Memoirs and the Appearance of the “crisply white as parchment” Woman

An excerpt from Sex with Kings by Eleanor Herman:

In the 1600s, “Memoirs became popular, though they must be read with care and compared with other documents of the period. Written with an aim of publication, many memoirs had the dual purpose of self-vindication and finger-pointing. Shortly before her death in 1615, Queen Marguerite of France wrote her memoirs to provide herself with a virtue as crisply white as parchment, throwing in numerous stories of her husband’s unseemly behavior with mistresses, though leaving out her own unseemly behavior with lovers.”

From the dawn of time till the present day, yes, all women are indeed “like that”. A common feminist lament is that men were the writers of history and women’s voices were lost in time, silenced by the patriarchy. This is just one example of a woman (albeit a Queen) who had a voice, but look at how she chose to share that voice, not only by trashing her king husband but also by putting herself on a pedestal at the same time, without disclosing her own sins. A win-win for both camps of feminism by killing two birds with one stone. The man-hating, down with patriarchy women get to see a perverted King’s name tarred and feathered (justice served) and the traditionalist, more refined, morally superior women get to see their sins erased and their symbolic queen status in tact. Overall, a score for “Team Woman” as women come out golden here for both camps.

Memoirs in general (think James Frey) and especially those told by women are useless and should be treated as fiction until proven beyond a doubt otherwise. While printed traditional memoirs are still around, the real modern day memoirs are blogs and social media. This is the platform modern women now use to tell and share their story, stories that can be told with “a virtue as crisply white as parchment” to create a pretty picture and perhaps subconsciously hide from her sins back in the real world. The more women talk and boast about how great they are online, the more of a win “Team Woman” gets. This could also be one reason women are so involved on facebook and blogging about their lives—to create an alter-ego of who they wish they were and how they want to be remembered even if it isn’t true. In a culture where women were raised up to have extreme self-esteem and to be extraordinary, the thought of passing from this earth as ordinary with an ordinary life is really a fate worse than death.

A further point for discussion–how exactly would history have been written if women did have the majority voice? If Queen Marguerite is any indication, it would be a history where women are superior, morally and otherwise, it would be a matriarchy. In the same spirit, how would society be remembered 100 years from now if all that remains are digital records of women’s social media accounts? A scary thought.

Feminism and Traditionalism are Good at Deflecting Female Nature

Not everyday you see a headline like this:

It suggests ‘intimate partner violence’ may not be motivated by patriarchal values, as previously thought

Further:

Study leader Dr Elizabeth Bates said: ‘The stereotypical popular view is still one of dominant control by men. That does occur but research over the last ten to 15 years has highlighted the fact that women are controlling and aggressive in relationships too.’
She said scientists may have to think again about the reasons for male violence against women, which previous studies said arose from ‘patriarchal values’ in which men are motivated to seek to control women’s behaviour, using violence if necessary.

Women controlling and aggressive? Ya don’t say! Any female who has been in the path of the “mean girls” and any male who has been ruined through a nasty divorce understands this very well.  The interesting part is the presumption for a woman to be controlling and aggressive there must be a motivation or reason for it, like patriarchy. Someone or something must be causing her bitchiness when really she can just be a bitch by her own accord.

This inspired a question: Which is more harmful to society– the feminist meme that patriarchy and men are evil, oppressive, often violent brutes or the traditional Victorian meme that women are the gentler, refined, more moral sex? Of course both are no good, harmful misconceptions,  but if had to pick only one. I can’t quite pinpoint it yet, but it seems the two work together.

The Motivation behind both is a deflection away from innate female nature. The feminist meme places the blame  of women’s woes on men and deflects  responsibility away from women. The traditional one doesn’t place blame on men, which is what gives it the appearance of being superior, but at the same time deflects and hides a woman’s innate nature from society and men.  Both are trying to create enough distraction and hype, so that we all don’t deal with women and how they really are. Feminists are “don’t look at me, look at at that nasty man” and traditionalists are “look at me, not the real me, but my mask of genteelness, now how can I do anything wrong?”

Life is a Paper Trail

Thoughts stemming from Dalrock’s post:

What do people really know about vows and commitments? What other events are there in life where you get to experience and get a taste for commitment before the serious commitment of marriage? I can’t think of any. There is nothing in childhood or young adulthood that you can’t just wiggle your way out of, jobs for example, college, buying a house, none of those are a commitment. College may appear as a 4 year commitment of time and money, but if you don’t do well or don’t like it, you can quit, society doesn’t care. A mortgage may appear as a 30 year commitment, but you can always sell or let it foreclose. Our lives are made of paper in every possible way. Coincidentally, college is the first “piece of paper” you collect in the paper trail of life. Next is the piece of paper of marriage and then you buy a house with even more pieces of paper. Eventually, your life is a house of cards with no foundation.

Based on prior life experiences, it seems people stumble into marriage having a dictionary definition of commitment, but not a practical definition and it fails. Commitment has been taught as something more fluid, where you set out with good intentions and that is all that matters.

Accepting Female Nature

This W.F. Price  article at  The Spearhead  is good:

Over the last few years as I’ve written about and studied “gender” issues, I’ve come to the conclusion that women are not going to change — at least not in our lifetimes. Nor will men. I suppose one could call it cynicism, but I prefer to think of it as acceptance.

The  manosphere has gone through all the stages of grief over the state of women. Bouts of anger and denial have been cycling and at last maybe it will all  settle out at acceptance. At one moment men are mad that women won’t just magically “woman up” and become submissive angels over night and at the next moment they are in denial that women really are “like that”.

Are women going to start taking responsibility for the men around them? Are they going to stop appealing to men for help when the going gets tough? Will they ever love weakness in men? I really don’t think so, and that being the case, what’s the point of criticizing them for it? We should just accept it for what it is and work with reality.

However, I’ve noticed that a big part of what MRA has become involves criticizing women merely for being what they are, as though they could change. It’s the mirror image of the Michael Kimmels of the world. “If only we had equality, then surely we’d live in a genderless utopia!”It’s a dangerous fantasy, and not something you’d want to use to build a functional society.

If pies and cakes were submissive snowflakes then we would all have a merry Christmas. This isn’t to say submissive women won’t make the world a better place, but thinking they are the be all, end all to solve our modern problems is close to idolization and putting false hope in a fallible being.

So, instead of bashing on women for what they are, and pointing out their shortcomings when compared to men, why not advocate sex realism? Women, in general, are one way, and men, in general, another. Male and female are intrinsic parts of people’s nature, and should be taken into account. The idea that they are flexible and can be changed with social engineering is scientifically baseless, notwithstanding the efforts of transsexuals and the like. Yet I notice some MRAs suggesting that things would be better if only women changed.

We like to think in the past heavy societal shaming of bad behavior in women kept them in line. This may have been more like putting a mussel on a dog. Doing so may keep the “bitch” docile for a bit, but the bark and bite is still there and will find other ways to come out in due time. Rather, realize what you are working with and adopt strategies to manage (i.e. game). Call a spade a spade and deal rather than hope that spade will magically morph into the queen of hearts by her own volition. In days past, society tried to ignore female nature, live in denial, rather than stare at it head on and that paved a nice path straight into 1960s feminism.

You can change a woman’s environment, you can offer incentives and you can encourage women to adopt this or that custom. But none of these efforts will work if you don’t first take her intrinsic female nature into account. There is no greater amount of good or evil in male or female; there is just nature. When we take nature’s path, we take the “good” way. This is what Christians call “God’s will.” When we fight nature, we err, and conscious error is sin.

This all jives nicely with my recent post on how women are roses. Every woman has her thorns. I said this is not a bad thing, its just something to be accepted, rather than be in anger or denial over it as many fractions of the  manosphere are. Its a matter of understanding foundation. There may be something to improve upon if first we can understand the foundation is not on solid ground. Again, not a crisis, houses are built on precarious ground all the time and it can be done. However, a liability comes with that, which gets back to my one and only post at  The Spearhead –Marrying Liabilities.

First and foremost, we must seek to understand nature to the best of our ability, and then we can use what we learn to do good, and to effect change for the better

Perhaps better reinforcements will be needed, perhaps a larger insurance policy secured, but at the end of the day, if men are going to marry or have any associations with women, they will weigh the risk and determine if owning such a house is worth it and that starts with accepting a woman’s shaky foundation.

 

An Old Dog Falls for an Old Trick

phyllisaristotle

From the Metropolitan Museum of Art:

The subject of this celebrated example is the moralizing legend of Aristotle and Phyllis, which achieved popularity in the late Middle Ages. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher and tutor of Alexander the Great, allowed himself to be humiliated by the seductive Phyllis as a lesson to the young ruler, who had succumbed to her wiles and neglected the affairs of state. Encouraging Alexander to witness his folly, Aristotle explained that if he, an old man, could be so easily deceived, the potential consequences for a young man were even more perilous.

Feminine wiles or “girl game” is the default state of women since the beginning of time. Make no mistake about it lest you end up like Aristotle here.

No one is immune from feminism and even more so, no one is immune from feminine wiles. While much is said against feminism these days, often the “flipside of feminism” is overlooked and that “flipside” is feminine wiles. Two sides of the same coin and one side is not shinier than the other.  Further, perhaps the “flipside of feminism”  as coined in the book of that title by Suzanne Venker is the side of feminine wiles as this does seems to be the side tradcons cozy up to.  Doesn’t matter what side of feminism you are on as you are still on the same coin.

The trick isn’t so much fighting against feminism and wiles as it is learning how to live with them. Learning how to live when that roaring lion is always about.  Like any chronic body ailment, these two inter-related forces require management, alertness, and awareness. Feminism and feminine wiles are the chronic illness of this world.

Dear Sunshine Mary, I will not stand for this

For someone who is supposedly quitting , you just can’t help yourself to continually comment and attract more drama to this.  I have tried to stay out of this as much as possible with my only comments being at Matt’s, but this following comment left on your second blog is despicable and I have had enough. Just after you tell people to pray for us and offer up all these flowery prayers you  spew more intimidation and manipulation to keep people away from my site and interacting with me. You say you don’t tell men what to think, but you tell them what to think in this comment.  I challenge you to have the strength to debate this out with me in public where everyone can see.  For someone so keen on reconciliation, you have yet to ever email, address me in comments, or address me on other blogs comments.  ssm1 ssm2 ssm3

[ssm: Richard, thank you for attempting to provide a factual counter-argument, but know that I do NOT advise readers to comment on Matt’s site for safety reasons. He directly admits in the comment thread that he is editing people’s comments to make it look they said something they did not say. He has long had a reputation for doing this incredibly dishonest behavior, but this is the first time I’ve actually watched him do it. He changed one person’s comment to make it look like he said he enjoys performing oral sex on Tucker Max, for example. Trust me on this – you don’t want to end up leaving a comment there only to have it edited; people will never believe you if your say that this happened, as I have learned from personal experience.

You might want to just exit the conversation altogether. Matt, Lena S (CL/ThagJones), Laura Grace Robins (logrobins), Will S (Patriactionary), and Infowarrior 1 are exhibiting classic mob behavior. They’re attacking everyone who doubts or even questions their story, no matter what kind of evidence or counter-argument that person produces. No one is immune – not Dalrock, not Jim, not you, no one.

Zippy Catholic has written extensively about the liberal conception of the “unter-mensch,” which is defined in the liberal mind as a person who does not agree with them therefore being literally subhuman and therefore okay to attack in any way. This is a classic case of that behavior in action. It looks no different – either in substance or in style – from what happens on a daily basis at places like Free Jinger or GOMI.

Matt, Lena S, lgrobins, Will, and Infowarrior clearly see me as a subhuman untermensch, therefore anything they can think up to say or do, no matter how at odds with our Christian faith or common decency, is justified. Attacks on my husband and children, who have nothing to do with my blog? No problem, that’s justified. Misrepresenting or directly lying about things I’ve said or done? No problem, that’s justified too, because I am not human. But understand that if they will do this to me, they will do it to you. They will do it to anyone who disagrees with them.

On another site, Deep Strength tried to engage Will S and tell him that as Christians, we are supposed to try to promote reconciliation between brothers and sisters who are in disagreement. I was so hopeful when I saw that comment because I would be more than happy to enter into reconciliation with any or all of that group of people. But Will’s response was to refuse. It’s not surprising that he would feel comfortable disregarding what the Bible has to say about promoting reconciliation within the Body of Christ, though, because he sees me and anyone who doesn’t fully agree with him as subhuman and therefore incapable of being part of the body of Christ.

UPDATE–

The Smearing continues

http://lgrisaliarandacoward.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/laura-grace-robins-is-a-liar-and-a-coward/

 

UPDATE–

this was left on another thread

http://sunshinegary.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/201/

On Jealousy and “catfights”

I posted this not long ago and already it need reiterating:

Jezebel actually gets something right here with this article on female jealousy:

When you’re in eighth grade and you don’t understand why your best friend has suddenly teamed up with the class bully to write you jerky, unsigned notes that they leave in your locker every day (without fail) between fourth period science and fifth period study hall, having a mother who tells you that the girls are mean to you because they’re “just jealous” can provide a mental sanctuary necessary for temporary self-preservation. But when entire swaths of the population — from Real Housewives to real pundits — internalize and spout the notion that all women who so much as disagree with another woman must be jealous bitches, we have a problem. The phrase “just jealous” is not only usually incorrect, it’s reductive, and paints women as petty harpies. It’s fucking ruining America.

Yes, entire swaths, manosphere included. Any time a woman disagrees with another woman a catfight is called and then swiftly followed with “she’s just jealous”.  It shuts down debate and prevents women from having to defend themselves with logic and argument or have any moment of introspection. This is why it is easier for women to just go along with the herd, never disagree, lest the dreaded “she’s just jealous” accusation be thrown.

I have to hand it to the phrase “she’s just jealous.” It’s pretty much the most perfectly infuriating thing someone can say to another person who is trying to have a legitimately critical discussion besides “relax.” Simultaneously lazy, self-aggrandizing, and indicative of a pathological lack of self-awareness, “she’s just jealous” does it all. It’s a humblebrag! (I’m so fabulous that every possible thing I or this person I support does is not only unassailable, but envy-inspiring.) It’s a quick and dirty dismissal! (You’re wrong; I’m awesome.) It’s a way to characterize enemies as petty! (There is no legitimate way to disagree with me! All disagreement is bullshit!) And it reliably shuts down dialogue; it’s nearly impossible to respond to accusations of being jealous without sounding defensive. It’s the idiot trump card.

Yes, for the person saying “you’re just jealous” not only does it reek of pettiness, but also implies a sense of superiority. The person saying it is so overly confidant of themselves that they think women should be jealous of them and they love drawing attention from it.

This isn’t to say that it’s never possible that any woman is jealous of any other woman, ever. But here’s a foolproof trick for telling the difference between the green-eyed monster and legitimate criticism — jealousy-based criticism isn’t substantial, it’s not based in actual, back-uppable disagreement with a viewpoint someone may hold.

In order to end the tyranny of “she’s just jealous,” there will have to suddenly be a mass realization that it’s possible for a woman to talk to or about another woman without first assessing how she stacks up to her physically. And we’ll all have to accept that sometimes, they’re not just jealous; that it’s possible that maybe you’re actually a jerk. But I’m not holding my breath.

Everything I  have written and studied is true beyond a doubt. Women can not handle criticism. You criticize them as a whole and you get accused of making sweeping generalizations. You criticize them individually and you get accused of catfights and drama. How are women ever to address each other, police the herd, hold each other accountable if this is what it amounts to?

P.S. I have not forced or manipulated any man to do anything. The timing of all the recent events is coincidental. I can swear on a bible to that fact, but it really doesn’t matter does it? People will believe what they want to believe.