread out the ads in the newspaper. I didn't have cable growing up, and now I don't even watch television (except in DVD sets. :) ) I don't bother with most magazines, and certainly not women's magazines.
You don't have to allow your young children to watch TV that you feel is harmful to them. You don't have to get them subscriptions to magazines that are worth less than the paper they're printed on, no matter how much they beg. You don't have to buy them clothes that show their hip bones.
I cannot believe that there are people that think such things are inevitable, or that they have to do objectionable things lest they be thought cruel. It's bizarre. Don't you remember when your mother said, "If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you too?" Or is that just passé?
Really? There's one greater: "Faithful women."
The issue is not whether we are male or female, but whether we treat each other with respect and consideration. The issue is whether we are raising young people who know to look for that in each other.
I understand your point about the grandchildren absolutely. There is some hope in what you've written, because you recognize that the women involved don't understand what they are doing.
That's why I thought Fausta's post was so important. There ought to be an opening there if they can be brought to a better understanding.
All I can tell you is that I will pray for your sons and their wives (or girlfriends). But I also believe that we, men and women alike, should speak out! Publicly! We should speak our minds about these issues, because the more we don't the more pain is caused.
It's funny - people often recognize the truth when they hear it said. Those who are acting badly from ignorance often can and do change when they encounter reality.
The issue is whether we are raising young people who know to look for that in each other.
You don't have to watch television. Or read magazines. Or spread out the ads in the newspaper. I didn't have cable growing up, and now I don't even watch television
You are correct in that one can avoid all of those in one's house.
However, do you keep your children from visiting all the places that carry those things? The public library's newspaper & mag section? Friends' houses? Doctos' waiting rooms? Restaurants with TV at the bar like TGIFriday's?
How much can a parent concievably try to isolate their chilfren? And wouldn't it be counterproductive?
As a sometimes "nice guy" myself I don't think the fact that women don't tend to fall for nice guys nescessarily reflects badly on them. Nice guy behavior can be an expression of neediness.
That's an exceptionally hard task in an era when both parents usually have to work, and often have to work long hours. If you don't get to spend enough time with your kids, it's very hard to give them enough of your outlook to make it convincing.
But in the modern climate, I don't think there's any amount of evidence that would prevent me from occasionally waking up terrified from a nightmare in which the woman I love turns out to be a typical member of our generation.
I try to be the best person I can be. And I hope that she'll continue to do likewise.
What an incredible insightful post. It really makes one think of the task that sits before all of us as we raise our children. Thank you so much!
The comments here are also very interesting and it gives one lots to think about.
Links to this post: