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.