Domestic Violence of the Ignored Variety

JMWDomestic Violence.  The phrase implies a villain.

Whom might that villain be?

Not women.  Never women.

Men are the relationship abusers.  In fact, not only are they the abusers.  Everything that isn’t right and that goes wrong in relationships is their fault.

This isn’t true, of course—not even close.  Yet, one can’t deny the abuse of women at the hands of men.  It’s true; men can be and have been abusive towards women.

But one doesn’t have to deny the abuse of men at the hands of women, because it’s never really been proposed.  Something must be proposed to necessitate denial.

Who admits to lying without being first called a liar?

No one.  Denial and defense aren’t required.

So, that’s what we’re officially doing here:  proposing it—“it” being the relational abuse of men at the hands of women.

And to this proposition is to be applied good ol’ Rule Number One, which is:  the accuser is almost always guilty of doing the very thing of which they accuse.

In other words, it’s the accuser, not the accused, who deserves some serious side-eye, which is particularly true in this case.

So then, as to this domestic abuse, how bad is it for men?

Well, open up a newspaper, turn on the television, or surf the internet.  The evidence is certainly out there to support the abuse of men at the hands of women.  Again, it’s just that no one makes the men are victims of domestic violence proposition.  Hence, women aren’t then implied in the “domestic violence” phrase, and don’t have to deny the accusation for not being charged.

See how it works?  It’s a wonderful arrangement, is it not?

Nevertheless, our question:  how bad is the abuse for men?

Let’s begin with this above-the-fold headline from my local paper:  Domestic Violence Victims Are Not Alone.*

“In Indiana last year,” the article began, “63,671 Hoosiers called domestic violence crisis lines, 10,531 women and children were housed in the domestic violence shelters, and 67 people died from an act of domestic violence in our state.”

It was Domestic Violence Awareness Month.  The article was raising awareness.

“The roots of domestic violence run deep, cutting across social, economic, religious, and cultural boundaries,” the article noted.  “Too many Hoosiers are being victimized and many of them are suffering silently.  We must spread the word that help is available, and empower victims to end the cycle of abuse.”

Let’s cut to the chase:  the article mentioned women and children were being housed in domestic violence shelters, and that 67 non-descript “people” died from domestic violence.  Also, that Hoosiers in general were suffering in silence.

So what’s missing?

Men.  There was not one mention of them or male victimhood in the entire piece—not one.

Why was there no mention?

Because men are the ones committing all the domestic violence.  That men are the reason for Domestic Violence Awareness Month is implied.

Be that as it most certainly is, the following from the article is what should be the most troubling for men:  “Domestic violence is usually thought of as physical abuse, but it can also be financial, emotional, and sexual abuse.”

So, we have moved beyond defining domestic violence by mere physical violence and subsequent abuse.  Included now in the domestic violence line-up are financial, emotional, and sexual abuse.

Why, that’s quite the range of abuses.  Cruelties that offer quite the range for subjective definition, too.

In other words, how do we define domestic violence of the financial, emotional, and sexual varieties exactly?

Perhaps this way:

If for affordability men say “no” to a particular vacation destination, or “no” to brand name items in favor of generic items.  The decision can be classified as domestic violence of the financial abuse variety.

If men make their women cry or angry either one.  If men generally upset women with their practical, hardline recommendations.  Then that can be classified as domestic violence of the emotional abuse variety.

And if men complain about how much sex they aren’t getting.  If they put too much pressure on women to fulfill their sexual obligation to the relationship.  Then that can be classified as domestic violence of the sexual abuse variety.

“No” means “No,” gentlemen.  And it’s a standing “No,” too.

And in fact, what does nearly every woman say about their defunct relationships?  They say they endured every sort of abuse—physical, verbal, emotional, financial—at the hands of awful men, of course.

Abuse—the contemporary and universal female excuse for failed relationships.

Women would scoff at the previous abuse classifications, would say they are silly, and blown way out of proportion.  Of course, women can scoff because they don’t have to live with the domestic violence stigmata.

See how it works?  It’s a wonderful arrangement, is it not?

Women certainly commit domestic violence and abuse, however.  They just get to high-heel their way past the stigmata:

Why, lil’-o-vulnerable me?  Commit the heinous acts of domestic violence?  Why I neva’!  That is so ungentlemanly of you to suggest such a thing.  Whack!  You quite deserve that slap across yoah face!  Whack!  And there’s anutha!

What.  Women don’t commit domestic violence?

Please.  Eye-rolling so hard, I just sprained my eyes.

The Center for Disease and Control (CDC), a federal agency under the United States Department of Health and Human Services, released data from its 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.

A few highlights for non-believers, and notice the italics:

  • By the study’s definition of physical violence—including slapping, pushing, and shoving—roughly 5,365,000 men had been victims of intimate partner physical violence in the previous 12 months, compared with 4,741,000 women.
  • More severe threats like being beaten, burned, choked, kicked, slammed with a heavy object, or hit with a fist were also tracked. Roughly 40 percent of the victims of severe physical violence were men.
  • The CDC repeated the survey in 2011, publishing the results in 2014. The numbers were almost identical, with the percentage of male severe physical violence victims slightly rising.

Commenting on this apparent revelation of female abusiveness was Karla Ivankovich, PhD, an adjunct professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, Springfield.

Ivankovich acknowledged the decline in women reporting abuse, and the increase in men, but admitted there wasn’t much buzz about the changing statistics or the implications because, simply, nobody knows how to handle intimate partner violence against men.

“Society supports that men should not hit women,” she said, “but the same is not true for the reverse.”

Along with not knowing “how to handle intimate partner violence against men,” Ivankovich’s comment is interesting.  Considering the line in the newspaper article stated clearly, “Our message to victims is simple:  You are not alone, and help is available.”

Oh really.  We don’t know “how to handle intimate partner violence against men,” and society doesn’t support that women not hit men.  Yet men “aren’t alone” and “help is available” for them?

I think men are indeed alone, and I think there is no help at all available for them.

That’s what I think.

Actually, men need to just, shut-up and play the villain, so as this problem of not knowing “how to handle intimate partner violence against men” goes away.

That’s what men need to do—crybabies, momma’s boys.

Nevertheless, men should not commit domestic violence against women, right?  So, shouldn’t the same standard apply to women?  Why doesn’t society support men as it does women?

A retired professor of family law, Anne P. Mitchell, has the answer.  She said that woman-on-man violence is often turned into onscreen amusement, such as on a slew of reality shows.

In other words, whatever abuse women dole-out to men is fun and entertainment—good fun and entertainment, in fact.  Because of course, those abusive bastards deserve it.

Being a retired professor of family law, and one of the first fathers’-rights lawyers in the country, this isn’t how Mitchell sees it.  She believes domestic violence towards men is neither fun nor entertainment, and that men no more deserve abuse of any kind than women.

Mitchell mentioned the Lorena Bobbitt incident, Bobbitt having cut off her husband’s penis, and having been acquitted by reason of temporary insanity.

Mitchell pointed out, “If something remotely similar had happened to a woman, there would have been a very different response.”

And men can bet their penis on that!

Nevertheless, the one-way street view of domestic violence of the physical variety can be laid to rest.  It is indeed a two-way street.  The so-called experts may not know handle “intimate partner violence of the physical variety” toward men.  But there is no doubt intimate partner violence of the physical variety is being performed on men!

Yet, unlike women, men have to endure intimate partner violence of the physical variety until the so-called experts figure out how to handle it.

Well, the experts need to get on the stick, because it isn’t just intimate partner violence of the physical variety being performed on men.

In another article, a woman explained how ground beef inspired an awakening to the fact she was emotionally abusing her husband.

The wife had asked her husband to pick-up some dinner items from the grocery store on his way home, one of those items being the infamous ground beef.  She began pulling the items from the grocery bag after he arrived, only to learn he’d purchased 70/30 ground beef—which means 70% lean and 30% fat—instead of the 80/20 she preferred.

Displeased with the 10% crisis in leanness, a displeasure I’m sure most rational people can understand, eh-hm, she launched into him.

The wife berated the husband for not being smarter, for not reading the labels, and for not being trustworthy.  She yelled at, criticized, and demeaned him in such a way that, having been the recipient of the same treatment herself, would have prompted a call to the domestic abuse hotline.

To the attacks and to the demeaning disrespect, the husband responded as most modern men have learned to respond:  “I never noticed.  I really don’t think it’s that big of a deal.”  And, “I’ll get it right next time.”

His affability was of no benefit, however.  To his abuser, it was like blood in the water.

Of course, this wasn’t the first time the wife had scolded him.  Admittedly, she had done it for years.  It is why domestic violence of the emotional variety came so natural and easy to her.

“I scolded him for not doing something the way I thought it should be done,” she admitted.  “He was always putting something away in the wrong place, or leaving something out, or neglecting to do something altogether.  And I was always right there to point it out to him.”

Let’s reverse this situation.  Imagine if women were being treated this way.

Hmm.  Seems vaguely familiar, like we have already been there.

Why yes, of course!  We have been here!

These sorts of things happening to women is why we have Domestic Abuse Awareness Month and the Domestic Violence Hotline.

It appears we are back at square one.  Only, with a different victim this time.

The self-described “hamburger meat moment” was this woman’s wake-up call to the fact she was abusing her husband emotionally.  It was a reckoning that, I’m sure, came too many abusive and misery-filled years late for one guy:

Glad you saw the light, honey.  It’s been terrific living with you all these years.

The wife seemed genuinely embarrassed and remorseful, and she made one comment that stood out.

She said, “Too many women have fallen into the belief that Wife Always Knows Best. There’s even a phrase to reinforce it: ‘Happy wife, happy life.’”

Then she added this, “That doesn’t leave a lot of room for his opinions, does it?”

Nope.  It does not.

And women wonder why their men end-up banging other chics—other women who merely listen to them, appreciate them, value them, respect them, and who actually pursue them.  Well, initially, at least.  Long enough to bang the newness off, anyway.

The newness banged off, they’re ranting about hamburger meat, and are themselves abusing men, too.

Unlike this poor guy who had become “resigned” and “demoralized,” I’m not one to sit around for years waiting on an abusive woman to see the light.  When she began pointing out my faults and abusing me, she’d have gotten a rather curt “Screw you” of the profane variety.

Upon which, the question would surely be:  how could you be so, abusive?

Well, let’s make a comparison.

Issuing a curt “Screw you” of the profane variety would be deemed both verbal and emotional abuse.  Curtly issued, it would draw gasps and incredulous expressions, and would incite accusations and threats.  It may even prompt an EPO (Emergency Protection Order), followed by mandated anger management courses.

And of course it would not matter to women, or even register, that their never-ending and demeaning criticism prompted the well-deserved “Screw you” of the profane variety.

“Screw you” in the profane is disrespectful, intolerable, and will not stand.

Yet, when it comes to years and decades of berating men over hamburger meat, and for not doing things in the ways women think they should be done, and for putting something away in the wrong place, or leaving something out, or neglecting to do something altogether.

Well, that’s just an emotional tendency of women that, for their undying love and reverence for the female condition, men are supposed to understand, supposed to find endearing, and are supposed to tolerate until women finally see themselves as abusive.

Well, screw that, I say.  It clearly takes too long for women to recognize—if they ever do!—their abusiveness, which clearly isn’t just emotional abuse.  It is also provably physical.  And considering women conceal their spending habits from men, and get monetary favor in the divorce, they are financially abusing men, too.

It’s all domestic violence of the ignored variety.

Men aren’t going to complain about abuse in whatever form, at least not publicly, because they look weak and unmanly.  So what do they do instead?

They put-up with the abuse, and deal with it.

Women aren’t worried about looking weak.  In fact, they can complain about abuse and become strong, courageous heroes.  Thus, they can dish-out all the abuse they want and be justified.

Women are perpetual victims, heroic survivors insulated from the villainous implications in the phrase Domestic Violence.

So, what is the end-game in this gender war, and with this domestic violence and abuse business?

It’s to permanently dethrone and subordinate men.

And what do men think will ultimately happen?  A state of gender equality will finally be reached that will make women content?

That’s not going to happen.  In fact, it’s never what happens.

Whatever the disputed issue, one party continues conceding and giving up ground, until the other party takes over.  That’s exactly what happens—exactly what will happen.  So the war is not going to end.

Totally domination of men—that’s the endgame in this gender war.  And if one thinks it isn’t the endgame, look at racism.  Racism will never be put to rest until blacks or Hispanics or whichever minority has complete power and is dictating everything.  No matter how much ground is gained, it will never be enough.  There will always be a little more racism to eradicate.  Hence, the fight must continue.

The gender war is no different.  It will never be put to rest until women have complete power and are dictating everything.  And in that war, the claim of domestic violence and abuse is a tool.  Both fairly and unjustly, women level the various abuse charges at will—and the charges stick.  Or, they work.

And the charges aren’t inconsequential anymore.  They have teeth—life-altering teeth.

Thus, women are playing with a stacked deck, relationally speaking.  Being clearly immune to charges of abuse themselves, women can behave however they wish, can be as abusive as they want, and for as long as they want.

Men, on the other hand—if they get out of line in the slightest degree—which should be interpreted:  if men don’t behave like women command they behave—then women can really do a legal number on them.

And for this modern reality, I’m asked, “What are men supposed to do?”

Here’s my answer:  Leave!

Forget the misery and aggravation of female domestic violence.  Forget anger management courses and mediation.  Those things are small potatoes.  We’re talking genuine danger for men.  We’re talking career-ending accusations and real, personal legal jeopardy.

It’s a new ballgame, gentlemen.  One in which virtually everyone believes in men’s abusive guilt, and one in which nobody bothers with the truth behind allegations or due process either one.

And then, men get hammered legally.  Severely hammered.

Former NFL running back, Ray Rice, by all accounts, was a wonderful human being.  That is, until his fiancée provoked him in an Atlantic City hotel.  They had been drinking, and were arguing.  After entering the hotel elevator, Rice decked her.

Did anyone care about her contribution to the incident?

No.

And where is Ray Rice?

Well, he’s here.  Er, nowhere.

He’s a pariah with no profession.

Should Rice have struck his fiancée?

No.

Rice should have grabbed his bags, and left; Rice would still be playing football in the NFL.  And his fiancée would have been an ex-fiancée, a woman dreaming about the luxurious future she once had within grasp.

The point is, this domestic violence and abuse business is nothing to play around with any longer.   It’s a genuine danger for men—with real teeth.  It’s a tool with which to control and to punish men, and both an accusation and a stigmata with which women don’t have to concern themselves whatsoever.

So, forget the houses and finances.  Forget love.  Forget the kids.  Forget all the things that keep men in relationships and enduring the abuse everyone ignores.  When the abuse starts, grab the bags.

Otherwise, it’s a whole lotta’ one-sided trouble.

Trouble of the singularly and extraordinarily punitive variety.

©JMW 2018

*Clarion News Opinion, Laura Berry and Greg Zoeller, Oct.28, 2015 ed.

JMWs latest book:  New Rules: Relationship Logic for the Darkside

 

The Masculine Principle

FWC Author Pictures 014Neither the need nor the desire for masculinity is dead.  Given the attack on men and the feminization of the culture, however, men might not get that impression from women.  Yet, both the need and desire for masculinity are very much alive, and provably so.

Proving it—that’s exactly what we are going to do.

Exhibit A: 

My friend Marlon is a young, beautiful, modern woman.  I add modern because she is of an era that appears not so fond of masculinity.  Meaning, Marlon isn’t so fond masculinity, presumably.

Only, such presumptions would be wrong.  Marlon knows exactly what she wants in a man.

Next to a flattering, full-body selfie, in which she was the essence of female perfection, Marlon said, “Of course I am not worried about intimidating men. The type of man who will be intimidated by me is exactly the type of man I have no interest in.”

Bravo!

So what kind of man does Marlon want?

She wants the kind every woman wants:  Don Draper.

Women could do without the Draper philandering, of course.  Still, they like the Draper confidence and control.  They like the daring.  They like the toughness.  They like men who won’t be kept on a leash.  They like men who won’t tolerate excessive drama, and who won’t be trifled with, and who’ll get dead in their ass when necessary and required.

Basically, women want men that won’t be pushed around, and who are willing the cut them loose.  Such men are attractive, titillating, and challenging.  They engender desire.  And more importantly, respect.

In other words, women want men to be masculine.  The same as men want women to be feminine.

It’s simple, really.  Men don’t want women acting like butchy lesbians pretending to be men.  Men want women to be feminine and genteel and vulnerable.  Men want the coquettish glances, and shy grins of excitement and approval.  Men like lace and soft scents and smooth skin.  They want demure women, women of self-respect and class.

Likewise, women don’t want men to act like emasculate wusses.  Women like confidence and decisiveness.  They want men to be somewhat unpredictable, dangerous, and exciting.  They want men to be tough, determined, self-assured, and unflappable.  They want men to be direct, honest, principled, and fair.  It all represents security to women.

These are human principles—fundamental, longstanding, unchanging.  And when women roll their eyes at all this.  When they laugh condescendingly, and say, “Ha!  You don’t know women at all!”  They’re all lying through the teeth.

So, ignore them.  Dismiss them.

Because it’s all true.  And they know it’s true.

In fact, leave those cackling broads and go find a woman who knows what’s up, and whose unafraid admit what she wants and to be herself—her real self.  That’s the one you want, gentlemen.

Cackling posers only bring men misery.

In the feminist era, women deny what they truly want from men because it makes women appear weak and vulnerable and incapable, and because it makes them unequal.  Mainly, women deny what they truly want from men because it casts them in a subordinate role, which is a role they actually prefer, incidentally, but is yet an appearance they must avoid as a matter of image.

Politics.  They make a nightmare of a wet dream.

So women deny what they truly desire, and thus deny themselves.  By doing that, they then lie to themselves, and lie to men.  And all to cater to their need for security and to a feminist image, which leaves men not only confused, but trying in vain to figure out what women want.

Thus, the point:  men need to stop trying to figure out what women want.

Do they want masculine men, sensitive men?  Should I become this, or that?

 The indecisiveness is precisely what makes men feminine, and thus unattractive to women.

Women need to be worried about what men want, not the other way around.

Besides, I just told you what women want.  So did Marlon—and she’s hot.

Women want masculine men—bad-boys if you will.  Be that.  Be yourself, and whatever form of masculinity that takes.

Despite their wet dream ruining politics, masculinity is the counterbalance to femininity that women both desire and need—still.

Exhibit B: 

Famously-moustached host, John Stossel, of the ABC television network’s news magazine, 20/20, explored the issue of masculinity in a roundabout way.  He wanted to know if a man’s height mattered to women, if it made men less masculine and attractive.

In an experiment, Stossel arranged several men – both short and tall – in a line-up behind a two-way mirror.  He then asked groups of women to choose a date.

The result?

Women always chose the taller men, and despite the curb-appeal of the shorter men being artificially enhanced.

For example, Stossel made one man, five-foot-three, a doctor.  One was made a best-selling author.  One a champion skier who had just built his own ski house.  And one a wealthy millionaire.

Yet, despite the added curb-appeal, the feminine window-shoppers still deemed the smaller men “too short.”

Asked what it would take for the women to date one of the smaller men, one woman responded brutally, “Maybe the only thing you could say is the others are murderers.”

Murderers—a no-go.  Interesting.  Keep that in mind.

Now.  This is key, is central to the point of masculinity:  during an interview, the women were asked about their preference for taller men.  One woman said flatly, “I just want to look up in those dark-eyes, and feel those strong arms around me.”

And as she delivered the remark, the other women were smiling dreamily and nodding their agreement.

And what does the comment and the collective agreement demonstrate?

It demonstrates that, one, women prefer “looking up” into the eyes of their champion in an implied position of vulnerability and submission.  And two, it demonstrates strength and masculinity have incalculable value in making women feel safe and secure.

 In other words, for all their feminist bluster.  For all their demands for equality.  Women still want to be taken, sheltered, and secured by strong, masculine men.

And there is this uncomfortable and thus unspoken truth:  as matters of vanity and image, women don’t like being seen socially with shorter men—even if those men are prestigious doctors, best-selling authors, champion skiers, or wealthy millionaires.

Why?  Because they must look down upon the dark eyes of their champion, whom they must also stoop down to issue a hug.

It’s a vain miscalculation, certainly.  But it’s nonetheless true.

The point is the women in the experiment were being honest about their vulnerability, and about their desire for strong masculinity to offset that sense of vulnerability.

So, there it is:  more proof.

Women mock other women as being “trophy girlfriends and wives,” and they mock men for both wanting and having “trophy girlfriends and wives.”  Well, women want—tall, dark eyes, strong arms to hold them secure—trophy boyfriends and husbands, too, obviously.

And they want them to be masculine.

Exhibit C:

Writer Benjamin Percy, the epitome of the modern, feminized male, decided to wear a pregnancy, or “empathy,” suit for nine weeks.  The suit, made of thick nylon, sported a fake belly and breasts to simulate pregnancy, which Percy wore over his regular clothes for the nine week duration.

He explained his motive to comedian Steve Harvey, a substitute host on NBCs The Today Show:

Percy:  “The idea behind [the experiment] is that, our grandfathers never even held babies.  Our fathers never changed diapers.  And these days that’s grounds for divorce.  So there’s sort of shifting gender relations going on now in this country.  I’ve got a lot of pals who are stay at home dads.  I’ve got a lot of pals who are really involved with their kid’s lives—coaching and volunteering at schools, and I feel a little inadequate in that regard sometimes.”

 Harvey:  “So you wanted to accomplish what by doin’ this…?”

 Percy:  “To make up for my mouth-breathing, hairy-chested, caveman deficiencies…”

Yes.  It’s beyond embarrassing.

Nevertheless, modern women should appreciate Percy’s sensitive male attempt to relate, shouldn’t they?  They profess that men don’t care about their feelings or what it’s like to be a woman.  So this nine week effort at prenatal empathy should go a long way in improving gender relations, right?

Wrong.

During the interview with Harvey, Percy said he “expected to get a nice pat on the back” from women, but found that “women were fixated on the suit’s inadequacies.”  He was shocked to learn that women wanted him to have heartburn roiling up his throat; and varicose veins rising like garden hoses up his legs; and the every-five-minute urge to pee; and constipation for a week; and that they wanted him to endure being jabbed full of hormone-oozing needles.

In other words, this little feminine exercise of Percy’s was as useless as teats on a boar hog.  Not only were women irritated at the attempt at empathy.  To Percy’s totally unmanly olive branch, they said, “Nice try, wuss.”

Women are clearly unaffected by these kinds of unmanly overreaches, and are incensed and repulsed by men who attempt them.  Why are women incensed and repulsed?

Because it isn’t masculine.

Exhibit D:

Exhibit D is a not-so-flattering contrast with Exhibit C.  It is to begin this way:

In his book Prison Groupies, crime-writer Clifford Linedecker wrote about notorious men finding female favor.  Men like Scott Peterson, for example.

After being convicted of murdering his wife and child, and upon spending little more than an hour on San Quentin’s death-row, the infamous Peterson received his first marriage proposal from a smitten young woman.

Satanist, Richard Ramirez, is another example.  Ramirez went on a home-invasion crime spree that terrorized greater Los Angeles residents.  The diabolical bender included a shockingly brutal string of rapes, murders, and mutilations that, like Peterson, earned Ramirez a seat on San Quentin’s death row, too.

Yet, despite Ramirez’s merciless brutality—toward women, no less.  According to Linedecker, Ramirez “had women falling all over him” and “fighting one another for his attention.”

John Wayne Gacy is yet another example.  He buried 26 of his victims in the crawl space of his home.  Three more were buried elsewhere on his property, while the bodies of his last four known victims were discarded in the Des Plaines River.  Yet, both an unattractive guy and a homosexual, Gacy “had all kinds of women after him.”

Now.  No doubt “normal” and “self-respecting” women would take a dim view of the women pursuing these notorious ne’re-do-wells.  Refined women would call these bad-boy chasers skanks, groupies, sluts, and women of low quality and self-esteem.

Be that as it may, which it surely is, men should consider this:

These raving, convicted and incarcerated lunatics couldn’t have treated women worse.  Yet, they have more female attention than they can manage.  In prison, no less.

Clearly Moody, The Barstool Prophet, has a point:  “No man should underestimate his ability to attract women.”  In attracting women, there is obviously hope for every man—even the worst of men.  As in, say, diabolical murderers and whatnot.

So, contrasting Exhibits D and C, let’s get this straight:  while these lunatic prison outlaws are with women kicking ass and taking names.  The good guys are wearing fake bellies and breasts for nine weeks to empathize with women, and are being viewed as wussies and treated with contempt.

I say again:  it’s beyond embarrassing.

Considering the female success of the notorious, perhaps the good guys should consider adopting a more sinister edge.  Or at least something less, empathetic.

Why?

Because women will find them more masculine, and will more likely fawn over them and fight for their attention.  That’s why.

Like I said, neither the desire nor the need for masculinity are dead.  They’re very much alive. However, in the era of gender competition and equality, it is need and desire modern women feel compelled to conceal.

The problem with masculinity is, one:  it is dominant by nature.  And two, it is refuge.

In other words, in a feminist culture bent on achieving and maintaining equality among the sexes, masculine dominance is a standard which cannot stand.  And given women naturally look to men for refuge and safety, the female desire for masculinity is a reality which cannot be recognized—at least not openly.

Therefore, for women to acknowledge a desire for masculinity is to acknowledge a desire for security, which is to acknowledge masculine dominance, which is to acknowledge at least a level of dependency.  All of which an equality-driven culture frowns upon.

And there you have it:  the problem.

On the hunt for men, women do exactly as men do.  Men notice the overall attractiveness of women, and their gender specific traits—breasts and buns and figures.  Likewise, women notice men’s overall attractiveness, and their gender specific traits—muscular physiques, hairy chests, scruffy beards, and firm buns.  It’s a primal, innate examination.

So, it’s clear:  women desire physical masculinity.  It is only within relationships that women develop sudden reservations with masculinity.

Basically, men use masculinity to attract women, because that’s what women like and want.  Once in a relationship, however, women attempt to temper and redefine masculinity so as to enhance both their feelings of security and their emotional comfort.

In other words, women begin emasculating men for their insecurities, and for their own selfish purposes.

Only, the practice stands in direct opposition to the masculinity women genuinely and actually want and need.  Meanwhile, it supplies men with confounding directives.

And how do men respond?

Instead of being the masculine men they were initially, and that women want and need.  Men allow themselves to be emasculated, and to become caricatures who take to wearing fake bellies and breasts, to then become emasculated imposters women both loathe and disrespect.

It’s an unfortunate sequence of events—for which men are responsible.

Now.  There is one other facet of masculinity that needs to be addressed.  Masculinity is a subjective term.  Meaning ultimately, masculinity can be demonstrated in various ways.

Frankly, I don’t want my social sphere to be dominated by a bunch of alpha males.  I rather appreciate masculine diversity in this respect.  I have male friends and acquaintances who are robustly masculine, and I have others who are less so, and even effeminate.

Naturally, the robustly masculine A-types project strength and traditional manliness, and thus have no problem attracting women.  The others are gentler, less competitive, and aren’t the sorts one would necessarily term:  ladies men.

Yet, they are all decent, strong, masculine men at their core.  For some, their competitive strength and drive and determination make them masculine.  For others it’s their calm demeanor.  For others, their patience and understanding and compassion.  I value not only masculine diversity, but what it brings to my life via my social sphere.

In fact, I tell women all the time that the gentler, less competitive, and even effeminate men are a largely untapped relationship market.  In terms of relationship partners, the gentler sorts are strong in their own way, and moreover, very steady and reliable.

Masculinity isn’t just confined to height, dark-eyes and strong arms.  It comes in various forms, and is just as sexy.  Women just need to look past the standard for strength and masculinity, to a standard behind the scenes and less visible.

The masculinity women want and need doesn’t always look like the standard, and everything below isn’t substandard, either.

Far from it.

©JMW All Rights Reserved.

Project: Projecting

JMWPsychological Projection:  a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying the existence of those impulses in themselves, while attributing them to others.

Only, psychological projection isn’t a theory.  It’s a genuine phenomenon.  In terms of relationships and relationship conflict, it’s both a tactic and an art women have perfected.

Masters of the projection art, I give women credit.  I’m actually fascinated by their projection skill, and grin in admiration watching them perform.

Of course, I try not to grin when women are projecting on me, because they are usually very emotional and angry and serious.  Feeling they aren’t being taken seriously, grinning only makes them angrier.

Nevertheless, I realize the performance is part of the accusation game women play.  Emotional and irrational, women criticize and accuse and provoke, saying whatever comes to mind without thought or hesitation.  Cruel, cutting, inaccurate—it doesn’t make any difference to them.  Accusing, and in the throes of emotional projection, women deal straight off the top of the deck.

Most men, poor souls, get lost in the melee.  Confused and incredulous, men are like, Why, this is totally outrageous!  They become angry at the unfairness, and set to setting the record straight and to clearing their name.

The difference with me is, I don’t accept the accusations.

In other words, I don’t get caught up in the projection game.  Which is to say, the accusations against me are likely attributable to the issuer, and are a projection of the issuer’s own guilt in whatever regard.

It’s a pretty reliable assumption and approach, actually.

For example, I’m not a rude person.  Direct?  Sometimes, yes.  Rude?   No.  Regardless of how many times I am accused of being rude.  Regardless of the vigorous and relentless effort to convince me I am rude.  I don’t accept the premise, the accusation, the guilt, or the projection.  I defy it all.

Why?

Because I am not a rude person.

As it usually happens, a woman has said rude things to and about me, to provoke me.  It also happens that a woman is rudely yelling at me that I am rude when, normally, yelling is considered rude by that same woman.  It also happens that, in process of yelling at me that I am rude, a woman is actually herself saying rude things to and about me.

In other words, while this particular woman is demonstrating actual, manifest rudeness in every possible way herself.  She, in classic psychological projection, is projecting her penchant for rudeness onto me:  I am rude.  While she is not rude, and hasn’t the capacity for rudeness, both of which she is clearly demonstrating to be false.

That’s psychological projection.

My approach to this tactic is simple.  Accused of being rude, I know I am not a rude person by nature.  As a general rule, I know I am not comfortable being rude to people.  In fact, I prefer people to be comfortable and at ease around me.  I am an encourager by nature, and understanding.  I prefer to work things out amiably, and to get along rather than bicker.

Therefore, characterizing me as a rude person is not only inaccurate, but ludicrous.  Thus, nobody is going to convince me of being something I definitely know I am not.  I reject the accusation out-of-hand and exit the conversation.

The accusation does not apply to me.  So why argue a false premise?

Doing so is a waste of time—my time.  Thereto, arguing only gives my accuser legitimacy.

Anger is another issue of which women commonly accuse men—men are always angry, and are thus verbally, physically, and emotionally abusive.

Say my wife is angry at me for one reason or another.  I’m not angry; she’s angry.  The proper and constructive course would be to, one, assume my innocence. Two, to calmly explain the problem.  So as to, three, try to peacefully resolve the matter.

Only, that idealistic approach is never what takes place.

My wife is angry.  She’s hurling accusations, yelling, projecting her anger onto me.  Although I’m the accused being unfairly condemned, I’m not angry initially.  The verbal assault continuing, however, and my justifying rebuttals continuously dismissed, I become angry.  I start hurling accusations, yelling, and condemning, too.

At which point my wife says, “See?  You’re angry.  Talk to me when you can be rational and calm.”

“Rational and calm?!” I say fuming.  “You were the one with the problem—not me!  You were the one angry and accusatory and yelling—not me!  I was calm!”

“I can’t talk to you when you’re angry,” she says, with sudden and remarkable composure.  “And you’re always angry,” she adds, walking away and in control.

And this is successful psychological projection:  become angry, project your anger, start the fight, make the other party angry, deny your angry impulses, deny responsibility for the fight, accuse the other party of having the impulses, and make them responsible for the fight.

Projection is an art.  And like I said, women are masters.

And here’s the kicker:  in the end, after this altercation has raged for hours or days, men are not only expected to apologize for being rude and angry—for being made rude and angry, no less.  They are expected to share culpability for the altercation, too.

Men hear, “I think we both should apologize for being rude and angry, and for the awful things we both said.” 

To which men dumbly say:  “Okay dear.  I’m sorry.  Let’s not fight anymore.”

Men say this instead of what they should say, which is, “If you hadn’t been emotional and angry.  If you hadn’t been attacking and accusing me falsely.  Then none of this would have happened in the first place.  This conflict is the result of your actions, which makes it your fault, not mine.  So stick sorry up your projecting ass!”

Of course, most men are wiser than me in this regard.  They hold their tongues so as to get on with a more peaceful life, which is a mistake.

Why is it a mistake?

Because the projecting BS continues.  That’s why.

I operate in emotional reverse.  Trying to solve a problem, I am usually calm, reserved, and emotionless in the initial stages of an altercation.  There’s a problem; it needs to be understood.  I’m calmly weeding the argument, trying to understand the crisis, while attempting to diffuse the immediate anger.

I know my mission in life isn’t to wrong people or to treat them poorly.  So I don’t approach accusations and altercations with a guilty conscious.  I see them as misunderstandings that need to be cleared up, which is what I attempt to do.

If you keep pressing me, however.  If you are irrational and thereby unwilling to acknowledge base inaccuracies in your argument against me.  Then I get pissed-off.  Once pissed off, it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to me what happens or whose feelings get hurt.

And not only will I rudely get in your ass.  I’m indifferent to charges of verbal and emotional abuse.  And reeling me back in from my pissed-off state is virtually impossible, too.

And as for this 50/50 apology rule?  As for getting me to apologize for a conflict I did not incite?

Why, there’s a phrase for such an attempt:  an effort in futility.

If any apologies are going to be made, they’ll be made to me.  That’s how that deal is going to work, or there won’t be any deal.

Why is it important that appropriate apologies be made?

Because the projecting BS continues.  That’s why.

We hear all of this therapist-speak about managing relational conflict effectively and progressively and curatively.  As couples we are supposed to assume innocence; we’re supposed to calmly make our concerns known; and we’re supposed to approach disputes in in a spirit of gentle inquiry and ready, impending absolution.

Well, when these fundamental ideas were communicated by therapists in session, women must have been in the ladies room:

 Woman, upon her return:  “Okay.  I’m back.  What did I miss?”

Counselor:  “Oh, nothing that will concern you—just some rules specifically for him.  Let’s move on…”

What is really taking place in these altercations is the denial of responsibility.  In fact, relationship conflict is most often one big denial of responsibility, which is nothing new.  Denying responsibility is as old as Adam and Eve.

That’s right—it’s that longstanding.

God told the first couple to enjoy the entire garden, but to leave one tree alone.  Forewarned and thusly aware, Eve was seduced to eat of the one, lone, forbidden tree.  After which, she seduced Adam.  Then, God came-a-calling.

In modern parlance, the conversation went something like this:

God:  “Adam, where are you?”

“I’m hiding, because I’m naked and afraid.”

“Naked?  Who told you that you were naked?”

“Uh, that woman you gave me, she tricked me into eating the apple.”

“Woman, is this true?  Did you trick Adam?”

“Well, um, like—it was the serpent; it seduced me.”

Genesis 3:8-13.  Go ahead, read it.

As I said, denying responsibility is as old as Adam and Eve.

And incidentally, this is the first recorded incident of psychological projection—guilt projection, to be precise.

Women also project their insecurities.  It is to say, while women are themselves fiercely insecure, they attribute their thoughts and feelings of insecurity to their men.

For example, concerning men’s love and their commitment to a relationship, women are insecure.  The problem isn’t women’s own thoughts and feelings enabling those insecurities.  The problem is men causing those thoughts, feelings, and insecurities.

Hence, women accuse men of not loving enough, of not being committed enough, and thus continually demand romance and affection as reassurance of both.

Women having just returned from a passionate two weeks in Cancun?  Having just enjoyed a cozy dinner the previous evening?  Why, that’s yesterday’s proof of love, affection, and securing commitment.

Today is a new day!  Women need fresh assurances!

And women project guilt for their insecurities, too.  They accuse men of noticing attractive women, for example.  Yet, taking notice of attractive men, women do the same thing.

It is to say, women have the natural impulse to notice attractive men—an impulse they indeed follow.  Yet, they deny the existence of that impulse in themselves, while making men feel guilty for not only having the impulse, but following it.

See how it works?

Psychological projection.

It suffices to say that, whatever the accusation from women, men can be sure of, one, a double standard.  And two, that women are making men responsible, when men aren’t responsible.

Again, it’s a pretty reliable assumption and approach.

Psychological projection isn’t a complicated practice by any means.  It’s actually quite fundamental.  It’s essentially accusation and blame by the guilty, and by those responsible for the upcoming mess.

And relationally speaking, who does most of the accusing and blaming and projecting?

Women.

 

Men aren’t nearly as rehearsed as women in the skill of psychological projection.  For being accused, blamed, and projected upon all the time, men don’t get the chance to rehearse.  Thereto, they simply don’t have the inclination.  Unrehearsed and uninclined, men don’t realize they’re being victimized.

So, here’s one last example to illustrate the victimization, one to which men will surely relate.

A particular woman hasn’t had sex with her man for a week, two, or perhaps a month.  In her mind she is fat and hideous—a totally absurd assessment.  Or she’s comfortable and secure, and thus lazy and unmotivated.

Whatever the case, there has been no sex.

She has been the one secretly avoiding sex.  Yet, she knows sex is important to men, that it is particularly important to her man, and that it is also important to the relationship.  Primarily, she knows it’s important to controlling his wandering eye and to keeping him on the porch.  So for avoiding sex she’s feeling parts guilt and obligation.

“Have you been avoiding me,” she asks coquettishly, moving in with that unmistakable grin.  “It’s been too long, and mama needs some, lovinnn’.”

Suddenly engaged and enthusiastic, he man says, “Of course I haven’t been avoiding you.  We can do this deal right now, baby!”

As he moves in, however, she resists.  To soften his impending disappointment, she lewdly caresses his thickening package and says gently, “Not right now, baby.” Then, with significant eye-contact, she purrs, “Laterrr…”

It all sounds great, of course.  Only, “Laterrr” never comes.

Why does “Laterrr” never come?

Because there is no intent for it to come.

Unbeknownst to him, loverboy has been the target of psychological projection.

Subtly, he was the one accused of evading sex—“Have you been avoiding me?”—when it was actually her.  And feeling guilty for her secret neglect, she projected her guilt onto him.  Excited by the unusual attention and initiation, loverboy didn’t realize he’d been made responsible for the absence of sex, or that he’d been the victim of psychological projection, either one.

In other words, the lack of sex is loverboy’s fault!

Women know they are avoiding sex, and that they are denying their men sex.  Women feel guilty ultimately and, at a point, become concerned about their particular men’s interest in them, love for them, and commitment to them.

Guilty and concerned, women then test the sexual waters to make sure they are still warm—and not because they are interested in sex, necessarily, but because rejection and infidelity are a rather painful alternatives.

With an assurance of “Laterrr,” men are hopeful.  As for them, good times are on the agenda, are on the near horizon.  Most importantly, men are pacified for a few more days.  So by merely initiating, women learn the sexual waters are yet warm, while they alleviate their concern and guilt at the same time.  And making men responsible for the dearth of sex, psychological projection is a success.

Data claims that women are the emotional center of relationships.  It claims couples are more attuned to the women’s emotional regulation, and that that agreement feeds both spouses’ perceptions of relational quality.

This being incontrovertibly true, one might ask how women manage to encourage relationship men into such subservience and ease of management.

It’s called psychological projection.  And like I said, women are masters of the art.

Now.  As for women realizing they are projecting, and as for them doing it purposefully—I don’t think that’s the case.  I don’t believe most women want to mistreat their men, or to do them ill or wrong, no more than men want to do those things to their women.  I think women care about their men, and that they’re genuinely concerned for their men’s well-being.  Again, the same as men.

The reason for the phenomenon is simple.  Women are emotional—more to the point, sensitive.  It means they’re worrisome and defensive, and not to exclude envious and jealous and vindictive—parts of the emotional base, too.  Thus, women often think and respond emotionally, which lends itself to irrationality and to reflexive reactions, which lends itself to unfair accusations, criticisms, and to psychological projection.

It’s really no more complicated than that.

And then, having invested themselves in a position, women are stuck for reasons of ego, pride, and for the embarrassment of being emotional and foolish, and for those things, wrong and unfair.

Hence, the unending relational wars, which are nothing more than fight to avoid accepting responsibility.

Psychological projection and the ability to project aren’t exclusive to one gender.  Men and women both can engage in the practice.  For their emotional tendencies, however, projection is natural to women, who then practice it more readily, if unknowingly.

The problems is, projection becomes a habit that takes a toll on relationships.

It’s a subtle practice, certainly, one that occurs naturally and without premeditation.  Yet, knowing what’s happening, and why it’s happening, it’s a practice and habit that seems pretty easy to stop.

©JMW 2018  All Rights Reserved

 

book-cover-LAYERED-New-Rules-450pxWide

New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside

Winning at Weight Loss

JMWIt’s that time of year.  Four words:  before and after pictures.

All year long people eat like Professor Klump after an embarrassing night of Reggie-styled fat-shaming.  Then, long about December, here come the before and after pics calling them to task, and to new beginnings.

And the before and after strategy works!  Let the guilt and shame and vanity purchasing begin!

And how well does it work?

Well, check out these numbers.

Weight loss—a $20 billion dollar a year industry?

Why, that’s a rather significant demonstration of shame, guilt, and vanity.

A hundred and eight million Americans are on diets, and make four or five attempts a year?

Oh great.  So along with the shame and guilt and vanity, we can add failure to the emotional mix.

And celebrities get paid $500,000 to $3 million dollars to endorse major weight loss programs?

Well, for $3 million dollars, who couldn’t choke down one of those green, broccoli/cucumber frappés, lick their lips, and smile convincingly for the camera?

Deee-licious!  This is the best unnaturally colored, visually appalling, foul smelling shake I’ve ever had! 

 I could do it.

And what’s this statistic?  Of the customers consuming weight-loss products and services, 85% are … female?  Oh boy.  Not good.  This has to imply something bad.

Why, yes.  Yes it does imply something bad!  It’s sexism!

The weight loss industry caters mostly to women!  And rest assured this particular statistic isn’t going to go over very well with men.  Everyone knows how offended men are by female dominance—in any area.  Tisk-tisk.

I foresee a maleism protest.  Men in the streets, with boy-blue penis-hats and all.  Little furry testicles tied underneath their chins.  Carrying signs.  Talking about being “Naaasty men,” and about being disrespected and cheated by a matriarchal culture.

Yeah, no.  I don’t see it, either.

Makes sense the number is 85%, though.  Shame, guilt, vanity—women have the market cornered on those issues.  The numbers pretty much bear it out.  And these statistics are from a 2012 report, for chrissake!  You know there has to have been at least another $2 or $3-billion worth of additional shame, guilt, and vanity profitability since then.  Right?

There must be.

So in view of all this, there’s this question, which, is aimed mostly at women evidently:  is there a bigger mental and emotional burden in the modern human experience than weight loss?

The fact is, weight loss is a nightmare—a genuine, ceaseless nightmare.  Largely a female nightmare, mind you, but a nightmare nonetheless.

And here’s the truth about it:  everybody is willing to help people with weight loss—as it pertains to their wallets, at least.  Yet nobody prepares people in the ways that matter, or in the areas that will more likely facilitate weight loss success, which are matters and areas mental, emotional, and practical.

So, got your attention?  Good.

Sound like something different?  Something a little more substantive than before and after pictures?  Like an idea that might be of real benefit?

Indeed, it is something unique.  Trust me, I won’t let you down.

Basically, I sat at my desk and started jotting down some of my own thoughts on food and weight and weight loss.  Some are brief.  Some are more detailed.  I believe most people want to succeed at losing weight.  I just don’t think they grasp all that is involved in that success.

So, beginning with the two most important aspects to success, the issues are as follows:

Rule Number One

When it comes to weight loss, most people don’t realize the forces aligned against them.

Try this scenario:  You’re determined to lose weight.  So, in compliance with the goal, you begin a regimen, and have a half a grapefruit for breakfast.  You feel good about yourself, proud of your choice, your discipline.  You feel thinner, even:

Look at me!  My pants fit better! you think, getting dressed.  And this after but one breakfast on the new diet.

As you walk out the door for work, what is that you see sitting on the counter?

Glazed donuts!  The kids love them.

Full of early success resilience, you think, Nope!  Defiantly, you turn-up your nose in visual protest, and exit.

Good for you—you’re an oak.

In the car, you turn on the radio.  Leaving the neighborhood, you hear:  “… so, come on in to Dan Tana’s tonight!  Mouthwatering steaks, mahi-mahi, and of course our award-winning desserts…”

I’m hungry, you think.   Then, coming to your senses:  Nope!

You change the channel.

Only, a few moments later you hear:  “… so, come on in to Dan Tana’s tonight!  Mouthwatering steaks, mahi-mahi…”

You turn off the radio.

Driving down the road—in silence, the voice in your head says like a mental tour guide, “Ladies and gentlemen, if you look to your right you’ll see Wesley’s—a premier southern-style eatery…”

An invisible force tugging your chin, you glance at Wesley’s, start recalling the scrumptious Chicken Marsala you had there just last week.  And those to-die-for scones, you imagine, biting your lower lip.

Stiffening, you think, Nope!  Sorry Wesley.  You’re not getting in the way of my terrific new body.

Arriving at work, you walk past the coffee counter and, what’s this?

Oh no.  Bearclaws!  Somebody brought bearclaws!  Damn you…whoever!  Damn you!!

But wait!  Next to the bearclaws, some conscientious fellow member of the struggle brought a vegetable tray!  Whew!  Thank goodness—something healthy.

Relieved, you make your way to your desk, thinking about the “Battle of the Bearclaw” to come—maybe just a half of one.  That’s not so bad, is it?  I only had half a grapefruit for breakfast, after all.  I’m ahead!  Aren’t I?

On your way, you pass Julie’s desk and her large, ever stocked to the brim container of Hershey’s Kisses.  You see them and, oh Lord—you’re on your period.

Your gait slows as you approach the conveniently placed, community container.  Julie is obese, and wants everyone to share her pain.  You’re sweating now.

But, Nope!  You look away, and continue to your desk.

And then, Jeff—sitting at the desk next to yours.  You can’t believe your eyes. You think:  what asshole eats miniature Snickers bars in the morning?!

An ovary barks angrily; you sneer at him.  And not only for his breakfast choice, but for the boy-blue penis hat he’s wearing and the furry testicles tied underneath.  And there’s the sign leaning against his desk:  “Weight Loss Is Sexist!”

He sees you glance.  “Going to a protest later,” he says, the words muffled by Snickers melt.

You roll your eyes in disgust, throw you briefcase on the desk.

The bearclaw, you think.  It’s calling …

As a distraction you turn on the radio, click

“…so, come on in to Dan Tana’s tonight!  Mouthwatering steaks, mahi-mahi, and of course our award-winning desserts…”

You throw your hands up and head for the bearclaw.  And you’re having a whole one, too, dammit!

The point is, this is the level of food temptation people face all day, every day.

Turn on the television—food.

Turn on the computer—food videos.

Turn on the car radio—food advertisements.

Roll down the car window for some air—Five Guys is pumping hamburger aroma straight off the grill and into your car.

Billboards, bus signs—food.

The quick mart for gum, to quell the hunger pangs—not only are there foody impulse buys on every step of the strategically constructed pathway to the counter.  They’re grilling hot dogs.

Food is everywhere.  Literally everywhere!  And the senses are being constantly overrun.

So as I said, when it comes to weight loss, most people don’t realize the forces aligned against them, and against their success.

Hence, Rule Number One:  to be successful at weight loss, people have to realize they are more than just tempted by food.  They’re immersed in food temptation.

This is, in fact, the most important aspect of the weight loss game.  In this contest, food is everything.  And not only is it everywhere.  In terms of marketing, it’s being made to look irresistible.  Advertised apples are vaselined to look shiny and delicious.  Donuts are warm and gooey.  When has a hamburger in a box looked as well put together and fresh as those on a billboard?

They never resemble the billboard.

Ergo, the accessibility of food and the relentless sensorial temptation are realities for which people must be both acutely aware and prepared.

Rule Number Two

The entire weight issue is the result of a standard.  In other words, bodies are only attractive and desirable if they look like “X,” and are unattractive and undesirable if they do not.  So, modify yourself to look like “X,” or be seen as an unacceptable and undesirable slob.

Imagine it:  a room full of people of diverse body-types.  Someone walks in and says, “To be physically acceptable and desirable, you all have to look like me.”

That’s literally what we’re talking about with this standard business.

Of course, someone isn’t actually saying it.  It’s implied—implied visually, through cultural media, via super models and hunky men with abs, via people of elite attractiveness, and through before and after pictures, too.  Those sorts of things.  And having their mediocrity implied every moment of the day, and everywhere they look, how do people respond?

Why, they awake every day to a substandard existence.

Hence, in the weight loss game, this standard business is as important to recognize as food temptation, and is just as onerous.

And as to that standard, consider this:  most of these standard-bearers can’t maintain relationships for being philanderers and narcissists.  They have addiction problems, broken homes, and ill-behaved children.  And when the cameras are off, they’re smug, condescending assholes no one but their parasitic posses can stand to be around.  And that they have zero body fat and ripped abs—that’s the important standard?

Uh, please.

So here’s the message:  set your own standards and your own goals.

It’s Rule Number Two.

Eating—that’s the problem 

So stop with all the political, scientific BS.  Food going in the mouth equals weight gain and fatter bodies.  Rather, too much food going in the mouth equals weight gain and fatter bodies.

Don’t believe it?

Go to Sub-Saharan Africa.

The visible rib cages?  Not enough food going into mouths there.

And food isn’t the enemy, either.  The constantly bending elbow is the enemy, which food manufacturers want to encourage, naturally.  Not maliciously so, but profitably so.  Manufacturer’s want people opening their mouths and shoving-in their products as frequently and as liberally as possible.

Solving any problem starts with identifying the problem, which in this case is a lack of discipline.  To which there are these two truths:  one, people are rarely as hungry as they think.  And two, exposed to food at every turn, people are being conditioned to hunger, and to thinking they are hungry.  In other words, Rule Number One:  people are being constantly provoked to eat.

We could come up with a load of Pavlovian data as to how the senses and the brain respond to the sight, smells, and the mentions of food.  But, is that really necessary?

No.

People are made hungry for profit.  So to win at weight loss, they simply have to be mentally and emotionally prepared for the ubiquitous assault on their senses, prepared for the associated hunger feelings, and steeled in their resolve to disjoint the constantly bending elbow.

Winning at weight loss really is that simple.

Advertising Fraud

Manufacturers will say anything to entice consumers.  What advertisers are saying now is already intellectually insulting.  At the current rate, a package of bon-bons will soon read:  “Special Formula:  Gets rid of muffin-top and dimpled thighs.  The more you consume, the better the effect!  So eat all you want!”

There’ll be 17 year old, bikini-clad super model on the package shoving bon-bons in her mouth, too.  Only, for the sinless flavor experience she’ll only allow the bon-bons to melt, upon which she’ll spit the entire mess out.

And why spit the mess out?  To avoid muffin-top and dimpled thighs, of course.

The perfected visual is for all those suckers who believe there’s a “Special Formula.”

And the super model—she’ll make $3 mil, incidentally.  A not-so-sinless $3-mil, perhaps, deceiving consumers and all.

The Downside of Prosperity

There is nothing at all wrong with prosperity, except that it has the tendency to make people comfortable, lazy, undisciplined, and fat—pretty much in that order.

The American experience—awesome though it is—would have people confined to the sofa.  Its goal is to cater to people, to make things easier for them.  So much so, that people actually have to move less.

Got a remote?  Check.

Got an Echo Dot?—“Alexa?  Turn on the robotic vacuum.”  Check.

Got the robotic vacuum?  Check.

The marketplace says to people:  “Relax.  Let us make your life easier.”

Why this approach?

Because human beings tend toward laziness.  Thus, the “Relax” strategy is an extremely seductive marketing approach.  Therefore, people have to resist the seduction.  Else they become comfortable, lazy, undisciplined, and fat.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall

People can look at themselves approvingly in the mirror one minute:  Not so bad.  I’m looking pretty good!  And for “looking pretty good,” they can then travel straight to the kitchen and eat a donut.  And returning to the mirror immediately after the donut, they have a completely different self-perception:  Ugh.  I’m so fat.

There is no way eating a single donut can change one’s physical appearance a single degree—not a single degree!  So, what changed?  The change occurred mentally, emotionally.  Driven by guilt and vanity, the mind simply created a new perception.  A fatter perception.

In the weight loss/body image battle, the perception change not only underscores the power of the mind, and its less than encouraging nature.  It highlights the need for positive mental and thus emotional reinforcement.  The mirror isn’t the enemy, no more than food is the enemy.

The mirror merely reports exactly what it sees.  People apply the feelings and ultimate perception, which should be positive, which then requires an unnatural human response, which should become natural, which can only become natural through continual practice.

Self-approval and promotion—that’s how people stay optimistic and motivated, and how they succeed at the weight loss game.

Friends Like These, Right?

Your friends—and family, too—will sabotage your weight loss efforts.

It’s true!  Particularly for women.

Men say to each other, “You lost some weight, Jim.  Good for you.  So, are you going hit the ball, or are we just going to stand here?”  Men couldn’t care less about their friends losing weight.

Women on the other hand—85% loathing their bodies and dieting, they don’t like other women succeeding at weight loss.  Women say they’re happy and supportive, but they aren’t, really.  They’re jealous, envious.

Thus, women are waaay more subject to having their weight loss efforts sabotaged.  And by other women, no less—specifically their so-called friends and their family members.

The answer?  Secrecy.

“My goodness, Barbara!  Are you dieting?  You look so much thinner!”

“I do?  Nope.  Eating like I always do—a few less sweets maybe.  Girrrl, I abhor dieting.  I’m opposed to it.”

With the secrecy approach, there’s no saboteurish jealousy and envy among Barbara’s girlfriends.  It isn’t to say there isn’t jealousy and envy over Barbara’s new luster.  It’s to say there’s not the type that necessitates sabotage.  Barbara isn’t disciplining herself or making any efforts.  Her weight loss is inexplicable and fortunate, instead of resulting from self-discipline and dieting, which would then be irritating and worthy of sabotage.

Oh c’mon, Barbara!  Try one of these scones.  They’re from Wesley’s and, oh-my-gosh!, they’re sooo delicious.  Just one bite.  C’mon.  Just one.  Try it.  C’mon …

Friends like these, right ladies?

Two points:  one, nobody cares about someone else’s diet.  Two, talking about dieting is just an effort to get attention.

So, shut-up about it, and secretly do what you have to do.  Given the human tendency towards jealousy, and the tendency of the jealous to dull the luster of those who achieve, the less people know the better.

Atonement Takes, Like, Two Seconds

Russell bounced around at 260 pounds for twenty years, a weight and subsequent appearance he sorely disliked, but did nothing about.  He had a health crisis, ultimately.  Alarmed, and with consequent purpose, he began a stringent diet and started exercising.

He was a svelte 190 pounds within 6 months.

Three points:  one, twenty years of self-loathing and emotional misery, versus, six months to a new body, a new appearance, happiness, and self-confidence.  Twenty years is a long time to suffer physically, mentally, and specifically emotionally over 70 pounds that can be lost in six months.

In other words, you can sin like a heathen for twenty years and atone in six months, or so.

What a bargain.  And it’s true.

End the suffering

Two, that it requires crisis to motivate people is a sad commentary.

And three—okay so, people end the suffering in six months and reach their “goal weight.”  Then what?  The weight struggle is over?  No more worrying about food and calories?  No more self-discipline?

Weight control is a lifelong challenge.  Get used to it.

Invest six months, accomplish the goal, and live your life in a healthier and happier way from then on.

Fitness

The only exercise people need when trying to lose weight is cardio.  Burning calories and raising metabolism is what facilitates weight loss, along with disciplined eating, of course.

Walking, jogging, treadmill—dedicate to cardio.  Achieve the desired weight, and then incorporate muscle training and toning.

When people decide to lose weight they bite off more than they can chew mentally, emotionally, and particularly physically.  A vigorous workout approach is defeating.  Formerly unchallenged muscles aren’t ready for the physical trauma of strenuous exercise.  And when their muscles and bodies revolt for the trauma, people quit.

It’s no way to approach weight loss.

It’s not a sprint to your weight and fitness and health goals.  It’s a marathon.  Like I said, it’s a lifelong challenge.  Treat is as such—approach it that way.

Start casually, comfortably, and continue the cardio routine and pace for a few months.  The leisurely, virtually pain-free approach will not only help maintain motivation and desire.  More importantly, it will serve to develop both every day consistency and the exercise habit.  As the body acclimates, it will also strengthen.  Endurance will increase, too.

Ergo, results.

Ultimately, people will feel better.  Their confidence and desire will increase.  They’ll feel disciplined and successful.  And to continue feeling physically better, and to continue the successful vibes, they’ll feel more like exercising.

None of which occurs when a body is traumatized and in angry revolt, incidentally.

They talk about the fitness lifestyle—it’s habit, that’s all it is.  And if people are going to make it a habit, then they’re going to have to enjoy it.  They’re going to have to feel the benefits, without so much of the discouraging burn.  By taking this approach, and by making fitness a marathon as opposed to a pain-ridden sprint, people will get to a point where they have to exercise or feel otherwise crappy.

Then, it’s an addiction.  Then, it’s a lifestyle.  Then, it’s sustainable.

Self-conscious

For working out in a public setting, there’s this little nugget:  nobody is looking at you, and judging you.  Everybody is too self-absorbed, too aware of their own flabby flaws.  So stop being so self-conscious.  Most people don’t give a damn.  They’re too busy giving a damn about how they look.

Step One

In losing weight, start with mental and emotional fitness.  That’s right—get your head right.  Set down all the baggage and get yourself in the right place emotionally.  It’s the precursor to success in the physical realm.

People spend so much time and energy on the cosmetic outer.  Well, what about the inner?  The inner is the furnace.  Determination, will, focus—it’s where all the good and necessary stuff comes from.  People can have the bodies everyone is supposed to want, yet they are still miserable.

Why?  Because they haven’t invested in their mental and emotional fitness.

Vanity:  fix the outside because it’s visible, neglect the inside because it isn’t.

To win at weight loss, people have to start with the inside.  Otherwise, they’re in for a bumpy, inconsistent journey to virtually assured failure.

UCLA’s legendary John Wooden said, “People usually know what they should do to get what they want.  They just won’t do it.  They won’t pay the price.”  He said, “Understand there is a price to be paid for achieving anything of significance.  You must be willing to pay the price.”

Weight loss is largely vanity- and thus image-driven.  It lays on people’s mind because they don’t like the way they look as compared to a fitter standard.  And as to that standard, consider this:  if everybody in a culture was fat, the culture would look down on thinness and skinny people.

Basically, and except for health-related issues, the entire weight loss thing revolves around a whole lotta’ nothin’.  That’s why people don’t want to pay the weight loss price—because they aren’t really achieving anything of significance, wanting only the ego-warming admiration and envy of others.

In other words, weight loss is based on desires and pretenses that aren’t going to provide sustaining motivation.  And even if they do provide motivation, when people achieve their goals they still have to maintain that new position.

Thus, it only makes sense that weight loss be driven by something more substantive and motivational.  And what is that something more substantive and motivational?

Personal excellence—that’s the answer.

People can say to themselves:  I’m not happy with where I am mentally, emotionally, physically.  I don’t like my attitude, my lack of discipline.  I don’t like the way I feel about myself or the image I’m presenting.  Ultimately, I don’t like where my life is headed.  I want to be a better, more complete version of myself—the best version of myself.

 Nobody places more demand and pressure on us than ourselves.  So, make it the right kind of demand and pressure:  the demand for personal discipline and the pressure of excellence.  We just get used to compromising, and to letting ourselves down.  The habit perpetuates, which ultimately kills the demand for discipline and excellence.

And then—the rut of mediocrity we fall into.

The best pep-talk ever given can’t get people out of that rut, either.

Rescue comes from within.

©JMW 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conflict Resolution 101

JMWWhen asked, “How many relationship fights do you start?”  Men stare vacantly.

Why the blank, uniform stares?

Initially, they are a result of being caught unprepared by a never-before-asked question.  With a little reflection, however, and a little prompting, the blank stares give way to a realizing grin.

The revelation?

Women start a lot of damn fights!

In my latest book New Rules, I wrote:  “Involving themselves in relationships is the beginning of sorrows for modern men.”   Proving the claim, I listed some researched complaints from men as to why their women get mad at them.

A few of my favorites:

  • “She got mad at me over a situation that she completely made up in her head and hadn’t even happened. It was a three day fight.”
  • “She asked if she ever gets mad over stupid little things. I said she has.  Guess who got mad.”
  • “She got mad because my feet were pointed away from her [in bed]. To her, it meant I didn’t love her because of my ‘body language.’  I was sleeping.”
  • “I called her my little pumpkin-butt and she didn’t talk to me for two days.”
  • “Woke up to a slap in the face. I should not have cheated on her in her dream.”

And this is but a small sample from a much larger, equally as insane collection.

So, because men are subject to these sorts of insane provocations, and to the constant arguments and fights these provocations incite.  Like I said, involving themselves in relationships is for men the beginning of sorrows.

To hear women tell it, men are selfish and inconsiderate.

They’re insensitive.

They’re poor communicators, always saying things the wrong way.

They are insufficiently committed and complimentary.

Basically, men are everything except correct.  They’re never bestowed that honor, clearly because they’re such awful creatures—banging other chicks in women’s dreams, and all.

Being such awful creatures, the criticisms and accusations—the provocations—from women are routine, which of course demonstrates that men are always saying it wrong, doing it wrong, and getting it wrong.  And because men are always getting it wrong, they need to be corrected, which of course manifests as the fruitful, if insane, criticisms and accusations from women, which of course provokes the fighting, which then demonstrates that women start a lot of damn fights.

Now.  Claiming it was they who were provoked—You shouldn’t have called me pumpkin-butt, asshole!—women aren’t likely to agree with the charge.  Yet, in humble disagreement I would render this clearly observable evidence to the contrary:

  • Men closely monitor what they say and do around their women.
  • Men are calculating in what they say and do.
  • Men strategize before addressing matters verbally.
  • And men do all to prevent emotional, defensive, and insane eruptions.

Clearly, men want to avoid fights.

Why?

Because they’re provoked into too many as it is!

And examining these circumstances, this isn’t a relationship.

It’s a prison!

Like walking around a prison yard, keeping your mouth shut, minding your own business, staying on your own turf so as to avoid getting shanked—this is prison life!

The only things missing are orange coveralls, razor-wire, and guard towers.

The fact is men aren’t prepared for all the petty and illogical drama modern women bring to relationships, or to deal with the incessant fighting that results.

And for that matter, who would be prepared for such insanity?

I mean, seriously.  The term pumpkin-butt invites two days of silence?

Mentally concocted things that never actually happen result in a three day fight?

A man’s feet pointed the other way in bed is an unloving gesture?

Women giggle and finger-twirl their hair as if this insanity is cute, as if their feminine kookiness is somehow adorable.  And perhaps it is to an extent.  That extent being where the insane becomes reasonable, and where men should agree and comply or get themselves shanked!

Men aren’t prepared for such insanity.  And it’s a major handicap.

The insane accusations and criticisms begin—and worsen.  Unprepared and under attack, men respond poorly, if naturally, with self-defense and pacification.  And as a result, a pattern and strategy emerge.

A pattern in that men endlessly defend themselves and pacify women.

A strategy in that women use criticism and accusation to both control disputes and to get what they want.

Like I said, this isn’t a relationship.  It’s a prison.  And unprepared for relationship life, men become inmates as opposed to respected relationship partners.

To be fair, I don’t think men or women either one receive adequate preparation for relationship life.  However, given it is men who become the criticized and accused, and who must contend with the illogical and even insane provocations of women.  It is men who desperately need preparatory training.

So, beginning with a few fundamental ideas, principles one might equate to warm-up calisthenics, following is that training …

The Question is:  Why?

Men don’t involve themselves in relationships with women to become perpetual villains living under constant suspicion, or to be recipients of consistent criticism and condemnation for that perception, either one.

Men don’t involve themselves to become a relationship’s sole, perpetually sub-par problem, or to bicker and fight all the time for women’s emotion-driven BS, resentments, and eternal discontent.

Men don’t involve themselves to become interpreters, deciphering what women don’t mean and actually mean.

And men certainly don’t involve themselves to become orange-clad inmates who, to avoid shanking in the prison yard, keep their mouths shut, mind their own business, and keep to their own turf.

Yet, when men do involve themselves with women, this, to varying degrees, is exactly what they experience.

And what do the circumstances inspire?

A lot of damn fighting.

The question men need to routinely ask themselves is:  why?  As in:  why am I in this relationship, anyway?

Do men sign-up for this sort of experience?

No.  No they don’t.

And why must men ask themselves the “why” question routinely?

Because men become accustomed to prison life.  Because a subordinate, dictated way of life becomes normal.

It isn’t normal.  It’s abnormal—prison-yard abnormal.

The Premise

Women expect their needs and desires to have supremacy.  If unspoken, this is both the premise of modern relationships and, more significantly, the female expectation.

It used to be different—more, balanced.  In the era of male oppression, however, everything women do for men is now a subordinate act and a challenge to equality.  So goodbye service to men and subservient acts, and hello women expect their needs and desires to have relational supremacy.

And what happens when men fail to meet this expectation?

A lot of damn fighting.

Women claim compromise is crucial to successful relationships.  That’s because they—head-flick to the premise—expect men to do all the compromising.  And if men don’t compromise, there’s a fight, which then trains men to compromise.  And, of course, it is through these concessions that men are being subtly introduced to their orange jumpsuits, and to prison life, to which they are also being slowly and methodically accustomed.

See how it works?

So in terms of preparation, men need to recognize, one, the premise and related expectations for modern relationships, which is, again, women expecting their needs and desires to have supremacy.  And two, that they don’t have to abide by that premise or meet those expectations.

Men’s needs and desires are no less important, and those needs need to be met and those desires fulfilled.

It’s the new premise.

Dictated Happiness

Researchers at University of California-Berkley came to this not-so-profound conclusion:  “If the wife is happy, then so is her husband. And as a result, so is the marriage.”

It’s a long-winded version of the age old aphorism, “Happy wife, happy life.”

And what does this conclusion imply?

Essentially, that men aren’t allowed to be happy unless their women are happy.

And if you think women aren’t warm to the idea, quote the aphorism to them:

“Hey, ladies!  Happy wife, happy life.  Right?”

They’ll grin and say, “That’s right, buddy!”

And they mean it.

So, men aren’t allowed to be happy unless their women are happy?

Well, men can be whatever they want—happy, sad, indifferent.  Including free—free from women who demand and expect their happiness to reign relationally supreme.

Besides, as Draper said, “Happiness is the moment right before you need more happiness.”  The line pretty well describes the problem for men, relationally.  Make women happy today, and they wake-up tomorrow wanting and expecting more happiness.  And considering modern women are loath to make men a sandwich for the act implying subordination and inequality, the duty-bound manufacturing of happiness is a one-way street.

Female unhappiness is what most relationship conflict is about.  Evidenced by their abundant criticisms and accusations, women are constantly unhappy about something.  It is displeasure and discontent they attribute to their men, who then set to rectifying the unhappiness, which usually means men subordinating and sacrificing their own happiness, which creates but temporary happiness for women, which then necessitates the manufacturing and reestablishment of more happiness for women tomorrow, so as to rectify that day’s unhappiness.

And what takes place for all this discontent, and during all this happiness engineering?

A lot of damn fighting.

Women like to believe they “deserve” relational happiness, that they are entitled to it—because that’s what they tell each other.  Girrrl, you deserve to be happy!

Naturally, this provokes women to demand happiness not only be supplied by their men, but at their men’s expense.

So in response, men need to understand this principle:  it’s not their job to keep their women happy.  Women need to keep themselves happy.  Further, they need to make a few sandwiches and relearn how to keep men content.

The happiness load evenly distributed, there’s nothing to fight about.

Virtue

I’m a decent guy—honest, fair, responsible, of good moral fiber.  I try to do things the right way, and have no desire to treat people poorly or unfairly, particularly women, and certainly not the woman with whom I’m sharing a relationship.

I’m certain most men are like me.  And indeed, more men should recognize in themselves these virtuous qualities.

Why?

Because via their criticisms and accusations, women would have their men believe otherwise.

Want proof?

Well, what are criticisms and accusations exactly?

They’re claims of disapproval and of wrong doing.

And issuing plenty of both, what are women then implying?

Well, they certainly aren’t implying that men are virtuous!

Ergo, it is vitally important that men not only recognize their virtuous qualities, but the good intentions associated with those qualities, too.  Because via their criticisms and accusations, women would have men believe they haven’t any virtue or good intentions at all.

Simply, men need to realize they aren’t the evil of which women routinely imply and would have men believe.  Thereto, men should recognize the genuine evil, which is the inconsiderate criticisms and accusations routinely hurled at and leveled against them, and the unjust effort to convince them of their ill-intent and wickedness.

That’s the real evil.  And incidentally, it’s responsible for a lot of damn fighting.

Emotion

Emotional fights are a loser—guaranteed losers.

Why?

For one, nobody’s listening.  For another, there is no critical thinking taking place.  Conflicts absent both, nothing gets accomplished or solved.

And which gender is intensely, hair-trigger emotional?

The female gender.

So relationally, which gender is destined for the loser’s bracket in emotional fights?

The other gender.

So, gentlemen.  Here she comes, spoiling for a fight.  The subject matter is insignificant, really.  Angry, feelings hurt, feeling threatened, irritated, PMSing, and thusly emotional—she launches into her indictment.  And what can men say that will satisfy?

Absolutely nothing.

Emotion can’t be satisfied.  That’s all there is to it.  It’s like, Rule Number One.

Exhibit A:

“You don’t care about us!  When’s last time you took me on a date?!”

“Uh, last week, dear.  Del Quavos.  Cocktails, dinner—a movie after.  Remember?”

“Oh please!  That was just, stopping for a bite to eat.  When’s the last time you planned anything?!”

“Uh, the trip to San Francisco last summer.  Remember?  Booked the entire thing—hotel, flight, theater tickets.  Surprise!”

“Well, when’s the last time you brought me lunch at work?!”

“Well now, that I haven’t done in quite a while, dear.  You work across town now and it’s impossi …”

“Ah-ha!  See, you don’t care about us!”

This dispute continues this defiant and disagreeable course, why?

Because emotion can’t be satisfied.

Women feel a certain way, and they aim to have those feelings validated no matter how deep and illogical the accusations must run, and despite how routinely their feelings are shown to be unwarranted and unjustified.

So, the question:  if emotions can’t be satisfied, then why try to satisfy them?

It’s precisely what men do wrong.

Women aren’t interested in logic or fairness in these circumstances.  They are interested in their feelings being validated.  And there is but one acceptable outcome:  men validating those feelings by confessing their sins—having sinned or not.

So screw date night at Del Quavos and the arranged weekend in San Francisco.  Women are going to continue with the emotional accusations until they find one that allows them to say, “Ah-ha!  See?!  You don’t care about us!”

The problem with men in these situations is they get hung-up on the blame.  They feel attacked, wronged—feelings often justified.  They take offense and become angry, start defending themselves.

Except, Exhibit A.  Any response merely invites the next criticism and accusation, and continues to escalate the fight.

Simply, emotional women aren’t going to allow men to be correct or to win either one.  Therefore, emotional arguments are for men guaranteed losers.

So when the attack begins, rather than be provoked to the loser’s bracket, here’s the line for men:  “I’m sorry.  I don’t do emotional attacks and arguments.  Try me when you’re reasonable.”

Men aren’t the one’s emotional.  Hence, they don’t have to match emotion, or even become emotional at all.  They don’t have to fight, either.

I like winning.  And winning in an emotional fight is remaining unprovoked, unemotional, and non-participatory.

The Contention Strategy

The Contention Strategy is a rather effective tactic.  Here’s how it works:

If women propose something to their men, say like, “Let’s go to the movies.”  It isn’t really a proposal.  Women have decided they want to go to the movies, and that they are indeed going to the movies.

Women want what they want.  And as with virtually every desire they have, they fully expect to get what they want.  And then there is the nightmare of disappointing them.

And if you don’t believe me, ask their daddies.

So if men say, “Not tonight, honey.  I don’t feel like it.”  Or, “… the game is on and I want to watch it, instead.”  Women can simply turn this desire-denying result around with contention, or with the Contention Strategy.

“The game is always on!” they say condemningly.  “All you do is watch the game!”

And then in dramatic exasperation:  “The Game!  The Game!!’”

And there’s the guilt projection, too:

“You never take me anywhere!”

“When do I-eee fit into your schedule?  When am I-eee as important as, The Game?!”

And, voilà!  Men set the DVR and start getting dressed for the movies.

Now.  Women see the result and think:  Hmmm.  Now this tactic gets results!

So thereafter, women open-up the ol’ manipulation toolbox whenever necessary for a quick, contentious fix.

In other words, the contention strategy becomes for women desire fulfillment protocol.  Just make men the bad guy, the problem, the obstacle.  Whenever they say “No” or disagree.  Whenever they don’t comply with desires.  Criticize them sharply.  Accuse them.  Ladle them with guilt.  Yell at them.  Basically, become immediately contentious so that men say “Yes,” agree, and comply.

And that the strategy works so well is the reason the criticisms and accusations become so abundant and freely issued.  And the criticisms and accusations becoming more abundant, men start to expect a fight every time they say “No” or disagree.  Thus they stop disagreeing, stop saying “No,” stop resisting, and basically stop communicating all together.

Initially, men just want the attack and the drama to stop.  Eventually, they don’t want the attack and drama to take place altogether.  So what do they do to prevent it?

Subject themselves to prison life.

Like I said, it’s a rather effective tactic.

The answer?

Put an end to it.

When the initial assault is over, men should say:  “So.  You want something.  From me.  Why, I believe we’ve entered what’s called the negotiation phase, dear.  Let’s try to be civil, shall we?  In regards to this trip to the movies you so desperately seek, I think courtesy will perhaps work in your favor.

“Now.  Let’s begin our negotiations with what you might be wearing underneath that exquisite frock.  I’d very much like to have a peek at that—for starters.  And to my proposal you say…?”

Who’s running the show now?

Guilt or Innocence

The attack from women full-throated and the charges flying, the immediate question on every man’s mind should be:  am I guilty of this charge, or innocent?

Collected and unaffected amidst the verbal assault, men should ask themselves that exact question.  Nothing else matters—not the feelings, not the implied blame, not the discomfort or embarrassment.  Just—am I guilty of this charge or not?

The accusation—did I do it?

Fess-up.  “Yes.  I was checking her out.  She’s rather attractive.”

The Criticism—is it an accurate criticism?

Acknowledge it.  “Yes.  I do watch The Game.  I like sports.”

Men shouldn’t deny what they did, or who they are characteristically, or what they feel or don’t feel.

What’s the truth?  Tell it.  Immediately.

Honesty progresses the fight.  Progressing the fight, men control the fight.  Otherwise, they find themselves languishing in an emotional ordeal that not only can’t be satisfied, but that has no direction or conclusion.

The accusers and aggressors, women get to indict.  They don’t have to have a direction or a conclusion in mind, other than getting the answers they want and, warranted or not, an ultimate confession.

When they get neither?

Why, they issue more criticism and accusations, and project more guilt.

Thus men controlling and advancing a fight is infinitely better, and actually necessary.

Women want honesty?  Men should give it to them—instantaneous and full throttle.  Because honesty and directness are a major ingredient in …

Nearly Perfect Problem Solving

Relationship conflict is mostly political.  Meaning, men and women obfuscate issues and avoid the truth, because neither one want to admit the facts or to acknowledge their responsibility.

Both of which they escape by what means?

Confusing the issue and avoiding the truth.

It is precisely why couples end-up paying relationship counselors to help them have a basic conversation.  I type again:  to help them have a basic conversation.

A result of which raises this question:  if two people can’t have dialogue and solve their own disputes, then why the hell are they in a relationship?

“I think we need relationship counseling.”

Me:  “No we don’t, baby.  We need to start dividing up the stuff.  So, do you want the coffee pot?  Or can I add it to my things?”

Paying! someone to help me communicate with my relationship partner, for chrissake?

Why, I’d rather use the money for a new coffee pot—a deluxe edition, with a timer and all.

A new coffee pot purchase is necessary because men and women can’t be individually honest and take responsibility.  And both look at the last sentence and say, “Yes, precisely!  That is sooo true!”

Only, they say this thinking the remark applies to their partners and not to themselves!

See the problem?

As Crichton said, “Self-awareness—the most difficult awareness of all to achieve.”

Nevertheless.  There is a remedy to the political nightmare that is relationship conflict:  honesty and directness.

If couples are interested in good communication and thus genuine understanding.  If they are interested in keeping conflict to a minimum and fomenting mutual respect.  Honesty and directness afford the surest and quickest path to those things.

Try this:  the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  So then, to get from a problem—point A, to a solution—point B, the quickest path is a straight line.  The line in this example represents the truth.

So then, provide honest answers, stay on the straight line, and resolution comes more quickly and leaves the least carnage.  Stray from the path for feelings and politics, and arguments can rage endlessly, and can cause significant and often irreparable damage.

Honest communication is difficult because feelings and the resulting politics make it difficult.

Who likes to admit they are emotional, and that they are being unreasonable?

Who likes to admit they’re selfish, and that they’re being manipulative for a selfish agenda?

Worse, who likes to admit they are wrong, and that they have been subsequently unfair?

Politics make it possible to avoid all that.  And the feelings make it easy to justify the politics.

Political conflict is much easier, natural even.  It’s easier on the ego, too.

Only, it doesn’t solve problems.  It only makes them bigger, and to last longer.

Taking to political conflict, couples take a disagreement off its point A, point B, straight-line, quick resolution trajectory and wander off into the conflictual wilderness for hours, days, weeks, and longer.

If couples ever want an issue resolved, they will have to return to the truth eventually.  And if they don’t return on their own, they will return in counseling sessions where, what occurs?

A stranger forces them to be honest with one another, for chrissake!

So.  Rather than confuse an issue.   Rather than avoid the truth, and lie.  Rather than generate all those hurt feelings, and create resentment and dysfunction.  Rather than waste time and energy.  Rather than pay someone to forcibly extract honesty, for chrissake!  And rather than buy a new coffee pot—the deluxe edition, with the timer and all.

Why not be honest and direct?  Deeply, unflinchingly, vulnerably honest and direct?

It seems worthwhile.

***

“When I was working at a hospital someone would ask me how becoming a doctor would affect my future family.  You would never ask a man that question.  People think women can be one thing or the other—beautiful or intelligent.  But we can be everything.  That is what I’m most passionate about.”

So said a young woman, 22.  She’d won a beauty contest and was suddenly a celebrity with a platform, which she then frequently used to communicate this particular message to women.

And the subtle, if inescapable, undercurrent in this message?

Male resentment.

And to be clear—Resentment:  a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as wrong, insult, or injury.

And that “something” regarded as forever wrong, insulting, or injurious?

It has a penis.

The question is:  does this young woman’s remarks represent the feelings of every woman?

To varying degrees and extents, they do.  And despite the certain protestations of some, it is easy to momentarily prove.

So given the resentment, for what are women then “most passionate?”

Well, it isn’t convincing women they can be ‘everything,’ as the young woman’s remarks suggest.  It’s ending perceived male dominance and sticking it to men—the obvious enemy.

And both socially, and more specifically, relationally, what does the resentment create and the objective entail?

Conflict.  Lots of damn conflict.

Women like to pretend they don’t view men as the enemy, specifically the men with whom they share relationships.  Asked if they see their own men as enemies, women make That’s absurd! faces, claim they don’t agree with feminism and that they don’t like feminists, and so on.

Yet, look at the things women conclude about their men, and actually say to them—that they are selfish and inconsiderate, insensitive, verbally and emotionally abusive, cold, heartless, disrespectful, and not to exclude supremacy-minded, patriarchal assholes.

Do men sound like friendlies?  Like trusted allies?  Like supporters and defenders?  Like well-intentioned partners interested in women’s happiness and well-being?

No.  And like I said:  despite the certain protestations of some, the young woman’s remarks representing the feelings of every women is easy to prove.  I mean, there it is—cold, condemning verbal evidence from virtually every relationship.

Men sound like ill-willed adversaries!

And despite the That’s absurd! faces and the pretending, it is exactly how women view them—if only subconsciously.  And despite the point—men being the enemy—continuing to be made by women in so many subtle ways, men seem reluctant to acknowledge the reality.

Men are like the frightened, middle-aged cancer patient who continued refusing surgery he desperately needed.  A group of young, diplomatic doctors finessed and coddled him, went to great lengths to inform him thoroughly, and to assure him everything would be fine.  Yet, despite their comprehensive and delicate efforts, the patient refused.

Finally, a tough veteran physician, irritated at the lack of progress, walked authoritatively into the man’s room and said, “Mr. Smith, you have cancer.  And I’m going to take it out.”

The patient burst into tears and agreed to the surgery, which, incidentally, was performed successfully.

As to being viewed as women’s enemy, men need the same authoritative approach, apparently.

Someone needs to say to them:  “Women see you as the enemy—and if not the enemy, the problem.  So before involving yourselves in a relationship with them, you’d better come to terms with that fact, and understand what it means to a relationship and to your subsequent lives.”

So, there.  It’s been said both authoritatively and clearly—and yet again.

Of course, men could just believe the routine messages they hear delivered by women from every public platform.  In fact, being called selfish and inconsiderate, insensitive, verbally and emotionally abusive, cold, heartless, disrespectful, and supremacy-minded, patriarchal assholes by their own women, men could just believe their own ears.

The dirty little secret is women like feminism’s power, and find it useful.  While they make That’s absurd! faces and pretend to loath feminism and feminists.  While they pretend not to view men as their enemy, yet define men as such with so many adversarial characterizations.  Women still employ feminism’s muscle against men whenever necessary and beneficial.

Men doing a little too well in an argument—emotional abuse.

Speaking a little too authoritatively—verbal abuse.

Men saying “No,” not conceding, and not giving women what they want—patriarchal supremacy.

Again, do men sound like enemies or allies?

Precisely.  And this is what the enemy gets to look forward to in modern relationships—the beginning of sorrows.

Simply, women bring their insecurity issues and resentments and the related drama into relationships.  They slowly, methodically project those issues onto men, which creates conflict.  And totally naïve and unprepared, men try to manage the drama and conflict, eventually tire of the drama and conflict, and ultimately concede to avoid the drama and conflict.

And, voilà!  Prison life for men—a lifestyle occurring in a so-called “loving relationship,” no less.

“Now then” women say with a satisfied grin, maternally straightening men’s collars and whisking their shoulders.  “Don’t you look handsome in your orange jumpsuit?  We’re going to be sooo happy together.”

As long as men are behaving like model boyfriends and husbands and fathers—the relational standards being determined by women, of course—then women approve and remain content.  Let men slip out of line or fall below standard, however, and … BAM!

Conflict.  Lots of damn conflict.

It seems a terrible way to have to portray relationships.  Yet, given the adversarial circumstances of modern gender relations.  Given women’s insecurities, their resentment, the resulting competition, and the need for self-securing dominance and control.  A conflictual struggle for supremacy is precisely what relationships eventually become.

It’s inevitable.

Michael Crichton wrote a terrific piece for Playboy Magazine in the 90s entitled How to Fight, in which he not only expertly explained the dynamics of gender conflict, but advised men on how to survive—which is basically all men ever do in conflict with women:  survive.

It is an insightful piece—helpful even, and worth a read.

However, Crichton was married five times.  That’s:  five times.  So, men learning to fight and to merely survive doesn’t seem all that, effective.  It is to say I thoroughly enjoyed both Crichton’s perspective and piece, which was a perspective derived from and a piece written in a much different social era, incidentally.  I just think his approach is a loser, ultimately, which the piece and the divorces collectively and clearly prove.

Crichton’s and elite writer, and perhaps an elite filmmaker.  He just never achieved such status romantically, apparently.

It’s one thing when men are lying, philandering, disrespectful jerks who can’t be trusted.  Such men deserve the conflict—deserve to be kicked to the curb, actually.  Only, there are plenty of men who aren’t lying, philandering, disrespectful jerks, one.  And two, those sorts of issues aren’t what most relationship conflict is about.

In fact, what most relationship conflict is about leads to those sorts of issues.

Conflict occurs because women are emotional and insecure.

It occurs because women manufacture situations in their heads that never happen, and turn those fabricated beliefs into three day fights.

It occurs because women get mad over stupid little things, like men’s feet pointing the other way in bed being an unloving gesture.

It occurs because women are spoiled, and because they expect their needs and desires to have relational supremacy.

It occurs because men say “No,” and simply disagree.

It occurs because women become an emotional juggernaut incapable of reason and objectivity and fairness, and because they’re determined to be correct, to have their way, and to get what they want.

It occurs because men are viewed as the enemy for always “wronging, insulting, and injuring” women, who nonetheless manufacture the wrongs and insults and injuries for their emotional bent and insecurities, and who then harbor considerable and often times unjustified resentments.

There is no winning for men in this scenario, which they eventually realize sitting on the counselor’s couch and at the respondent’s table in court.  Fighting—and even learned, improved fighting—is merely delaying the inevitable.  Meanwhile, men endure the unnecessary dysfunction and abuse.

And how long should men relationally endure?  Two years?  Five?  Fifteen?  Forty?

Teaching men How to Fight isn’t the answer.

The answer is:  men not participating.

It is men saying:  “I’m not involving myself in this insane BS,” and sitting it out.

And if that strategy doesn’t curb the conflict, men need to then save themselves the years and decades of misery, not to mention the counseling fees, and exit the relationship.

Just, get out!  Write the last few lines of that relational horror story and close the chapter.

Because, in regards to the conflict, are women taking any responsibility and amending their behavior and expectations?

Are they being less insecure, less emotional, and exhibiting more emotional control?

Are they being more honest?  More direct?  More reasonable?  Less insane?

Are they being less critical and accusatory?  Less demanding?  Less resentful?

No.

Women keep the conflict going so that men take responsibility, so that men amend their behavior, and so that men fulfill women’s expectations and demands.  And all so women can feel less vulnerable, more secure, and in control.

And that is a “relationship?”

Well, it is if you like prison life, and orange jumpsuits, and having your collar maternally straightened and shoulders whisked.

Conflict is a strategy—a self-serving strategy.

I take a lot of heat for my views on relationships.

Why?

Because they threaten women and the current feminist order.

When you can criticize and accuse your way to keeping relationships in order, and to keeping men in line, as women do, life becomes quite comfortable.

Therefore, whenever you criticize women.  Whenever you point out the things they do wrong and their responsibility in relational distress and failure.  You disturb life in the relational hammock, and women get upset.  It’s discomforting, disconcerting.  Women don’t like it.

Why the unease?

Because women have worked long and hard to wrestle power away from men, and to relegate men to subordinance.  And women have been so successful that they’re now able to relax and doze in the relational hammock.

And modern gender relations being so femininely advantageous, does anyone think women are going to take kindly to having their new lifestyle challenged or taken away?

Does anyone think women are going to welcome the insecurity, vulnerability, and the comparative powerlessness of the past?—not that the powerlessness aspect was ever true.

Does anyone think women are going to relinquish the control and dominance they have secured?

Women aren’t going to take kindly to any of that.  And justified or not, when you start pointing out their relational flaws and failures, and their ultimate responsibility, they’re going to raise holy hell to maintain the current order and their hammock lifestyle.

Which means there will be conflict.  Lots of damn conflict.  On top of the already existing conflict.

And relationally speaking, what are men supposed to do?

Endure the insanity, the conflict, and a miserable relationship indefinitely?

Remain obliged and loyal for their commitment, and as matters of love, duty, and honor?

Women wouldn’t.  In fact, they didn’t.

They took to feminism and resentment and fighting.

In terms of conflict, the problem is people are lazy.  They don’t ask enough questions of themselves to understand what is beneath their superficial feelings and subsequent complaints.  They don’t move enough rocks, don’t drill down deep enough.  And for the laziness, they neither contact nor understand the deeper, more substantive and consequential feelings and ultimate truth.  Thus, they can’t then be honest about those feelings for their own benefit, much less articulate them for the benefit of someone else.

In other words, people live on the emotional surface where things come much easier—the criticisms, the accusations, the feelings of right now and the corresponding grievances.  People live on the emotional surface where they don’t have to self-evaluate; where they don’t have to do any honest, soul-searching, intellectual work; where they can dismiss their own short-comings and responsibility and blame everyone else.

It’s a human problem, certainly.  Yet in terms of relationships it’s predominantly a female problem.  Women are highly emotional.  Attacking men, women cause men to become emotional, too, which causes conflict—lots of damn conflict.  Lots of unnecessary conflict.

This isn’t to suggest that men never do anything wrong, or conflict-worthy.  It is to point out that women set a relationship’s emotional tone, one.  It is to suggest that women acknowledge that reality, two.  And three, it is to suggest they be a little more thoughtful, move a few more rocks, dig a little deeper, be a little more honest, be a little more in control of their feelings, be a little less resentful, and that they be a little more invested in keeping the tone reasonable, and the conflict reserved for the real problems.

It’ll make a tremendous difference.

©JMW 2017

 

 

 

 

 

It’s The ‘Lord’s Prayer,’ Not The Pope’s

JMWPope Francis believes the Bible needs revising, specifically the Lord’s Prayer.  He doesn’t care for the phrase “lead us not into temptation,” thinks it should read, “do not let us fall into temptation.”

“That is not a good translation,” he said in Italian, during a television interview.  “It is not [God] that pushes me into temptation and then sees how I fall.  A father does not do this. A father quickly helps those who are provoked into Satan’s temptation.”

Oh really.

The pope suffers from a common religious illness.  It’s wanting to make the scriptures more commercially acceptable, more pleasing to the suffering soul, by making them more palatable and pleasing to the ears.

In other words, there is what the Bible actually says, and means.  And then there’s what one wants it to say and mean, for what it actually saying and meaning not being all that pleasing to the ears, palatable, and ultimately attractive.

More importantly, there is what one wants it to say and mean, for the new meaning—the revised meaning, the more attractive meaning—casting the instructor in a warm, likeable, glorifying glow.

Suffice it to say, the truth is hard and uncomfortable.  Thus, few want to hear it, and even fewer want to communicate it.

That said, the pontiff, all due respect, needs to do a little reading.  He should begin in the Bible’s first book of Samuel, with King Saul.

King David, Saul’s eventual successor, killed Goliath, a menacing giant all in Saul’s army feared to challenge.  For his courage, David, handsome and valiant, immediately became Saul’s lead military man.

The Jewish people adored David, particularly the Jewish women [I Samuel 18:6-7].  This did not please Saul, who quickly came to view David as a threat to his power, and sought to kill him for the threat he posed.

Like so:

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul … Saul cast a javelin for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it …” [I Samuel 18:10-11]

What’s this?  An “evil spirit from the Lord” came upon Saul?

God?  Issuing evil?

Defying the pontiff’s assertions, are we to understand that God was pushing Saul toward temptation of the murderous variety?

Why, it certainly appears that way.  But before passing judgement, consider Job’s story.

In the book’s beginning, Satan had a meeting with God.  Actually, coming to “present” himself before the Lord, Satan had been summoned by God—as in, subordinately summoned.

As to hierarchy, a rather instructive distinction, indeed.

Nevertheless, God asked Satan where he’d been.

In modern parlance, Satan replied, “I’ve been walking the earth looking to wreck human lives.”

God said, “Well, what about my servant Job?  He’s perfect—none like him.  He fears me, and avoids evil.  I bet you can’t turn him.”

Basically, Satan said God was protecting Job, and that, were God to give Satan a crack at him, Job wouldn’t prove so loyal and pure.

So God did precisely that.  He gave Satan a crack at Job—two cracks, actually.  The first, Satan took away everything Job possessed, even killed his children.  Only, the attempt to turn Job’s faith failed.

So God allowed Satan a second try, in which Satan struck Job with grievous boils over his entire body.

Remarkably, that attempt failed, too.

Go ahead, read it.  The book of Job contains 42 chapters.  Satan was present for two of those chapters, the first two, which are followed by nearly 40 full chapters of unimaginable misery and ultimate temptation—unimaginable misery and ultimate temptation both initiated and allowed by God, no less.

Incidentally, God turned Job’s affliction in the end, and restored double all that he had lost.

Now.  For a more prestigious example of Divinely inspired temptation, there’s the Son of God.

“Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.” [Matthew 4:1]

And by whom was Jesus led?  “The spirit.”

And who is “the spirit?’  God.

There it all is—right there in the scripture.  And the pontiff can’t read and interpret the same thing for himself?

Well, he could.  It just lacks commercial appeal, and that warm, likeable, glorifying glow.

So despite the pontiff’s claim, the evidence is clear:  God does “push” or “lead humans into temptation.”  Although, it isn’t to see humans “fall,” necessarily.  It’s to test them, so as to build their trust in their creator, which will ultimately strengthen their faith in the same.

And why would God do this to his children?

Well, it’s to improve them, ultimately.  To perfect them.

And there is this purpose:  “But without faith it is impossible to please [God].  For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” [Hebrews11:6]

And those “rewards” come at a cost.

The cost?

Temptation.

In fact, grievous and incredibly seductive temptation.

Not to exclude, endured temptation.

And to the point, Divinely initiated temptation.

So the Lord’s Prayer doesn’t need to be improved upon or changed—by the Pope or anyone else.  Christ’s mountainside instruction in regards to prayer was, one, accurately expressed.  And two, it was meant to be a humble, acknowledging plea for God’s protection and mercy.

As in:  “…and lead us not into temptation, as is your ability and tendency to do, but keep evil from us, instead.”

Think Christ related to that sentiment?  Job?

Of course they did.

Therefore, in terms of the Lord’s Prayer, I’m certain Christ was clear on his messaging.  Furthermore, I’m convinced that if God can create the universe, then he can get a book transcribed the way he wants it transcribed, so that it says and means exactly what he wants it to say and mean.

It’s the human translating that tends to muck-up the message, even when it’s done from the Vatican.

©JMW 2017

 

 

 

 

America’s Newly Exposed Enemies

I want abortions to stop.  And if they aren’t stopped, I certainly don’t want my tax dollars used to pay for them.  I don’t feel I should be responsible for the sexual indiscretions of others, or for murder in the womb.

I think climate change is a total fraud, too, meant to line the pockets of science, scientists, political figures, and celebrities both at home and around the world.

It’s a scam.

I’m tired of paying for the scam.

I’m tired of regulations born of this environmental fraud making the things I purchase more expensive.

I want it stopped.  Not dialed back or reigned-in.  Stopped.  I want the fraud exposed, and the people responsible for perpetuating it, punished.

As for marriage, I want it reserved for a man and a woman.  I want homosexuals to be officially united, and living happy lives together.  But I don’t want the union to be called marriage; I want it to be called something else.

That’s all—call it something else.

Given it is the gay community imposing on the tradition of marriage, I think it’s a reasonable request.

And if homosexuals want a cake upon the blessed day of this something else, I’ll bake the most beautiful rainbow-themed cake ever to meet the human eye.

And this item is rather fundamental:  I want immigration law enforced.

Enforcing the law—now there’s a novel idea!

I don’t care who migrates to the country, or from where, as long as they do so legally.  If they don’t, I want them rounded-up and thrown out.

It’s a privilege to be a United States citizen—earn it the correct way:  the lawful way.

In regards to healthcare, the last thing I want is a bunch politicians and government bureaucrats running healthcare and making decisions about my health.  I mean, they can’t even manage border security.

And healthcare?  Why, that seems infinitely more complex.

So, no thanks.  I want free-market healthcare.  I want regulations removed and health insurance made more competitive.  And I want to make my own decisions about my health and healthcare.

So these are my agenda items, or at least a few of them, enough to make my point.  What do the items have in common?

They are in direct opposition to the prevailing cultural agenda.

Go ahead, review the items.  I promise; if you hold these views, why, you’re a bigoted fundamentalist.

And who controls the daily narrative used to set this prevailing cultural agenda?

The news media—and the media culture at large.

And of what ideological persuasion is the news media by predominance?

Liberal.

And lastly, which political party shares the same agenda as the news media?

The Democrat Party.

So then, who’s setting the country’s agenda?  Better stated, which political party’s ideology and subsequent ideas are being advanced by the media?

The Democrat Party’s ideology and ideas are being advanced.

And given the ideological kinship and the collective effort, what does this mean?

It means the news media and the Democrat Party are in collusion.  It means they want to control political policy and the country’s direction.

For comparison, let’s reverse the roles.

If the news media were predominantly conservative, all of my agenda items would be the agenda.  The news media would be anti-abortion, and demanding that both the practice and taxpayer funding be stopped.

They would refute climate change with science and the scientists who oppose it.  They would demand the fraud be discontinued on behalf of the American taxpayer and consumer, and that those responsible for perpetuating the deceit be prosecuted.

Were the news media predominantly conservative, homosexuals would be deciding on a legal term for their new union.  Immigration law would be enforced, instead of being ignored.  And taxpayers wouldn’t be funding an imploding universal healthcare scheme called Obamacare.

But of course, this isn’t the agenda inforce.

And why not?

Because liberals are setting the political agenda, which is clearly not a conservative agenda.

Take your pick:  abortion, gay marriage, universal healthcare, gun control, climate change, open borders, et al.  Oppose any of them and you are on the wrong side, the unpopular side, the compassionless side, the unsophisticated side, and are in the proclaimed minority.

This is the beauty of media control.  Controlling the daily narrative, you not only set yourself up as the authority on issues.  You control the political agenda on the authoritative basis, too, and by the ability to publicly mock, impugn, mischaracterize, and lie about any opposition to that agenda.

The news media and the Democrat party, and even liberal forces around the world, have thrown into together to destroy the United States as it was founded, and to transform it into something less esteemed and less powerful.

Don’t believe the charge?

Well, consider what liberals have tried to destroy:  the idea of American exceptionalism.  Pride for military personnel, and in military supremacy.  The belief in and support for capitalism and the American way of life.  The sanctity for human life.  The will of the people in elections.  Respect for the constitution and rule of law.  Christians and Jews.  The spirit of unity for the shared cause of freedom, for the flag, and for the national anthem.  And via the removal and desecration of its statues and monuments, liberals have tried to destroy American history.

So indeed, liberals have thrown in together to destroy the United States as founded.  Worse, they no longer feel it necessary to conceal their ideological kinship, or the fact they are working together to achieve liberal objectives.

Thus, modern America is in the throes of a political war, one which has been brewing for quite some time.  Essentially, the Democrat Party and liberal media have been exposed in recent decades by a competing conservative media with an opposing agenda.  Losing control of the daily narrative for this competition, and control of the political fight that was once so easy, liberals have grown more and more desperate, which has exposed both their political bias and aims.

Making matters worse, liberals were oh-so-close to the things they always wanted during the Obama years—government-run healthcare, the end of capitalism, and of military dominance.  Liberals were oh-so-close.  Yet for their giddy eagerness, supremely exposed.

And being so close and exposed, they had no choice but to unify under the genuine threat of Donald Trump, who was calling the entire liberal political apparatus—Democrats, news media, the Republican establishment—to the campaign carpet.

Hence, unify liberals did, indeed.

So naked and exposed is the entire liberal political apparatus that there is no retreat.  So for Trump-defeated liberals, it’s the final stand.  Thus, America—the American people—face what has long been brewing:  an ideological fight for the very heart and soul of their country.  A genuine war with political elites none too keen on giving-up what they have enjoyed for decades:  political power, and control of the cultural agenda.

An agenda aimed at controlling and ruining yet another civilized society of people.

Make no mistake, a fight long in the making is here.  The curtain hiding Washington corruption has been fully drawn, and the entire liberal machine has been exposed.

Desperate, and with so much to lose, liberals will now do whatever is necessary to win the fight and to maintain their control, as anyone paying attention can clearly see.

Russian collusion.

Impeachment.

Endless attacks on the president and his cabinet and his voter-approved policies.

Attacks on the flag, the national anthem, and American history.

The political exploitation of every national and international event.

And in all, liberals are clearly willing to lie, which makes the daily dissemination of information a cesspool of deceit requiring constant filtration and correction.

Simply, the American people no longer have the luxury of trust as it concerns liberals and the political establishment.

If American’s want to remain owners of their country, and pilots of their own futures and destinies.  Then they’d better recognize their newly exposed enemies—America’s newly exposed enemies.

Liberals.

—Clarion News October 25, 2017

©2017 John Mark Warren

 

 

 

 

Liberal Aversion To Logic

Solving problems and protecting their assets and interests, liberals utilize logic everywhere else in their daily lives.  Like everyone else, they want to be themselves efficient, which saves time, energy, and money.  They want to appear intellectually sharp, so as to impress their friends and to please their boss, and so as to avoid looking foolish and incompetent.  Logic, or sound reasoning driven by both a pursuit of the truth and the resulting facts, accomplishes these things for liberals, and is something of which they most definitely employ, and to which they obviously aren’t opposed.

So then, why are they so averse to logic in political matters?

If damaging information comes to light that exposes the Democrat Party and its politicians, liberals, voters in particular, simply refuse the information.  It’s right-wing propaganda, lies, fake news.  It’s anything but true, and despite ubiquitous reporting proving the contrary.  Dismissing the information, it isn’t then allowed into the chain and process of logical reasoning.  And then in arguing their positions, the ignored fact—the fact that exists and is true, but that decidedly doesn’t exist and isn’t true—becomes a link in the logical chain that liberals just, ignore.

The logical on the other hand, the truth-seekers and problem solvers, they stop at the link during debate, and say:  “Uh, wait.  What about this critical piece of information?  This incontrovertible, ubiquitously reported fact?  This missing link in the chain of rational and solution-seeking logic that you’re ignoring, but that devastates your argument?”

Liberals then say, “What about starving children in Somalia?!”  Or, “What about the climate crisis?!” or some other meaningless non-sequitur.  And then liberals continue on with the debate as if the devastating fact doesn’t exist, which actually doesn’t exist for them having refused the information.  This is precisely why liberal arguments never make any sense.  Liberals blind themselves to a key fact, to an important marker on the road to truth and an issue’s ultimate resolution.

In other words, debates with liberals come to a fork in the road, where there’s a sign, or a crucial, debate-ending fact.  The choice is:  recognize the sign and stay on course to resolution, or ignore it and wander off into the intellectual wilderness.

Liberals wander off into the intellectual wilderness.

And here’s the really inexplicable part:  the logical follow them!  And in terms of debate, what happens?  Debates rage on and on about meaningless issues.

Advantage:  wilderness wanderers.

Take immigration, for example.  Immigrants must come into the United States through legal pathways, and for legitimate, security-related reasons.  That’s the law, and thus an indisputable fact that ends the immigration debate.  Yet introduce that fact to liberals in debate and you find yourself being accused of racism and heartlessness, arguing over a broken immigration system that is in no way broken, and debating the loss of strawberry crops for not enough migrant workers to pick them.  Aka, meaningless issues.

Liberals simply ignore the fact, which is in this case immigration law!  Liberals don’t wander off on “the road less traveled.”  They wander off on the road to nowhere.  And what do the logical do in response?  Well, they tag along behind—“But-but, didn’t you see the sign back there?  Illegal immigration is illegal; that’s the law.  Hey?  Wait-a-sec.  The sign.  Didn’t you see it …?”

Meanwhile, liberals are scoring debate points by presenting themselves as mankind’s only compassionate friend, and the only dependable caretakers of children—illegal alien children, that is.

Immigration law?  Pfft.  Screw that, liberals say.

So, while liberals do utilize logic to advantage in their own daily lives.  It is apparently outlawed when it comes to politics and political matters.  Anything that upsets their political beliefs, warped as those beliefs are, simply won’t be tolerated as true.  Allow me to further demonstrate.

In the 2016 democrat primary election, party officials rigged the outcome.  That’s right—rigged it.  Or, arranged it.  That sounds more like what the liberal news would label the violation.  “Rigged” sounds so … criminal.  Therefore, democrats arranged the outcome.  Yeah, that’s better.

Nevertheless, party leadership effectively said:  We don’t care which candidate our constituency wants; those rubes don’t know what’s good for them, anyway.  We want to install our own nominee. 

 So, democrat officials implored their voters to go to the polls, who then rose early and stayed late, to stand in long lines, to vote, and without any of the effort mattering one bit towards the outcome.  And afterwards, party leadership—Debbie Wasserman-Schultz—resigned for the fraud, proving the fraud, and to basically no penalty public or private.

The party’s leaders had done their job—getting their choice, not the voter’s choice, to the primary finish line.

During the presidential campaign, Democrat Party leader and operative, Donna Brazile, fed the party’s fraudulently-selected candidate, Hillary Clinton, debate questions meant to be kept secret.  That’s right—Brazile cheated.  Emails exposed the fraud.  Yet Brazile lied about her participation and role for months before finally confessing.

“My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen,” she said.  “But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.”  In other words, and like Wasserman-Schultz’s resignation, “I’m admitting to my unsophisticated constituency I cheated.”

Now.  These incidents should trouble democrat/liberal voters, right?

Well, they should.

Hillary Clinton receiving 66-million votes in the election, however, proves the incidents didn’t trouble liberal voters at all.  The incidents are either facts of which liberals weren’t aware, or that they simply, ignored.  Regardless, having successfully and without penalty “arranged” a primary election and cheated in a debate, and yet received 66-million votes in a presidential election after the facts, is it any wonder Democrats have such flagrant contempt for their constituency so as to “arrange” elections and cheat in debates—not to mention lie routinely and without shame?

And finally, there’s this:  along with his political opponents, President Trump and his personnel face an angry, contentious news media, daily.  A news media asleep for the last eight years—having ignored the numerous, egregious, and evidence-laden scandals of Barrack Obama, his administration, and the Democrat Party—is suddenly engaged and on the job.  As daily White House news briefings and nightly news casts reveal, the media are not only rabid, unruly, antagonistic, defiant, and openly disrespectful towards the president.  Without compunction, they are provably lying and intentionally misinforming the American people about him, too.

Given this fact, it is illogical to the logical to read opinion-piece headlines such as, “A Relentless Attack on Decency, Grace,” the related story accusing President Trump of attempting to murder decency and grace.

So let’s understand this:  it’s decent to rig elections and to disenfranchise voters, and to cheat in debates?

It’s gracious to openly disrespect a duly elected President of the United States and his staff, daily, and in front the world?

It’s gracious to call him names, to relentlessly accuse him, and to attack his administrative personnel and family?

It’s gracious to provably lie about him, and about those he chooses to serve the country?

Why, it’s decent and gracious if you’re wandering around in the intellectual wilderness.

Liberals aren’t averse to logic and facts in their personal lives; it offers too many benefits.  Liberals are averse to logic and facts in the political realm because, one, liberals are exposed as fools when facts and logic are part of debate.  And two, because they lose debate.  Actually, that isn’t true.  The logical wandering around in the intellectual wilderness with liberals assures the debate continues.

So that’s technically a win.  Or is it …?

—Originally published in Clarion News 9/6/2017

©2017 John Mark Warren

New Rules Book Cover

New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside

The Stripper Experience

I was instantly pissed-off.  Thanks to my sports training, however, it having taught me to keep my emotions in-check and to conceal my feelings, I sat thinly grinning, as if the whole thing was lighthearted and funny, and a joke at my expense.

Only, it wasn’t a joke.  It was a purposeful attack, a means to a desired end.  Something you learn through experience, which, like most men, I have plenty of with the matter.  And able to recognize the attack, I was pissed-off.

So what pissed me off?

In polite conversation with a group of women at dinner, I casually pointed out that the cheerleaders at the local high school had made the newspaper.  I related the story briefly, then made the fatal mistake modern men make.  I said the cheerleaders were all “cute.”

Not “hot.”

Not “really attractive.”

No sexy eye-brow shuffle.

No lewd inflection in my voice.

No sexual connotation at all.

Just a bright and sunny, “cute.”

As with every occasion this sort of thing occurs, which are plenteous in a man’s life, I wished I hadn’t used any descriptive at all.  I wish I had just said, “The local cheerleaders made the newspaper—good for them.”  And left it at that.  Better still, I wish I hadn’t said anything at all.  But then, not saying anything at all, I’m pissed off at the control over what I say, and my life.

Women.  Sigh.

Wishing aside, I had used a descriptive—cute.  A term I had cautiously chosen for its implied innocence, and for it sounding complimentary and asexual, and for it seeming a wholesome word that wouldn’t invite a sexual criticism or accusation—all this a load of tactical and preventative cerebral work I severely resent having to do, by the way, and work that decent, upstanding men should not have to do.

Nevertheless.  In my assumptions, I was wrong.

Immediately after the “cute” comment, it was said, “Um, those girls are, like, your daughter’s age.”  The toney comment was accompanied by an expression of disgust, not to mention equally disgusted glares from every woman at the table, as if I were creepy for pointing out that high school cheerleaders were … “cute.”

“I just thought it was cool they made the paper,” I said thinly grinning, my athletic training demonstrating its long term value.

Skilled though I was at remaining cool in this particular situation, there is an implication when women say, “Um, those girls are, like, your daughter’s age.”

What are women saying?

Basically, they’re saying I’m some sort of old creeper taking inappropriate sexual notice of young, innocent high school girls.  Although, from the stories I hear about young high school girls, and given the growing teen pregnancy rate, I’m not sure how innocent.

In fact, I have my own adolescent history with young teenage girls.  When their fathers would give me the date talk about their daughter’s virtue, and about keeping my hands to myself, I often sat thinking, “Yeah, well.  You ought to have this talk with Ms. Virtue!”

Pulling out of the neighborhood, those virtuous daughters were, well, not so virtuous.

“But you’re dad just said …” I’d say futilely, prying their respective hands from my crotch.

Such is life for men when they begin taking an interest in the opposite sex.  It’s assumed they’re the immoral villains.

My traumatic experiences aside, the young cheerleaders I had spoken of were, indeed, all attractive—as are all cheerleaders, typically.  Yet, I’d had no such implied sexual thoughts toward them.

So basically, the implication and subsequent accusation aren’t true.  It is, in fact, an unsubstantiated charge based solely on an innocuous, wholesome, cautiously selected and assumed-to-be inoffensive term—cute.

Yet, when group of women all glare at you as if you’re disgustingly creepy, the accusation not only feels substantiated, but awful, too.  Unprepared and accused, your thrust into an uncomfortable position of creepery from which only your sport’s training can rescue you.

The point is I resent such accusations; they piss me off.  Although, I wasn’t always pissed-off by them.  Inexperienced, such accusations initially unnerved me.  Why?  Because being called a pedophile, essentially, isn’t a characterization I or any man relishes.   It was only when I realized I was being purposefully accused—by the equally guilty, no less!  More on that shortly—that the unnerved feeling gave way to pissed-off irritation.

Hence, is it any wonder I don’t like talking to women?  More to the point, is it any wonder men don’t like talking to women?  I mean, as a man you’re but one cautiously selected descriptive from being unfairly criticized and accused, and from unnerving implications of creepery.

In controlling men in the modern era, criticism and accusation—one in the same, actually—are the female tools of both choice and convenience.   And women, both at a friendly dinner, but particularly those in relationships with men, have no hesitations selectively and conveniently reaching into the man-control toolbox.

The fact is I used to enjoy talking to women, and was quite comfortable in female circles.  Only, communication in those circles used to be different.  One, women weren’t so angry and defensive and aggressive.  And two, having yet to learn the power and convenient usefulness of criticism and accusation, they weren’t so quick to indict and condemn men, either.

Hence, men didn’t have to patrol what they said so closely in female circles, or work so hard at basic communication.  Now it’s a nightmare of word-choice and impending accusation, and of wary unease and awkward discomfort.  Either intended or unintended, men make one misstep and—

BAM!

They’re low-life, pedophilic creepers for using the term “cute.”

Like I said, I resent such accusations, but especially so for them being issued by the equally guilty, no less.   Oh yes.  Women:  the equally guilty.

Try this:  A girl-friend, a mature woman with a husband and three adolescent children, was out running errands.  Sharing the incident, she admitted noticing a group of muscular young men performing landscaping work.  She confessed a sexual preference for brawny, muscular men and, indeed, to deliciously ogling the shirtless studs as she drove past.

Only, during her enchanted ogling, one of the young men turned to reveal the insignia of the local high school on his gym-shorts.

The young landscapers were on the high school wrestling team!

My mature girl-friend was ogling little boys—young, innocent, vulnerable little boys!  And enjoying it!

Is she a pedophilic creeper?

Of course not.  The young landscapers were buff and attractive, and it’s okay to both think and say so.  The same as it’s okay to say young cheerleaders are “cute.”

So if men appreciate the attractiveness of young women, and women appreciate, er, deliciously ogle young landscapers!  Then, what’s the difference?

The difference is men are accused of pedophilic creepery and women get to ogle young, innocent, buff landscapers deliciously without incident!

That’s the difference.  And what a scam.

Again, women:  the equally guilty.  Yet, accusers of men.

Would women like being accused of pedophilia, and accused so routinely?  Of course they wouldn’t.  And were they accused, and accused as routinely, it wouldn’t take long for it to get old, and for women to become angry and defensive.  Well, it doesn’t take long for it to get old to men, and for them to become angry and defensive, either.

Only, men don’t say anything.  Relying on their sports training they just, deflect, and shut-up.  Modern men are so used to being accused—by the equally guilty, no less!—about other women that they not only feel guilty.  They act guilty.

Men.  Eye-roll.  What a bunch of suckers.

Anyway, here’s where I think strippers can help!

Strippers?  You say.  Yes, of course.  I actually like the term erotic dancers better, but strippers has a certain, panache.  A certain attractive quality I thought perhaps useful, particularly in the title.

Everything about the stripper experience is sexualized.  Hence, men don’t have all the communication problems with strippers that they do with women who aren’t, um, of the pole, shall we say.  Offering plenty of smiles and eye-contact, strippers make men feel good, and secure.  Taking notice of men’s physiques and commenting on their fitness and appearance and attractiveness, strippers are effusively complimentary—if compensated to be so.  Thus, men feel good, and are at ease with strippers.  Secured by the arrangement’s warmth and acceptance, the conversation is thus easy and comforting.

No war-zone here.  This is the green-zone, the safe-zone—full of friendlies!

The environment is so friendly that men can say, “Incidentally, I saw the local high school cheerleading team made the newspaper; they’re all so cute,” and strippers don’t take offense.  No accusations of pedophilic creepiness, no disgusted glares.  In fact, strippers advance the conversation:

“Oh, really?  Cheerleaders in the paper?—that’s interesting.  Do you know someone on the team?”

“No, no.  I just saw them in the paper and was proud of them.  Not everybody makes the paper, you know.”

“No, I guess they don’t.  Nice of you to appreciate the achievements of young women, wink.”

“Why, thank you.  More champagne?”

“Yes, of course.  Aren’t you the gentlemen.  I’m really enjoying our conversation.”

“As am I …”

See how well it works?  See how easy, comfortable?

It’s a lot better than being accused and showered with disgusted creeper glares.

Way better.

Women, um, not of the pole, miss the point of the stripper experience.  They think it’s about the sex for men—scantily clad women accentuating their feminine assets, lap-dances in the Champagne Room, and whatnot.

It is about sex to an extent, admittedly.  But it’s infinitely more about men being able to relax their guard with women and not having to be so wary.  It’s about being able to think like a man, to talk like a man, to behave like a man, and about being treated like a man, and not having to work so hard at conversation.  It’s about setting all the political baggage down and enjoying an open, complimentary, accusation- and glare-free exchange with the opposite sex.

The sexual aspect is actually incidental.

Here’s the point:  strippers aren’t accusatory of men.  They aren’t touchy about young cheerleaders or quick to condemn men of pedophilic creepery, either.  And for their hospitality and understanding, strippers enjoy good, warm relations with men.

Thus, the obvious question:  why don’t women take a cue from strippers and give their men the stripper treatment?  Lap-dances optional, of course.  Before addressing the question, let’s clear-up this cheerleader issue.

Women aren’t really touchy about younger women as it concerns men in general taking notice.  Women couldn’t care less.  Women are touchy about younger women as it concerns their individual men taking notice.  And it isn’t just younger women that women are touchy about, either.

In regards to other women in general—whether they be old, young, cheerleaders, or strippers, the quicker women can accuse and shame their men into not taking notice of or talking about other women, the quicker women can, one, neutralize the emotional threat other women present.  Two, the quicker women can assuage their sub-standard feelings of not-good-enough.  And three, the quicker women can feel in control, secure, and at ease.

That’s what this cheerleader business is all about.

That’s the reasons for the creeper accusation, and for the accusations in regards to other women in general.

So now, the question:  why don’t women take a cue from strippers and give their men the stripper treatment?

Answer:  laziness.  Relational laziness, actually.

Criticizing and accusing men, and using the tactic as a means of control, modern women have decided they don’t have to try relationally.  Condemning and shaming men into compliance is much easier than actually trying to keep them through stripper-like warmth, understanding, and pleasant accommodation.

Thereto, what modern, feminist woman wants to be seen working to keep a man?  What modern woman wants to be labeled a Stepford Wife, perceived as unequal and subservient and weak?  And other than strippers, what modern woman wants to be seen catering to men and treating men how they like to be treated?

Why, that’s a job for those submissive, man-worshiping strippers.

Singer Janis Joplin doesn’t, er, didn’t agree.  Through a rather detailed personal story, she rendered sound advice that modern women need to hear.  Her rather unconventional message was:  women need to try harder.

“If you’re ever gonna’ deserve it, you gotta’ work for it, baby,” she said.  “What’d I tell ya’, honey, you better work your sweet ass for him.”

No doubt modern women would scoff at such ideas—performing so as to be deserving of men, working their sweet asses for them.  But the fact is, strippers are doing it, and they get along with men rather well.

So instead sneering and rolling their eyes, and Hmph!-ing the ideas.  Instead of reaching into the man-control toolbox and making yet another accusation—“Oh, so you’re comparing decent women to strippers?!”—and obscuring and avoiding the point.  Perhaps “decent” women should study strippers and their technique.

Perhaps women should be warmer, more comforting, and try to put their men at ease more commonly.

Instead of getting themselves in a selective and pretend tizzy over the term “cute,” perhaps women should be a little less critical and accusatory.

And indeed, instead of lazily controlling men through criticism and accusation, perhaps women should try a little harder.

Relationship “experts” are prescribing date nights, the deeper expression of feelings, and journal keeping aimed at articulating those feelings so as they can be more deeply expressed.

Well, that’s not my prescription.  Nor Janis’, either.

Those conventional remedies are a load of female-friendly malarkey of which neither I nor men want any part.  Men only endure those sorts of things for being hostage to an unfriendly legal system that all-too-eagerly strips them of their finances and parental rights.  A system presided over by a judge that only needs to hear, “He called high school cheerleaders cute, your honor,” to condemn men of creepery and to pillage the finances and deny the rights.

Hello journal keeping drudgery and the deeper expression of … feelings.

So forget the conventional therapy.  Janis and I are prescribing something that works—women working their sweet asses for their men and trying harder.  Not only would it solve a great many relationship problems.  It would end the need for journal keeping and the deeper expression of … feelings.  Ewww, yuck!

Shiver.

The point isn’t cheerleaders or strippers or accusatory control.  It’s that women have exempted themselves from their role in making relationships work.  Culturally coddled, and spoiled by the useful power of accusation, women have become relationally lazy.

It’s as if there’s a “no compete” clause written into relationships ensuring that women don’t have to compete to keep their men.

Snarling, “Well!  We shouldn’t have to compete to keep our men!” is exactly what women would say, too.  But, who’s responsible for that ridiculous, self-serving idea?

Oh wait, self-serving.  Nevermind.

Contractually, women don’t have to cater to their men, or work to deserve them.  They don’t have to be sexy or sexual.  They don’t have to work their sweet asses, or seduce their men.  They don’t have to be complimentary, or kindly and agreeable and interested in putting their men at ease, either.

In other words, once men are committed, women get to lay-up and don’t have to try—Um, it’s in the contract.  See?  Right there—paragraph B, subsection E.  “No compete.”  Now.  If you say those cheerleaders are cute one more time, asshole …!

And the irony is women expect their men to make them feel like the Queen of the Nile.

Women don’t lose their sexual game; they abandon it.  Because it’s easy to abandon it.  Because their men make it easy to abandon it.  And then the relationship goes south because women spend all their time jealous of other women and accusing their men—while women themselves ogle hunky landscapers!

I bet women could reclaim their sexual game and put on the charm for the hunky landscapers.

What?  Don’t think it’s true?  Why, never doubt me.

©JMW 2017 All Rights Reserved

New Rules Book Cover

New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feelings and Fact

A woman walks past the mirror.  She stops, examines herself critically and, baselessly and undeservingly so, sighs with disappointment and disapproval.  Then she walks into the den where her husband sits.

Upon entry, the wife pauses.  Sensing purpose, her husband looks at her benignly, innocently.  He wonders:  What have I done now, and how long is this going to take?  But it’s third and goal.  His eyes alternating between his wife and the television set, he finally concedes.

“Yes, dear?” He says, begrudgingly focusing his attention.

“You think I’m ugly,” she says.

Not a question.  A statement.

Our perplexed victim—indeed, victim—sits thinking, What the hell is this all about?!  Mystified and innocent though he is, he’s nonetheless forced into not only explaining how this extreme and baseless accusation is in no way true, but into offering convincing, reassuring evidence to the contrary.  Meanwhile, he misses third and goal, and the failed fourth and goal, too.

And for what reason?

For having feelings projected onto him.  Or, for someone else’s feelings becoming his feelings.

And the phenomenon totally explains this:  10 Ways Husbands Make Their Wives Feel Ugly Without Saying A Thing.  The title of a piece I came across during research.

I’ll bet men didn’t know they could make women feel ugly without saying a thing.  Well, they can!  And here are 10 ways that prove it.  And what’s the title saying?  More pointedly, what are women saying?

Women are blaming men for how they feel.  And it isn’t blame based on what men have said or done, either.  It’s based on what women think men are thinking, despite not knowing what men are actually thinking.  Sound convoluted?  Seem totally unfair, unreasonable?

It is.

But don’t think for a moment women don’t relate warmly to the idea.  Get to the article’s corresponding comment section and you find these remarks:

“This is so spot on!!!!”

“Had my ex’s known this, I probably wouldn’t have had exes!!”

“This article nails it.  I tried to explain this to previous boyfriends; and they do not get it.  Maybe the next one will.”

So what does this mean?  It means women are not only holding men accountable for what they think men are thinking.  They’re punishing men for it, too.

In other words, women walk into the den and say, “You think I’m ugly,” or one of many like accusations.  Then they cultivate a problem based on the charge they, in their minds, have made true, and sooner and later punish men for the crime.

And why wouldn’t women think the charge true and embrace the concept?

There is never any rebuttal to the assertions in these sorts of articles.  Thereto, sharing the same gender-related sentiments, it’s easy for women to agree with the feminine complaints, and to then similarly accuse their own men.  In fact, such articles serve to validate women’s beliefs and accusations.

Ergo, I think women might benefit from a rebuttal, those who’d be open to such a thing, anyway.  So, that’s what this is:  a rebuttal.  A refutation of the ideas put forth in the piece: 10 Ways Husbands Make Their Wives Feel Ugly Without Saying A Thing.  Or one might say, it’s the male perspective.

So, complaint by complaint, here are my thoughts.

1.  He Withholds Compliments.

What’s the core of this issue?   The need for approval—the unending siege that is the perpetual glorifying of women.  Without it, women decide they are underappreciated, undervalued, disrespected, unloved, and of course, ugly.  At least they “feel” ugly—and the rest of these things, too, incidentally.  Of course, men feel undeserving of these indictments.  And indeed, they virtually always are undeserving.

It seems an obvious fact to report but, men and women are totally different creatures.  Only, via their complaints, which are essentially indictments, women try to make men characteristically like them, instead of both realizing and accepting that men are totally different creatures, and instead of allowing men be who they are characteristically.

Given the endless indictments, the characteristic male is clearly unsatisfactory.

The baseline issue here is female insecurity.  It creates the next issue, which is:  the required self-esteem and self-confidence building of women, by men, for that insecurity.  Men aren’t nearly as insecure, and they don’t need the self-esteem and self-confidence reinforcement nearly as much, either—not that they don’t like it, and not that it isn’t required to some extent.  Even so, neither are an issue with men.  Hence, they don’t understand the female need for perpetual compliments and reassurance.

In other words, and simply, the insecurity and need for reassurance are characteristically foreign to men.

So men don’t intend to make women feel “ugly,” and to hurt their feelings—not that men actually participate in that.  Nor do men intend to neglect women’s feelings.  Different creatures, men simply don’t relate to the characteristic needs of women.

And to that, here’s something:  it’s amazing how difficult women find it to give their men a lewd visual once over, and to say wantonly, “My goodness you’re freakin’ hot!  Yes, please!”  Yet how easily, and quickly, and routinely women ask and expect men to do the same for them.

In other words, as to characteristic needs needing to be understood and respected and serviced, it’s a one-way street.

With a rather long list of cues to learn, it is men who are required to do the work in the compliment and reassurance department.  And the problem is, they never seem able to get it right.  If men drop the ball.  If they don’t reply on cue with the required, listed, should’ve been studied and learned response, BAM!  They’re insensitive assholes under attack.

I can’t speak for everyone but, when treated that way, I don’t want to issue compliments.

I think if women leapt down from their feminist steeds, and started lusting over and complimenting their men, instead of issuing demands for compliments, and instead of creating a political mess.  They would see their men become a little more attentive and complimentary.

I mean, that’s what strippers do.  And look how well men respond to them.

2.  He has no pictures of his wife anywhere.

Surprise, surprise.  More female need for male reassurance—Tell me you want to see my face during the day, to be reminded of me, and that I’m special.  But that’s not all there is to this picture issue.

Women want pictures of themselves in their men’s away-from-home environments so as to let all those vixens know their men are spoken for.  A squirt of urine on the office desk or credenza, pictures are women marking their territory.

In other words, it’s female insecurity rearing its ugly head once again.  It comes with an accusation, too, of course, which is:  “Why don’t you have—read: want—pictures of me in your away-from-home environment?”  And the underlying accusation:  “You must not want people—read: other women—to know you’re involved in a relationship!”

And there’s the secondary underlying accusation:  “You must not want people to see whom you’re involved with, because you think I’m ugly!  I knew it—just knew it; I can read your mind.  You think I’m hideous!”

In dealing with this picture issue, I again offer the obvious:  men are different characteristic creatures.

Men don’t care about pictures!  That’s it.  That’s all there is to it.  They don’t have one thought about the absence or presence of pictures.  And if men do have photographs on their desks or credenzas, they don’t look at them as women do—with the frowny aww! faces and cozy feelings.

For men, it’s like, “Yeah, that’s my wife, Kim.  That’s us in Cancun last year.  Do you have that report, by the way?  Thanks.  And tell Jim I need to see him.”

And why are men this way?

Because they aren’t women!  Again, it seems an obvious point.  It also seems men would be—like women, with their frowny aww! faces and cozy feelings—entitled to behave characteristically without condemnation.

If women want their men to have pictures in their away-from-home environments, women should buy the frames, insert the pictures, squirt pee on them to ward off the vixens, and give them to their men for display.  Men would be happy to exhibit the prepared photographs.  And given the scent, they’d be happy to pick them up for the occasional, lascivious whiff, too.

Why?

Because men actually do like to look up now and again to see their women, so as to fantasize about them in the missionary position, and about what they’re going to do to them when they get home.  So ladies, make it a hot picture, for chrissake.

3.  He Gawks (at other women) frequently.

One word for this complaint:  please.  It’s appalling, actually.  The fraud, that is.  Like men, women are sexual beings subject to the laws of attraction and desire, too.  They sit in their cliques discussing cute guys.  They ogle the dreamy guy at the bar, at the office.  Basically, women make sex-based evaluations of men daily, and everywhere they go.

Yet, they accuse their men of gawking at women.

Like I said, it’s appalling.  Even more appalling is that men would allow themselves to feel guilty.  “Duh-duh-duh … but honey, I wasn’t looking at her!”

Please.

It is true, actually.  Women don’t “gawk” so much.  They’re much more creative than that, much more discreet.  But then, it wouldn’t matter if they did gawk.  Because their men, and men in general, neither make a study of what or whom attracts and holds their women’s attention nor an issue of it.  So women are free to keep up the ruse, and free to continue the accusations.

Thereto, were men to behave like women and to do the same thing, they’d not only be called oppressive.  Women would think they were insecure wussies, too, which would actually be true.

So by no stretch of the imagination are men the only gawkers.  Women are evaluating other men every bit as much and men evaluate other women.  It’s just, were that known, women would lose the power of accusation and the element of control.

And women claim their men gawking at other women hurts their feelings, and that it’s one of the ways men make them “feel ugly without saying a thing.”  Really?

Well, women do the same thing, how are men supposed to feel?

Gawking, more discreet.  What’s the difference?

The whole thing seems rather, hypocritical.

4.  He never gives her gifts.

Starting to notice a pattern?  Yes.  It’s yet more female need for male approval.  Thereto, notice how the lack of male reassurance translates automatically into disapproval?  No modifiers.  No gray area.  Just straight to loveless disapproval and not good enough.

Men feel like climbing atop Everest so that not only the punishing conditions, the strenuous effort, and the danger can prove them, but so that reaching the summit they can scream:  I APPROVE OF YOU, FOR CHRISSAKE!  LET THIS BE THE GIFT THAT PROVES IT SO!!

After, and as a final convincer and for lasting impression, men should plop-down in exhaustion and, for the thin air of altitude, begin wheezing.

And about these gifts.  What are we talking, flowers and candy?  A sweet card for no reason?  A new blouse, perhaps?  How about the gift of a woman’s total sexual pleasure, no reciprocation required?  Well, never mind that one.  Women just eye-rolled it, anyway.

Female naggy voice:  “It’s always about sex with men.  Always!”  And of course, everybody knows sex is for men’s benefit.  It’s a reward, actually.  For all the gifts.  All the gifts men are clearly—thrusting my forehead towards #4—failing to provide.  No wonder men are complaining about sex.

How about these gifts:  loyalty?  Security?  Being a terrific father?  Taking care of things around the home?  Being ambitious and a hard worker?  Being decent, considerate?  Being a man of honor and integrity and reputation?  Or in my case, being an especially patient and skilled paramour with unsurpassed, toe-curling stamina?

That’s a lot of gifts!  Problem is women don’t consider them.  Self-absorbed, they miss the substance for concentrating on the 20% they aren’t receiving.  A 20% that, when actually provided, the meaning and value of which lasts about 30 minutes, before women are again dwelling on and complaining about the 20%.

Women should consider the 80% and the substance more.  They might not feel so ugly.

5.  He constantly looks at his phone.

Although I think it’s ridiculous to correlate “feeling ugly” with men looking at their phones, women obviously do it.  And here’s an interesting tidbit in regards to this complaint:  women “feel ugly” for men looking at their phones, and women accuse men of looking at their phones constantly, while women themselves sit constantly looking at their phones.

I think the goal at the end of each day for women is to see how many accusations they can make against their men.  In doing so, accusation becoming such a habit, women fail to realize how often they are actually guilty of their own accusations.  And men, gullible souls that they are, fail to realize it, too.

Nevertheless, the use of modern technology doesn’t send any messages, doesn’t translate into anything relationally detrimental.  Although, I do think phones could be tucked away on date night so a little more communication and unification could take place.

6.  He can’t just cuddle.

Well, perhaps if women were banging their men more often, men would want to cuddle more.

The line in the piece was, “So when a man wants sex and only sex, his wife feels used—like an appliance—because he only sees her as having one function.”

“… his wife feels …”  Sort of reiterates the problem, no?

I’m sorry—read: I’m not sorry, but sex is a pretty big function in a relationship, one women aren’t performing, or at least aren’t performing enough.  And is it really such the offense that a man, feeling his woman’s body next to him, is so overcome with desire that he wants to take her?

I’m sorry—still don’t mean it—but, I’d say that’s a compliment!  And a woman being familiar, aged, not so fit, and after years of marriage still considered hot enough to obviously turn a man on and to warrant his affections?

On men’s behalf, I’d say to women: You’re welcome!

And women claim they “feel ugly” because men don’t want to cuddle.  Yet women complain cuddling always turns into sex for their men wanting! to have sex with them.

Yeah, that translates into ugly—yes, more sarcasm.  As if, men want to have sex with “ugly” trolls they find hideous and revolting.

Women want desperately to be attractive and sexually desirable to men, and spend considerable time and energy and money achieving the result.  And men are actually desiring women in the ways they want to be desired.  Yet women feel ugly, and like an appliance.

Honestly, women need to get their act together.

7.  He eats the last cupcake so she won’t.

So women are food Nazis sensitive about their weight, and intensely self-conscious about their bodies.

Who knew.

Men eat the last cupcake to help women in their war against food, and to prevent its assault on their bodies—I can’t believe I actually typed that.  Men are attentive, in that they encourage women by purchasing a gym membership for them or by setting their sneakers out, both in support of yet another certain-to-go-unmet commitment to exercise and to lose weight.

And yet, women feel ugly as a result.

Isn’t it obvious that women are incapable of ever thinking their men have good, supportive intentions?  Thereto, they make this continual fuss about their weight, dieting, exercise, and getting their bodies back.  And when men try to be supportive, it makes women feel ugly?

Again, on men’s behalf, I’d say to women:  You’re welcome!

Nevertheless, let’s address an uncomfortable issue.

I’d like it if he were trimmer and more muscular, more visually appealing; it would turn me on more, and I would be prouder of him.  Looking at their men, their men pot-bellied and flabby and not-so-fit, do women think this?

They won’t admit it, but of course they do.

I’d like it if she were trimmer and more fit, more visually appealing; it would turn me on more, and I would be prouder of her.  Likewise, do men think this looking at their not-so-fit women?

Of course men do, and they won’t admit it, either.

So there.  The truth is on the table.

Now.  Unless a particular man or woman is shallow, both realize they care about their partner for reasons other than their less than fit appearance.  Each would prefer a lither, more visually appealing partner, but their partners not being so isn’t a deal-breaker.  It just isn’t … optimum.

Hence, each overlook the less than fit appearance for the more meaningful substance, and perhaps for love.

Now then.  Everybody in the same boat, all can be less than fit, at ease, and happy.

The ways in which women’s body issues cripple relationships are too many to count.  They create “ugly” in their minds, and then project all those feelings onto men and into the relationship.  The practice creating severe dysfunction, women should cease with the body issue drama.

8.  He prefers all things mancave.

Men prefer the mancave?  Why, I wonder why that might be?  Perhaps men are seeking isolation in the mancave for women criticizing and accusing them all the time.  Instead of equating men’s retreat to the mancave to an admission of their ugliness, perhaps women should evaluate that alternative.

In fact, considering their critical and accusatory treatment, perhaps women are indeed ugly, or are at least being ugly.

This complaint isn’t so much about women feeling ugly as it is about separation anxiety.  The longer women remain with their men, and the stronger feelings and attachment become, the more afraid women are of losing their men.  Thus, women continually think love and the relationship are both dying.  Men are disconnecting emotionally, and are less interested.  And including trips to the mancave, everything men do is seen as the next step in an ultimate separation they are secretly deliberating and plotting.  And of course, women able to read men’s minds, this must be so.

It’s just another example of women creating unnecessary problems and friction for the way they “feel.”  It’s yet another instance of women making men choose:  me or it!  And it’s yet another instance where men have to prove their devotion by choosing me, and not it, which in this case is:  the mancave.

“Well, why don’t we watch a movie in the mancave, dear?”

“You don’t want to be with me.”

“I just said, Let’s watch a movie.”

“Just forget it!”  You’re choosing it, not me.

It’s a nightmare.

Here’s the correct reply:  “A movie?  Great idea, honey!  Can we have sex beforehand?”

Why, yes we can, dear.  Yes-we-can.  You’re the best wife ever, by the way.

9.  He doesn’t mind when other men give his wife attention.

So, men aren’t jealous enough.  It’s yet another example of not only female insecurity, but of women expecting men to be characteristically like them.  Only, and I repeat, men aren’t like women.

Women are the jealous gender, not men.  And women aren’t merely jealous.  They’re intensely jealous, and they want men to be jealous, too, er, like them.  The questions is: why would women want their men to exhibit jealousy, when in fact women think jealous men are insecure and unattractive?

Women despise jealous men!  So then, an exhibition of male jealousy might be endearing to women a time or two but, eventually, they’re going to give it the ol’ resting bitch face and nostril flare.

The point merely emphasizes the need for women to think things through instead of giving-in to their emotional impulses so readily.  If men don’t get jealous when other men give their women attention, it doesn’t mean that men are indifferent and don’t care.  It means, men don’t give-in to their emotional impulses and automatically assign ill-intent and distrust to the situation.

And who does that?

Women.  Because they want men to be like them, but only on rare occasion, when women feel needy, and not very often, so that it’s creepy and unmanly, else men get the resting bitch face and nostril flare.

In other words, let’s all sit around reacting to women’s emotional impulses while we try to figure out what they really want.  I’m looking around, ladies; I don’t see any enthusiasm for it.

Regardless of gender, jealousy isn’t a sign of confidence, and it isn’t attractive.  And indeed, it makes one ugly.

10.  He speaks more favorably of other women than his wife.

Per the piece, here’s what men do that makes women feel ugly:  “When a wife overhears her husband refer to the lady next door as “gorgeous” and the gal in accounting as “brilliant”—two words he has never said to her—she will feel anything but beautiful. This is especially true when Miss Gorgeous and Miss Brilliant are acquaintances of the couple, not mere images out of Hollywood.”

One, such things said about other women doesn’t make a wife ugly.  And two, men come on to their own women, too, repeatedly saying the exact same things, as in “gorgeous” and “brilliant.” Only, women discount and ignore the come-ons and compliments for not feeling so gorgeous and brilliant themselves, and for deeming their men disingenuous.

In other words, women don’t hear the come-ons and compliments, as in take them to heart, and they don’t give men credit.  Because, given women have convinced themselves they aren’t gorgeous and brilliant, their men were then insincere and didn’t—couldn’t!—actually mean the come-ons and compliments.  And then, men have their come-ons and compliments discounted and ignored so much, and so often, that they stop offering them.

What good does it do? men say.  Where’s the benefit for them?

There is no benefit.  Despite compliments of other women being justified and a simple acknowledgement of fact, women aren’t going tolerate their men complimenting other women.  As long as women feel terrible about themselves there shall be no compliments issued to other women, ever!

End of discussion!

Now, that is ugly.

***

So there you go—the male rebuttal.  Strip all this down and it’s a bunch of complaints that amount to a constant need for more security.  Go ahead, review them.  Check my charge.

In each instance women try to make men feel like them, and to make men see things as women see them.  Meanwhile, women insinuate men are insensitive and wrong for being characteristic men, men who need to start doing things the correct way, relationally speaking, which is of course making women feel more secure and less ugly.

Of course, the underlying problem is trust.  Women distrust men.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t be essentially accusing men of so many evils, deeds that make women feel “ugly,” or more to the point, insecure.  Only, men aren’t evil.  They just aren’t women.  They don’t have the emotional hang-ups that women endure.  They don’t think like women or behave the way women behave, either.

Men are just different creatures.  It’s a silly example but, we don’t ask a dog to be a cat, or a hummingbird to be a hawk.  We don’t ask one of our children to be more like another.  We’re all unique.  Creatures are unique.  Men are unique, characteristically unique, separate and apart from women.  Yet, men are being made villains for the way they behave and react, for the way they see and do things naturally, characteristically.  Like demanding the dog stop barking and start meowing, men are being demanded of to become something other than what they are naturally.

It’s absurd.  And unfortunately, too many men not only tolerate being villainized.  They actually change into something uncharacteristic and unrecognizable.  And why?  For the constant accusations and pressure.  For the continual dysfunction.  And for being made to feel like assholes by women all the time.

To please women and to end the suffering, men stop barking and start meowing.

The question is:  why isn’t the shoe on the other foot?  Why aren’t women asked to better understand men?  To think like men?  To behave like men?  To cater to men’s needs?  And to uncharacteristically meow instead of bark?

Because unlike women, men don’t want that, and thus aren’t demanding that.

It’s an ugly truth, one perhaps women should not only acknowledge, but emulate.

Feelings and fact.  There is a vast difference between them.

Comments

New Rules Book Cover

New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside