More Proof that You Can’t EVER Disagree with Women (Alternate Title: On Seduction)

I’ve long said you can’t ever disagree or be critical of women. If you aren’t lauding them with praise 24/7, you quickly get banned and called a troll. See the exchange that went down at girlwithadragonflytattoo aka GWDFT aka dragonfly, but don’t ever just call her “dragon”. I was commenting via my phone and she got her “satan’s panties” in a bunch because I called her “dragon” which I only did cause its hard to type on a phone and was trying to be as brief as possible.

In a nutshell, I had some disagreement with her post on seduction and how women should seduce their husbands. I agree 110% that women should be sexually available ALL the time, be feminine, pleasing, helpful, sweet, every good possible thing you could ever imagine, but I took issue with the word “seduce” based on the definition for seduce and that kickstarted a quick escalation into the usual realm of woman can’t handle disagreement, so the only way to handle is dismiss as a troll and ban. There. Problem solved.

This was my initial comment that started everything:

lgrobins

April 3, 2015 at 12:05 am

“I wish every woman would love her husband enough, desire him enough, to want to seduce him.”

I disagree with this and the general theme of this post, NOT in that we shouldn’t be available to our husbands, be charming, sexy, etc, but in the use of the word seduce.

If you look at the 1828 Noah Webster definition of seduce, its not a word of something you should “want” to do to your husband. I rely on the 1828 version as its more accurate to true definition of words and Christian based.

SEDU’CE, v. t. [L. seduco; se, from, and duco, to lead.]

1. To draw aside or entice from the path of rectitude and duty in any manner, by flattery,

promises, bribes or otherwise; to tempt and lead to iniquity; to corrupt; to deprave.

Me the gold of France did not seduce. Shak.

In the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits.

Tim. 4.
2. To entice to a surrender of chastity. He that can seduce a female is base enough to betray her.

Don’t know how I could have put it gentler than that. This leads me to some quotes I wanted to post, but did not get the chance. I am not the only one wary of “seduction” as discussed here.

“She doesn’t try to “seduce” you, i.e., act overtly sexual, expose herself, or act aggressively. She gives signals of her receptivity (smiling, making eye contact, laughing at your jokes, touching your arm, leaning in, revealing herself reciprocally) and leaves it to you to be the man and take action (penetrate her with your presence and sexuality)”

This is the “indicators of interests” everyone loves to talk about and this is all very well and fine. If you are good at those things, you don’t need to seduce. I get that men will sometimes want a woman to initiate, but initiating is not seduction and it should not be confused. You can initiate by doing all the things above in a very feminine, not siren like, fashion. Seduction in my mind has always been for the desperate, when nothing else works. This is the best part:

“A healthy woman will invite and be receptive. A healthy man takes action and sets the tone. An insecure woman seduces with her sexuality. An insecure man needs to be seduced.”

That says it all and exactly why I do not like the word “seduce” in relation to marriage or close relationships. In healthy relationships, where biological attraction exists, there is no need to seduce, everything just flows. And AGAIN, I am not saying women should still not make efforts to be attractive and pleasing. No matter how I say that though, unless I am on the “seduction” bandwagon I am going to be considered a no-fun, unpleasing, prude.

A last point I want to make and something that was brought up in the comment string is lingerie. The Red Pill Women and most women cling to this stuff like its the bread and butter of relationships, but I have yet to meet a man who actually likes it. They find it a hassle and a waste of money. A woman should have enough inner beauty that she does not need to rely on outward adornments and lingerie falls in that category. But I will say to be fair, if your man really digs that stuff then go for it! At the end of the day this is all about pleasing our men, not about pleasing other women. Why women go to other women for advice on these things is confusing. Its very simple. You ask your husband what he likes and doesn’t like and you abide by that. If you can’t ask him these things or he won’t tell you, then there are bigger communication problems afoot.

On Envy Inciters

On of my criticisms of modern women and this is especially true of the “red pill women” is they seem programmed with a need to incite envy in other women. Liberal feminists and conservative traditionalists are both guilty offenders.

In doing some research on envy, especially how its been viewed throughout history, it didn’t take long to find something that helps explain why modern women are programmed the way they are today. From the book, An Emotional History of the United States, an essay by Susan J. Matt is included and provides the following:

“In 1913, economist Simon Patten also encouraged women to get what they envied, arguing that women who dressed above their station displayed virtue, not vice. He rejected the common belief that well-dressed women of moderate means were immoral and sexually promiscuous, claiming, “It is no evidence of loose morality when a stenographer, earning eight or ten dollars a week, appears dressed in clothing that takes nearly all of her earnings to buy. It is a sign of her growing moral development.” Dressing “up” could help woman advance; it was now a canny and practical way of bettering her position.

Advertisement went further and encouraged women to make themselves enviable. “the Envied Girl—Are you one? Or are you still seeking the secret of charm? asked Palmolive. Another ad queried, “Do Other Women Envy You?” Or do you envy them? The women who gets what she wants out of life –the woman other women envy and copy–never depends on youth alone, or a preety face, or brains.” Such a woman had “charm”, “poise” and used Houbigant Perfume. There was no trace of the old fear that inciting envy might lead others to moral or financial ruin. After World War 1, if a woman was envied, she was successful.”

Essentially, the consumerism rush pushed women into competition with each other. It awakened sinful desires that were already there but had previously been kept down by strict social mores. Now, with the moral restraints gone, women are encouraged to “make themselves enviable”. The goal now is to be the woman other woman are envious of–this is the “brave new world” virtue for women. Whether or not you can make women envious determines your success and worth as a woman. Being envious is not a virtue, but being an envy inciter is a virtue.

So, women will brag and boast about their house, clothing, cars, jewelry, gifts, expensive face creams, land, husbands/boyfriends, family, amazing sex lives/skills, cooking/homemaking skills, children, careers or just being “blessed” in general.  They facebook, tweet, and blog it—never satisfied until every corner of the world knows how perfect, beautiful, and bountiful their lives are.  Why? Because this is how success is determined. If the world doesn’t know about their beautiful life it doesn’t really exist and didn’t really happen.  Having and showing off the best of everything is evidence of “growing moral development”.  Those who refrain from boasting, bragging, or even just displaying clearly must not have any joy, beauty or material value in their life and therefore are not successful.   They are morally inferior and of lower rank to an envy inciter. The envy inciter thinks if the woman had all these things, surely she would want to wear her badge loud and proud and prove her success to other women.

“Until World War 1, moralists denied that women had or should have desires. In doing so, they upheld women’s exclusion from the liberal capitalist marketplace. Market activity required individuals to be competitive, ambitious, acquisitive, and indeed envious. In contrast, women were perceived to be naturally religious, self-sacrificing, without desire or envy, and therefore contented. Accordingly, they had no impetus for the restless, struggling behavior endemic to capitalism. By 1930, social commentators, merchants, advertisers, and women themselves had redefined the boundaries of acceptable female behavior. The new behavioral model affirmed women’s rights to consume, to handle money (if not to earn it), and to pursue the objects they desired.”

In hand with a woman’s right to consume is the new woman’s right to incite envy and this is now acceptable female behavior. Some probably see it as a positive thing–that by making other women envious it inspires her to be better and do better. To go out and get what you want, to “one-up” the next girl, however; this of course can have negative consequences. In the consumerist drive to have what the next women has, they do whatever they must to get what they want, morals take a back seat, and a slipperly slope can ensue.  If the culture promotes a “get what you envy” spirit then its going to support women doing whatever they have to do to get what they want. If it means go into debt to get the material life Suzy homemaker down the street has, do it! If it means divorcing your beta schlub to get the alpha stud Suzy homemaker down the street has, do it! Afterall, your “moral development” depends on it!

Of course the envy inciters would defend themselves by saying, “It not my fault they are envious, I can’t control their feelings” and thereby absolve themselves of any responsibility. They play coy and shift the burden. Prior to World War 1 there was an understanding in society that we all had a more collective responsibility in moral matters and in preventing stumbling blocks. This should still hold true for Christians, but since most Christians are really churchians and consumed with consumerism it makes sense that the inciting envy drive would be second nature. A churchian with a consumerism mindset is by default going to incite envy, they most likely do this subconsciously, but they are doing it nonetheless. There is no longer the fear that we might cause someone to stumble by bragging and boasting about their beautiful, blessed life.

I will close with asking a questions with an obvious answer–should Christians incite envy? I am betting there are some segments that are going to rationalize how envy inciters can be beneficial and I am eager to hear from them.

Why do Women (and men) Post Photos Online?

A discussion got started at Dalrock’s about women who post photos online, specifically the ones who feel the need to use real photos as profile photo. Dalrock has since gone on break and turned moderation on so the conversation was stopped. I want to pick up that conversation here.

I ask this question to women and men—What benefit is there to posting your photo online, especially in discussion venues such as blogging? Do you feel it makes you more credible?

For the women, especially women who identify as red pill, why the need to post cutesy, suggestive, cleavage photos on your profile? Especially if you are married. Again, what benefit does this bring you? Besides attention, I can’t think of any.

Team “Strong and Independent” vs. Team “Submissive and Dependent”

In reading this post about how strong and independent women think they are, its spurred this thought, which I commented:

“For as much boasting as there is on the “strong, independent” team, there is an equal amount of boasting on the “submissive, dependent” team. By this I mean the traditionalist women who can’t shut up about how submissive they are, how they love to serve, how they rely on their men. Those on either team who generally are strong/independent or submissive/dependent are usually too busy actually being those things than to prattle on about them.”

Its the old two sides of the same coin. The liberal side is team “strong, independent” and the conservative side is team “submissive, dependent”. Both teams think they are the superior one and both are out on a mission to gain attention. It results in something like this, “I am the better one cause I don’t need a man” and “I am the better one cause I need a man”. If you don’t need a man, then “get back to your desk” and if you need a man then “get back to the kitchen”.

KnightPro

So, it hit me— white knights/beta orbiters are the ServPro team. They come in and get women out of messes and leave them with the confidence to act “like it never even happened”.

Women Seek Security and Liberation (traditionalists are not exempt)

Here is an interesting article taking a stab at the 1950s housewife myth. A few snippets:

1. “The average young woman of the Fifties had one supreme goal in life: to land herself a decent husband. He didn’t have to be devastatingly good-looking or rich. He just had to earn enough money so that she could stay at home, raise the children and never have to work for a living again. The alternative? Being labelled a spinster or old maid, and probably slaving for a lifetime in a low-paid and low-status job.”

I bet also it wasn’t necessary to have biological attraction for him. The goal was clear–security and nothing else. This overemphasis on security leads women to marry men they weren’t attracted to which then leads to the frigid wife who refuses sex, which then may lead to his affairs, which then may lead to divorce, which then still ends in security for her. Oh, the irony! Either way the woman gets what she wants, but to assure a successful marriage for both men and women a focus must be put on biological attraction, not security. If the end goal for women is security, she can’t really play her cards wrong and in that case just marry any average Joe. A successful marriage should be the end goal, not security, and that cannot be arrived at through fabrication, through feigning attraction or trying to convince yourself he is “decent enough” or something “enough”.   In the rush for security and fear of being a spinster, the 50s women overlooked much*. They put the cart before the horse.

What has been demonstrated throughout the manosphere is those who married out of biological attraction, lust**, pure passion are the ones that stay together and in turn creates the security. In attempts to make the women not seem so shallow and primal, they try to rationalize why they have such a successful marriage–it’s because of commitment, vows, God, etc., ya know–more noble causes than lust and wanting to tear clothes off.

2. “To find out, I combed hundreds of diaries, newspapers, magazines and academic papers, and asked numerous women to talk to me about their own memories. What soon became clear was that the idealised version of the Fifties marriage often had little in common with the humdrum reality.”

Golly, another woman who actually does research, rather than rely on an image of how she wants it to be. If you truly go digging through history there is a reoccurring theme of female dominance, moral and otherwise since at least the early 1900s. This leads to a point in the article where it mentions Novelist Barbara Cartland claimed, “Man is actually a Neanderthal who has no homing or paternal instincts. Fortunately, he can be reeled in — provided the woman presents herself as beautiful, passive, dependent, inferior and subordinate.”

What have I been saying about wiles? This is exactly it and at the core of traditionalist feminism–that man is this big Neanderthal who can be seduced and controlled by feminine charms. Nothing drives home this point more than this article.

3. “A housewife could expect to find herself liberated from many of the chores that connected her to the outside world. In Woman’s Own, Monica Dickens explained: ‘The instinctive desire of woman is to attach herself to a man who will be her provider.”

The word “liberated” really jumped out here and could it be that this is the bridge that brings common feminism and traditional feminism together; that at its core both seek liberation. Common feminism seeks liberation from the drudgery that is work in the home and traditional feminism seeks liberation from the drudgery that is the workplace. Both are seeking escape. Both are seeking a life in their own personal, idealized garden, wherever that garden is planted. One involves running away from men and the other involves running towards them. Work is their savior or man is their savior from their eternal discontentment.

In sum, women seek security and liberation. This seems counterintuitive, contradictory, but yet not really. Security can be found in being liberated from the home or work place and liberation can found in the security of the home or work place.

 

* There are even some fractions of the manosphere that encourage the same thing; that women should just hurry up and settle for a “decent enough” man before she “hits the wall” and becomes that dreaded spinster. That a married woman, by the virtue of marriage alone, will in general be happier.

** Hesitate to use “lust” but think most will get my point.

The Squeaky Wheel of Greatness

The joke here is that in our modern age greatness is not really measured any further than a web page. How history remembers you is not in your actions or something verifiable but what was recorded about you; stories that can be true or false. What matters is how you appear on Wikipedia, facebook, or a blog.

So, here is my twist on this joke:

“Some women are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them by a white knight/beta orbiter who knows how to use a computer.”

Believe it not, I actually do believe some women are born great and some women do achieve greatness; but alas, lets not forget that other category–women who have greatness thrust upon them based on what certain men want to be true, even if it isn’t verifiable. They believe stories women tell about their life simply because a woman is telling them. Never mind they don’t live with that woman or know her personally.  Women are believed for being great simply because they tell the world they are great. The squeaky wheel often gets the oil of greatness thrust upon them, whether it be warranted or not.

What to do with the Spades?

Since I learned the hard way you can’t criticize women or call them out when they are wrong or lying, I am left at an impasse of what to do going forward. A big part of me wants to continue calling a spade a spade and pretend like this is manosphere 1.0, circa 2010, but its not–those days are long gone and a PC cloud has settled over.

One reason I don’t write as much any more, is there is no longer freedom to speak my mind without being accused of “stirring the pot”, “catfights” and “jealousy”. There are many things I post that don’t come out with the full spirit I am use to cause I am afraid to say certain things, which then only leads me to believe what is the point of writing if I can’t be me?

The default, safe mode is just continue letting women get away with gross lies, manipulations, and misrepresentations, but at the same time its that fear of questioning women that got us to our current state of feminism today. Certain women, more the jezebel types, want to silence the women who question them.  I am leaning more now to just let women continue to get away with their crap, let them keep that mask on, let them keep fooling men with their wiles and coy nature.  Maybe men and society deserve them? That certainly is the easy route –isn’t it? Do that rather than stand up for what you believe in, for risking damaging your representation–because when speaking out against these women –they always win and always have a way to spin things to make you look like the crazy one. I am not skilled in battling in them, which really amounts to not being skilled in a spiritual warfare. Will see what the future brings.

Its Not about the Leggings

From Dalrock:

“Christian blogger Veronica Partridge inadvertently set off a firestorm last month when she announced her decision to stop wearing yoga pants and leggings in public. As she explained in her follow up post:

These past few weeks have been shocking, to say the least. I have weathered the most hateful comments of my life. People have called me a countless number of names, some I can’t even repeat. Women have talked about my husband with graphic sexuality asking for favors and soliciting their bodies to him.

What Partridge hadn’t anticipated is that by announcing that she was choosing to be more modest she instantly put women who didn’t follow this rule on the wrong side of the good girl/slut line. She poked the anthill and the ants came out stinging. This is true even though she took great pains to explain that this was her personal decision, and not something she expected other women to follow.”

If it was her personal decision, why broadcast it so publically? If she doesn’t expect women to follow, why does the world have to know? Seems a ploy to show off her moral superiority.

Also, what is it that makes the Christian community think women and this particular poor dear, do this sort of thing “inadvertently”? I just see it as a premeditated attention stunt. Because—-OK, so she gives up leggings, but her very beautiful face is still plastered all over the net now in countless articles, not to mention her own blog. Are we to expect men won’t get distracted and lust over that? How can women reject one form of immodesty and then put on full frontal display something equally, if not more distracting? In general, Christian just gloss over all this and instead cheer her on for her courage to fight the culture.

If you really don’t want men to lust, then go full on burqa and at the very least don’t host a blog with photos of yourself. If its the ideas that matter, they should be able to stand on their own merit without photos of yourself. She gave up leggings–big whoop! A more humble spirit would just give them up and go about her life without feeling the need to broadcast her righteousness.

How many Christian men are getting their jollies off right now pining after a married woman for if they could only have a woman like THAT! Not only beautiful, but oh so virtuous.

From Veronica’s own words that Dalrock quoted above doesn’t it sound as if she likes the drama and negative attention her public moral stance brought? She is playing the “poor widdle old me, I’m just trying to save society” card to summon up the white knights and sympathy. Its just all so “shocking”, I’m just being a good Christian!  This is an all too familiar song and dance. It used to be said long ago back in manosphere 1.0 days that if a woman doesn’t want to take heat for her personal choices, then don’t share them so publically.

In the end, this is not about leggings and whether they should be worn or not, or cause men to lust or not. What its about is “look at me, look at me, I am good godly Christian girl, please put me on a pedestal”.  Leggings are distracting alright; they distract from what is really going on here.

Whose Suffering is More Holy

Reading this post prompted a few thoughts. The religious right is good at churning out articles on how divorce is bad because it causes “economic, emotional and psychological hardships” and in general misery and suffering.   It is true of course and I don’t dispute that, but on the other hand marriage can also cause “economic, emotional, and psychological hardships” and in general misery and suffering. The difference though is suffering in marriage is a holy endeavor and is not lambasted in the same way the suffering of divorce causes. When you suffer in marriage you are being a real champ and taking up your cross and its even deemed as a good thing that can cause growth, not so in divorce.  You are admired for your stamina and endurance if you stay in a miserable marriage. It amounts to a competition of whose suffering is more holy.

Suffering is an unavoidable and necessary aspect of life, but all suffering is not judged the same. Its an inconsistency for Christians to say that divorce is so bad because it causes suffering and then to acknowledge marriage can be so great because it causes suffering, pruning and growth. I suppose though this will all get brushed aside with suffering in marriage is “sanctified suffering” and therefore admirable.  Ye who suffers the most in the most sanctified way wins!