- The Masculexicon
- Red Pill Pearls Of Wisdom
- Red Pill Resources
- Ian's Books
- Prefeminist Artist of the Month: Rudy Nappi!
- Prefeminist Artist Of The Month: Coby Whitmore!
- Prefeminist Artist Of The Month: Earl Moran
- The Revolt Of The Goddesses: A Mythopoetic Ode To Feminism
- The Ironwood Initiative: Taking Out The Trash (Patriarchy 2.0)
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
“Good Health” is a misnomer. Everyone has issues, and they only get worse as we age. Women have a whole host of physical issues that most men cannot even imagine. It is man’s lot to live, age, and die, and getting sick happens an awful lot. It happens to just about everyone, eventually.
But when I speak of “good health”, I’m speaking here of three things in particular than any prospective bride should be vetted upon. The first is Health History. The second is Health Lifestyle. The third is Health Habits.
Family Health History
No one can choose their ancestors, but the sad fact is our genetics portend a profound amount of information about our health, and knowing what your potential wife’s ancestral health history looks like can be instructional. Is there a history of recent cancers or other diseases in her family line? Do her relatives tend to drop dead of heart attacks in their 50s?
If you are considering children, knowing about her family’s reproductive health is likewise an important point. A close history of miscarriages, infertility, or other issues should be discovered, if it exists, and disorders such as PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome) and various dysmorphic disorders should also be discussed.
None of these should necessarily be exclusionary issues; Mrs. Ironwood had far from a clean bill of health when I met her. Indeed, she had been clinically dead once, had suffered from alcohol poisoning (ah, youth!), electrocuted, and has horrible allergies to this day. But once I understood the nature of her various hereditary illnesses and ailments, I was able to balance these against her other exceptional qualities and make an informed decision.
Of course, along with this family health history, her personal health history should be evaluated. Childhood illnesses? Allergies? Asthma? Bleeding disorders? Everything is on the table. Of course you have a duty to disclose your own health history in turn, as honestly as you expect her to.
And of course this is where the subject of her sexual history becomes legitimate fair game. If she's being coy about her Number with you before now, this is an excellent place to ask for an honest answer . . . and watch for any equivocation. Some women, of course, will say that their number is personal, and nobody's business but theirs. They are correct. If they are not willing to share that information with you, you should be equally willing to withhold any tangible signs of commitment from you on the same principal. Either she's willing to be considered to be your wife, in which case her actual Number should be known, or she's not a serious candidate and just wants the attention . . . or is ashamed of her behavior. Either case will be instructive.
Women without exceptional qualities that still bring this kind of health baggage? Hit next.
Your girlfriend or perspective bride may balk at sharing such intimate family matters . . . but considering that you are evaluating whether or not to make her a part of your family negates this argument. If she isn't willing to be as open, honest, and forthcoming about her family’s medical history, you might just want to wait before setting a date. Such reluctance usually indicates that there is something to hide.
Of course in addition to a full health workup, you should consider evaluating your woman’s approach to her healthy lifestyle. Many young women parrot ideas about healthy living, and follow faddish ideas of diet and exercise, while finding plenty of rationalizations about why they are the exception to the usual rules of physiology. Girls on "good date" behavior don't want you to know about their allergy to the gym or their dependence on potato chips - but what does she do when you aren't watching? Poor diet, exercise, and lifestyle habits are hard to hide under scrutiny, however; her bad habits will reveal themselves soon enough.
In particular, evaluate how regularly she exercises and whether she sees it as a chore, a release, a duty, or a responsibility . . . or an excuse to get trendy workout clothes. Does she manage her diet effectively, or is she a carboholic? Fast food or fresh food? Do you see her “splurging” more often than eating sensibly? Does she pay attention to her nutrition, as well as her diet? Is she an athelete? Active? Willing to go for a walk or a bike ride? Or do "long walks on the beach" mean a quarter-mile hike down to the boardwalk bar . . . and taking a pedicab back?
Family culture plays a large role in this. If her family is active, she will likely stay active . . . and either she is from an active family that supported and celebrated a good healthy lifestyle, or she has room for improvement. Poor lifestyle choices don't necessarily exclude a woman from being a good wife, but they don't work for her, either.
And finally, a prospective bride’s apparent health is just as important as her actual health. Women who complain about “feeling ill” or “being sick” or “having headaches” frequently or periodically may or may not have actual illnesses, but the pattern of "sickly" behavior is far more instructive about her character than the actual ailment. One of my ex-girlfriend’s had a chronic case of illnesses associated with Monday mornings, for instance, and another seemed to develop migraines every time it was time to go do something fun I liked but she didn't. Mrs. Ironwood, on the other hand, braved a 101 degree fever and nausea to accompany me to a function she knew I thought was worthwhile.
Illness has been seen as the refuge of the feminine sex to avoid social awkwardness or to manipulate social and personal situations for thousands of years. The best check of this factor is to see how many sick days she takes, how quickly she recovers, and how often she uses her health as an excuse. All too many women know the common masculine weakness for feminine vulnerability, and will play on that and sympathy to gain attention from men through their illness.
One unfortunate relative of mine responds to this apparent demonstration of sickness and weakness as alluring vulnerability, and as such has locked himself into miserable relationships with sickly women for years. While I’m sure he finds some sense of fulfillment in being their perpetual crutch (and eventual whipping boy), a thorough and comprehensive screening for good health would have prevented decades of misery in their service.
Unfortunately, “sick” women get attention for their illness, both from friends and family and from the medical profession, and when they cannot find any other way to draw it they will use their apparent vulnerability to emotionally control the men in their lives. Women who cavalierly use their health as a weapon in a relationship are just as damnable to a man as women who use sex as a weapon. More so: sexual deprivation usually only affects a husband, while feigned or exaggerated illness can affect entire families.
A good health history, a healthy lifestyle, and a reasonable approach to their own health is highly recommended in any woman you may consider making a commitment to. Any serious red flags in that area should at least be evaluated, and while only time will tell if she is as committed to healthy living as she says she is, it’s hard to fake being healthy for any decent length of time.
And if a woman is deceitful about her health or her health history . . . that should be instructive, too. Remember fellas, marriage licenses don’t come with warranties.
Monday, April 14, 2014
When the Wall finally does smack you in the ass in a way you cannot ignore, Nature will decide which of you are pragmatic enough to re-frame your idea of Happily Ever After (HEA). Case in point is this gem I found locally. This is adept Girl Game, Single Girl Edition. Her ad is short, sweet, to-the-point, and is awash with refreshing candor:
Creative Glamour Girl Seeks Hot Nerdage : 30I have many fancy degrees in the artistic / liberal arts field. In other words, I am a low paid individual with not a very bright future on my own.
I am seeking a boyfriend who can provide stability. I can plan and carry out dinner parties for your friends and family, escort you to events, provide sex, cooking and other domestic chores. And maybe even needlepoint a pillow for your mom.
I am white, 5'4, in shape. Only interested in attractive white men under 40 who are in shape and disease-free.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
[Edited again, just for giggles]
Sorry for the long delay between posts. I've been busy writing, working, and doing some rewarding fieldwork.
A reader kindly alerted me to this new development in Combat Dating: a rating service for men, based on the aggregate perceptions of the women they've dated. It's called onLulu, and it's touted as a kind of "internet security" site that allows women to discover the hidden secrets of the men they date before they get too involved. Seems reasonable enough in our crazy internet-driven world . . .
But Ian, I hear you ask, isn't this just an insidious tool of misandry, an opportunity to expand the already-rampant pre-date cyberstalking today's women indulge in so gleefully?
Good observation. Because yes, this is precisely what Lulu is.
As with most feminist-inspired ways of "protecting" women, not only is this a blatant attempt to manipulate the dating pool and a method of information-sharing across the Female Social Matrix (FSM), it's also a clandestine method of eliminating or stifling competition for a scarce resource (datable males).
[Corrected from earlier version] The really awful thing about this is that dudes sign themselves up for the service, ostensibly so they can tout their great reviews to future dates. Of course, that's not what the women are looking for, they want reasons to REJECT a dude, so any man who succumbs to the idea that he's so darn great that his exes will praise him effusively is really crapping in his own hat. His dissatisfied dates can pepper him with hashtags to promote or trash him, giving their highly subjective opinion. Think of it as a way for all of your ex-girlfriends to get together and trash you in a public forum, in front of all of your future girlfriends.
The only kind of men to whom this kind of attention-whoring is going to have a particular allure are the Hopelessly Desperate Gamma and the Womanizing Wolf Alpha. The former because he honestly thinks that he'll get decent dating advice and constructive criticism from women, and the latter because for the right kind of dude this is essentially a way to herd pussy in his direction.
Essentially, any man who appears on the site has self-selected himself out of the "intelligent and socially adept" category . . . or is using the site so cynically that the prospect of a negative review isn't damning to him. We all know just how panty-dampening evidence that you're a "bad boy" can be to a certain kind of woman, and a Wolf Alpha would have no compunctions about playing that up to get the flag. Lulu makes that ridiculously easy.
But what normal guy in their right mind is going to want his future dates to know that much about him? The article linked shows just how brutal the result can be, when one user began listing her date's hashtags to him . . . during their date. He's quoted as calling it "awkward", but somehow I think he was being polite. Any woman who would do such a thing is CLEARLY not LTR potential. She has self-selected into the "untrustworthy" category.
Indeed, finding out a woman has a onLulu.com account should be a very large and clear RED FLAG about the kind of hassle you can expect to have dating her. Busting her publicly and nastily for such tactics is recommended. If she has that kind of temerity, punish her for the blatant disrespect she clearly has for all masculinity. We're not the ones who coined the term "combat dating", after all.
The men on Lulu are rated on the traditional 10-point scale, in this case wildly subjective. The exact nature of the algorithm Lulu uses to "rate" the men is a secret, according to the article, and men can add their own comments and hashtags to the site . . . but those are not factored into the rating. Once again . . . men don't count.
Now, just for a moment, imagine turning this around . . .
Introducing Mumu, the (currently fictitious) information-sharing network about women! Put up your ex-girlfriend, fill out her profile, and let the world know if she's batshit nuts, overly hypergamous, or merely a lousy lay! Allow her other exes to pile on by adding hashtags like:
You get the picture.
Turn it around and put women on the, ahem, pedestal, and suddenly the whole idea looks stragely "misogynistic". The outcry from wounded women would be audible across the continent as the FSM reacted to the site. Because when it comes to accountability and holding themselves to a higher standard, a case can be made that women in aggregate tend to flee such awkward moments. Make your own observations and draw your own conclusions about that, of course.
Alexandra Chong, founder of Lulu, has wittingly or unwittingly opened her "private network" to innumerable slander lawsuits, I'd say. She points out that any man can have his profile removed at any time with a simple email. Supposedly, she's merely trying to "unleash the value of girl talk and to empower girls to make smarter decisions on topics ranging from relationships to beauty and health.". Just a little harmless gossipy grlpower, but you can bet the focus isn't on lip gloss. It's on trashing men in a public setting for their own amusement and supposed edification. Ms, Chong just wants to give the ladies a chance rat out the losers.
Of course, she does so without any hint of consideration for the men in question. Just wait until the first heartsick Omega lights himself on fire because of a bad date review, and I think this concept will get a serious re-think.
My advice: every man who reads this should hesitate completely before considering putting his profile on the site, and those who have started accounts should have them immediately removed.
The rest of us should just saturate the site with false information and such until it becomes useless - or, merely a tool of disinformation that could add to your Game. Suggested responses if a woman asks if you have a Lulu account:
"So, you're one of those stalker types?" as you back away slowly.
"Yes, and three quarters of those reviews are ones I wrote through sockpuppets. Try to figure out which ones are mine." Leave sadly shaking your head.
"No. I have more self-respect than that. And if you have an onLulu.com account, that's a dealbreaker."
"What, are you in High School or something? I only date big girls. Seeya." Leave in disgust.
"I have three. Which one did you see?"
Every man should beware of a dude who has an account on the site. He's either a total Alpha player or a total Gamma loser. Either way, he's likely not to be trusted. So spread the word, and if you do have an account, pull the freakin' plug soonest.
Registering for onLulu.com is also likely bad for your career. Facebook and Twitter accounts are now fair game for employers to search, among other services. Do you want your new boss hearing about how you leave the toilet seat up and are "#afraidtocommit"? No, of course not. That's like bringing your ex along on your job interview.
Not only does it pose a threat to the professional ambitions and reputations of those misguided men who consent to allow themselves to be brutalized - would you really hire a man who was willing to let his exes savage him in public like that? - it denigrates all men. The whole purpose of the site is to find reasons to reject guys, not accept them. When you play along with something like that, you might as well be wearing a Gammarabbit t-shirt and a big fat red L on your forehead.
This kind of blatant, misandrist, anti-male website needs to be countered on general principal. Or met in kind. So spread the word, and don't let this misandrist BS thrive.
(What other hashtags would you like to see on Mumu.com?)
LATE ADDITION: I was curious what the response was to this site over at Huffpo, the progressive bastion, and was relieved to see that most of the comments were decidedly negative, and not all from disgusted men. Check it out if you can stand the scalzied perspective.
But if you needed any additional reason to shun this "service", here it is from the female progressive commentor's mouth:
"Guys. If any female that you are with or potentially want to be with uses this app, it will end badly. She is actually 12 and this is the 2013 version of passing a note in homeroom."
So . . . onLulu.com account = immature female flakiness AND attention whoring, Gamma male style.
You should not date any woman who has an account or reviewed a man there . . . and if you find out one does, make sure that all of your dude-friends know to steer clear. And make sure all of your female friends know just how tacky you think this kind of blanket misandrist character assassination is.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
What "The Stir Bloggers" (because nothing lends credibility to a story like the anonymous plural) mention in her article, however, is not sex addiction. You can read the piece yourself, but the headline is that this woman married a dude, who is by all accounts a good husband and father, but . . . shudder . . . he wants sex. With her. Every day.
Apparently Cupcake couldn't handle it. She expected his libido to fade in conjunction with hers like "normal" people, but he persisted in being a regular guy . . . which means that he wants sex with his wife every day. After years of dealing with his daily initiation and her usual rejection, she couldn't stand (or understand, apparently) why he might get frustrated. She starts to pray he has an affair, but he's . . . shudder . . . a loyal husband and father, and despite his wife's apparent frigidity, he still loves her enough so that he's not going to give her an out by cheating on her. "I wished he would turn to other women, but as the long-suffering husband, I don’t think his psyche would allow for it." It doesn't enter her pretty little head that he might just be, y'know, a good husband and father . . . it has to be his ego and mental state (Beta) that she takes issue with. He doesn't cheat because he's not man enough to cheat.
He turns to porn and she's hopeful . . . until he starts realizing all of the other sex their not having, too. That just makes it worse. "The porn further warped his sexual expectations, and his bitterness at my continued reluctance to be physically intimate with him more than three or four times a week grew." Further warped his sexual expectations . . . as if his expectations of a healthy sex life were already warped.
But he still won't leave her. He still won't do anything to cause a divorce because he's a stand-up guy. The fact that she's no longer attracted to him isn't going to make him back out of his commitment. He committed. She committed. There are kids involved.
Only Cupcake just . . . can't . . . take it anymore. She cringes at his touch. Her hamster is spinning: how do I get out of a relationship with a man I don't find attractive anymore if he won't cheat?
"Try Sex Addiction", the Hamster says.
So wanting sex with your wife every day - which the vast majority of husbands are guilty of - is enough sign of "sex addiction" to give this woman the rationalization she needs to destroy her family. Because her husband "thought he owned my body" (the same body she presumedly had the day she married him and committed to being in a monogamous sexual relationship with him) he was a mentally ill monster who deserved to have his children ripped from his home. Finally, he gets so mad . . . he hits a pillow.
Not her. Not a kid. Not a wall, a window, a walrus or a whale, he hit a freakin' pillow and his wife -- who had been habitually rejecting him for months if not years and denying any responsibility in the relationship -- freaks out. That's violence. A Beta lost control. He's a sex addict, the Hamster whispered. He's dangerous, the Hamster whispered. You can do better, the Hamster whispered.
It didn't matter that "The kids were anxious a lot." Fuck the kids' lives - this was her body she was dealing with. Nothing was more important than that. "A few months after the pillow-hitting incident, I hired an attorney and filed for divorce. I moved out with the kids with nothing but the photo albums, some clothes, and my car." Spin, Hamster, Spin.
And the happy ending to the tragic story of one woman's struggle not to live up to her commitment to herself, her husband, her children, and whichever deity is applicable?
"Then all hell broke loose, because all of a sudden I was the heartless bitch that left her devoted, loyal husband without just cause. I’ve been called a whore to my face. I’ve lost friends, and acquaintances look at me with pity reserved for those that are making major mistakes. I’ve been told I’m ruining my kids’ lives, but the truth is that they’re doing better than ever."
Uh . . .what? The kids are doing better than ever because mom doesn't have to have sex with dad anymore and live in a stable household?
Really, what kind of message does that send? To her daughter it says "if you don't like something you committed to, you can find some excuse to leave - and you don't have to have sex with your husband". To her son it says "women are fragile, flaky creatures who cannot be trusted to live up to their commitments or be held accountable for their actions, despite their insistence on equality - and you had better watch it, because if you piss off your wife you'll lose your kids, too".
And when it comes to her recovering, getting back in the dating sphere again post-wall, hoping to sucker another Beta into a commitment, she's going to have to deal with the response to "Yes, I divorced my last husband because he wanted to have sex too much."
I don't foresee a lot of second dates in her future. Therapy, yes.
This is what Eat Pray Love looks like, fellas, with a vicious twist: she turned a healthy male sexuality into a creeping, destroying mental illness, and in order to claim "I’m doing better too. My body is mine again, and I will never again let someone convince me that I don’t have total ownership over it" this woman was willing to sacrifice the lives of everyone in her family. Her husband will be bitter and angry, her children will be resentful and hurt, and her friends in the Matrix will offer her support while secretly delighting in her misery. All so she could feel like she was in control of her body again.
I'm certain that will bring her daughter some solace when she's being eyed by a succession of her mother's future boyfriends. I'm sure that will soothe her son when he flips out in rebellion or collapses into sour emohood in revulsion, once he understands exactly what happened to his childhood.
This is a FAIL. This is what happens when you let the Hamster drive the bus. How are we, as men, supposed to take feminism seriously when we're supposed to a) afford women equal respect but b) can't trust them to live up to their commitments? This woman's body was hers. It was hers the day she chose to marry her husband, and after that it was community property, as was his.
His demands weren't abusive, they were merely frequent. Her tarnishing him as a Sex Addict - essentially pathologizing male sexuality - was a cheap shot straight from the Hamster Wheel . . . and you can bet dollars to diaphragms she's going to regret it bitterly herself someday.
So how did the public respond to this victimization? While there were plenty of "atta-girls", of course, there were some choice ripostes:
"Ahhh yes..women are the perpetual victims..its always the guy's fault.I often encourage every single guy that i know not to walk the plank (get married) because at any given time for any given reason he can lose everything because a d@mn woman decides that she wants out or that she's unhappy and viola: even if he was faithful/and husband of the year--he has nothing.Any dude who wants to get hitched these days is a glutton for punishment and a masochist."
"So you marry young, stupid, & fast then get upset that he has an average, normal male sex drive?!? then after not having sex with him bc you're too tired (despite him working & being tired too) you're mad he's taking care of the issue himself!?!?!? then you whine about wanting him to cheat- which if he had this would be a boo hoo pity, pity poor me article. I can see why the author didn't put her name next to this article. it's an absolute disgusting embarrassment - Nice way to skate your part in taking the easy way out of a marriage, also give it 5 years with your new relationship & we'll see this same poor me bs bc he will want a healthy, normal sex life "
"Oh my, the excuses women come up with to divorce..."
"This is a perfect example of a woman who should never have gotten married. She says that the sex should die down after a while. WHY? Who says? I'm positive her husband didn't say that. In fact, I'll bet my ENTIRE paycheck, life savings AND retirement, that she NEVER uttered a word about her true feelings about sex to her future husband! So, they are going at it hot & heavy all the time. He's thinking, "This is great, she can keep up with me." And all the time, she thinking, after "I do"; I won't have to ever again. Typical frigid shrew that doesn't express herself, and then blames the guy because of her lies, her shortcomings."
"This is whats wrong w women today. They trap these men under false guise and then complain when they are the ones who change. They dont do the same they did in the beginning. Maybe the writer was the one w a low self esteem to jump like that w anyone. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but the world was a better place in the 1950s when women did submit to their husbands n stop trying to emasculate them and rule the house."
"I'm a male and really found your article informative [from a male perspective). My ex-gf left me similar to how you left your husband. I'm sure he had no clue and was crushed emotionally [like I was]. Even though he was physically stronger than you, you held the key to his heart emotionally. I wasn't there but I do believe that after you married him, you had second thoughts about what "forever" really means [and that's ok]. We have a right to change our minds about how we feel in America. IMHO, a stronger women could have tamed him if she truly loved him for who he was. I just think the flame went out for you but he thought he married the women to spend his life with."
From a therapist:
"Without wanting to offend you it appears you continue to take the "victim" role in this marriage gone by and I have read little about how you share or take responsibility for the failure of the marriage from your end? Instead you seem to blame it on his sex "addiction" best wishes" Ouch.
"once again, entitled women that are too busy with themselves to recognise their husbands physical needs for intimacy, not just sex. seriously girls put out ffs and you might keep your husbands happy. men are pretty simple beings"
"I understand her ex-husbands frustration completely. Woman don't understand that sex to a man is a need not a want."
"Despite the effect this will have on the kids I think the real winner out of this is your husband. I could not imagine the drain it would take coming home to someone with your outlook on life after a hard days work."
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
In fact, I'll go further and state that intelligence was one of my top 3 selection criteria for my personal wife search. I overlooked a lot of potential issues in Mrs. Ironwood's vetting due to her magnificently huge brain. Intelligence is one of those traits that can be conserved or squandered, genetically speaking, and ensuring that the future mother of my children was super-smart AND capable of sustaining an academically nurturing environment for our young was of paramount importance.
That's a key point: there are plenty of smart women out there. There are even plenty of attractive, smart women out there. But when a woman has focused her energies exclusively on her career achievements, she has begun to select herself out of the reproductive process with any reasonably intelligent man. It's not a matter of being "intimidated by smart women", it's a simple cost/benefit analysis. Perhaps one you ladies are not considering. .
From a man's perspective - particularly a man who is consciously searching for a hetero life partner ("wife") - when sizing up a potential bride he should (and often does) balance her intelligence against her achievement in making the crucial "potential/no potential" for commitment decision.
(You see ladies, while you can decide whether or not you would sleep with any given man in the first 30 seconds you meet him, we're looking at every woman out there when we're single with the "could I live with her forever?" decision. And yeah, mostly y'all fail.)
When a man is evaluating a woman for mating potential, if she has demonstrated more devotion to her career goals than her personal goals, she is a poor matrimonial risk regardless of her intelligence. If she has a proven predilection for adding a man into her life as an afterthought or corporate fashion accessory, then yeah, don't marry her. Screw her, sure. But after six weeks you'll quickly realize that no matter how bountiful the sex is, she's never, ever going to put you on the same level as her career.
A lot of dudes make the mistake of thinking that will change, once she's in a relationship - and to be fair, sometimes it does. Mrs. I didn't look like a great candidate for Mom in some ways, but I was confident that she would and I was vindicated. When the feces hit the fan she quit her job and focused on her family, not the other way around. She took a lot of heat from that from her feminist-oriented friends, but she's stood resolute in the face of her criticism.
Most recently she had to defend me to her BFF and her sister when they both tried to crab-basket her (both women adore me, but when a woman is in trouble the VERY FIRST thing that her Grooming Circle will attack is her man, regardless of the situation) by demanding to know why, in the face of our challenges, she hadn't essentially assumed control of the relationship and saved everything? If the family was in trouble, then clearly I wasn't doing my job. She was too smart to let such disaster happen to her -- she deserved better. Therefore she should consider either a mutiny or abandoning ship.
Because that's what "smart women" do. They get divorced when they aren't happy. While they weren't going as far as saying that she should reconsider her marriage, they were following the natural Matrix pattern of Blaming The Male and Encouraging Her To Seize Control. It didn't matter that I just essentially pulled Christmas out of my ass and kept us out of serious debt by writing my ass off while being a spectacular husband and father, what mattered was that their sister in their Grooming Circle was troubled, and they were trying to "help". And when women in the Matrix try to "help", there is almost always at least one hidden agenda.
But they were genuinely concerned, I have no doubt. Mrs. I has left a stable career path and has essentially made herself utterly financially dependent upon me for the near future, and the fact that she was thus dependent but didn't have absolute control over the entire situation disturbed them at a molecular level. "Smart women" always have absolute control. That's how you know they're smart. A woman not in absolute control of the relationship is clearly not doing the "smart" thing. Usually, that's where doubt will creep into an insecure wife's heart. Instead . . .
Mrs. Ironwood let them have it.
She told them that in a true partnership and a functional (Red Pill) marriage (which neither had experience with - one of them was divorced three times, the other has yet to marry) a good wife didn't try to grab the wheel out of her husband's hands while he was trying to steer through a reef, in so many words. I had proven my value and worth by Getting Shit Done when it mattered. I'd passed my test with flying colors, and as I made virtually all of the money now, yes, she was more than willing to "let me" decide how it got spent. She said it far more nicely than that, and after topping it with an impassioned review of the ways in which I had Got Shit Done in the last year, she told them that she was smart enough to know when she'd picked a winner.
Of course they took issue with that. "Smart women" don't let themselves fall to the mercy of their husbands. They're always ready to cut and run and find greener pastures. Her unwillingness to even consider that perhaps the problem might be me was an affront to the Matrix. Even though they were properly castigated by Mrs. I, they still felt that she was, somehow, betraying herself and her family by not grabbing the wheel out of my hand. They were even willing to help her "convince" me that I should really let her make policy and control the situation.
Mrs. Ironwood stood firm, unlike the majority of women out there who are all-too-happy to hear from their Grooming Circles why they should ditch their men and find a better deal. She wasn't about to let her two closest friends "convince" her that she should really take over for the good of the family. She demonstrated true intelligence - the kind I married her for - by resisting the urge to listen to her personal Matrix when they told her something that was clearly against her best interest. She was intelligent enough to pick a winner. Most women aren't.
But then again, she's exceptional. That's why I married her.
If you single ladies want to be considered exceptional too, then stop leading with your resume. A woman proud of her position and achievement over her ability to create a positive family life has "future ex-wife" written all over her. Sure, your job gives you security and shows that you aren't afraid of work or are looking for a sugar daddy, but we're not going to be impressed by it, in general. It's not a matter of intimidation, it's a matter of knowing that the woman you're seeing just isn't going to have time enough for you and a relationship, much less a family.
And if you're married and want your husband to keep a firm hand on the wheel, stop trying to rip it out from his fingers. Yes, he may hit a reef. Reefs happen. If he does, a "smart woman" often heads for the lifeboats prematurely, only to discover a decade later (when he's remarried and doing breathtakingly, spectacularly well with his new, younger wife) that they ditched a perfectly good -- perhaps even exceptional -- boat in mid-voyage. But a truly intelligent woman will understand that she picked a winner and stick with him, and help him fix the damn boat.
And they don't give diplomas for that.
Monday, January 27, 2014
The premise of the argument is that if competition and ambition are good for women to demonstrate, then caring and compassion and a desire to raise their children and be a part of their lives are just as good for men to demonstrate. Because, according to Slaughter "We don't observe that desire on the part of many men today, in the same way that we didn't used to see the competitive side of women."
This, despite the fact that there are tens of thousands of men who desperately desire to do just that, but have been prohibited from doing so by a women-oriented family court system. This, despite the dramatic rise in the number of dads who are dispensing care and enjoying it. Despite this gross misrepresentation of the deep masculine desire to father (she can't bring herself to use the term, selecting the gender-neutral "caregiving" instead), Slaughter insists "Men are still socialized to groom their competitive instincts and suppress their caring sides."
You wanna know why? It's a big secret: because sex is the primary motivational factor in a man's life, and being socialized to groom their caring sides gets them personally, socially, and psychologically mangled in the pursuit of that motivating factor. Men groom their competitive instincts because they compete for the attention and the sexual availability of women. And yes, we are groomed to suppress our caring sides, because over-empathizing with your competitors is counter-indicated to the whole idea of competition. But to conclude that it is therefore missing or underdeveloped is an error.
That's equivalent of a dude bragging to his friends, “Yeah, she’s got a face like a trainwreck and she’s lousy in the sack, but she makes so much cash I don’t have to lift a goddamn finger!” It might be a practical advantage, but you don’t score social points for it. On the contrary, you lose points.
That leaves the Beta AFCs who become domesticated out of economic necessity, who might be attracted to the vitality of a corporate feminist but who is under the mistaken impression that he can expect the kind of domestic loyalty and rejection of hypergamy he thinks marriage entails.
At the very best, you will always live a contentious life of negotiated intimacy and rigid boundaries that makes a mockery of the partnership of marriage. These corporate feminists who suddenly see a husband as this season’s must-have accessory to break the glass ceiling, not a partner worthy of a life-changing commitment. To them, their careers will always take priority over their relationships, their children, and their families.
Men value a husband based on how well his family functions and how he gets along with his wife, and his domestic responsibilities are part of that reflection but not a significant part. Women value a husband in a lot of ways, and caregiving is certainly among them, but the idea of basing their mating preferences on a man’s nurturing is foreign to feminine sensibilities.
While you talk of valuing these men for their caregiving, you do so in a feminist climate that has continuously denigrated the roles of husband and father for four decades. What you propose instead is an emasculating and matronizing rationalization of a dysfunctional system.
Praising men for being more like women does no one favors. It certainly doesn’t help those poor AFCs stuck in the shadows of their wives until they get discarded.
Quite the contrary, it’s just cruel of you. Stop objectifying husbands like they were handbags. It makes you look fat.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Attractiveness is not an in-born trait -- beauty is. Attractiveness is not bound by youth or age or dress size. When you evaluate your potential future bride on the basis of her attractiveness, how hot she is - believe it or not - should be a relatively minor consideration. Whether or not she can make and keep herself attractive is far more important.
Most men simply do not appreciate the high art that feminine beauty and fashion entails for a woman of even modest means if she's to make even a half-hearted attempt at being attractive. We're spoiled by the ten-minute shit/shower/shave routine we mastered when we were twenty and haven't varied much in the decades since. We appreciate the result of her efforts of course . . . sometimes . . . but we rarely appreciate the hours and hours of study and experimentation a woman has to undertake before she can say that she's mastered the art.
It's complicated, and many short-sighted men consider it a waste. But the importance of a woman's ability to be attractive is a fundamental cornerstone of your relationship with your wife, just as much as your ability to hold down a decent job. This is especially important if a man has aspirations of having a family, but not for the obvious reasons. A wife certainly needs to maintain her husband's attraction, but far beyond that a mother has to be able to navigate the much-harder channels of the Mommy Matrix.
Tarting yourself up enough to get an erection out of your husband is easy. Dressing up with just the right
focus on fashion, cosmetics, hair, shoes and accessories to communicate your position and rank to the rest of the Mommy Matrix is the real challenge. Husbands who dismiss this factor as unimportant are inadvertently dismissing a very important element in their wive's social matrix. Really, it doesn't matter whether or not you'd do her . . . she can whip her girls out and get that reaction.
When she asks "How do I look?", she's looking for validation of her selection and reaction to the end-product of her efforts. She's not trying to be sexually attractive, she's trying to be socially attractive, and those standards are very different.
It's often been said that women dress for other women, not men, and there's a lot of truth to that. But I would say it's more important to realize that women have to dress for women first, unless they are overtly mating, before they are concerned with the judgment of men.
Mating is, of course, inextricably wound with attractiveness in that it is the perpetual force that impels feminine action even when no actual mating is going on. Mating is the context for attraction. But it is important to understand that the perceptions of men and women on the subject are largely filtered by their perspective. Men see feminine attractiveness from the perspective of judgment, while women see it from the perspective of competition.
Women do not make themselves attractive to attract men, they make themselves attractive to socially dominate women by displaying their ability to attract men. Being attractive to a woman is the social equivalent of having big muscles as a dude. Just displaying them acts as a deterrent against potential competition. But like big muscles, attractiveness requires constant maintenance and no little expense.
Many men will mistake beauty and youth for attractiveness. They see their wives in their prime reproductive years when their hormonally-charged young bodies are buffing their base attractiveness. "Natural Beauty" is a big draw, of course, and the frosting of youth makes it all that more appealing.
But when you're evaluating your future bride, you should look beyond "Natural Beauty" and take a cold, hard look at what Mrs. Ironwood calls "girl skills": her ability to make herself appropriately socially attractive.
The Wife Test: Wardrobe Madness
When Mrs. Ironwood and I first started co-habitating, we were young, poor, broke all the time . . . and compelled to be very social. We were at that age where some of our friends were getting married, some were having kids, and some were dying young. One particular weekend found us hitting the jackpot: our social and filial obligations promised a very, very full Saturday.
We began the day with a 6 year old birthday party, then progressed to a business luncheon, thence to a memorial service and lastly to a formal night-time wedding. Four separate wardrobe changes. Four hours on the road between engagements. Brutal.
Mrs. I didn't blink. Chalk it up to her own mother's training in such matters, her debutante skills or her extended stint running a retail cosmetics counter, the future Mrs. I managed all four wardrobe changes, including three footwear changes, in the car on the way. She arrived at each even properly attired and made-up, displaying the proper accessories and shoes for the occasion and comporting herself with dignity and grace.
At one point I realized that the elegant young woman dancing with the groom was the same one who had squatted in the middle of a ring of six-year-olds for a rousing game of duck-duck-goose that morning, and then had cried in earnest sympathy with our grieving friends that afternoon. She still looked as if she'd spent all day at the salon. Her versatility and knowledge of her own capability for attractiveness demonstrated a competency and dedication that I found admirable . . . and highly desirable in a mate.
When vetting your future bride, consider a similar challenge: several different social events in rapid succession, requiring a re-tooling of her presentation for each. Moving from formal to business to casual to other in no particular order will be a challenge worth observing. Believe it or not, how attractive she is really isn't the most important factor in this test.
Things to consider: Does she complain bitterly about the pressure or does she accept it gracefully? Is she demanding and disrespectful as she completes her transformation, or does she do so coolly and without recrimination? Does she blame you for stuff that is clearly outside of your control? Does she arrive more or less complete, or does she need another 15 minutes in the ladies' room to finish up? Does she have a wardrobe sufficient for her needs or does she try to employ clothes that are not quite appropriate to the occasion? Does she have the proper undergarments and outergarments to support her wardrobe selection? Is she vocally critical about some perceived flaw in her features, or does she work with what she has without complaint? And how is the final product? Is the juice worth the squeeze?
And just how long did it take? That can be a vital metric to know. I once had a girlfriend who couldn't get ready to go to class without three wardrobe changes and a 45 minute temper-tantrum about her hair. Formal occasions were nightmares, a perpetual blow to her self-esteem. Mrs. Ironwood usually only needs 20-30 minutes for everyday prep, twice that for business or formal. That's not unreasonable.
Remember, the end result should be evaluated on a relative basis, not how hard she makes your dick. Appropriate dress and makeup for the occasion is key, as is preparation and execution.
She need not turn every head in the room, but as long as she looks good on your arm she's achieved her goal. Few women really want to be the most attractive woman in the room . . . just one of the more attractive. Out-shining the other women singles her out for unwanted attention, not from male lotharios but from female be-yatches who are looking to score social points by cutting down the weak and poorly-dressed.
Of course it goes without saying that the sexual attraction side of things should get some attention, too. While you're probably pretty happy just to have her boobs in your face, a woman who has mastered the art of attraction remembers that her sexual presentation is as important as her sexual performance. Being able to dress formal, business or casual for a particular event should be complemented by the ability to appear enticingly attractive in an intimate setting.
Shucking off the little black dress at the end of the night should be able to lead to pulling on something more seductive, and repairing your hair and make-up appropriately, not Noxema and comfy jammies. Being able to segue from attractive-formal to attractive intimate without fuss or hand-wringing is the epitome of a woman's attractiveness skills.
Being able to maintain your attractiveness over the years is also important, much to the dismay of feminists everywhere. Age might sap her beauty, but it doesn't necessarily decrease her attractiveness. Those skills stay with her. Indeed, fighting the effects of gravity, slower metabolism and age in general make attractiveness a high feminine art. Mistaking youth for beauty or attractiveness has led to some depressingly lackluster pairings.
And while some women don't feel obligated to make themselves up for their husbands on the basis that they don't feel the need to impress him, and they feel that he's already seen what she has a million times, wiser women understand that feminine allure is a subtle art that demands study, dedication, and no little expense to do well. Deciding that you don't need to make the effort for hubby anymore might sound "mature" but what it actually is (whether he voices this or not) is "disrespectful". When you decide your husband just doesn't care, so why make the effort, you're telling him subconsciously that you no longer consider his opinion valuable.
When you just stop trying because he's not telling you how ravishing you look to your satisfaction, regardless of what you think is going on, he'll notice. And not in a good way. Once he notices that you aren't trying anymore, his attraction to you is almost destined to fail eventually without intervention. It also deprives him of the opportunity to sincerely complement your efforts on his own. And that's a dangerous first step toward seeking validation of your femininity from somewhere else.
Attractiveness is a slippery issue, highly subjective and open to interpretation. but it's also a key Wife Skill, and one that should be vetted for religiously.