Saturday, April 23, 2011

The other side of the debate

The question? The one I mentioned in this post. Whether a man should discuss questions of compatability (how to raise the children, etc.) with a prospective wife in order to convince her of his position, or if he should rely on Game instead. I was perusing the archives of a certain blog, and I found the following items:
How to crush a woman's dreams
Alpha Mail: be careful what you wish

What are Christian men to do if they meet Christian women who have been indoctrinated in feminism -- will they submit eventually to the exercise of "leadership" by their husband? It is not clear to me that Game is reducible to that. Rather, it involves maintaining her attraction to you so that she will comply with, follow, and submit. But is she submitting not because of a rational desire to be obedient but because of emotion? The question of emotions versus reason/obedience./ What is the nature of authority within marriage? Is its exercise like giving orders or instructions in other groups (military, work, etc.)? One would think the manner of expression is different, and even within the family, how the husband exercises authority over the children may (should?) be different from how he exercises authority over his wife. (Despite the claim of some men [misogynists? or just embittered men with bad experiences with women] that women are like children.) Are women to be treated as rational creatures? Or does one adapt according to the woman? (I hesitate to use the word, "handle.")


Many modern Uhmerican women can be described as being willful. While a man who does not care for the good of the family or love his wife  is not good marriage material, the same is true of women as well, and not only that, their roles within the family are different. I don't think it is an exaggeration to claim that most Uhmerican women are not being raised with the understanding of how to be a proper wife.

One would hope to find a wife with feminine virtue, but is it the case that female sexual attraction is separable from virtue? Hawaiian Libertarian claims that female attraction is not a choice. "She loves you but is not "in-love" with you" - the former is the rational desire, but the latter is emotional and driven by other considerations? But reason is not wholly absent -- there is a judgment involved that the man is no longer worthy of respect as the man in her life. Moreover, it is good that a woman has enough restraint that she doesn't through herself at a bad boy, but that doesn't change the fact that she is attracted to bad boys. Can her ideal (the image of yang) be changed such that her desire is thereby affected? And how is this to be done, if not through a moral conversion of some sort (rather than trying to alter her emotions and psychology)?


Can it be said that successful hypergamy leads to submission? It would seem that while the former can lead to the latter, it is not necessarily so, if married feminists continue to wear the pants in the relationship and are content to have that role without despising their partner (too much?). (What does their example say about the link between hypergamy and sexual attraction?)

No comments: