Tags
A bit an ancient wisdom from long-lost womanhood used to be the idea of never competing with men. We are far above such things and would never dream of getting ourselves dirty by mucking around with men and their silly games. Women don’t compete with men, we are far more like cats, content in the knowledge of our vast superiority and purring away.
Women of old understood that the goal was to get men fighting FOR you, not WITH you. By fighting FOR you, I do not mean physically or by having to forever earn your respect, I mean we seek and desire men’s protection and provision. We wish to be someone they cherish, protect, and serve. We want them to fight for the preservation of relationship and connection.
These are quaint, old-fashioned, notions, but they work well in the context of biology, so naturally the culture has worked hard to erase any feminine wisdom that might remain, instead creating this strange utopian vision of egalitarianism, envy, and perpetual gender competition.
Don’t compete. I am not speaking of all the delight to be found in a good water fight or perhaps a coed game of softball. There is nothing wrong with a bit of playfulness, as long as everybody understands we are playing and enjoying one another’s company. Men and women however, should not be competing with one another for attention, for approval, for recognition, for status. We should be so strong and self-assured in our own selves, so aware of our own innate worth and value as different people, that we would no more compete with one another than dogs and cats do.
Biology recognizes this, and while biology is not always so politically correct, women truly do seek alliances with men, our own survival is closely linked to their willingness to protect and provide. In the reproductive equation, women can go it alone in having children, but it is not ideal, not emotionally, not financially, not in any way, shape or form. Even in the absence of children, men serve a vital and valuable purpose, companionship, intimacy, provision. Provision not necessarily being a financial thing at all, but emotional and spiritual provision, too.
I read a little didy from a young guy the other day, dating, who said, “I can’t compete with her.” We aren’t supposed to be! It’s the wrong mindset entirely and one I totally blame the culture for having indoctrinated us with. People compete for resources, for status, for power. We perceive those who threaten us as rivals. That is not a healthy way to start a relationship, mostly because it reveals our own insecurities, our own unfulfilled needs, and you wind up dating your competitor, your potential rival. Men and women are supposed to be working together, creating alliances, complimenting and lifting one another up. We go forth together and conquer, as allies.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
I think that the idea of equality has done this. We should never be discriminated against due to gender or race, but I’m of the opinion no one is really equal. We should revel in the fact that we are all really different and that would change the vantage point a bit away from a competitive standpoint.
LikeLike
Vive la difference! Isn’t that one of life’s greatest pleasures?
How ironic we are always speaking of diversity while trying to promote sameness and then forcing everyone into I-dentity groups and insisting they conform, all in the name of equality! Trying to figure that one out is enough to give me a headache.:)
LikeLike
Sent this link to my three grown daughters. Great post!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you 🙂
LikeLike
“Women don’t compete with men, we are far more like cats, content in the knowledge of our vast superiority and purring away.”
“Content in the knowledge of our vast superiority”? Is that what you truly believe? In general, of course.
I’m not certain, but I suppose you “read a little ditty from a young guy, not a “little didy”. As “didy” was a word unknown to me, I found the definition for “didy” is “baby-talk for diaper”. I am fairly certain you did not intend that. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha! A didy is indeed diaper related. As to cats and superiority, that is simply a bit of hyperbole, a figure of speech.
LikeLike
I mean we seek and desire men’s protection and provision. We wish to be someone they cherish, protect, and serve. We want them to fight for the preservation of relationship and connection.
and what’s in it for men?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Family, loyalty, companionship, intimacy, and a legacy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With a 50% divorce rate with women initiating 70% of said divorces, plus his-fault divorce rape, not to mention loss of custody, I’m having a hard time seeing any of those things.
LikeLike
The 50% divorce myth has been thoroughly debunked as has the women cause 70% of divorce.
Here’s the deal however, unless someone is holding a shotgun to your head, no one is going to make you get married. Get a dozen cats for all I care. The rest of us however, happen to enjoy marriage quite a bit and consider relationships between men and women to be a great blessing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB,
There is strong evidence that women initiate about 70% of divorces (i.e. they file). Filing does, in a sense, cause divorce, but it does not mean that women are responsible for the cause (i.e. the reason) for the divorce. In other words, “Initiating divorce” should not be conflated with “causing divorce”. In the majority of divorces, both parties have significant responsibility for it.
“The rest of us however, happen to enjoy marriage quite a bit and consider relationships between men and women to be a great blessing.”
You imply that everyone who voluntarily marries (“the rest of us”) are enjoying it and consider it to be a blessing. How can this be true, even short-term, when some percentage (say, perhaps 25%?) of those marriages will end in divorce?
LikeLike
Debunked by whom? I’m looking at leftist sources like the Huffpo and even they admit women initiate 69% of divorces.
The rest of us however, happen to enjoy marriage quite a bit and consider relationships between men and women to be a great blessing.
By the ‘rest of us’ I’m guessing you’re referring to women, and why not? When you get married you get a mule, and when you get divorced you get an indentured servant.
What’s in it for men again?
LikeLike
“I’m looking at leftist sources…”
So, this means what? That your sources are as flawed as your statistics?
“When you get married you get a mule…”
Probably, especially if you’re out dating in the barn.
LikeLike
So, this means what? That your sources are as flawed as your statistics?
It means that even feminist sources (ie one of your own) don’t deny that woman blow up their families disproportionately more than men.
LikeLike
I think if there’s nothing about the companionship and intimacy and support of a good woman that is appealing to a man or if he simply has such a dim view of women or humanity that he’s certain there aren’t any that wouldn’t frivously divorce and/or just generally be terrible within marriage then that’s a man who needs to remain single. Just as if I, as a woman, can’t come to trust in both the possibility of a truly good man existing among men in general AND also eventually in a particular man as a good man, then I need to avoid future relationships with men. Maybe all men would cheat and abandon me, so what’s in it for me trying to be great in a relationship with such as that? Well, nothing…nothing but more getting used and abused and abandoned by another beast. But if truly good men exist, then that’s a different story. Then the hope exists of a good (and non-dog-fighting-for-equality or needs) type of relationship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fromscratchmom
The difference is that when a relationship (especially marriage) fails, women end up with cash and prizes, roll the dice and play again. Men are financially set back decades which makes it increasingly hard to re-marry and reproduce. Their lives are thrown into jeopardy. Spare me the sob story about women’s feeeeelingz. Men stand to lose much more while getting very little in return whereas women risk very little. ‘Companionship and intimacy’ are irrelevant without loyalty.
LikeLike
“Men stand to lose much more while getting very little in return whereas women risk very little.”
You should stop navel gazing and try having some empathy for other people. A friend of mine wound up in a shallow grave when she gambled on marriage, so don’t speak to me of risk, as if men have exclusive rights to it.
LikeLike
The female capacity for solipsism never ceases to amaze me. Your friend is not the statistical norm. The average man is far more likely to lose far more than the average woman in the event of divorce which itself is initiated by women 70% of the time.
You should stop navel gazing and try having some empathy for other people.
You should take your own advice.
LikeLike
The red pill capacity for cognitive dissonance, indoctrination, and endless rhetoric never ceases to amaze me.
LikeLike
I’m trying to allow for perhaps your stance (which I have to admit sounds skewed and unhealthy) comes from experience with women who are wrong and leave when they should have stayed and/or refused to participate in a healthy relationship and learning relationship skills together but just stayed legally married anyway. But mine comes from me being faithful and trying to participate in marriage counseling and individual counseling to learn relationship skills and address issues while he refused all of the above and then trying to accept all the difficulties of being married to him and just focus on the good things in life and my own faults hoping for better which I thought we theoretically might have gotten to someday and eventually him leaving to hook up permanently (or I suppose more likely not permanently) with a new sperm-receptacle.
I’m not going to feel in the least guilty or trashy that the courts are going to award me alimony and child support to help with my health and to allow me to continue raising and educating our youngest child who is now suffering more than ever for her father’s evil choices. Of course it won’t really be enough which is a tragedy in my daughter’s life and current struggles. Characterizing that outcome as me “getting cash and prizes” is beyond stupid. There is no word that covers the million things that are wrong about that. And had I seen into the future I’d have run for the hills rather than marry a monster for future “prizes” after all the harm that’s been done to get to the so-called prizes of him trying to destroy me. Him being forced to continue a few more years in his commitment to support his family that he’s been all too happy to destroy is the precise opposite of a bad thing. I’m sure his story he tells himself and tells everyone else ends with him getting nothing out of marriage but having to give me and his children prizes. But I don’t have to force reality on him. If he never valued me and never valued our children then that’s his issue. And I can’t own it for him or fix it. I can move on and own my own stuff.band I’m going to.
The courts trying to regulate divorce is inherently a set-up for failure. How can they succeed at it in a society that excuses and justifies divorce and adultery, that devalues and destroys marriage in a million ways? But in my case despite the “no-fault” set up where they couldn’t care less what a monster one party or the other chose to become at least they’ll still acknowledge the strictly defined and separate roles we both agreed to live by which included zero development of earning power while I bore and raised children and took care of managing the Homefront so he could work overtime, climb the ladder, etc. I don’t regret at all that I devoted over 18 years to being a wife and mom. I guess I have to regret that I loved and committed to a man who chose to sh*t all over me, our kids, and the entire concept of family and everything right and good. The child support will run out after a few years. The alimony a few years later. And he’s already, while still legally married to me, happy for months and months now with his new sextoy and their financial and Homefront cooperation for as long as it lasts till he destroys her health and self image like he’s done to me or one of them cheats or whatever people with no values and no love will end up doing to each other.
Like I said, if that’s all there is in one’s view of the opposite sex, all that can be done is to live within the confines of recognizing one’s own angst and self-interest. If you don’t believe there’s any real value in women then stay away from them. If you don’t want to be held responsible for anything ever stay out of marriage or only go into it with a strong prenup and with the kind of person who agrees with whatever stuff you’d put in your prenup.
I’m actually mulling over a very different version of a prenup than I’ve ever heard of before. I’d certainly never again risk marrying into our culture’s marriage destroying bad attitudes. I’m probably out of relationships permanently. But *if* there’s any hope of real marriage with a real man who is good and strong and capable of real love it will only be with a guy who knows and honors the real deal, till-death, and who is willing to commit to it without the modern mania for giving up and justifying giving up and pretending that divorce can be fair, equitable, and “mature”.
It’s too easy to pick out details and say you wouldn’t want to repeat this or that mistake. Like it’s valid for me to say I wouldn’t ever again consent to the stupidity of not having a honeymoon and instead jumping right into the day to day stresses of life because that’s what he insisted on and you’re supposed to both give and take rather than insist on every single thing your own way. But it’s foolish if I believe that fixing that detail would solve everything and make a new marriage automatically work out well. It is HARD to work out the reality of how can you live in a society that devalues the opposite sex, devalues true marriage commitments and still plan wisely to have a real marriage that is a real commitment for two people to be good to each other, love each other sacrificially and for the rest of their lives look out for each other’s best interests. Too many of us know from experience that being married to someone who claimed all the right values of disagreeing with divorce and the like, is no real insurance at all that they’ll actually be loving or committed or even remotely kind (or healthy) in their role in marriage.
So maybe your prenup would say that you and your intended take zero responsibility for each other’s well-being and future and that you don’t have to care at all about her feelings or her financial welfare. Mine would require a lot more thought as to what all it would include. But at least I know it would say that myself and my spouse are linked till one of us dies, even financially. And it would strictly outline adultery for the terrible and destructive choice that it is and assign the adulterer the guilt and consequences for having betrayed and destroyed the commitment.
So I guess the further or different answer to your initial question is that in my view a good person (male or female) who marries a good person gets good things out of marriage that are fairly obvious and those benefits are there for the rest of their lives. So they also get stability and the myriad health benefits of that stability. The marriages that end nearly always leave someone (male or female) shattered and struggling to survive. Lack of marriage skills is an enemy. Divorce is an enemy. The opposite sex doesn’t have to be the enemy. But since they are *your* enemy, you really do need to stay away from them. That’s too bad. I rather liked your description of the angry city of San Fransisco. Maybe with focusing your mental energies on those other difficulties of life and keeping them off of angst for women as much as possible for a while you’ll eventually have enough time to heal. I can’t claim that’s possible from experience, obviously. But God has been helping me and I do hope to someday find myself more or less fully healed and capable of trusting again so that I’m not permanently stuck staying single and protecting myself from men (and protecting men from me and my trust issues.)
LikeLike
Fromscratchmom
I don’t know his side of the story so I can’t comment. Just one comment on your novel above: Just because you feel entitled to his wealth doesn’t make the transaction any less parasitic. I’m sure that on some level even mosquitoes feel entitled to their victim’s blood. I’m not going to argue about the details in your novel above because I know that once a woman makes up her mind that she is the victim, no amount of reasoning will penetrate the heavy fog of solipsism that blankets her mind.
And finally, I don’t consider women the enemy. Women will sleep with whoever is in power. The real villains are the globalist elites that fund feminism and other degenerate leftist causes.
LikeLike
Sorry, but I feel we have gotten so engrossed with the competition, angst, and defining the sexes we have forgotten how to simply enjoy the relationship possibility genders provide for us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, wow. IB, I just read something I think you’ll appreciate. This is from Henry Cloud.
“One of the most misunderstood aspects of guilt is that it is basically about separation from love.
Guilt, and the resulting fear from guilt, are not about feeling ‘bad about oneself’. They are basically about being separated from love. If people know they are loved, they are not afraid of their ‘badness’. They feel accepted and safe, and they do not have to feel ‘good’ about themselves to be safe. Love does that. Love is everything.
So if people are feeling bad about themselves, the answer is never to get them to feel better about themselves. The ‘self-esteem’ trip is a dead end. The answer is to have them feel connected to love. If they feel connected and accepted, they do not have to feel good about themselves.
In fact, they stop being so concerned about themselves altogether and get into love instead. Feelings of badness are not something to be overcome. They are another symptom of the basic problem of disconnection from love. Don’t fall into the trap of trying to make a person with ‘bad’ feelings develop ‘positive’ feelings. This not the answer. Getting loved is.
One of the most destructive causes of guilt is emotional and spiritual isolation. The maxim to remember is this: An alone self is a bad self. If someone feels alone, he or she is going to feel ‘bad’. The answer is not ‘goodness’, or more self-esteem. The answer is love.
In helping people grow in the area of resolving guilt, make sure that you are on a mission to end internal isolation. If you find people who feel ‘bad’ about themselves, find the isolated part of their heart and give them grace, love and connection. If you do that, you will cure a lot of the guilt.
This is one reason why abuse victims feel so bad about themselves. The abuse has made getting close to others and trusting very difficult, and isolation takes over their soul. As a result, they feel like a ‘bad’ person, even when that is the furthest thing from the truth. Love will do away with that state, whereas positive affirmations, although important, will fall short. Reconciliation to love is the answer for guilt of any kind.”
Wowzers. I started to question it at first…kind of looking at the start of reading it, from a skewed angle. Then I realized how perfectly it got with my own experiences. How a certain person intentionally made me feel isolated (and admitted since he decamped that some of it was intentional and done from spite.) how I was so used to that I never saw it for what it was, but I kept working to figure out what was at the issues and to address them while unfortunately also making unhealthy adaptations and accepting that someone telling me that I wasn’t good and was supposedly hurting him as much as he was hurting me (more stuff that was at least some of the time being said out of spite.) I don’t know what the future will hold, but it’s at least an incredibly positive sign to be learning and growing in my own right! And I’m thankful for it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love that! That really is a great concept.
LikeLike