Trapped in adulthood.

My wife and I were talking about “being true to yourself” yesterday when she made the point that for women this always somehow meant not fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities (because it will destroy you).  Being true to yourself is the exact opposite to being true to your word.  I’ve made the observation before that the phrase as commonly used is a codification of childishness.  However, this time it reminded me of a passage from Lorraine Berry’s Salon piece*:

Had that spark always been there? Had I had been too caught up in the mundaneness of married life? Had I really been yet another one of those women who had given away her identity when she said “I do?” And I don’t mean “I do” to marriage — but rather “I do” to adult responsibility, jobs, children, mortgage, graduate school, paying bills. Where was the me in all of that?

I’ve always had this sense, but Lorraine Berry doesn’t even try to couch it in feminist or woman’s magazine newspeak.  There is no waxing mysterious about feeling trapped due to a problem that has no name.  She actually comes right out and complains about being trapped in adulthood.  This is a mother of two who is almost 50, writing about the unfairness of having been forced to grow up in her mid to late 20s.  Some editor at Salon must have saw this and thought;  this would make a great column.  It speaks to every woman’s crushed dreams.

So here you have it.  The evil patriarchy’s greatest crime is expecting women to grow up.

*For those prone to mix up their Lorraine Berry true life essays, this is the true life essay where she was happily married and attracted to her husband until just before the birth of her second child.  It should not be confused with the true life essay where she was an unhappily married woman at a much younger age who throughout her marriage pined for the alpha who scored a same night lay with her when she was 19.  I hope this clears up any confusion you may have experienced.

This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Post Marital Spinsterhood. Bookmark the permalink.

103 Responses to Trapped in adulthood.

  1. “So here you have it. The evil patriarchy’s greatest crime is expecting women to grow up.

    So, you would think when I have inferred or called women children they would be thrilled-ha! Not so much.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Dude, thou art correct! Freedom from responsibility and adulthood… why drudge away at being a wife and mother any more when there’s the rampant promiscuity and fulfillment of being a ‘ho again before it’s too late?

  3. Gorbachev says:

    Feminism:

    The rights of adults without the responsibilities.

    This sums up modern feminism in its entirely.

    (first-wave feminism wasn’t hostile to women being the true equals of men. It just didn’t account for the natural self-infantilization that women are programmed with, which corrupted feminism).

  4. Recently at school, a teacher told my kids that it would be a grave mistake for any of them to marry or have children before they’re 25 years old. One of my opinionated 15-year old twins piped in and noted that their mother and father were the married parents of three children before either of us was 25 years old. He asked if their parents were still married. When they answered in the affirmative (they have the class together), he told them we were the exception rather than the rule.

    It made for a good discussion when they came home, and it gave us a chance to reiterate the importance of faith, values, integrity, and commitment. This is the first time this year that a teacher has bad mouthed marriage, family, etc. There was a thrice divorced, pregnant middle school teacher who got an earful from me for not keeping her private life private.

    All that to say, if I had it to do over, we’d be homeschooling my teenagers the same way we’re planning to homeschool our younger children. Let this serve as a warning to all of you parents: If your kids are in school, they are getting more than the 3 R’s.

    This stuff isn’t learned in a vacuum, and there’s more to it than what you’re modeling at home. You need to dialogue about what they’re hearing in class, too.

  5. Sweet As says:

    I don’t think this is a patriarchy/woman thing. A lot of men go through this same issue, they just don’t write essays about it — they go and do it and their wives either tag along or they don’t.

    I think that a lot of women *do* give up themselves for marriage, and I think it’s wrong. To me, it’s in the family of cuckoldry, honestly. You are simply picking a guy who increases your status, but with whom you may not be compatible long term *because* you actually have different values/whatever.

    Example: When I was dating my husband, I was also dating a guy named Randy. He was a nice guy. Good looking, good family, working toward being a large-animal vet so that he can work in the family business (middle-scale dairy farming). His family had money (but was frugal), and lived in a beautiful small town, in a beautiful farm house. He would go to vet school, move back home, work in the family business, and have a wife and family. And that he does have.

    I could see that this guy was a good catch. He was stable, good social status (technically a step up from my family, being of upper-upper middle class, lower-upper class, and we being of middle-upper middle class or upper-middle class), and all around truly nice guy. And respectful, too, definitely looking for a “good girl.”

    I also had qualities to bring to the table — determination, loyalty, good values, and attractive enough to make the grade for him and his family. Education helped too.

    I should also disclose that I only dated Randy 3 times, and I dated my husband 4 times then went exclusive with my husband. No hook ups, not even a kiss.

    My husband was less appropriate on paper. He comes from a stable family, solidly middle class. His sister was a bulemic and an addict, which put off some alarm bells about the sanity in his family, but he was also good looking, kind and respectful, and educated.

    I knew that to continue with Randy would be to compromise some of my dreams. This doesn’t mean I was avoiding growing up, but rather that I wanted to find a life-partner. I wanted someone who could support me in being me, and we were heading in the same direction in life.

    While it seemed idyllic to move to a farm and into a family business and join the ladies auxillary, the other expectations were more intense — going to the family church, extensive familial social obligations, plus the obligations to the town, which this family basically ran. While much smaller scale than Kate Middleton, the idea was that I was stepping into a role, which would also mean letting go of some of my own dreams, goals and practices. I grant you — in time — I may have been able to run my own yoga studio in the small town, and we would have travelled, and I would have wanted for nothing, I just couldn’t see myself in the day-to-day role of expectations.

    With my husband, I saw a man who — though as flawed as any man, including Randy — was really heading the same direction that I was. We asked similar questions of ourselves. We thought in similar ways, and we actually work pretty much the same.

    As we have gotten older, we have gotten closer to each other. The more authentic we become individually, the better our partnership becomes. I truly feel if we get this “one thing” in line again, we’ll be doing *very well* once again.

    In my relationship, I can be true to myself and also, of course, an adult and true to my commitments. When things are tough (like now), I have to buck up and honor my word. But this is not very long or very often — and if I’m really honest with myself, wanting the relationship is part of what motivates me to stay committed.

    I get to have both the authentic experience of myself AND my relationship.

    I know a lot of women are chameleons. They change their colors with every boyfriend. I watched many girlfriends do this — blending with his values until she couldn’t handle it anymore, breaking up, meeting a new guy, blending with his values. . . and on and on.

    Basically, many women aren’t be authentic in the first place, and then they go “wait, now i’m living this lie all the time!”

    But to me, honestly, the real issue is marrying under false pretenses, which is no different than cuckolding the guy. It’s just plain mean.

    A person deserves to be loved and valued for himself, not for his status or what he can bring to you. Granted, it *is* part of the equation, but *truly* if a gal doesn’t share the same values and outlook as that great guy with good social status, she needs to cut him loose and go find a man with similar status who *does*.

    Seriously, Randy would never have moved to NZ, and I would not have been able to go to so many crafting events. It just wasn’t going to work, seriously. I would have had to compromise a lot of my self in exchange for that status.

    And for me, it’s not worth it. And honestly, it would have been really mean to Randy. He deserves to be loved, you know? Not “caught” so that I could have status.

    (As far as I know, Randy did marry a nice young woman and they have children and are happy. I am not connected to Randy on FB or any other way, nor have I spoken to him since we ran into each other — and his wife and kids — at the arts festival at our university a few years after graduating. I have no real interest in Randy, but my experience with him is illustrative.)

  6. I should have said what the point of my ramble above was:

    It’s not just mass media and rank and file feminists teaching young people that adulthood is stifling, a trap to be avoided or escpaed from. The message is everywhere.

  7. Country lawyer says:

    What is “Peter Pan Syndrome” for a woman? (and No I don’t mean “typical”)

    Little Mermaid Syndrome?

    Never having to be responsible for your choices, that might be it.

    No . . . “Shang-ri la syndrome” Never growing old, never having to face the cruel world. As long as you stay in the valley.

  8. uncleFred says:

    @Sweet As
    “I don’t think this is a patriarchy/woman thing. A lot of men go through this same issue, they just don’t write essays about it”

    I’m not sure exactly what you mean here.
    Perhaps males, who are still boys, go through the same thing, where “being true to yourself” is somehow more important that “being true to your word”. Men on the other hand, are males who have left the irresponsibility of boyhood behind. We understand that we are only as good as our word. Period. Perhaps we may not live up to it, but not to do so is a form of failure, so we sure as hell try. Whining about it cuts no ice. Men, who are by definition responsible, give their word cautiously because they have come to understand that they must keep it. Often boys become men when they must deal with the consequences of giving their word when they could not keep it. They face the results and learn that, if they are to enjoy self respect and the mutual respect of other men, they must keep their word.

    To call males of any age, who still indulge in boyhood, men, is to tarnish all men. Being a man means being an adult. There was a time when girls became women by the same metric. Forty years ago men AND WOMEN expected girls to grow up and become women. No longer. We have created a society, where females may dance back and forth across the line of accountability, across the line that formerly separated women from girls, without social or legal consequence. This has had disastrous real world consequences for our society.

  9. Dalrock says:

    @Sweet As
    But to me, honestly, the real issue is marrying under false pretenses, which is no different than cuckolding the guy. It’s just plain mean.

    Interesting parallel. Good insight.

    I don’t think this is a patriarchy/woman thing. A lot of men go through this same issue, they just don’t write essays about it

    Uncle Fred did such a great job with this that I almost didn’t want to add any more. What I will add though is that it isn’t just that men don’t write it. The difference is that when women write it it is so often published, and openly revered by women who presumably should know better. With each work selling divorce there is a tendency to say “that is just one story”. But there are so many of these. They are unrelenting, and as I mentioned before eagerly accepted as some sort of profound wisdom by the majority of women. It is a disgrace.

  10. Passer_By says:

    @sweet as

    Man, that was a mouthful. I talked to your husband, and he had this recollection of events: “I remember when I met my wife. She was pretty hot and had a great butt, so I asked her out. Turned out she was also pretty easy to hang with – still is. I lucked out.”

  11. Eumaios says:

    Country lawyer: “What is ‘Peter Pan Syndrome’ for a woman?”

    Bob Ross Syndrome: You don’t have to commit to anything, just paint with a two inch brush, and expect a beautiful painting to emerge from happy little accidents. Oh, and take pleasure in spattering paint on the crew.

  12. Eumaios says:

    “Heck, let’s get a little crazy.”

  13. Butterfly Flower says:

    Dalrock, you realize teenage girls have souls, right?

    Lorraine Berry doesn’t have a teenage psyche. She’s just an evil narcissistic person.

    I mean, she abandoned her family to “find herself”. It wasn’t like Berry was forced to get married and have kids. She crushed her own dreams.

    Heck, those “I’m 16 and Pregnant” girls on MTV have more integrity than Lorraine Berry. At least they acknowledge the bed they’ve made, and lie in it.

  14. PT Barnum says:

    Forty years ago men AND WOMEN expected girls to grow up and become women.

    You mean women were EXPECTED to stay home and gossip? That’s great. To bad the “people” of forty years ago wrecked things so badly that it is no longer possible for women to do nothing but stay home, gossip, and admire their own wonderfulness. Great job.

    NOTE:
    “In the old days”, as in 1800s, women worked. And no, farm work is NOT “house work”.

  15. Eumaios says:

    Dolt: “Dalrock, you realize teenage girls have souls, right?”

    This is how females argue.

  16. Stephenie Rowling says:

    Little Mermaid Syndrome?

    Hell no! The little mermaid did a lot of sacrifices to achieve her goals. *mermaidfanhere*

  17. Opus says:

    For some reason [thinking of Liz Jones as well as Lorraine Berry] I am reminded of Ayn Rand’s perspicacious remark: ‘You may evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality’.

    As Country Lawyer says, it is Shangri-La Syndrome, [EatPrayLove] where you never grow old, or unhappy, or bored, or frustrated, or jealous, or…

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    Which “little mermaid”? The folk tale that Hans Christian Anderson wrote down, or the silly Disneyfied cartoon? There’s a big difference. Although even the Disneyfied version isn’t as obnoxious as some pampered princesses who seek to Eat, Betray, Love their way to being haaaaapy.

  19. Steve says:

    Why can’t it be spring break forever?

  20. Which is why I can not reconcile the “presupposed” men’s fear of a “woman who makes more than him.”

    I have heard this from both men and women, and strongly disagree.

    There is no man on this planet that would say, “Oh, no! Please don’t make me date the woman making $500,000 a year! Horrors of horrors!”

    If a woman is professional and grows up, then she probably will be carrying her own weight and at times making more than men. All of which is a plus in my humble opinion.

  21. Butterfly Flower says:

    As Country Lawyer says, it is Shangri-La Syndrome, [EatPrayLove] where you never grow old, or unhappy, or bored, or frustrated, or jealous, or…

    Do you really expect me to believe that for the past fifty years, The Powers That Be have been persuading American women to emulate the behavior of a selfish, vindictive, immortal teenage girl?

  22. Butterfly Flower says:

    Which “little mermaid”? The folk tale that Hans Christian Anderson wrote down, or the silly Disneyfied cartoon? There’s a big difference.

    In the Hans Christian Anderson version, the Little Mermaid dies and goes to Hell [because she sold her soul to the sea witch].

    …..when I was 7, my Grandparents gave me a leather-bound Hans Christian Anderson anthology *shudders* it was like Stephen King for elementary school.

  23. Stephenie Rowling says:

    “Which “little mermaid”? The folk tale that Hans Christian Anderson wrote down, or the silly Disneyfied cartoon? There’s a big difference.”

    I want to say both, but even in the Disneyfied version Ariel wanted to be human, not just stay a mermaid and be spoiled and having the prince, the cake eating was not part of her “perfect life plan”

    In the Hans Christian Anderson version, the Little Mermaid dies and goes to Hell [because she sold her soul to the sea witch].

    What version is that? In the original version mermaids don’t have souls, the marriage to the prince would had given her a soul, but in exchange she will never speak again and her human legs were painful like walking on pin needles and broken glass, the mermaid went to limbo were she could gain the soul by kids good actions, so there was hope she could gain a mortal soul in a few thousand years.

  24. Oak says:

    @Sweetas: I appreciate your candor. Reading that post where you coldly run down the various attributes of your past suitors was refreshing. Very few women will speak publically like this in my social circles. They persist in dissembling with statements like “How did I choose my husband? We fell in love!”

    Sure you did.😉

    You are also the first woman I’ve seen openly discussing Chameleon Syndrome, and admitting it happens.

    This is why I have a hard time with any test or quiz to establish a woman’s suitability for marriage. What’s the point of asking questions if the woman is trying to predict what answer you want, and regurgitating it back?

    Anyway, these refreshing perspectives is what keeps me coming back!

  25. TCB says:

    Hi Dalrock, I have been reading your blog for a few months now and really enjoying it; this is my first comment. Thank you very much for writing this blog! It’s good to know that there are still men like you in the world.

    I’m a student nearing the end of my college education, so I hear a lot of my friends (both male and female) expressing concerns about having to “grow up” and “enter the real world”. Many people I know (male and female) have a negative attitude towards growing up. I suspect that this is because of the prevalent image of adults in modern American society: obese, miserable, powerless people who have to deal with the overwhelming burdens of jobs they hate, bills to pay, and modern life in general. As a child, I was always terrified of growing up, for precisely this reason. I looked around at adults and I saw people who were defeated, depressed, and had lost the ability to have fun or enjoy the simple pleasures of life. I never wanted to become like this, and I thought it was an inevitable part of growing up.

    I suspect that other kids today are also getting this impression about adulthood, and what they need is better role models. They need to see strong men and women who lead honorable lives and take pride in their ability to work and support/raise a family. Sadly, as more and more Americans refuse to grow up, children will have fewer and fewer role models to give them a positive outlook on adulthood.

    Right now I’m 21 (and I’m female). I have my own apartment, and I take pride in my independence, my ability to cook, and my ability to keep my apartment clean. I’d like to get married sooner rather than later and have children. I’m hard-working and responsible, and I’ve been in committed long-term relationships. I haven’t lived with my parents since before I moved away for college. In these senses I’ve embraced the adult lifestyle, and yet I still hate the term “grown up”. I hate the thought of “growing up”, and of “being a grown up”, because of the associations I have with these terms. I don’t mind the terms “adult” or “adulthood”, but I still haven’t gotten used to thinking of myself as an adult. I refer to myself as a “girl” rather than a “woman” because I was raised to think that girls are playful and fun, while women are serious, carry nice purses, wear high heels, and have a career. I’d much rather be playful and fun.

    So I’m struggling with these definitions, trying to redefine the words in my mind so that I will be content to accept the term “grown-up” and perceive myself as an adult. It helps when I consciously try to associate these terms with adult men and women whom I admire. Thus, while I see the lack of adulthood in our society as one of the biggest problems facing it, I also empathize with those who find it difficult to grow up. It seems like to solve this problem, our society would need to give children better role models, so they could look forward to growing up rather than fearing it; society should also work on making the boundary between child and adult more clear. I find that I keep waiting to cross that dividing line between child and adult, and that it never shows up, even though I’m quite independent for a college student. Alas, both of these solutions would be difficult to implement.

  26. Amirantes says:

    @ Butter Flower: “Do you really expect me to believe that for the past fifty years, The Powers That Be have been persuading American women to emulate the behavior of a selfish, vindictive, immortal teenage girl?”

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Thanks for that, BF, needed the laugh.

  27. jso says:

    There is no man on this planet that would say, “Oh, no! Please don’t make me date the woman making $500,000 a year! Horrors of horrors!”

    If a woman is professional and grows up, then she probably will be carrying her own weight and at times making more than men.

    so I guess every woman that makes 500k a year has never grown up or carried her own weight

  28. Eric says:

    Butterfly Flower:
    Yes, although women seem to need very little encouragement from the ‘powers that be’. Our culture teaches them to hate men, so they behave like that from adolescence onwards. That’s what ‘cougars’ are, after all.

    Once again, this illustrates that American women are utterly unfit for any kind of responsible relationships.

  29. Eric says:

    “You realize that teenage girls have souls, right?’

    They sure as hell don’t act like it. For that matter, they don’t at nearly any other age.

  30. Brendan says:

    It seems like to solve this problem, our society would need to give children better role models, so they could look forward to growing up rather than fearing it; society should also work on making the boundary between child and adult more clear.

    I understand where you are coming from, and how you see it this way, but I honestly view it a bit differently.

    I think it has more to do with proclivities than role models, really. In the past, I’m certain that many, many people also did not “want to” grow up, either. Responsibility, accountability and the like are not fundamentally attractive when there is an option available that does not include them. In the past, however, this option was pretty much foreclosed to almost everyone. People did not have the option to postpone adulthood — they were forced to grow up because family/society simply did not tolerate an extended adolescence. It was a combination of social pressure and economic reality that forced adulthood at a certain age, whether you wanted it or not.

    Some people are still subject to these pressures, due to pure economic need. Others, especially in the middle/upper-middle and higher, are increasingly not subject to these pressures, and their parents/family and society are indulging young people in their refusal to grow up. I don’t think it’s more complicated than that. If everyone is given the option, and there isn’t economic need, you will have a smallish portion of ambitious people power ahead into adultdhood because they *want* to do so for themselves, and a mass of others who will dawdle, because they don’t have the same drives, and, all things being equal, a few more years of fun with less responsibility expected is preferable to diving into full-on adult expectations for many people who can afford to do so.

    What we are seeing is a function of (1) prosperity, (2) social tolerance for an adolescence extended well into the late 20s at least and (3) the natural tendency for many people to take the easier path in the short run (which is not at all limited to this context). It could be reversed by economic need becoming a reality for more people, or a changed social tolerance for extended adolescence.

  31. Dalrock says:

    @TCB

    Welcome to the blog and thank you for your kind words. That was an outstanding first post.

    I tend to agree with Brendan’s characterization of the issue, but would add a bit more. Brendan stated that it is only natural to want to continue having fun and postpone adulthood. I would modify this slightly to say that it is natural to want to do this, but it isn’t an accurate assessment of the choices in front of young people. Being an adult can be extremely fun and satisfying, so long as you are making (and have made) good choices. On the flipside, childish irresponsibility isn’t really as fun as those indulging in it would want others to believe. From the tone of your post I’m guessing you already understand this quite well.

    Also, I think there is a glorification of (childishness? adolescence?) in our culture which dates at least back to the 1960s movement. It is funny to see the baby boomers approaching retirement and think of how the changes they made to the culture to honor youth over wisdom are still in place. Obviously not all boomers are like that (NABALT). I also think the stresses you are feeling right now manifest themselves differently for men and women. Having a basic understanding of game and the Evo Psych theory underpinning of it helps explain why young men would feel they have a different bar in front of them than young women. The basics of growing up aren’t all that different for men or women, but for a man to make it to the next step he has to not only be able to fully support himself but he also needs to demonstrate that he is ready to support a family. No amount of rework of the culture or protest marches will ever make that go away.

    My sense is that all of the Hymowitz “peter pan” hand wringing we are seeing has a kernel of truth to it. I think it is the natural result of some segment of young men deciding that the amount of effort to hit that next bar is more than they are willing to expend, especially since so many of their female peers don’t seem interested in forming a family. The current economy without a doubt magnifies the problem.

    But none of the above changes the fact that you seem to have your head screwed on straight and are aware of how your inner dialog and your attitude towards responsibility will have on your choices and actions. I can only hope that I was so clear about these things at your age. Also, even if many of your male peers are struggling to grow up, this ultimately shouldn’t be much of a concern for you. Working in your favor is the fact that at least as many of your female peers have bought the idea that they don’t need to settle down and start considering marriage for another decade. If I were you I wouldn’t try to change their minds, and instead quietly find the man with the right qualities (and you fall head over heels in love with) to make a wonderful life together.

  32. On the flipside, childish irresponsibility isn’t really as fun as those indulging in it would want others to believe.

    I’d argue that there’s a weird middle ground. To a certain extent, we’re not dealing with a bunch of people that would prefer to draw on the walls like children, but a weird mixed sense of adulthood where people are going to work and earning an income, but not making that leap into the final and permanent status of marriage. So work responsibilities are tolerated, but those to our loved ones seem to become a second best as they get in the way of what we do with the income from our employment. The Hymowitz “Peter Pan” dilemma is simply complaining that men aren’t taking their income and spending on being traditional, bread-winning husbands, but being free adults who are spending money on themselves. FWIW, similar claims could be made for the women that they would have married who instead of earning income for their families or staying home to help maintain a home would rather live independently while chasing adventure (which in 95% of cases is a proxy for an alpha).

    [D: Fair point. I wouldn’t accuse a man who becomes self sufficient but chose not to marry of being “peter pan”. However, Hymowitz may well be doing so.]

  33. Sweet As says:

    Sorry it was so long, guys. I try to edit, but apparently hit send before doing a final edit.

    And, I’m pragmatic. If I didn’t want to get into a situation where I couldn’t be “true to myself” I would sure as heck avoid it as best I could.

    The Sibling Society, by Robert Bly, explains how both men and women are subject to being immature and how our society creates this over and over.

    Perhaps we shall say that there are Men and there are Women and then there are people from both sexes that simply are refusing to grow up or mature, or give or keep their word, etc.

    I do have to say that the chameleon thing makes me *crazy*. Seriously, I do not often get on with a lot of women. I do have a few women friends, and most of us are of the same mind about not being annoying.

  34. modernguy says:

    I’d say a big part of it is that a lot of men just don’t see too many women worthy of marriage. Most of the attractive ones are “having fun” banging “alphas” and the rest of us are left out in the cold. To think that you’re going to toil and sweat to build a house to share with one of these sluts when she’s lost her luster and finally deigns to consider you is anathema to any man who respects himself. Better to turn to the dark side than get pissed on like that.

  35. modernguy says:

    Another part of it is that there just aren’t that many job opportunities where men can feel like they’re being productive. The modern workplace is stuffed to the gills and congested with petty politics and bureaucracy in a labyrinth of managerialism worse than Kafka’s nightmares. The first things to check at the door when you walk in to work these days is your virility and self-esteem, because the rest of your day is going to consist of walking through a cubicle maze to your next meeting for another round of powerpoint gymnastics. If you aren’t going bald by lunchtime you’ll want to pull all your hair out yourself.

  36. Sweet As says:

    Yes, I think it can be difficult for many men to experience mastery or purpose in many aspects of the modern work world.

    One of the reasons why we waited to have children is that I wanted a level of financial security and opportunity that would keep my husband from being “chained in a cubicle” until that child went to university. As it was, we had the kid and *then* the opportunity showed up (or we finally recognized it), but even so, it was a massive reality.

    It was, literally, the last thing I wanted to do. I’ve seen it break people’s spirits, and that would be tragic to me. My husband has a bright and beautiful spirit, and I want that to be expressed and to shine. Now he can do that — because of our business and what he is doing. It’s a great role model for my son, and it allows my husband to be authentic and ‘true to himself.’

    It’s amazing how, when we work together, we can both be “true to ourselves” and still have a great marriage and family life.

    I wish that more men and women held out for this experience — or sought out this experience — rather than working on getting trophies (trophy wives, trophy husbands, trophy children).

  37. PT Barnum says:

    In the Hans Christian Anderson version, the Little Mermaid dies and goes to Hell [because she sold her soul to the sea witch].

    Maybe you should use Google more. That didn’t seem right for the time, and I checked.

    The Evil Sea Witch temps her to kill the Prince, who has just fallen in love with another woman. She… about to die if she doesn’t kill him, sees him in the arms of another woman. She REALLY wants to kill him, but refuses, and come the dawn she does dissolve… but rather than dying, God turns her into a being of wind and air… and three hundred years labor shall earn her a soul.

    So that would be no.

  38. Interested says:

    “We have created a society, where females may dance back and forth across the line of accountability, across the line that formerly separated women from girls, without social or legal consequence.”

    One common theme in conversations I have with other men about life is how most men don’t cross the line to adulthood until their mid to late twenties. At some point they wake up and decide that it is time to be an adult. To commit to a career, to building a life with responsibility at the forefront of their thoughts. And once they made that step there was no going back.

    The comment from Uncle Fred is spot on in my book. Certainly, it doesn’t apply to every woman out there but there is a large portion of women in my area who fit the bill perfectly. All the conditions are ripe. Nice community, good incomes, lot’s of at home mommies who don’t have to work. All driven by men who made that step in their mid to late twenties and and now have solid careers and jobs.

    Right now there is an epidemic of divorce in my neighborhood. Couples in their late thirties to mid-forties. Most all of them are due to the wife cheating and claiming that she has been held back from being herself. That she gave up too much when she signed up for this marriage and kids thing. It also appears to be contagious as one after another walk the same path.

    And don’t fool yourself. Some of the husbands were spineless, but just as many were strong successful men who will have zero problems getting a new lady in their life. Once they found out about the cheating and the utter lack of remorse they filed for divorce. They didn’t beg the wife to come back. To a man they have no interest in getting married again. Also, a surprising number of the men have the kids 50% of the time and more. While I would like to believe that it is a result of the women supporting the idea that it is in the best interest of the kids I can’t help but think it has more to do with their desire to be free for all the adventure and excitement that they believe they missed out on.

    My comments are prompted by one of the men involved in a divorce. He said that his soon to be ex wife alternates between acting like a mature adult and a 12 year old girl stamping her foot while shouting “What about meeeeeee” when she doesn’t get her way right away. Spot on with Uncle Fred’s comments.

    The most striking part is the follow on scenario for these newly single women. Within two to three years all the money is gone and they are now mid forties women living paycheck to paycheck who still believe that some amazing man who will worship them is right around the corner. They get used by one new boyfriend after another. It’s interesting how none of the new guys wants to commit! Imagine that.

  39. Brendan says:

    Right now there is an epidemic of divorce in my neighborhood. Couples in their late thirties to mid-forties. Most all of them are due to the wife cheating and claiming that she has been held back from being herself. That she gave up too much when she signed up for this marriage and kids thing. It also appears to be contagious as one after another walk the same path.

    Yes, the pattern is typical, really. Many people marry between 27 and 33, and the pattern for marriages that aren’t going to last is that the problems crop up beginning in years 3-5, and then they percolate for a bit and things eventually deteriorate to the point of affairs and the like in years 6-10. So for people who got married in the typical late 20s/early 30s timeframe, the divorce wave generally hits around 7-10 years later, so when they are mid/late 30s to early 40s. If a couple gets past the ten-year mark (either because these kinds of issues didn’t come up, or because they did and they were dealt with and gotten past), the rate of divorce drops dramatically — it still happens, but it’s much rarer.

    The contagious element is because women tend to take cues from their peers to a much greater degree than men do. Once one woman in the peer group (whether a friend or not, although the trend is even stronger among groups of female friends) steps out on her hubby and/or plans or executes against a plan to divorce, the other women in the peer group feel that they are essentially given permission to act in the same way with respect to her own problems. This is strengthened tremendously by the reality that women tend to spend a good amount of time when they are in their female friend set complaining about their respective husbands, so that tends to reinforce their own dissatisfaction as well because the discontent begins to feed on itself for the entire peer group.

  40. Stephenie Rowling says:

    “This is strengthened tremendously by the reality that women tend to spend a good amount of time when they are in their female friend set complaining about their respective husbands, so that tends to reinforce their own dissatisfaction as well because the discontent begins to feed on itself for the entire peer group.”

    Also the newly freed women start to talk about how happier they are now and how free they are and how many men love them and give them the attention their husbands didn’t…the greener pasture is not only greener it has a hot guy in it, jumping ship seems almost like the only alternative. Herd mentality at his worst.

    I most say that Latin women bitch about their husbands too, but at the end of the conversation they conclude that they could be having it worse, that is a key difference between first world women and the rest of the world. Bitching is not bad as long as you know you are just venting and that your husband might no be perfect but no man is perfect and he is good in many other aspects, if you think Mr Right is around the corner and that your inane talk has any meaning, you are going to screw up at some point.

  41. Eric says:

    Modernguy:

    “A big part of the problem is that a lot of men don’t see many women as worthy of marriage.”

    That is the whole issue in a nutshell. Both of my grandmothers and all my great-grandmothers were raising families by the time they were into their 20s. When they were young, divorces were considered scandalous and disgraceful. Today’s bitches see divorce as something more like a pension; something they’re entitled to for tolerating a monogamous relationship after a certain number of years.

    As for the younger ones, you’re right: they’re too busy banging jerks and running to abortion clinics to be worthy of any real man’s attention. (Though I’d certainly hestitate to use the term ‘alpha’ to describe most of the subhuman males that they seem so attracted to). Most of them are utterly ruthless towards men and dangerous to be around, anyway.

  42. Eric says:

    Sweet As:

    One point on your last comment about women seeking ‘trophy husbands’. I hear this a lot but don’t understand it. I read on several MRA blogs, the accusation that women are always holding out for the ‘bigger, better, deal’; but in my experience, the men they seem most attracted to are anything but trophies or better deals.

    Our culture teaches women that they are superior to men and towards unrealistic expectations and entitlements. This leads to such a fracturing of female ego equilibrium to maintain these impossible social demands that they are almost reflexively driven to pursue the most abominable types of males, solely to maintain a sense of dominance and superiority. This is a major reason why I encourage men not to involve themselves with women raised in our feminist-inspired social milieu, because of the inherent instability it produces.

  43. Butterfly Flower says:

    One point on your last comment about women seeking ‘trophy husbands’. I hear this a lot but don’t understand it. I read on several MRA blogs, the accusation that women are always holding out for the ‘bigger, better, deal’; but in my experience, the men they seem most attracted to are anything but trophies or better deals.

    Wouldn’t a trophy husband be a hot guy without anything else really going on for himself besides being attractive?

    The wife is the breadwinner, the trophy husband stays at home and just, you know…does his “hot” thing. Maybe he’ll become a SAHD.

    What’s so awful about that arrangement? A househusband doesn’t seem like a terrible deal.

  44. Sweet As says:

    I think that trophies are defined quite differently depending upon the woman.

    In my social circles, women are looking for stuff. Houses, cars, jewelry, fancy clothes, fancy schools and so on for their kids (whether by that man or not). Most want to be SAHMs, well after their children are in school, and they also want cleaning services, and allowances/money to “do their own things.”

    If the husband can provide — regardless of looks or behaviors — then that’s where she’s going. It leaves a lot of men out of the equation — particularly men who are decent with their money and living within their means.

    In addition, so long as the man “looks like” he can provide this, she’ll go there. A lot of men who do provide this are actually financially “skint” and can be pretty deadbeat.

    But that’s just what I see.

  45. Butterfly Flower says:

    If the husband can provide — regardless of looks or behaviors — then that’s where she’s going. It leaves a lot of men out of the equation — particularly men who are decent with their money and living within their means.

    That’s not a trophy husband, that’s a sugardaddy.

    Trophy husband would be the reverse situation; when the wife acts like the sugardaddy. Buying her husband a truck, letting him stay at home and not have to work.

  46. Opus says:

    @ Brendan

    I think you are quite right about Female Herd Instincts. It is my observation with women, that once one acquires a boyfriend, they all do. Then when one becomes engaged, they all follow suit. Marriage follows shortly, ditto, and then when the first Divorces the remaining women tumble for Divorce like a pack of cards. Men I do not think are like this.

    If you are right – and as you can see I think you are, – then that propensity of females needs to be checked.

  47. Brendan says:

    If you are right – and as you can see I think you are, – then that propensity of females needs to be checked.

    It’s more the content that needs to be checked than the substance. In other words, the female peer group was, under the ancien regime, the main policewoman of female behavior. The peer group, at the time, was encouraging more positive behaviors, however, because the ideology of the peer group wasn’t one of personal empowerment above all else. I don’t think women will change away from strong reliance on the support of their peer group, and feeling “safe” by following peer group trends — that seems pretty deeply wired behavior. What can be changed, but also only very incrementally and only over a long period of time, are the substantive values that the peer group reinforces. Today in almost every context that will be personal empowerment for women — it’s even the case in all-women church-related groups and so on. It’s pretty much everywhere. And that, I think, is the key here. The process of female reliance on peer group support and guidance will not be checked — it’s deep behavior, I think. The substance of the values of the peer group at present, however, are the problem.

    Men largely exist outside of this structure, really. It’s not that the broader culture doesn’t impact men — it does. Certainly how men are raised impacts them, how they are educated, the messages they receive in these settings and so on — it’s a key to understanding how men have become so overwhelmingly beta. But one thing men don’t do very much is follow each other in trending behavioral patterns — most men are more individualistic in making their own decisions, and don’t rely on peer group approval or “trending” in order to have their choices “validated” and to feel “supported and safe” in their choices.

  48. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan
    The process of female reliance on peer group support and guidance will not be checked — it’s deep behavior, I think. The substance of the values of the peer group at present, however, are the problem.

    Absolutely. This is why it would hypothetically tick me off if churches failed to take divorce seriously, or if nominally traditional conservative women locked arms with sex positive feminists. It is also why I suggest men test their prospective wives for a willingness to judge sluttyness and frivolous divorce.

    I do think men have much more power here than the vast majority realize though. Women also take their cues from men in the area of judgment. If a husband is uncomfortable judging these things in women, the wife will undoubtedly pick up on this. This may be the typical married beta’s greatest weakness, even worse than generating negative attraction from his wife. Don’t hesitate to judge bad behavior. And don’t marry a woman who does either. If you question the power of this, remember that the lone police officer in Canada who merely suggested basic modesty set off a worldwide temper tantrum by feminists. They are terrified of being judged; this is why they work so hard to convince others that it has no impact, but you better not do it anyway.

    Lastly, the study on the catchy nature of divorce had some surprises in it. I think I still have a copy around here somewhere. I keep meaning to do a post on it. Most of these studies don’t have a lot to them; this one really does.

  49. jz says:

    @Dalrock,

    You’ve gotten confused here when you conflate Elaine Berry with Betty Friedan.

    The problem that has no name was that the evil patriarchy did NOT allow women to grow up. Women were not allowed to stay employed after pregnancy, not allowed to assume debt, not allowed to purchase property in their own name, etc. Prior to Betty Friedan’s day, women remained child-like under their husband’s domain.

  50. Dalrock says:

    @jz
    You’ve gotten confused here when you conflate Elaine Berry with Betty Friedan.

    The problem that has no name was that the evil patriarchy did NOT allow women to grow up.

    Women were allowed to grow up. They just weren’t given grown up power when acting like a child. This is what feminism has ultimately pushed for. No one needs someone else’s permission (or help) to grow up.

    Women were not allowed to stay employed after pregnancy, not allowed to assume debt, not allowed to purchase property in their own name, etc. Prior to Betty Friedan’s day, women remained child-like under their husband’s domain.

    Hawaiian Libertarian recently addressed this misconception on the Spearhead. Women had these rights, but few were willing to take on the responsibilities which were required to exercise them.

  51. jz says:

    @Dalrock,

    Read HW????????? why in holy hell waste one’s time with a crank pot conspiracy theorist?

    Why not actually read Betty Friedan’s book, or actually talk to women from that era? Talk to women who actually lost their employment when they became pregnant, or who’s property went to their husband’s when they married?

  52. Brendan says:

    I think you missed the point entirely, jz.

    Sure, women have more legal rights than they did in days of yore (not really the mid-60s, though), but what is the result? Still sustained, almost incessant, bitching. Bitch about my job. Bitch about no good men. Bitch about good men not treating me right. Bitch about the impact of pregnancy on my career. Bitch about not being able to get pregnant. It’s a sign of rampant immaturity and a refusal to grow up — that’s Dalrock’s point: if Friedan was bitching about not having opportunities, her descendants-in armes are bitching about the responsibility side that equation. That’s immature and irresponsible, but the bitching continues apace, loudly and ubiquitously and is cheered on by the culture.

  53. jz says:

    @ Brenden,

    Cudos to you for being able to distinguish between women of 2011 and women of 1965.

  54. jz says:

    Next step is to distinguish between women who take on enormous responsibility at home and at work , and those who just complain.

  55. Brendan says:

    I don’t see the distinction — if women are taking on “enormous responsibility” and then complaining about it, that’s kind of the problem right there. Women wanted this — Friedan and her followers up to this day. If you all want it so much, knock off complaining about the responsibility side of the equation.

  56. jz says:

    Bitching amongst friends is not immature or irresponsible . It’s just normal catharsis.

  57. Brendan says:

    I was referring, of course, to what Dalrock was referring in his post, to wit:

    “Had that spark always been there? Had I had been too caught up in the mundaneness of married life? Had I really been yet another one of those women who had given away her identity when she said “I do?” And I don’t mean “I do” to marriage — but rather “I do” to adult responsibility, jobs, children, mortgage, graduate school, paying bills. Where was the me in all of that?”

    That’s bitching about responsibility and suggests a lack of maturity.

  58. jz says:

    Elaine Berry needs some sane girl friends to bitch too. So when she says that stuff, they will shove it right back at her. Instead she publishes in an wasteland internet corner, and gets scoffed at.

    [D: Salon isn’t a wasteland internet corner.]

  59. Stephenie Rowling says:

    “Bitching amongst friends is not immature or irresponsible . It’s just normal catharsis.”

    Bitching on the internet, bitching in books, bitching on the TV, bitching to everyone that will listen “I’m a woman hear me moan” IS.

  60. Pingback: Lay down your arms. | Dalrock

  61. Butterfly Flower says:

    The process of female reliance on peer group support and guidance will not be checked — it’s deep behavior, I think. The substance of the values of the peer group at present, however, are the problem.

    But not all women are immature bitching whackjobs like Lorraine Berry.

    It sounds like you think all women are biologically programmed to run away from life’s responsibilities.

    …if that is the case, if women are just naturally incapable of handling responsibility – then who are we to judge God’s design? The manosphere might as well be complaining about grass being green. “Why isn’t my lawn purple!?”

    Complain all you want about American culture rendering generations of women immature incapable whores – just remember that culture cannot radically alter our DNA. God’s design > everything else.

  62. Pingback: True to herself « Throne and Altar

  63. Brendan says:

    Complain all you want about American culture rendering generations of women immature incapable whores – just remember that culture cannot radically alter our DNA. God’s design > everything else.

    Exactly, BF. Because we know that what “feels natural” to humans is always God’s design.

  64. Butterfly Flower says:

    Exactly, BF. Because we know that what “feels natural” to humans is always God’s design.

    I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

    Either all women have biological, DNA programmed reasons for being flighty unhappy irresponsible immature bitches, or the current SMP/societal problems are something cultural.

    Brendan, you seemed to be on the side that implies all women are biologically programmed to be flighty unhappy irresponsible immature bitches.

    …so if a girl was raised in a bubble, she’d still somehow end up with the bad female traits you complain about.

    In the modern scientific community, Lamarckism is no longer accepted.

    So there really would be no way to eliminate bad female behavior besides rewriting the very DNA God gave us.

    Unless you’re implying we should make up a new humanoid species, or men should pursue women with non-human DNA.

  65. Anonymous Reader says:

    jz
    Read HW????????? why in holy hell waste one’s time with a crank pot conspiracy theorist?

    Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy. The article on Spearhead has verifiable facts that demonstrate women could and did own property long before Friedan was born, indeed before her parents or grandparents were born.

    Why not actually read Betty Friedan’s book, or actually talk to women from that era?

    I have not read Friedan’s book all the way through. (I’ve also never been able to finish “Mein Kampf”, or Trotsky’s biography of Stalin for that matter. Turgid, Marxist screeds are a challenge for me to read). However, I have listened to women from those long ago, stone-aged years of the 1960’s, as well as earlier. One relation of mine bought a small hotel in the 1920’s after her husband died. Another relation owned a rooming house in California during the 1930’s. Another owned a small farm with a house in Michigan at the same time. All of them were women. And none of them regarded this as some big deal; it was considered acceptable and normal.

    Got that? I have first-person accounts from women who owned both residential and commercial property before Friedan was born. So her propaganda, and by extension yours, is simply false.

    Therefore, we should not see any more false claims from you to the effect that women could not own property prior to 1970, or 1960 or 1950 for that matter. Because in point of fact, there were women in the US who owned property in their own name before 1900.

    Please make a note of this fact.

  66. Brendan says:

    Brendan, you seemed to be on the side that implies all women are biologically programmed to be flighty unhappy irresponsible immature bitches.

    Wired yes. The wiring is nature+nurture.

  67. Eric says:

    Butterfly Flower/Sweet As:

    I know of plenty of women who are supporting their husbands/boyfriends; but again, these clods are anything but ‘trophies’. In most cases, the woman is supporting them because the male involved is incapable of working. The majority of women’s relationship choices has much more to do with female domination over men than most other causes.

  68. ElectricAngel says:

    @JZ

    Why not actually read Betty Friedan’s book, or actually talk to women from that era?

    Here’s a nice article by a man who’s read Friedan, and a number of other feminists, and taken them dead seriously. He’s a meanie, however: he expects to hold them to what they request, instead of their acting like spoiled little children. You won’t like it.

  69. ElectricAngel says:

    @ButterflyFlower

    In the modern scientific community, Lamarckism is no longer accepted.

    I would refer you to the book The Biology of Belief written by a scientist who works on Cell Biology. Genes are important only in the context of the older idea, that the cell is a protein machine. Genes were then described as the mechanism that controls the proteins that control the cell, but this is hardly the complete truth. For example, an egg in a beehive can grow up to be a queen, or a worker. What changes the final format of the bee is the food fed to the larva; those that get royal jelly become Queens, while those fed regular food become workers.

    So Lamarck is being rehabilitated, somewhat. Extra-genetic traits can be passed along through environmental cues.

  70. Butterfly Flower says:

    Wired yes. The wiring is nature+nurture.

    People raise their pet Pitbulls to not be violent, yet the dogs still snap.

    Instead of complain about the bitchy selfish immature behavior of women, maybe men should just learn to manage their ill tempered ladies. Like Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew.

  71. Brendan says:

    Instead of complain about the bitchy selfish immature behavior of women, maybe men should just learn to manage their ill tempered ladies. Like Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew.

    No, immaturity needs to be called out. Shakespeare isn’t God, and was not a member of the Church.

    Your suggestions that it is God’s design for women to be immature and bitchy insult God. There is such a thing as Original Sin. Women have a fallen nature (as do men). Often the “natural” behavior is based on concupiscence, as the residue of Original Sin, even following baptism. God should not be blamed for this, and men should not be goaded into accepting this behavior as a part of God’s “design” for women. That design was shattered in the Garden, and even following baptism is subject to concupiscence — meaning that the sinful act often feels natural and good, not that the sinful act is God-designed. And yes, immature bitching and resenting responsibility, which is what Dalrock was getting at in his original post here, are “missing the mark” for women (“‘amartia” or sin, in Greek). The same as immature behavior among men misses the mark.

  72. Butterfly Flower says:

    Your suggestions that it is God’s design for women to be immature and bitchy insult God.

    Brendan, technically you were the first person on this thread to suggest women are biologically programmed to be bitches:

    “The process of female reliance on peer group support and guidance will not be checked — it’s deep behavior , I think. The substance of the values of the peer group at present, however, are the problem.”

    What did you mean by “Deep Behavior”? I interpreted it as a behavior that’s been around since humans were living in caves.

    There is such a thing as Original Sin. Women have a fallen nature (as do men). Often the “natural” behavior is based on concupiscence, as the residue of Original Sin, even following baptism. God should not be blamed for this, and men should not be goaded into accepting this behavior as a part of God’s “design” for women.

    So you’re suggesting that Original Sin involved the Devil altering our DNA??? Um, okaaay….

    God handed Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai because he realized humans are flawed beings that need some guidelines.

    *giggles* so in a way, God tames misbehaving humans like Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew.

    If everyone just followed the Bible, the world would be a lot less sucky.

  73. Eric says:

    Butterfly Flower/Brendan:
    What you are both overlooking is the part that culture and education play in all this. Women are not born bitchy and immature, their education makes them so. It also makes them misandryist and wrought with Superiority Complexes. American women had far more decent characters in my grandmother’s time, for example. So do women today in non-Angloamerican cultures.

  74. Eumaios says:

    Brendan: “Shakespeare isn’t God, and was not a member of the Church.”

    I’ve heard de Vere was a crypto-Catholic.

  75. Eumaios says:

    “In the modern scientific community, Lamarckism is no longer accepted”.

    And, as we all know, the modern scientific community is completely trustworthy.

    On a non-sarcastic note, real thinkers might be interested in Rupert Sheldrake’s neo-Aristotelian, reconcilably Lamarckian theories of morphogenesis and evolution.

  76. grerp says:

    Instead of complain about the bitchy selfish immature behavior of women, maybe men should just learn to manage their ill tempered ladies. Like Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew.

    Life is not fiction, and all men are not Petruchio (nor all women Kate). Women should not have to be *managed* if they are adults. They should manage themselves. If they have to be managed, they are like children and should not have the same legal status as adult men.

    Modern prosperity has trained people to have outsized expectations and to be lazy and soft. My grandmother never had a mani-pedi, nor did she ever expect to have a “Girls’ Night Out.” I’m sure she had days when she was sick of putting up peaches or feeding the chickens or wiping babies’ butts, but her generation did not expect anything different but hard work, and it was best to accept it, make peace with it, and try to enjoy it in whatever way you could.

    Small families and delayed maternity causes a lot of women to feel put out when the reality of motherhood finally dawns. My family was small, there weren’t small kids around to be cared for, and I had about 15 years of adulthood before I became a mother. It was a shock to the system not to have time to myself and to no longer do many of the kinds of things I liked. It took several years before this new normal seemed right and I finally settled into getting enjoyment out of regular tasks like cooking and cleaning, etc. The system we have now sets people up to fail by constantly lying to them about what life is really about.

  77. uncleFred says:

    @Butterfly Flower
    “People raise their pet Pitbulls to not be violent, yet the dogs still snap.”

    An friend of mine is a dog trainer. On his own dime, he rescues dogs that were used for pit fighting. Pit bulls are not a breed. The term generically refers to a number of different breeds used for pit fighting. These dogs are no more violent by nature than any other, they must be trained for pit fighting. They must be “blooded” and be taught fighting and to kill. He rescues them AFTER they have been in the pits and seized by police. He retrains them to be gentle household pets. He has a very high success rate. He travels around my region of the country going to dog shows, dog clubs, schools etc to educate people that the vast majority of these dogs can be salvaged and need not be destroyed and that there is no more to be feared from these breeds than any other.

    If someone raised their dog to be nonviolent and the dog snaps and bites usually the fault is the person’s, not the dog’s.

    My point, other than in cases involving mental disorders, women and men exhibit the personal characteristics with which they were raised. If we as a society were more intolerant of bitchy narcissistic women, we would have far less of them.

  78. Brendan says:

    What did you mean by “Deep Behavior”? I interpreted it as a behavior that’s been around since humans were living in caves.

    It’s deeply ingrained behavior. Part of that is DNA, and a part of it is nurture. Nevertheless, it is what it is.

    So you’re suggesting that Original Sin involved the Devil altering our DNA??? Um, okaaay….

    From the standpoint of Catholic anthropology, by virtue of Original Sin, human nature changed away from its original design (see CCC Sec. 400-405). Human nature became more subject to sin: “human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin — an inclination to evil that is called ‘concupiscence’. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.” CCC Sec, 405.

    God did not create humans subject to concupiscence. That is a result of Original Sin. It’s not that the devil rearranged DNA (what a preposterous idea … the devil is a tempter, nothing more), but that, as a consequence of Original Sin, human nature changed. Specifically the human natures of Adam and Eve became corrupted, and therefore the nature that they passed on was, itself corrupted as well (“By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.” CCC Sec. 404.

    So, yes, Original Sin changed human nature into a fallen nature. The DNA which propagates in our species now is *not* the “original plan DNA”, but rather the “fallen DNA”, as a result of Original Sin. Therefore what feels “natural”, and which may very well be based on inclinations arising from our fallen inheritance, is, in fact, sin, and not the “original design”.

    Tying this through to this thread, therefore, it my well be that women’s fallen nature wires them to behave this way, just as men’s fallen nature wires them to behave in other sinful ways. To say that this is God’s intention, however, just because it is a natural inclination” is to ignore the clear teaching of the Church about Original Sin. What is “natural” is often simply reflecting what is “fallen” in us — natural enough, in that we inherit a fallen human nature from our parents, but also not God’s design, either.

  79. Anonymous says:

    Face it, human nature is base and people suck… without character and morals, we end up like the Romans getting overrun and conquered by barbarians in 476. (I think the thought make left/liberal type positively giddy.)

  80. Octavia says:

    In the U.S., it’s quite possible that milestones that signal adulthood have been moved because of the change in life expectancy and realities of the workplace. The Baby Boomer population had, still has and will have a significant affect on U.S. society. Sometimes, it’s not merely about people wanting to “stay children.” A population boom often means that a few generations following that boom have less opportunities to work, which will affect the comfort level in starting families.

    Now, for the record, I don’t believe someone is automatically an adult because he/she gets married, has kids and/or works. (There are people who are horrible partners, lackluster parents and unacceptable employees.) I think some are quick to pat themselves on the back for reaching those milestones, without having the substance that goes with those achievements.

  81. Butterfly Flower says:

    God did not create humans subject to concupiscence. That is a result of Original Sin. It’s not that the devil rearranged DNA (what a preposterous idea … the devil is a tempter, nothing more), but that, as a consequence of Original Sin, human nature changed.

    A preposterous idea?

    So you expect me to believe the Devil “beguiled” Adam and Eve without having prior knowledge of the consequences of Original Sin?

    The “Fall of Man” was physical as well as spiritual. According to God, Original Sin physically marked our species ’till kingdom come.

    Hence, the Devil [indirectly] rearranged our DNA.

    So, yes, Original Sin changed human nature into a fallen nature. The DNA which propagates in our species now is *not* the “original plan DNA”, but rather the “fallen DNA”, as a result of Original Sin. Therefore what feels “natural”, and which may very well be based on inclinations arising from our fallen inheritance, is, in fact, sin, and not the “original design”.

    Humans are physically and spiritually flawed beings. That’s pretty much the accepted status quo in Abrahamic faiths.

    I was just trying to point out that Society and Feminism aren’t the only reasons why so many women are unhappy miserable creatures [for example: pre-feminism well taken care of upper-class housewives feeling “meh”].

    As humans, we’re just not physically wired for a perpetual state of contentment and serenity.

    It’s pointless to complain about the negative traits of human nature. We can overcome these negative traits [through faith], but they’ll never completely vanish.

    The only way to completely eliminate the negative traits of human nature would be through creating a new species. A humanoid being naturally wired for contentment and serenity.

    Isn’t that a blasphemous suggestion? Who are we to tell God “your design was alright, but I think we can do better…”

    I feel like Orson Scott Card wrote an essay or editorial on this exact subject. I’m going to try to find it.

  82. Brendan says:

    I’m beginning to be convinced that you are most certainly a troll, BF.

    [D: Likewise.]

    Let’s go over this again.

    You wrote this:

    So you’re suggesting that Original Sin involved the Devil altering our DNA??? Um, okaaay….

    This suggested either that you believed that this was what I was saying and that you, at the very least, disagreed with it (more fairly, you ridiculed it, but let’s leave it at “disagreed”). In fact, I don’t believe any such thing, as I pointed out.

    You then respond that you do, in fact, believe that the Devil altered human DNA. This contradicts your earlier sentiment rather plainly, in which you appeared to criticize this position. Flip-flopping, it seems to me.

    In any case, no, the Devil did not, even indirectly, rearrange human DNA. The Fall happened because actions have consequences — it was as God had foretold, that eating of the tree would cause death. The Devil created temptation, that was succumbed to, and the action had consequences as God had foretold. Sure, did the Devil want Adam and Eve to fall? Of course, but his cause was simply the temptation. No-one “rearranged the DNA” — it happened automatically as a result of the Fall, as the consequence God had decreed for eating of the Tree.

    In any case, let’s recall that this entire conversation arose out of your sniping at my posts (because that’s a frank description of what it was) by trying to suggest that I had to admit that “God created women to behave in this way, and therefore you need to accept it” on the basis that “this is biologically wired, therefore it must be God’s will”. My post was in response to that suggestion.

  83. Butterfly Flower says:

    You then respond that you do, in fact, believe that the Devil altered human DNA. This contradicts your earlier sentiment rather plainly, in which you appeared to criticize this position. Flip-flopping, it seems to me.

    I’m Catholic, so I personally don’t believe the Devil dabbled in genetic engineering. I was just pointing out that my conclusion wasn’t so preposterous.

    “Did the Devil tempt Adam and Eve with sin because he wanted humanity to suffer? Did the Devil want humanity to be eternally flawed?”

    In any case, let’s recall that this entire conversation arose out of your sniping at my posts (because that’s a frank description of what it was) by trying to suggest that I had to admit that “God created women to behave in this way, and therefore you need to accept it” on the basis that “this is biologically wired, therefore it must be God’s will”. My post was in response to that suggestion.

    God’s will or not, we are what we are – imperfect.

    Without firmly established religious guidelines and social repercussions, human behavior tends to be quite atrocious.

    Humans just aren’t a content, considerate, blissful, serene species.

    Women tend to behave in a heartless cruel manner not because they’re women, but because they’re human.

    & I wasn’t “sniping” at your posts. When someone disagrees with you, do you just assume they’re an insolent, ignorant individual? I’m hopelessly naive. A real life ingénue. So if you think I’m being arrogant and disrespectful, your judgment is way off the mark.

  84. Butterfly Flower says:

    I’m beginning to be convinced that you are most certainly a troll, BF.

    [D: Likewise.]

    Dalrock, I thought we settled this issue? I am a real teenage girl; Svar can back me up, I sent him photos.

  85. Brendan says:

    & I wasn’t “sniping” at your posts. When someone disagrees with you, do you just assume they’re an insolent, ignorant individual? I’m hopelessly naive. A real life ingénue. So if you think I’m being arrogant and disrespectful, your judgment is way off the mark.

    Then listen more and snipe less. 🙂

  86. Butterfly Flower says:

    Then listen more and snipe less.🙂

    Hm, what an underused verb definition.

    To snipe:

    […] to criticize adversely a person or persons from a position of security.

    So what you’re really saying is: “Impertinent socialite, how dare you question my remarks!”

    Brendan, I apologize. I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. From now on, I’ll word my comments addressed to you with more discretion. Actually, I’ll probably just avoid interacting with you in general. I appear to be the only individual on the manosphere that manages to get on your nerves.

  87. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Unfathomable Pain Edition

  88. zed says:

    Instead of complain about the bitchy selfish immature behavior of women, maybe men should just learn to manage their ill tempered ladies. Like Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew.

    Women should not have to be *managed* if they are adults. They should manage themselves. If they have to be managed, they are like children and should not have the same legal status as adult men.

    Modern prosperity has trained people to have outsized expectations and to be lazy and soft. My grandmother never had a mani-pedi, nor did she ever expect to have a “Girls’ Night Out.” I’m sure she had days when she was sick of putting up peaches or feeding the chickens or wiping babies’ butts, but her generation did not expect anything different but hard work, and it was best to accept it, make peace with it, and try to enjoy it in whatever way you could.

    Nice statement, grerp. Back in the olden days it was called “life” and it was generally accepted that everyone was responsible for their own. I actually doubt that your grandmother got sick of doing those things which kept her and her family alive.

    I have a cousin who farms with her husband and at age 72 they are both healthier and look younger than most of the lazy urbanized people in their 30s-40s that I see around me every day. They also raise a huge garden and eat very little store-bought or processed food. They feel very much in control of their lives, and wouldn’t have it any other way.

    The statement you were responding to illustrates what I think is one of the primary reasons why women seem to be having difficulty finding mates these days – a woman who contributes nothing to the relationship and requires “management” is almost a textbook definition of a liability rather than an asset. I distinctly remember such a woman that I was in a relationship with about 25 years ago making the statement “You just see me as a load, don’t you?” She was right – I pretty much saw her as dead weight I had to drag around and who added nothing to my life but took much away.

    Getting used to living life free of having to drag that load around is far easier than most people realize. If one is going to have to care for children, it is much easier if they are both chronologically and mentally children – instead of being chronologically adult but still mentally children and demanding the prerogatives of both.

  89. Kai says:

    BF:
    Being a real teenaged girl does not make you not a troll.
    but personally, I’m voting on the side of ‘genuine immature child with delusionally inflated sense of self-worth’

  90. Oak says:

    @ Brendan and BF:
    Honestly, a very fascinating read about your views on Original Sin. I have a different take entirely, which is what made your comments interesting.

    I always read the fall from grace thusly:

    To God, all things are good. Everything done by God is by definition, good. Adam and Eve were similarly creatures incapable of sin and evil until the temptation.

    The fall from grace was the gained knowledge of opposites:
    Good vs. Evil
    Man vs. Woman
    Life vs. Death
    Human vs. God

    Prior to the temptation, man and woman lived in bliss unaware of their differences, unaware of death, and unaware even that God and themselves were different.

    Even if God had somehow not known that they had eaten the fruit, and gained the forbidden knowledge, it would have been obvious.

    They covered their nakedness, suddenly noticing the differences between themselves. They hid from God, understanding not just the nature of their sin, but of sin itself.

    They now understood that there was such a thing as evil, and this knowledge BY IT’S NATURE, drove them from the garden.

    Prior to the eviction from Eden, humans were spiritually pure creatures, incapable of evil thoughts or actions. The ‘apple’ was the knowledge of good and evil, and the knowledge that they had free will to choose between the two.

    In this view of the O.S., taking the Apple was Man’s way of growing up into his own. It was the birth of Free Will.

    In this definition, I don’t see how it pertains to women’s behavior, or DNA.

    What do you think?

  91. Doug1 says:

    UncleFred

    Pit bulls are not a breed. The term generically refers to a number of different breeds used for pit fighting. These dogs are no more violent by nature than any other, they must be trained for pit fighting.

    This is UTTER rubbish. I don’t know if you’re right that there are more than one breed of pit bull, perhaps, but not all breeds of dogs are remotely suitable for pit bull fighting. Golden retrievers wouldn’t be, nor collies, nor standard poodles.

    Blank slateism applied to dog breeds. Ridiculous.

    Not a dog breeder in the world would agree with you. Genes matter. So does nurture yes, but less in dogs than people.

  92. Butterfly Flower says:

    Honestly, a very fascinating read about your views on Original Sin. I have a different take entirely, which is what made your comments interesting.

    Our discussion wasn’t really about Original Sin. It was more of a debate concerning the primal behavior of female humans.

    “Are the negative traits of modern women the result of feminism, or are they just natural human behaviors getting kicked into overdrive by our current society?”

  93. Lavazza says:

    Oak: I am not well read on the bible, but I guess the story is about duality, wanting something and not wanting something else. As soon as you want something, not wanting something else follows. All spiritual endeavours are directed at acheiving nonduality/ integration.

  94. Lavazza says:

    “When one becomes absorbed (layanam) in the true nature of nature (prakrti), a transcognitive state (asamprajnata) allowing one to overcome the duality of ordinary pratyaya dawns. This is catalyzed by the practice of bhava-pratyaya in which ordinary dualistic processes of cognition is defeated. Here one generates spiritual bhava and becomes absorbed in communion with formless prakrti (creation).”

  95. Lavazza says:

    Sorry for spamming: “When our familiarity and comfort with this duality becomes confused with security and “reality”, then we are in trouble (dukha) because we start to demand, prefer, or mistake our obscured and limited familiar “state of reality” in favor of REALITY AS IT IS — unobstructed clarity, true vision, or the “real thing”.”

  96. Oak says:

    Well said Lavassa. That’s a great definition of the Eastern way of thinking. (Non-duality.)

  97. Oak says:

    One could also say: “Joyful participation in the sorrows of the world.” Transcendence.

  98. Pingback: Running with the bulls | Dalrock

  99. Pingback: Divorcée Retirement | Dalrock

  100. Pingback: One Tip For Each Gender | The Badger Hut

  101. udolipixie says:

    How is realizing what you sacrifice as a mother & wife any different from men realizing they sacrifice as a father & husband?

    “So here you have it. The evil patriarchy’s greatest crime is expecting women to grow up.”

    In what way is recognizing sacrifices of being a mother & wife related to patriarchy?

    Are you implying women who aren’t mothers or wives aren’t grown up?

    If so you don’t see many men wishing to “grow up” (be a father/husband) in their teens & twenties in fact most consider “growing up” in that sense when they are in their 30s.

    [D: I have no problem with women or men who choose not to marry and/or have children. But if they do make that choice they need to keep their obligations. As I said in the post, this is a nearly 50 year old mother of 2 carping about having had to grow up. No one forced her to marry. No one forced her to have children. She wanted these things, but didn’t want to have to be an adult to have them. Salon is peddling this as some sort of profound wisdom, when it is really just toxic nonsense.]

  102. udolipixie says:

    Then she’s just an immature complainer.

    I’m not sure how her character is related to “So here you have it. The evil patriarchy’s greatest crime is expecting women to grow up.”

    If anything it should be society’s crime is producing people who don’t take responsibility for their actions & influencing adults and even seniors to act like petulant children.

    [D: You are still missing the point. Yes she is an immature complainer; that in itself isn’t remarkable. What is remarkable is that Salon felt that her essay was worthy of publishing. This isn’t an isolated incident. This kind of stuff is published in otherwise respectable papers and magazines on a regular basis. It is standard fare for women. If she were a man, it would never have been published. Same with EPL, Isn’t it time you left your husband?, etc. Bitching about men/life is the foundation for the modern feminist movement.]

  103. Pingback: Trapped in motherhood | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s