Commenter Sherlock shared a paper with us called Inner Game Sticking Points in the Equality post comment section. I haven’t read more than the first page but A Norther Observer points out a hum dinger of a message written on that page:
Men‘s disconnection with women, it turns out, is simply a bread crumb trail back to where we‘re disconnected from ourselves.
Masculinity. It drives who you men are, for yourselves. We women want it. No, we need it . . . . and we will work for it, if you let us. We need you whether we will admit it or not because in so many ways, it is your masculinity that makes us feminine. Then we can give that back to you.
The masculine attracts the feminine, and vice versa.
Yup. I just think men and women get mixed up sometimes in who it is for. A man is masculine for himself, not for women.
Indeed.
Luff you.
I read the whole thing, and there was a lot of resonance in it, particularly the part about fitness testing.
For a real-life example, I’d written on this blog about having issues with some of my Mom’s behaviors. My parents were over for lunch today, and I saw some of that same old same old from Mom. This time, I was able to recognize it as fitness testing, so instead of getting annoyed / pissed off, I firmly pushed back “You made the mess, now you clean it up.”
And she did! There were a few more back-and forths, one of them including me (in a nice way) telling her to ‘hush’ because she was chattering in a rather useless direction, and both her *and* my Dad chuckled over how I handled it.
I cannot begin to relate how much relief having a way to constructively address behavior like this has brought me…and I look forward to the future with a lot more optimism now.
A Northern Observer,
I am thrilled to hear it. You might very well find that as this keeps going your mother begins to behave differently around you. This may not make a lot of sense to a lot of people, but there is something very freeing in finding that a man won’t tolerate one’s nonsense. It’s like a lightening of a huge load off one’s back.
“there is something very freeing in finding that a man won’t tolerate one’s nonsense. It’s like a lightening of a huge load off one’s back.”
THIS! Why do we would engage in behaviour that we WANT stopped? It’s so annoying, yet so hard to control. And such a huge load off when your man nips it in the bud.
Phedre,
I’m not sure how much of the other sites in the sphere that you read. Are you familiar with the concept of a fitness test or a shit-test? The theory is that women test their man’s masculinity to make sure he is strong enough to stand up to her. That the urge is that to actually test his strength. If we throw them a test and he passes, meaning he doesn’t put up with us, he is a strong man and he will protect us. If he doesn’t pass the test, that means it is time for the woman to take control because he might not be able to handle it.
It is a bit more complex than that, but it’s it in a nutshell. We are almost compelled to do it to test his strength. The good thing is, once you recognize it, it far easier to make the tests stop.
Yeah, I realised that after I hit post. I actually haven’t read any posts directly defining and giving examples of shit-testing, I’ve just gathered an impression of it over months of reading other manosphere stuff.
It just seems like such a pointless thing to do when you’re doing it, and you want to stop, but you just can’t. Like you said though, when you become aware of it as a ‘thing’ you start to be able to turn it off. I do it fairly rarely now, but sometimes it still pops up, compelling/annoying as ever. I wonder, do all women feel annoyed even as they’re doing it? This is the thing that I’ve always found weird about it.
I don’t know about all women, I suspect that many that aren’t aware of it actually feel a sense of power when in the middle of one. At least, that is how I used to feel until I learned what I was doing and why. Now, yes, I do feel annoyed, even in the middle of one. Like you said, it’s rare, but they still come out sometimes. Afterwards, I want to bang my head on my desk because I feel like such a heel. Then, I apologize succinctly and it’s over. No drama. It’s just done. I actually feel more annoyed now when I do it and don’t realize what happened until later. Annoyed that I didn’t catch it at the time, because, well, that just can’t be good.
However, more often than not, I just don’t do it. Or, when I feel compelled, I think “what the heck is the point of that?!” and keep my trap shut.
It’s quite refreshing.
Haha. Yes, I stop myself with ‘what the hell’s the point?!’
But staying engaged with life instead of hanging myself onto what my man is doing tends to eliminate the urge altogether. Pointless things generally fall away when one is living mindfully (not even necessarily busily).
Any other examples of shit-tests? This is what I’ve yet failed to find, a nice long list to check against. I’ve only identified two types that I do and it would be pretty amazing if that was actually the extent of it.
OT for anyone who wants to do some missionary work: a college-aged woman asking how she can be better with men.
http://www.theattractionforums.com/general-discussion/163190-whats-wrong-being-feminist.html
But staying engaged with life instead of hanging myself onto what my man is doing tends to eliminate the urge altogether.
I couldn’t agree with you more. I never thought about it this way, but you are absolutely right.
I don’t think there is a long list of tests as I think they can be absolutely anything at all. One can ask her husband “Did you do X?” and it can be an honest to goodness question or one can ask the very same thing and have it be a test. Big example would be Valentine’s Day, but again, it doesn’t have to be. Girls and guys nights out, did you get this chore done, etc. It really can be about just anything at all. That why they can be tough. Some husbands might think (with good reason or not) that he is being lobbed a test, when it’s just an inquiry and then he mail be lobbed a test and fail it because he thinks it’s a legitimate question/request.
It can be quite difficult to navigate. It’s one of the reasons I’m so big on men being masculine for themselves. A man who is his own won’t tolerate any kind of test for his own legitimate reasons.
Okay. I should just examine my own motivations before I talk, and see if I anything is coming from a place other than genuine inquiry or interest.
I know I’ve gone through phases where I would do that regularly and it was made me aggravated with myself, so I would usually nix it and then after a while it would start again. It’s been quite a while now, but there may be some more subtle forms remaining.
Search and destroy mission!
Phedre & Stingray:
Fitness Tests are rooted in doubt. It’s just a particular flavor of sin. From time to time, we all wonder about those in authority over us — even doubting the Lord, Himself. In this light, our foolishness is obvious. We try to walk by faith, but occasionally, we slip up and need to repent. You hit the nail on the head:
“I apologize succinctly and it’s over. No drama. It’s just done.”
You’re providing an excellent example. This is the key with any sin; repent, seek forgiveness, leave it alone.
This next bit concerns me, though:
“But staying engaged with life instead of hanging myself onto what my man is doing tends to eliminate the urge altogether.”
Competition (in the form of testing) causes trouble from one direction, while isolation (self-involvement) causes trouble from another. To avoid both of these snares, a husband and wife need to be tightly bound together, sharing a common cause. It’s not my cause, or her cause, but our cause. I’ll lead and provide (with her help and support) so that we both get where we’re going, together.
Focus on the common goal and many of the “whispers” about his fitness will fall silent and testing will be less frequent. Cultivate faithful discipline, but make sure that your man knows to keep a watchful eye out. He can head off most of the problems and provide some welcome reassurance, with barely a word.
Return affection and support in exchange for his leadership and sacrifce. It’s a great trade.
Alan,
That bit that concerns you, let me see if I can explain. This is how I took Phedre’s statement. I have a tendency to hang on my husband if I let myself. Hang in the annoying sense of the word, not the support sense of the word. Meaning that if I let myself I will become needy on his authority. Now, do I need his authority? Yes. But I don’t need to hang on it like a child. If I let myself, I will do this. It’s part and parcel of having a stoic man. A wife wants to know what is going on with him, but she really doesn’t deep down. It creates a strange dynamic.
So, what I think Phedre meant is that we need to stay engaged with out own lives. Meaning, we need to care for our side of the marriage and cause as you so nicely put it. Not hang on or be needy of him, but self reliant on our own side of what needs to be accomplished. If I can’t do that we cannot get where we need to go.
BTW, welcome!
Phedre,
Search and destroy, but I would also ask your man. You may find that you are tempted to destroy things that shouldn’t be. Getting rid of tests and holding back hypergamy and solipsism and all that is a good thing, but I do think that it can be taken to such a degree that it will become too drastic. Ugh, I don’t know how to explain it better. Does that make sense?
Alan,
Stingray explained my words correctly. By no means do I ever wish to isolate myself from my man, nor from our common goal. My smaller goals serve to support and nourish the common one, but I must engage with them (or most of them) by myself, in a focused, self-subsistent way.
If I need his help I will ask for it, but if I let myself be of the mindset that all the goals are common then I will a – hang on him like a child, and b – fitness test him. Being (mostly) self-reliant and strongly focused on my work in achieving the common goal prevents both of these. This is what I meant by ‘staying engaged with life’.
Certainly not running of in search of haaaaaapiness
Stingray,
I have asked my man. He has a low tolerance for bullshit so he has always called me out on most of it. There are a couple behaviours of mine though where he tends to just scowl instead of nixing it. Those are the ones that I’ve now asked him to not allow to go on, but also I would like to not do them to begin with.
Or rather, I would like to cultivate a mindset other than the one that produces that kind of behaviour. I’ve found that when one is in full submission (which includes both the obvious passive aspects, and the active ones mentioned above) then the urge is simply no longer there. My goal is to keep myself fully and permanently in that complete and balanced submissive state.
Returning from a lovely road trip (ah, blessed unpluggedness!) to an intriguing set of observations here. I’ve always wondered what the deal was, why women will consistently demand what they manifestly do not want, and do not seem happy unless they are made unhappy. Or perhaps satisfaction is dependent on unhappiness? It’s been a mystery for most of my life, and while reading and experimenting has made a big difference for me in the past 2 years, I’m still at a loss for why it happens.
I understand how it works for children, dogs, etc: They need to know their boundaries and limits, understand the rules of what is acceptable, and so on. To not have that understanding gives them stress, even if, to an adult human, “doing whatever you want” sounds like the ultimate freedom. In practice, they want to know they’re safe and without risk of getting in trouble, and the only way to do that is to find out where the boundaries are. They haven’t the wherewithal to ask, and likely wouldn’t believe it without experiential proof if they had. Forgive my backwardness, but it seems slightly odd or insulting to apply such a principle to what appear to be adult and functional people. And yet the above suggests it is so.
That said, I have to agree that realizing the chain of logic that (a) true masculinity is a very good thing, (b) it must be done for one’s self, not others, to not only work but be real, and (c) making it intrinsic and true results in better results from others, well, that series of thoughts seems obvious in retrospect but has been trained out of millions of us for a couple of generations now. We know we’re missing the final pieces just by looking at our lives, but tracking it back to un-vilifying masculinity is the trick.
“Now, do I need his authority? Yes. But I don’t need to hang on it like a child. If I let myself, I will do this.”
Yes, there is a definite line between reliance and plain old immaturity. I’m very curious who draws this distinction in your marriage? It sounds like you do.
In our case, I make the call. My wife used to aim for “responsible and strong,” at all times. And why not? A sense of duty is laudable. The problem was that her efforts frequently veered toward independence and caused confusion and friction between us. She was trying desperately to hold up her end, but we weren’t clear on what that meant. Eventually, I realized the source of our problem and told her to run almost everything past me, at least for a while. The result was nothing short of spectacular. She was relieved and I understood her better than ever before. After a little fine tuning, we had it down cold.
I’m glossing over a lot of details, but simply put, I carry a lot more responsibility for her daily activities and she spends more of her energy helping and pleasing me. More than ever we’re both playing to our strengths.
It’s always interesting to hear how this plays out with others.
Peregrine John,
You are right that externally this behaviour in women looks very similar to that of children, but, for me at least, it is internally completely different. I’m not sure I can really describe this properly, except to say that I remember testing boundaries as a child and my emotional/psychological state when doing so was completely different than when I fitness-test.
I think as a child you need to know the rules, but you would rather the rules be lax. As a woman you don’t want or need rules per se, so much as a rule-maker. You just need to know that the man is willful/strong enough for you to submit to.
Remember, a woman’s submission is a very different thing from a child’s submission to its parents. The child has no choice, because it can only get food/shelter/safety from its parents. A woman can find another man. Her submission occurs once she has determined that he is the best possible mate for her (normally, of course. Our society has screwed this up), and the psychological reality of this kind of voluntary submission is very different.
Phedre, what do you think about being in an environment where the men do set enough boundaries and you don`t feel bad behavior is accepted. I am interested in the effects on a woman of the society, or at least her social group, providing her with enough masculine boundaries. I go into this in my two posts in this thread:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/backlash-against-the-christian-manosphere/
Phedre,
I think I am projecting my own difficulties onto you in a hope that you don’t have to go through what I did. I tried to shut things off in my brain. No more tests, no more solipsism, no more any of it. I started to become a robot. It didn’t last long, but I was constantly second guessing myself and holding back. Maritus and I love to laugh and we both have wicked sense of humor. I didn’t feel free to do the things or say the things that would be fun and playful. Like I said, it didn’t last long at all. Luckily I was able to tell pretty quickly that something was off. I needed to just be. COntinue to work hard, but still be. I had to looses back up and be his fun loving wife. That’s what I mean about taking it too far. Be mindful and steadfast, but he loves you, even the things that make him grimace. Work on them, sure, but watch out for that robot. It’s not a pleasant place to be.
Peregrine John,
If I knew why we demanded what we don’t want I could be a millionaire! I think part of it stems from the fact that in all of this striving for equality and male privilege we have told women that they should go after whatever they want and whatever they feel. No one can do this, not really, and be happy for it. It’s living like a child. We are not taught real life and do not experience much of how life should be. We don’t have the opportunity to learn that Dad and husband might know things that we shouldn’t know for our own sakes. That there are somethings that we may be incredibly curious about, but are better off without the knowledge. Life, in a lot of respects, is incredibly easy today and we simply do not have to grow up. We don’t get out tails caught up under the rocking chair to learn from that experience.
Also, it is what Phedre said. Submission to a man is different.
One more thought on this, and forgive my lack of details as I just don’t have a mind for them. I believe there is a biblical passage that is something around the lines of women are to submit to their husbands and men are to submit to higher authority. You men have your boundaries just as we women do. They simply come from a different place and the boundaries can be just as good for you as your boundaries are for us.
Maybe it is one of these observations, none of them or a combination of the three. I tend to think it is the latter.
Alan,
I would say that my husband, over the years, has made it clear what it expected and that I now draw the distinction myself. I tend to the more naturally submissive. Which, when younger, was a constant struggle because I would fight it and go for the whole independence thing as that was what I thought I was supposed to do. I would go back and forth between these two. I never went crazy or anything, but I would push against my submissiveness and therefore my husband. Then I would feel bad and go almost too submissive. I would run everything past Maritus to make sure he was getting exactly what he wanted (I still struggle with this sometimes) instead of dealing with it myself. So, my struggle is not so much uber independence, it’s more getting my job done myself without constantly asking.
Now, seeking information is one thing, but with the constant asking can come a freaky childlike desire to hang on him. It took me a while to learn that sometimes my husband just needs to be. I did nothing wrong, he’s tired and is just relaxing. Nothing more, nothing less. So, I needed to go find my own thing to do until he was ready to hang out. I had to figure out that he is my husband and our marriage is the center, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have things that I need to do as well on my own. Learning this was a huge relief.
Huh. At the least, it’s some insights I never had before, and wouldn’t have guessed. I’m still a bit at a loss as to why someone would be unsatisfied with her man until he makes her unhappy, but it’s good to know I’m not the only one! Your suggestions are sound enough that when asked (and those I gently mentor will definitely ask), I’ll have sufficient answers to refocus the lads on what they can understand and control.
There was an episode of Ally McBeale in which her boyfriend had to punch someone in her defense, and she got all huffy. Lawyer chick getting huffy at a masculine man, who’d have guessed… Anyway, she admitted to her friend later that she’d be even more upset with him if he hadn’t stood up for her, a rare instance of TV scripts letting on that the whole situation is fucked up and we all know it. This is what it’s like to be a man in America today, and I suspect the trouble pre-dates feminism and transcends culture. (I’ve begun to notice it in far-ranging literature.) It’s just what is, and for the most part men in the past have simply accepted that women are going to be comforted by discomfort, be appeased by correction, be happy in apparent unhappiness. Perhaps that’s why common androsphere advice is to blow off such things: There’s no way for us to really comprehend it, and besides, not worrying about it looks to be the best way of all to pass the test behind the test.
Peregrine John,
Think of it this way. There is happiness in the moment and there is long term happiness. Happiness that can come after the fact of whatever situation you want to talk about. Take the Allie McBeal situation (I used to love that show). If she had gotten her way and he didn’t punch the guy out, she would have been superficially happy in the moment. (This moment is very likely her learned response. She would be happy because what she was taught should happen, did), but her deeper happiness would have been left wanting. The deeper being he hard wired self. It is the deeper part that wishes to be satisfied. This is what our long term self craves. This is where the “watch what she does and don’t listen to what she says” comes in. What we do betrays our deeper needs. That’s why blowing off our momentary absurdities are recommended.
We are happy in the long term regardless of what we say. Just watch how a woman reacts after you do something very manly. She may get huffy in the moment you punch a guy out, but she will be all over you later on.
Also, it is when we become happy in the long term that you may be able to teach some of us. The brush with masculinity can make one see the light and want more of it.
Sherlock, you totally nailed it with those posts. That is exactly how I see a perfectly balanced society.
There’s a lot of ‘marriage 1.0 is over and it’s not coming back’ and ‘marriage was set up to provide betas with security against women’s hypergamy’ around. Sort of yeah, but it misses the point. What was the dynamic that made it work so well, for so long, in so many different contexts? It’s exactly what you said. Male boundaries free the female to be fully female, and then she can raise up the male to be the greatest he can be. It is a beautiful and powerful dynamic.
“When the male support from outside is sufficient she can lay her male side to rest and then her feminine nature blossoms at its best and she BECOMES the loving, nurturing doting and sacrificing woman that you used to believe was the admirable goodness of womanhood.”
Like you said, this is what the guys complaining about women’s amoral, inconstant, shit-testing nature fail to understand. When the conditions are right, the changes that happen to a woman are real. The creature that results from them is indeed worthy of investment and sacrifice. And when you have liberated her nature fully, she will help you fulfill yours in turn.
In our society now we have vague remnants of this dynamic, gestures really, but the potential is always there in our nature. And I think the change must start with the re-instating of male boundaries for women. Society collapses without them not because women are such powerful forces of evil/temptation, but because they are simply no longer able to be fully themselves. The chain is broken. Reforge it and watch society heal in a generation.
testingFitness testing is totally natural. I watch my horses do it to each other all day every day. All day long the 2nd, 3rd in command test the 1st in command to see if he still has “what it takes” to lead them. The 4th, 5th in command test the 3rd in command to see if they can elevate themselves above him and gain rank in the herd. Women fitness test to see if they man has “what it takes” to lead her. The goal should not be to not fitness test, the goal should be for the man to be clear in how and how quickly he shuts them down. It’s an excellent way for a man to remind his woman who is in charge and why. I think it’s a huge turn on so I don’t worry about fitness testing; I only realize I might have been working on one when I get put back into my place. So maybe ladies – we do it because that’s what we want. Think about it.
I just thought about “men being masculine for themselves”. It makes sense. Living alone and not reying on anyone would be pretty masculine, unless there’s a welfare state and you can live alone doing nothing useful.
Yet being feminine for yourself (if you’re a woman) makes little sense to me. I feel femininity is all about men. Why else look feminine and bake cookies if you’re alone?.. And being nurturing requires you have someone to nurture.
Femininity is certainly about interaction of one sort or another, in spite of all the swooning one witnesses about “me time” (a phrase I have yet to hear a man utter). Any word I can come up with that describes the feminine has to do with others in some way. I’d never thought about it like that before, but it’s an enlightening little epiphany.
Is a small epiphany an apostrophe?
I think I understand what you’re saying, Stingray, but I may never grok a mentality that prompts a desire to be “put in one’s place.” Then again, it’d be a luxury: I don’t actually have to in order to be functional. Phedre’s view of things is lovely, and I like to think it’s true. Danged if I have any idea how to implement that last suggestion, though. That push-back described above, the conscious-level societal expectations (brainwashing?) demanding short-term benefits at the expense of long-term happiness and contentedness, exists on the societal level at institutional status of entrenchment. Just imagine for a moment what trying to break those chains would be like.
@Mina: “I think it’s a huge turn on so I don’t worry about fitness testing….”
Yes, it’s natural; yes, it can light a fire under both a husband and his wife; no, it can’t be 100% eliminated; no, we shouldn’t expect it to disapear completely, even in the best relationship; but, have you ever been on the receiving end of this sort of (constant) challenge/provocation?
You must see that it becomes counter-productive, at some point. Yes? Even if a woman enjoys the constant friction, will a man always respond positively?
I agree with several earlier comments that fitness testing should be kept to a minimum in pursuit of harmony. A few citations in case I’m misrepresenting anyone:
http://verusconditio.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/men/#comment-3309
http://verusconditio.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/men/#comment-3320
http://verusconditio.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/men/#comment-3323
Testing has a natural purpose, sure, but when taken too far, it breeds frustration and resentment — and probably fighting.
Where to draw the line?
The man draws the line – and if he doesn’t then he’s not a man, he’s a pussy.
Mina, I didn’t ask who draws the line, I asked where. Should all responsibility be shifted to the man? If you think so, then I wonder what happens when the line isn’t drawn to the woman’s liking.
It’s the man’s responsibility to be the man. What else needs to be said?
Emma,
I agree with you. Yes, there is some merit in a woman being feminine for herself as in it feels good to get all dressed to the nines and be pretty. But in reality, we still do it for men. All of it, we do for someone else. Feminist want us to believe that this is a bad thing. It’s decidedly not a bad thing.
Peregrine John,
The desire to be put in one’s place is not all that different than men desiring moral compass. Again, men get that from a higher authority and women get it from men.
@Mina: “It’s the man’s responsibility to be the man. What else needs to be said?”
Simply this: It’s the woman’s responsibility to be the woman — and preferably a mature one.
@Stingray:
You run a nice blog and I’ve enjoyed the chat. Keep up the good work.
Alan: Sounds like a thinly veiled insult … but let me expand. If for example you have the bad luck to marry a heinous shrew like in Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew” then certainly tying her to a cart and making her walk behind it as the mule pulls it through the muddy roads to the market might be appropriate. If however you have had the good luck to marry a naturally submissive woman who doesn’t need such extreme levels of “her husbands foot up her a@@” as the shrew, then clearly you are ahead of the game.
Consider the dynamic of the heinous shrew paired with the pussy vs. the heinous shrew paired with a man. Or the submissive wife paired with the pussy vs. the submissive wife paired with the man. And everything in between. Clearly, it’s the man’s “manliness” that creates the environment for the woman, sets the tone for the roles within the marriage and takes command of leadership. Whatever that entails.
Whether the woman needs to be tied to the cart and pulled through the mud or she just requires the occasional simple verbal reminder … the “punishment” – it’s timing, frequency, severity, etc should fit the “crime”. But the ability to deliver that “punishment” at the right time, with the right severity, in the manner the “crime” demands is 100% based on the Man’s ability to deliver and how he wants to set the tone for the marriage environment. It’s his game, his frame and his leadership.
If he doesn’t have what’s necessary to keep his woman in his game, his frame and to follow his leadership then who’s fault is it? It’s his role to show her what is the correct behavior, maintain the boundaries and ensure she stays within them.
Naturally over time you’d expect the wife to learn what behaviors are acceptable, or marginal or over the line and to live within those three boundaries. Some want to stay within the “acceptable” and there is a minimum of fitness testing. Some want to live on the edge and press for the “marginal” or “over the line” and there is more.
Who’s to say what is right and wrong? Based on the fact that you can have everything from a shrew with a pussy to a shrew with a man to a submissive with a pussy to a submissive with a man – there’s bound to be infinite variety of dynamics that can’t possibly be captured or explained. The bottom line is no matter where the pairing of these two people fall on that spectrum, it’s the man’s role to set the frame, make the rules of the game and to provide leadership. If you are the man and you live with someone who prefers to live near the “over the line” edge you are going to be either very busy manning the perimeter and nipping every fitness test in the bud the moment it is raised or you’re going to be putting your foot up your wife’s a@@ a lot. Hopefully you picked her because that’s your game.
Even in Shakespeare’s play, the Shrew saw the evil of her ways and became the model wife. All she needed was a little initial learning in where the boundaries were and a lesson in the fact that her husband was the ultimate authority as to what type of behavior from her was acceptable and what wasn’t. Surely you don’t believe she needed to be pulled around town by the mule cart twice yearly to be reminded.
(I submit to you: Only a real man could turn a heinous shrew into this: for every woman there should be a man man enough to make that woman glad to be a woman.)
KATHARINA
Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow,
And dart not scornful glances from those eyes,
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor:
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,
Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds,
And in no sense is meet or amiable.
A woman moved is like a fountain troubled,
Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty;
And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty
Will deign to sip or touch one drop of it.
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks and true obedience;
Too little payment for so great a debt.
Such duty as the subject owes the prince
Even such a woman oweth to her husband;
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?
I am ashamed that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace;
Or seek for rule, supremacy and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love and obey.
Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth,
Unapt to toil and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?
Come, come, you froward and unable worms!
My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot,
And place your hands below your husband’s foot:
In token of which duty, if he please,
My hand is ready; may it do him ease.
Mina, thanks for posting that. I can’t believe it’s not quoted all over the manosphere! A perfect summary of a woman’s ideal state.
Alan,
Thank you.
Mina,
Wow, thank you for that!
More thoughts. Just because feminine traits have a harder time existing in a hermit than masculine ones, doesn’t mean they are “culturally designed” (don’t want any feminists, if they are around, to jump on that). I was single for a long time, and haven’t dated or interacted with men romantically. I was pretty unfeminine on the outside then. But once I met a man, all sorts of feminine traits came naturally to me, and it was pleasant. It’s just that when I was alone, there seemed to be no point.
I had that experience too, Emma. Once the man was there, the behaviors started to kick in. Femininity does not exist in a vacuum? It is inspired by masculinity? Masculinity is inspired by femininity?
Masculinity is inspired by femininity?
At least in part. A feminine woman draws out my masculinity. But I think maybe masculinity stands on it own more and just being alone seems to draw one, even women apparently, more into masculine mode. Which makes sense as a survival mechanism.
Hmmm. So unless there is a man to inspire a woman to be feminine, she will incline to the masculine in order to survive.
Emma and Kate,
I have to agree. I tend to the much more masculine and have been wondering for some time about women being feminine for themselves. It doesn’t compute in the same way that men should be masculine for their own sake.
@Stingray – I don’t know what happened after I posted my comment, as I didn’t see any of the follow-up comments after my initial post, and when I popped in here after getting an e-mail from another of your posts – “wow”! Lots of good stuff in here.
I could see a difference in my Mom even during the short time she was there, although I’m not sure how to describe it other than as a change for the better. With time and some more observation I’m confident I’ll be able to get clarity…
@Phedre –
Why do we would engage in behaviour that we WANT stopped? … And such a huge load off when your man nips it in the bud.
I think you nailed it without know you did – you’re looking for assurance that you’re free to safely be yourself, and these fitness tests are part of getting that assurance.
We’re all sinners, and we all – consciously or not – know we’re bound to get ourselves into serious trouble if we’re left to our own devices. I submit fitness testing is a “safe” way to be (re)assured that there’s someone out there who’ll pull back on our reigns and “Whoa Nellie!” when we need it. This in turn means you don’t have to worry about running amuck in other matters and landing yourself in real trouble.
So, would you agree that the knowledge that there’s someone looking out for you who’ll keep you safe and out of trouble one of the best ways a man can “free” his woman to be all she was meant to be?
A Northern Observer,
I’m not sure if this is what you meant or not, but I see it like this:
A woman fitness tests to ascertain the strength of the man’s boundaries. How well does he defend the perimeter?
If not well, then she cannot rely on him for safety and must therefore guard herself – so she retains or even amps up her masculinity.
If he defends it well, then she does not need to worry about her own defence and can focus on feminine development.
The reason then that a successfully passed fitness test can make a woman so elated is that it is a literal, in-the-moment confirmation of her freedom to become her highest self. We *can* defend our own perimeter, and pretty well at that, but it leaves us unable to fully realise our nature.
I think in a certain sense, when men in the past have described women as ‘lesser’ it amounts to this, that a man’s masculine nature is freestanding, whereas a woman’s feminine nature can only reach its full development under a man.
A Northern Observer,
I would really like to hear about the change you see in your Mom and clarity comes.
@Phedre
To me, it sounds like we’re writing about the same thing, only differently.
You mention “defending the perimeter”, and while I think I have an idea what you’re referring to, I’d still ask the next question – namely the definition of “perimeter” and “what is it he’s defending from”?
(I’m not trying to be difficult here – part of what I do is parse meanings for a living, and reasonably clear definitions is an absolute must.)
This is why I wrote speculating that fitness testing is about a woman being protected from herself. To use your terms, the perimeter being defended could be either the outside world, or the woman from certain aspects of her own nature.
To continue the speculation, if a woman’s feminine nature can only develop under the protection of a man, the next question is – why? What is it about “femininity” that it requires a protective, freestanding “covering” from a man before it’s flower can open up and blossom?
Q: Is it because it’s like a delicate flower that can be easily damaged? For example, being nurturing and caring requires lowering one’s defenses, which in turn leaves the person open to attack and injury.
Q: Is it that there are certain aspects to it that are potentially “dangerous” or “damaging” and need to be “shushed” back where they came from when they appear? Take for instance women saying they want a “nice” guy, and “just be yourself”, and then they proceed to nuclear reject or LJBF them.
Could there be other reasons? Or a mix of these reasons? Curious minds want to know!
@Stingray – thanks for your interest.
I’ll be sure to update here as things progress.
I think the perimeter is between the home (or, historically, the community) and the outside world. The things that need to be protected are any persons, possessions, or ‘cultural’ constructs that are a part of this home/community.
I think you can look at it two ways though,
a- there is no inherent danger or badness to women or femininity, and the negative and damaging behaviours we observe in women stem from the masculinised state. Therefore, surrounding women with a strong masculine support wall will enable them to set aside incongruent masculine features and develop feminine ones.
b- negative behaviours in women are in fact manifestations of an unbridled feminine state (‘the feminine imperative’ or some such thing) and male-imposed strictures simply put the brakes on this.
I know the latter view is the common one in the manosphere, and I am willing to entertain it as true (and have prior to this), but the former feels closer to reality to me. It also accords with the fact that seemingly all of us women here felt somewhat masculine pre-man, and only really flourished in our femininity in the presence of a man.
“This is why I wrote speculating that fitness testing is about a woman being protected from herself.”
I never thought it that way despite how much I write about men protecting women from themselves and women enjoying that. Despite that I see this as a key part of the dynamic between men and women I never saw that it was part of the fitness test as I always thought of fitness testing as about knowing he was strong enough to protect her from what is outside. But it is both.
I`ve found that the stuff that women say almost always have dual or triple or quadruple meanings. When women say what they want in men it is worded so most men will hear give me more beta but if you see it from the right perspective there is a clue in there in what she says that also points towards alpha and what you do need to do. But it is more like a hint.
“If he defends it well, then she does not need to worry about her own defence and can focus on feminine development.
The reason then that a successfully passed fitness test can make a woman so elated is that it is a literal, in-the-moment confirmation of her freedom to become her highest self. We *can* defend our own perimeter, and pretty well at that, but it leaves us unable to fully realise our nature.
I think in a certain sense, when men in the past have described women as ‘lesser’ it amounts to this, that a man’s masculine nature is freestanding, whereas a woman’s feminine nature can only reach its full development under a man.”
Pure gold! I`m going to memorize this. The way you put it in the moment confirmation to become her, and I underline, highest self, is a very important point to grasp. It is a key perspective. These are the kind of words we need to get people from the shock of an initial red pill understanding over to realizing the beauty and immense value of these truths. The blue pill might seem more high and worthy but it`s really just a form of comfortable sedateness. The core lower level to the red pill IS harsh, raw and primal but the “higher” levels of it are not.
I`ve thought that when men before described women as lesser it was mainly about seeing her as lesser for certain tasks. Lesser in her ability to fulfill the masculine task. Usually, or at least often, I think the talk of women’s lesser nature was combined with talk of her higher nature and worthiness.
Lately I`ve come to the conclusion that I don`t really respect women in the sense that I thought I did before. I used to think that I respected the intelligence and competence of women in the same way as men because women did seem to do as good a job of most stuff as we did. To some extent I still see it that way. But there is a certain deep respect that is in fact lacking. Even amongst that are in fact strong and “independent” there lacks the deeper form of independence that a man CAN have and that many men have to potential for. Even those women who do stand very strongly in the face of social pressure tend to really want to win everyone over eventually. They don`t have the actually independent mindset of TRULY not caring what other people think and just wanting to create their own world. They don`t really enjoy pissing everyone of the way some men do. These women are really strong but they are strong enough to tolerate their own initial discomfort at the pressure which is not the same as being virtually immune to it. So will I can respect them a lot in many ways for competence and strength I don`t give them the ultimate respect I could give to some men.
A lot of it also boils down to wether you want to adapt to the fast at hand or adapt the job to your comfort. I`m seeing this everywhere now. Women see the job as about them not about the task of the job. They want to make the job fit their needs for comfort and enjoyment. This I have zero respect for. What gives respect among men is being able to tolerate the hardship of a task creating a comfortable existence for yourself where you don`t need to endure hardship. So in this sense I just can`t respect women in the same way I can respect men.
But this is just about respect in a masculine hierarchy concerned with masculine virtues. Women can do well in this but not in the fundamental sense. The lack of respect is not about not respecting women per se it is just about not respecting their masculinity. The lack of respect for women’s masculinity go together with an adoration for their femininity and a respect for the powers of their femininity which in an ultimate long term sense is more powerful than masculinity. So the positive feelings towards women will still be there and can be very strong there just won`t a fundamental masculine respect for women.
My guess would be that many writers from the past went over board with this. The fear men have of women running wild and of having women exert their tremendous power over them has probably lead to fear based exaggerations and animosity creeping in to their writings.
I highly recommend going to this site and looking through the first two issues and read the interviews with Warren Farrell. I`ve been reading them now and the man is utterly brilliant. That he saw all this in the freaking 80s is remarkable.
http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/issue/archive
The journal is the first journal of what has been termed the new male studies which is supposed to be an alternative to the bull shit gender studies masculinity studies. It is very red pill.
I just had a sudden brainwave:
I was reading some studies the other day that showed that when men engage in masculine behaviours – competing, winning, etc – their testosterone levels go up. One study mentioned that the same effect was observed in women, only on a much smaller scale, since a woman’s T levels are a fraction those of a man. Since the study was only interested in male levels this was only mentioned in passing, but I think it’s very relevant to what we’re talking about here, as well as a number of common manosphere observations.
If a woman is living alone she is forced to deal with more conflict in her day-to-day life than if she has a man to help take care of things. If a woman is working, especially trying to climb the corporate ladder, she is dealing with a lot of conflict and competition. If a woman is constantly trying to control her man and argue with him, she is generating competition and conflict.
Maybe as a society we’ve simply created a self-perpetuating cycle by allowing or forcing women to live and behave in ways that raise their T levels and thereby bring out masculine behavioural traits – which in turn leads to more conflict and a sustained raised T level.
On the flip side of that, does behaving in a feminine way raise estrogen or some other female-primary hormone? And is this also a self-perpetuating loop? And, could this mean that the general unfemininity of today’s women is a contributor to women’s growing fertility problems?
Wow, great insights and questions, Phedre. We’ll become extinct eventually if women evolve into men! This becomes a matter of survival of the species.
Pingback: Commenters Thoughts on Fitness Tests and Respect for Women | On the Rock