Tuesday, April 29, 2008

[culture gap] falling for the three card trick


Forgive me - I couldn't resist answering the comments on the last post as a separate post in itself. Certain ladies took issue with the part about girls having multiple partners and suggested males were just as bad, if not worse.

I'd say they are - far worse. There is no "no" in almost any guy's vocab.

So therefore the morality is set by the female, the nature of what relations are to be. Recently I went out with a girl and it was clearly a cultural difference. Over here, the moment the girl goes with him alone - that's a clear signal it will end up in the cot because the thought the guy would not want to does not compute in her mind or anyone else's.

Two generations ago it would be automatically assumed he'd taken only the first step and that it could either stay as a friendship or if he wanted to go the rest of the way, then it was tied in with going steady, at the very least and more usually getting engaged. There'd be no assumption she'd just "do it" there and then because there was a premium put on girls' final bargaining chip.

Even a girl having successive boyfriends is a separate issue to just automatically assuming that if you party, you automatically screw.

Take that girl [who is in the vast majority today, not knowing any other way 'cause no one's ever taught her otherwise] and put her back into the late 50s and she'd be looked at very strangely by the other girls.

Which is better - today's "free for all" or the "guy has to work for it" of that generation? I'd say that today's girl feels "empowered" that she can mete it out to whomever she likes but the 50s female had more power in that it was not automatically expected and she was held in higher esteem. It's like anything which you have to fight for to get - it's worth far more than something readily available.

The guy of that day was in her power, under her spell and if he wanted the final frontier, then he had to play her game. These days he need play no game - he gets it when he wants it with no strings. Females have effectively swallowed the feminist illusion and disempowered themselves.

And what is "it"? For a guy it's mainly the cot. For her it's increasingly just the cot too but way back then it was the whole package she got. All that this oh-so-modern idea of "who wants to marry anyway" has done is give the guys the right to dip the wick without responsibility. Hell I'm not complaining - it favours the male but if she thinks it empowers her somehow or gains her more respect in society as her own person, she's kidding herself.

How many times have I heard a single mum [my own goddaughter is a case in point] say she wouldn't want him anyway. Why not? Because he is useless. Why is he useless? Because he has no responsibility. Why not? 'Cause he's grown up without respect for girls as there has been no premium on that.

It's a vicious circle. At least in the 50s she'd run a reasonable chance he'd not be like that in the first place although, to be fair, if she did cut the cord to him, she'd be an unmarried mother in the 50s - not a good place to be. Better for her today of course.

All this dislocation would be minimized if women had had better Feminista to follow back then. Instead of the appalling bra-burners, if they'd listened to people like Dale O'Leary, Melissa Scowcroft, Christina Hoff-Sommers, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Camille Paglia, Judith Levine, Lillian Csernica, Diane Ravitch, Katha Pollitt or Nadine Strossen - true feminists in that they would have equally got women out from behind the Hoover but at the same time had them retain their "womanness".

Instead many women chose to follow Steinem, Jagger, Callaghan, de Beauvoir, Greer, Stanton, Hanisch or Friedan who actually did enormous damage [and by the way - they were into bra-burning in the next wave]. They achieved no more as lauded Feministi than the saner feminists but instead got most men's backs up and half of the women today as well.

Pollitt and Strossen are right in saying that women are simply people in the end, just as we males are people. These women want to work with the male rather than issuing ridiculous ultimata and harbouring deep hatreds.

That's why it needs to get back to a position of sanity. That's why girls should probably follow the debate between more intelligent women, say, Katha Pollitt and Carol Gilligan instead of the Misandrists who are lost before they begin.

18 comments:

Nunyaa said...

You talk about what women of today and in the 50s are like, and I do agree that women of today seem to have less thought for the morals of the 50s. Screwing around doesn't empower women, but really, why not address the issue of men who go at it like rabbits and its acceptable. Pity more didn't keep there legs shut and the guys keep their pants zipped up. Maybe I'm just old fashioned in a lot of ways.

Semaj Mahgih said...

Or maybe you're just correct in what you say.

CityUnslicker said...

it is not all about sex. sexual freedom has not been the sole cause of western degredation.

socialism and the promise of prizes for all for no work. e.g. money for not working, money for being a single mum staying at home. this is the key cause - morals affect more than just sexual relationships.

also it is not all the feminists fault. scientists invented the pill that freed women to behave like men if they so chose.

Nunyaa said...

That is not why the pill was invented. That is just an excuse. And while we are at it Cityunslicker, I guess you meant to include all those single dads who chose to stay at home with their kids as well.

Nunyaa said...

No it isn't all about sex but a hell of a lot of women use sex as a means to an end and I'm not talking about prostitution. I just think some men are as bad as women.

LordSomber said...

Interesting, related discussion:

http://drmelissaclouthier.blogspot.com/2008/04/sex-is-sacred.html

"Maybe it seems like I'm being too hard on women and not holding men responsible. Maybe. But let's face it, women are the gatekeepers. And when they keep the gates swung wide open for anyone and everyone, it devalues the commodity. And that's where were at societally. When something becomes cheap and ubiquitous, it loses it's value. Loose women are a dime a dozen. Why do women complain about men not committing again?
Men are responsible, too. By treating every woman as a two-bit whore, they value all women less. And eventually, they bring that attitude to the woman they eventually commit to. How can they not? It used to be that hound dog men were looked down upon. But now, a man who views sex as something special and is choosy about how he shares it is scorned as prudish and backward. Or, his sexuality is questioned."

jmb said...

Give it a rest James. We all just end up going around in circles on this topic.

It's all very well to say that women set the tone, the boundaries and that men are incapable of not taking advantage of any offers or expectations. But that's not true. Maybe of a hormone driven teenager or young Turk but not of a male who is a bit older. He should be able to balance his head and his nether regions and also set the tone and his own boundaries.

What am I doing commenting here?

Gone, gone!

katekatekatekate said...

I love Nunyaas response. I think i have morals and i have kept myself from doing as others do. I sometimes think i missed out because as my friends were sleeping around and having what seemed like loads of fun i have had only two long term relationships. But on the other hand i am glad that i respect myself enough not to just go and sleep around.

Ellee Seymour said...

But are people any happier today, men or women, aren't our lives more complicated?

oestrebunny said...

Again, I have to agree completely with Nunyaa here.

Perhaps the focus should be put on men and their own loose attitudes to sex.

If women are expected to control themselves in that respect and set the moral high ground then I don't see why men aren't either.

It takes two and there would be a lot less women screwing around if there were a lot less men.

This is a ridiculous male chauvinist double standard.

Just as an aside, not every woman gives it up as easy as you seem to think - or hope. Just because a women holds hands, goes to dinner or goes home with you doesn't mean that your getting her.

CherryPie said...

I totally agree with Bunny on this one!

Gracchi said...

James- you describe such moral monsters- problem is that I am young in the right generation, in London and I've never met any of them. What you are talking about is totally foreign to anything I know about- which is why I'm going to shut up.

Oh and I disagree profoundly with the idea that men are not responsible for their actions, its women's responsibility for encouraging us: that's a barmy thesis I'm afraid.

LordSomber said...

Maybe more guys should follow these tips:

http://aliasclio.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-not-to-court-woman.html

UBERMOUTH said...

I would hate to go back to the 50's , for it was a time of uneven power between couples. (Valium was invented in the 50's for stressed out and unhappy women).
I have to agree though James that promiscious women devalue themselves.

There is room in a modern woman's life for old fashioned values.
Seems that you and I are a dying breed , James.

Semaj Mahgih said...

I think that's cleared the air a bit more.

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

James, I am in despair! I don't know any woman who feels "empowered" for the reasons you give: whatever do you take us for? [I dread to think.]
"Bra-burning" was fun and just a symbol , liberating a lot of women from the idea that you had to look a certain way for men, even when it made you uncomfortable . Now what is wrong with Steinem and de Beauvoir, except that the latter could be criticised for not considering women who were not economically privileged? They opened the debate and made us think; we don't have to agree with all they said to admit that they were great thinkers.
Now don't start at me! You know I wouldn't dream of going anywhere without my mascara and lipstick on...

Bag said...

James, These days are long gone and women have changed in many ways some better some worse. When we are all living under sharia law in the west we will suddenly find that these are the good old days when women are empowered as it's not that they have no power it is because they are like us. We don't understand women and they don't understand us. Hell, I don't even understand some blokes myself. We all have different agendas.

There are still plenty of ladies like you talk about around although morals today are much different today and thus they are much rarer. You pays your money and you takes your choice. (So to speak)

Magic Tricks said...

Hello, I'am George. Visit my website, if you want to learn Card Trick. All tricks are video explained, so you can learn very easy. Thank's and have a great day.