Skip to comments.Winning the war against men, Part 2
Posted on 07/12/2010 11:15:41 AM PDT by Christian Cage
In every large-scale military conflict, there is the macro war and the micro war. While the macro war fought strategically by the generals has a great influence on the micro war fought tactically by the individual soldiers, the two wars are nevertheless distinct from one another and must be contemplated separately. In this second column in the series related to the war against men, I am focused solely on the micro war that is fought in the houses, classrooms, churches and night clubs of America.
In the prelude to a battle, the local commander always considers four things. His resources, the enemy's resources, the lay of the land and the objective. Now, every male individual's objective will naturally be different: One man may hope to meet a large number of attractive women, another man might wish to marry a specific woman and a third might wish to escape a hellish marriage without spending the rest of his life in court-dictated financial servitude. But regardless of the objective, the same general rules about the lay of the land and the relative value table will apply.
It is generally understood that in conventional warfare, a three-to-one advantage is required for the attacker to be able to expect success in assaulting a defensive position. In like manner, a two-point difference in the level of attractiveness generally dictates which of the two parties is in control of the situation, or in the terminology of the statistics-oriented Casanovas who have brought Billy Beane's "moneyball" approach to the world of intersexual interaction, possesses "Hand."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
” ... the general supplicating and anti-male attitude the President gives off.”
I think you’ve misjudged. I think this President, really, really likes men. In a way that perhaps no other President of the US has liked men.
This is why fewer and fewer men are getting married. My advice to non-Christian men, for over 15 years, has been to not marry. The risk is way too high and a non-Christian woman (or man) has nothing greater than themself motivating them to keep the commitment when the going gets tough (and we all know that it will).
Part one was men getting raped by the courts. Part two is a new generation of men avoiding the whole thing. The smart ones, anyway.
Again, this is strictly for non-Christians. As a Christian, I committed my life to my wife and put my faith in God first and her second. It has proven to be a very wise decision.
I’m divorced and I (wrongly) believed my ex was a committed Christian woman. I disagree with the author on many things, but his fifth rule, “Remember that a woman’s words are not meant to be taken at face value”, is absolutely true. About all women at all times. Women are ruled by their hormones and feelings. Even if they want to be honest they can’t, because their honesty is chained to their feelings.
My ex (of 20 years) is similar to yours. I made this discovery: Did you ever wonder why there are women in church with “unsaved spouses” while there are very few men in church with “unsaved spouses”? I think it is because if the woman is a Christian, but the man is not, the woman will go to church and even take the kids, while he will stay at home and watch football, mow the lawn, etc.
However, if the man is saved but the woman is not, she will likely still go to church with him and the kids. I think there are a lot of non-saved people that go to church, but I suspect more of them are female than male. For women it is an effect of the gene that searches out security and being a part of something bigger than yourself. Men tend to value freedom more, and it is demonstrated in this when they are not believers but their wives are.
Then again, I may be over-thinking it. ;)
On a recent trip to the DC Mall, I observed tons of young women dressed for hunting bear. They were displaying their wares in a manner I have missed for a long time.
They were wearing dresses..... not jeans or shorts or other such, but feminine looking short transparent clingy dresses. Some change is definitely afoot. It looked to me like they were touting their femininity to attract a guy.
“a third might wish to escape a hellish marriage without spending the rest of his life in court-dictated financial servitude. “
Gee, that’s quite an attitude we have, there.
“About all women at all times.”
This is true of all people. No one has never lied.
I am sorry your ex wife took you for a ride, but for every woman who does that I could point out a woman who has stuck by her man under the most adverse of circumstances.
I have known some true heroines. As well as heroes.
I don't know if she planned it that way, but I do know that she violated every oath she ever made to me or God. I see this with the women I work with as well. They are ruled by their feelings and make business decisions based on how they feel that moment.
I think women are essential for a complete life, and the positive attributes they add to this world is incalculable. I just won't ever believe one completely again. Even if they believe they are being honest at the time, their feelings will change and so will their truth. The can't help or avoid that.
I disagree. My wife, like myself, is brutally honest. This has saved our marriage more than once. I waited a long time to find her. It was worth the wait, however it has been hard on the ego at times, which is not a bad thing.
I have not had that experience. I’m glad you did.
Calling both of these institutions "marriage" leads to confusion. I would recommend to all the former (let's call it "Biblical marriage") but I would only advise women whom I love to avail themselves of the latter (let's call that "secular marriage").
I would add that the divorce courts are very much geared toward women, so men should avoid secular marriage at nearly all costs. If they do go that route, then definitely get a prenuptial agreement - but keep in mind that feminists on the bench in divorce court will disregard it if necessary to achieve the pro-woman result.
There's absolutely no reason for a man to enter into a secular marriage. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
“I have not had that experience. Im glad you did.”
I’ll give you a couple of anecdotes that may encourage you, I hope.
Anne was married to a “Christian” man who was very bright, but gradually and apparently losing his mind. She submitted to him in Christ for years. He did not believe in birth control so she had one baby after another, patiently and lovingly caring for each. He gradually became so mental he became sort of incapable of work. Convinced that Y2K was going to wipe out debt, he had them all live on charge cards and tramped her cross country to one fad after another. She did not complain. She did all she was asked. Y2K came and went; bankruptcy ensued. Caring for all those kids and looking ridiculously beautiful every day, she worked and waited and prayed. He got a job here for two days, here for a week. They lost all housing and then their car went kaput. A family friend finally gave them a car. He’d wake her in the middle of the night with his latest rant when she got almost no sleep. He started taking off for days, leaving her and the kids in a mobile home occupied by his actively diagnosed schizophrenic friend, who hated the kids and was extremely weird. She’d often go camp in the summer just to live in a campground for a few days to live more safely. She had seven kids by now! She went to church, she fed and bathed the kids somehow, she home schooled them, she did not complain.
I NEVER HEARD HER COMPLAIN. She was faithful.
Eventually he disappeared completely. The church took her into its Fellowship Hall and the pastor’s wife cared for the kids while she found a full time job. Only after a couple of years did she get divorced. In absentia, because the lunatic could not be found.
From the male side, I know a theologian whose wife went batty. She stays in her room most of the time, refusing medication, refusing help. He raises their four kids with no apparent bitterness. He tries various attempts with his wife at various times. She disappears sometimes, then reappears. He’s had various professionals in. She won’t meet with them, or she will for a bit then she refuses. She simply lives as a hermit in their home, ranting occasionally, accusing him of various things, screwing up the kids big time.
He doesn’t cheat. He doesn’t leave her. He prays for her. He provides for her. He fulfills as best he can the role of dad and mom.
Both of these people, and several others I have known over the years, put me to shame and inspire me to overcome the evil in my life.
Interesting thing is that both our ex’s probably think they were absolutely justified. Reminds me of the prison scene in Chicago where the one woman in for murdering her husband said he wouldn’t stop snapping his gum and “you’d have done the same” had it been you instead of her.
All people justify their actions, even when committing suicide or murder.
I think this judgment is a false generalization about women's nature. I have certainly seen unreasonable, emotionally hyped-up women, but this fault is not universal across womankind.
It's possible that taking your own painful experience and expanding it gratuitously to apply to "all women in general" may be an emotional backlash on your part.
An emotion-driven woman is a shrieking monster. True. But that's also true of an emotion-driven man (usually at a lower, more bellowing vocal pitch.)
We’re on the same page. I think one is marriage and the other is legal union. And the latter can also be defined as legally defined serial monogamy.
And when one enters into the latter with that understanding, prnupts may become more of a significant thing. Frankly, it is very much a legal version of “making an honest woman out of her”. There is nothing spiritual there, by definition.
FWIW, for tax reasons my wife and I seriously considered getting married, but never involving the state in it. That is, legally we would still be single people cohabitating. We both take the spiritual commitment VERY seriously, however.
“I disagree. My wife, like myself, is brutally honest. This has saved our marriage more than once. I waited a long time to find her. It was worth the wait, however it has been hard on the ego at times, which is not a bad thing.”
Ditto - I always and publicly give my wife credit for forcing me to actually talk about things we don’t agree on. My best friend in the world, she’s 7 years younger than I am but was born 40 years old...
Perhaps not so much because they want one, but because the attention feels good.
They are very unusual...as your post illustrates.
I think the way women perceive things is chained to their emotions, some more some less, but all to some degree.
So while I wouldn't have worded it that way, I guess we get to the same place.
I suspect all shrieking women are emotional monsters, sure. But at least they're being honest about it.
It's the quiet ones who are emotionally driven that are dangerous for men.
It has nothing to do with volume.
I wonder if, for example, the Catholic Church would marry two people under Canon Law without a state-issued marriage license. I mean, it seems to me that the secular institution stands in so many ways athwart the Catholic understanding of marriage that one would think that the Church would prefer to avoid any association with that institution in the public mind. I think that other Christian denominations might feel this way. If memory serves, the great R.J. Rushdoony (my favorite Protestant theologian) had something to say about this.
I’m not Catholic, but I checked into getting married without a marriage license. Apparently it is illegal for a priest/minister/etc. to do so.
(Eeek. Many a story will start out that way...)
Ah, skip the story. Let me just agree that quiet, emotion-driven women are dangerous for men. But I maintain that the same kind of man, is dangerous for women.
How's this: women are arguably both more emotional and more aware of their emotions, and so in a better position over the years to face, understand and develop deliberate strategies of self-control or self-management (because there's no option of ignoring female feelings, they're right out there like a rash on the face.)
Whereas men are slower to access their emotions, and likely slower to acknowledge, understand, or try to remedy them. (Because they carry them inside, like a deep inflammation they don't even know is there.)
In truth, I am not so very confident about my generlizations, since right away I start thinking of exceptions! And the people I know and like best, male and female, are "working on themselves," trying to do better on handling this stuff day by day.
So on that note, wishing you a good day, I bow and exit.
As far as all women, they are more emotionally driven than men, and this is a problem in business. I've worked under women who have the power to affect people's lives, and make those decisions based on emotion. It's an unstable way to run a business. The fact that many men now operate the same way is attributed to the feminization of our country. We are poorer for it.
They might in the future. They may only agree to marry people who wouldn’t get married by the state.