"Welcome to Paradise, Shaheed, we are the virgins promised to you by Allah"
Posted on 07/11/2004 2:59:32 AM PDT by Happygal
It's going through the motions of embracing the gender revolution. But the fact that women's lib was/is led by a centralised militant group of shrill feminists, becomes more pronounced every day. The more belligerent the feministas get, the more resolute the grassroots become about moving in the opposite direction.
Unconsciously, women seek to be overwhelmed by men. To surrender power for love is feminine. When men do it, women lose respect. What else can explain the 82 per cent avalanche of women who answered "Yes, we do prefer men who treat us badly" in the Observer's recent survey on men?
What's more, 79 per cent of men surveyed know this.
It is this data that makes modern feminism irrelevant hyperbole. It is the way of the world and no PC whitewash or posturing pseudo-lesbo is going to change it.
It's as unbreakable as the middle-classes' revulsion to socialism's high taxes.
The whole "because we're worth it" conceit is a baggy Sex and the City mantra. It's the chant women wryly use to keep the feministas at bay and the sexual revolution chroniclers busy. But behind closed doors, beneath all the vibrating "independent woman" bravado, in the deepest recession of our minds, women still subscribe to the old model of female submission to a domineering male.
Equality in the workplace and the accompanying perks are great but, Helene Deutsch in her seminal The Psychology of Women (1948) was right in arguing that women are - and want to remain - "masochistic-narcissistic" personalities. Women want to be put to use as wives and mothers and loved for their sacrifice. They want to be needed. Self-sacrifice is how women show love.
Women, like Bill Clinton, lead "parallel lives" of boardroom dominance and bedroom enslavement. As Fay Weldon commented in the London Times this week, "'Equality' satisfies the human urge for justice but it is not a recipe for domestic happiness."
Sometimes, despite our worst competitive instincts, women should stand back and applaud Nigella Lawson. Not only does she despise the charade of pseudo-sex massages, but she also succeeds in appearing to defer to men while not having her own identity eroded.
In last weekend's Daily Telegraph Lawson commented on massage: "Nothing that's meant to be relaxing - like being told to relax - ever is." Massage is not just a substitute for sex, it is for women who don't "do" sex.
My first (and last) massage performed by a robust Helga type with a commanding mumble resulted in me leaving the clinic dazed and sexually confused, wondering whether I was a lesbian. Massage is for sexual androids. I defy anyone - who isn't an asexual twig - not to get frisky as foreign fingertips knead at your fleece.
Lawson agrees with Judith Newman, author of You Make Me Feel Like an Unnatural Woman, who said: "Why would you want to be touched by a stranger you weren't having sex with?" In our sophisticated swirling metropolis, sex has become too messy and time-consuming for many women.
Lawson's genius is in emphasising that she's not one of these new women and it is why men really love her. Looks and cooks are a dime a dozen. She lives by the simple and enduring "Bring beer, come naked" formula.
Last Saturday, Lawson coyly confessed that she isn't "a decision-maker", expanding that the TV remote is never in her hand but, "I'm not complaining: the good thing about not being in control is that you have no responsibility; you are just a passive receiver for whatever is thrown at you."
Now we know why art collector, Charles Saatchi could afford to be so phlegmatic about the BritArt blaze.
Lawson gives the impression that she's a carnal creature driven solely by her senses. A lustrous panda roaming through the undergrowth for various genus of bamboo cane. Her career a trivial distraction to her primary pursuits. Lawson's "obsession with food" is really and truly an obsession with sex.
It's all just an act of course, but the point is that Lawson is willing to play the subordinate role, real or imagined. The ideal balance between doormat and dominatrix. And most women secretly agree.
Women still want sex and security and men still want sex and flattery. The spurious "masculinity in crisis" debate has been drummed up by academics who have realised they've come to the gender revolution cul de sac.
I'd be bored too if the only principal changes over the centuries between men and women were to be observed in the clinical office environment.
I know this is seen as a humorous topic for the naive who forget how horrific life is for some women. But for those of us who have seen a woman /some women /kids destroyed because of a character-disordered male who is spewing his selfish hateful behavior on her and all those in his path, it's not a laughing matter.
As for your 50-y.o. friend, my mom says that when my great-grandmother was widowed, her statement in the form of a question was, why would I marry again when that would just mean someone I had to cook and clean for? But then, I guess maybe that's why your friend never actually marries any of her beaus. Tell her to open her eyes, there really are good normal men out there but they are sometimes overlooked because they are a little awkward, or shy, or nervous, or maybe even eccentric.
And I commend you for having dialogue with your sons about the right way to treat women. Best wishes on your son's engagement.
Myself, I am happily married, and I am extremely grateful that my husband is a decent person.
Ladies, I will say this again, if you are with an abuser, decide what you can SAFELY do and then do it. Whether that is:
1. Setting limits with him & speaking up for yourself & making demands for fairness; or
2. Getting a change of clothes and throwing the kids in the car and moving far far away; or
3. Going to a battered women's shelter and accepting their expert help in getting out of the hellhole without getting yourself killed;
do something. The longer you do nothing the more depleted you will be. Your kids are watching. Set the example for them and show them that you are willing to be brave and find help and escape.
you are speaking of the extreme.
on that topic, I am in full agreement with you.
However, it does appear that the majority of women respond to lower-magnitude dominance/patronism/arrogance from men with submission and sexual compliance. The flipside: it appears that the majority of women respond to kindness/solicitousness/compassion from men with dismissal and contempt.
That is the way it seems to go.
More's the pity.
Women do indeed love jerks. This mainly applies to younger women. Women get off on "fixing" a man. They want to be the one who turns him around. The problem is that you can rarely change someone.
Women go for certain things - extreme confidence, an "I don't care attitude", and power.
That one comma really changes everything.
"Welcome to Paradise, Shaheed, we are the virgins promised to you by Allah"
And I thought women swooned over a guy with a chilled bottle of reisling. ;-)
Women are attracted to men who are unpredictable, uncontrollable, and dominant - men who pose a challenge. Abusive "bad boys" have these qualities, and women find them so attractive that they are willing to overlook the abuse and excuse the violence just to be around them. "Kindness/solicitousness/compassion" signifies weakness to a woman, telling her you would father weak children who would have a hard time surviving in the world. These decisions are made at a subconscious level - women always have a hard time explaining why they are attracted to jerks. They aren't attracted to the abusive behavior, they are attracted to the characteristics those jerks are inadvertently displaying that suggest her future children are more likely to survive.
So the homework for all you soon-to-be-former "nice guys" is to figure out ways to be unpredictable, uncontrollable and dominant around women without crossing the line and becoming hurtful and abusive.
Arrogance is different than confidence. As my mother once said, it's better to tolerate a man who is occasionally over-confident, than one who lacks confidence.
However, it does appear that the majority of women respond to lower-magnitude dominance/patronism/arrogance from men with submission and sexual compliance. The flipside: it appears that the majority of women respond to kindness/solicitousness/compassion from men with dismissal and contempt.
Don't you believe it. Perhaps it's just the women you choose.
""Yes, we do prefer men who treat us badly" in the Observer's recent survey on men?"
What? They can't possibly mean this blather, this is a joke right? Or is this an Islam poll?
MontanaBeth
I haven't seen that "majority of women". You must hang with a different group than I do.
Maybe the nice guys need similar advice as that which I gave earlier,
"Tell him to open his eyes, there really are good normal women out there but they are sometimes overlooked because they are a little awkward, or shy, or nervous, or maybe even eccentric."
Like Dr. John Gray says in "Mars and Venus on a Date", the nice ones are out there, but you have to open your eyes to see them.
BINGO!!!--coming from a woman who has had an abusive relationship.
My current sweetheart of 2.5 is the kindest guy in the world, he spoils me rotten, cannot seem to be angered, and often I feel guilty because I don't deserve such a great guy when I have so many flaws.
Us women are nurturing creatures and the psychological barrier of having a mate who is kinder and gentler then they are themselves is similar to the man's "breadwinner" mentality that prevents him from dating a woman who earns more than he does.
bump
On the surface, it all seems rather silly, but a closer look reveals a very big part of what has gone wrong in our culture. Everybody is trying to be something they're not and the result has been a weakening of our society at its very core. The dominant cultural unit is no longer the nuclear family, committed to one another and well-grounded in their churches and communities. We have become a culture of displaced homemakers, absent fathers, bastard children with no roots or sense of identity, users and criminals. Our communities are full of lonely people with no sense of direction or purpose, who take refuge in alcohol, drugs or the next man or woman that gives them attention. The foundations of faith, education, and patriotism no longer form the building blocks for future generations and young people are left to their own devices and to the mercy of others to meet their needs and are vulnerable to anything that promises to do so.
I want to believe that it can be turned around, but it seems that would be the equivalent of trying to build a house on the sand. The foundation has already crumbled, and I fear that the only way to rebuild is to lay a new foundation.
Yes, but how many of them have committed relationships and happy marriages and families?
They're Irish.
Think FReepers should join and write letters to the editor using their talking points?..BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Life is not bad at all when you can learn to be happy without material things or constantly worrying about other people being "more successful" than yourself.
My wife and I compliment each other very well. We have no hangups at all about gender roles. She's busy being a mother and wife and I'm busy being father and husband. Of course that doesn't mean I can't do the laundry or cook meals now and then and it doesn't mean she can't ever mow the lawn or replace a spare tire (when she's the only one in the car). But there are certain things that we are indispensable for. Only my wife can give our kids the motherly attention they need to develop properly and only I can enforce the discipline and structure they need to be successful when they grow up. Among the many other things that each of us provide in the family relationship that the other can't (at least not very effectively). If it were up to either one of us alone, we'd find a way but our kids would not get the full benefit of having both parents. That's why I feel badly for single moms (and single dads). Try as they might, they are at a real disadvantage. Kids need a father figure and a mother figure. And the homosexual-sponsored "two mommies" concept doesn't cut it either.
When I was a younger man and my kids were still little, I made it clear to my wife that if anything ever happened to me that I would want her to find a husband so that they could properly raise our kids. She felt the same. Fortunately that situation never came about and now we are looking forward to renewing our marriage now that our kids are just about grown up.
"having a big mean father who beat me with the buckle end of the belt until I could outrun him. I never had a brother so I never saw a helpless little boy. Then I had two sons and realized they are just as helpless as babies as baby girls are."
This is an exact mirror image of my life. I believe God sent me two boys for a reason. They made it possible for me to love and value men.....which I was not able to do before they were born. They caused a complete revolution in my life.
The Observer is a British (not Irish) publication.
Ah, Chateau St. Michele Chardonnay. My favorite. How did you know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.