"Evolutionarily, women are prone to test if a man can display strength and assertiveness in the face of adversity. This provides a sense of safety."
I'll argue the face of adversity for men is female. First he must free himself from his mother, then his wife.
I have come to understand women always need to be under man's authority. Wether it be their father, their husband or our Lord Jesus. Given to only themselves, without male guardrails, abhorrent social behaviors become more prevalent and destructive.
Women crave the male guardrails the way children crave father's discipline. Discipline isn't negative, even though it has a negative conitation. Discipline is also promotions, awards, playtime, trust. The ability of a father to discipline and protect his children comes from his authority over the children.
For a husband to protect his wife and have her feel safe he must have authority over her. You can't have the responsibility without the authority.
Feminism took the husband, father authority away but still wants him to have the responsibility. It's the typical feminist hypocrisy.
Statistically, all men want children and legacy but they don't want that responsibility without the authority. They don't want the modern wife. She is insufferable and can't be pleased. She takes down households. Our own wives have become the face of adversity in our lives and modern society has removed the husbands authority to deal with her. The courts and institutions of society have created a two option solution. Divorce or long suffering.
Sadly, he suffers in silence to protect his children from an overbearing controlling mother or divorces and hopes the children aren't too damaged from her because she will leverage the children against him.
Women are the gatekeeper of sex and intimacy. Men are the gatekeeper of marriage. Men are not going to marry. It feels like a recipe to loose your peace, your children and your financial health.
Great article. I can tell you love people and it's nice to see that love includes men.
Thank you Hannah for offering readily identifiable male (in this article) and female archetypes (elsewhere). I sympathise with the grave therapeutic dilemmas they presented for you. You write with kindness and empathy about their distress. At a personal level, it would have been better had I come cross someone like you 45 years ago.
As a client/patient of various psychological professionals and a long-retired medical practitioner myself, I wish however to challenge the oft-repeated assertion (and that you appear to ascribe to) that men's observed failure to seek "professional help" is due to their mostly evolved but culturally imposed masculine nature as well. In other words intrinsic or subconscious rather than a rational behaviour. In so doing, this explanation in my opinion unfortunately provides yet another less-than-flattering element to the pervasive modern definition of masculinity that is supposedly at its evolutionary core, somewhat if not predominantly toxic, i.e., inherently self-destructive. And thus is fixable (for everyone's benefit) only with feminising professional "help".
Permit me to offer a less accusatory (less damaging?) suggestion as to why most men avoid "professional help" - ever more so these days. Here is some context for my severe criticism of the helping professions' convenient but deeply self-serving notions about the reluctant-to-seek-therapy male. It arose from personal reflection but has growing evidence to support it.
I am now 83. Was married, then a sole parent of three young children, divorced and remarried, divorced again, celibate and single for 40 years, (and thus?) slowly becoming a content father of three and grandfather of four more wonderful adults. Starting a couple of years prior to the first marital dissolution in the late 70s, I actively sought help for serious emotional distress episodically for 15 years with various professionals. This 15 year period coincided with the growing feminisation (using misandrist feminist concepts) for marriage counselling but also occurring within the medical profession as a whole. Every interaction, often over many sessions for months or in one case 18 months, made things worse for me and therefore for my children too. But we made it OK in spite of, rather than due to "help".
(BTW, my observation and experience is that the common assertion of a recent capture of medicine and psychology by misandrist feminist ideology, say last 20-25 years, is gravely incorrect. It was evident for me in the helping professions in the early 70s and that fact is very relevant to any attempts to mitigate its profound social damage as revealed in Hanna Spier's sample case histories.)
The manageable but unfulfilling plateau of misery ended only when I happened to meet an anti-feminist counsellor, a kindred spirit to Hannah Spier. As it was for my astute therapist, so it ought to be for others in counselling, psychology and psychiatry. If a treatment is not working, look to yourself firstly for a condescending omnipotence, perhaps an incorrect diagnosis, possibly a wrong treatment and all before blaming the client/patient for not responding as you expect/want. Here then is my oversimplification for the helping professions to ponder.
* Modern men are actually not stupid.
* Modern men are rightly sceptical of overwhelmingly feminised emotional, relationship and medical "help".
* Modern men correctly avoid the "helping professions".
Men like Patrick know exactly what they are in for. Cohabitation is just sex and maid express™️ service provided for free without any commitment. He fleeced the long term girlfriend. In the olden days, Penelope’s father would give him a beating he totally deserves.
You are right but can’t blame him for playing with the incentive/punishment framework he was given to work with.
With just a little bit of empathy you can understand that he doesn’t win a whole lot by committing. A genetic legacy you might say but he has time and society won’t value him more for committing to this particular women that has enough resources to live on her own anyway.
What I am trying to point out, is that the men who don't find a woman worth committing to, end up suffering as well. The psychiatric numbers from Norway tell that story perfectly. Men who don't have people who are depending on them feel sidelined.
The sum of life experiences by the many leads to a picture of the whole, while a picture of the whole hides unique and varied life experiences.
I say this because I often talk negatively of female behavior and the problems with modern marriage being a feminist designed contract with state enforcement.
But I speak to inform my brothers so they can understand the situation in the world. Too many fathers don't understand how much has changed in this new dating world to give their sons good advice.
But remember this marriage is good and children are good. Having a purpose greater than yourself is good. Understand the pitfalls and be wise, not lustful. Date, court with purpose.
Women as a group have fallen pretty far but you're not marrying the group. Individual experiences will have some women seperate themselves from the chaos of the group and present and opportunity for someone to wife a woman deserving of the title.
Good luck and God bless you my brothers. It's a noble task to take up, to make a family. Looking for a needle in a haystack is easy compared to this endeavor. You're looking for a special needle in a needle stack. They exist. You just can't find them the old usual way.
I completely agree with that. It’s just very hard to understand it without being introduced to the idea. From society’s standpoint he appears as a successful man who has it all and he get rewarded for it in all kinds of hedonistic pleasures.
The true cost of all this will come much later which is why it’s very hard to understand what you are trading off in the moment.
So you are right that he would benefit in the long term (society also) but the message is that he is winning the game. If we didn’t ideologically force all women into the workforce, he wouldn’t find so many women willing to have a relationship without him committing and we would get the « correct « behavior.
I have never advocated for your said equality. In a relationship, the man influences the woman, not the other way around. Penelope wanted marriage, but it didn’t happen because Patrick didn’t want to get married.
I never advocated for empathy in this case. In fact, I would suggest Penelope not to even piss on Patrick if he were on fire.
What you said about society not valuing men’s commitment is entirely false. The Patrick type man would discard his long term cohabitating girlfriends and marry the next woman to his liking in a heartbeat.
Where is the empathy for Penelope? She wasted her fertile 30s and paid for a dude’s rent and therapy, meanwhile she gets nothing in return.
Empathy? You can go empathize Patrick all you want. Not me.
Nobody said you advocated for equality personally nor that it is your fault in particular.
But this is the ideological framework that has been pushed by different powers, generally under the pressure of various groups of women.
If that bothers you, you should really target your anger at those who made all of this possible not at those who appear to be « winning « .
Society is not valuing his commitment: the offer is to accept the risk of divorce and have half his net worth taken away regardless of his faults; in exchange he would just get the exact same thing he is already getting.
You seem to believe he would marry the « right « woman but considering what was said I doubt it, he just won’t marry unless he is forced to or there is a benefit (doesn’t seem like he wants kids so even that can’t be a motivator).
I empathize with Penelope too but the fact is she just played the game poorly.
You seem to confuse empathy with sympathy.
I understand very well how Penelope might feel but I just don’t have that much sympathy for her case. Make no mistakes, I don’t have any sympathy for Patrick, I think he is the typical douche who has it all and think like he should be able to do whatever he wants instead of the right thing.
Using empathy just means putting yourself in his shoes and seeing that he is doing what his best for Patrick, which is expected human behavior.
You want people to feel bad for Penelope when the whole reason she was with him is precisely because he was so successful with a lot of options. I’m sure there are plenty of men who would have committed to Penelope, she just felt that they weren’t good enough for her.
She wrongfully believed that she could get what she really wanted in the first place by victimizing herself. If she had told that mariage was a non negotiable factor at the start, Patrick would be in the wrong but had she said that the relationship wouldn’t even have existed in the first place.
The whole thing is typical of women’s duplicity which is why it is hard to feel much sympathy for her case. He might be an asshole but at least he was honest, you can’t blame him for sticking to the behavior he said he would have…
This wouldn’t happen if society didn’t pretend to make women « independent « and that what they really wanted/needed was to be exactly like men. At the men games, they will lose, almost always; there are a few women who are somewhat benefiting from that but everybody else is paying for it. The bottom half of men are loosing just as much if not more if that’s any consolation…
I think you should direct your anger at the advocates of those rules, not at the perceived winner of the game !
The game you referred to is the institution known as marriage. You do not believe in marriage at all.
You are the one who’s lost faith in the concept or prospect of marriage. I do not need your advice. Have fun writing long paragraphs fantasizing about divorce.
You are right, I do not believe in the institution of mariage because it is just a shadow of its past and completely meaningless. You cannot expect any real commitment from a woman, so why a man should do it?
I'm not fantasying about divorce, there is a large amount of studies/data about that. The ones who keep on trucking are those at the bottom because it would be financially too costly and those at the top (that is unless they are filthy rich) because it would weaken their power.
Faith/beliefs are not a way to live your life, the computer you type this on didn't magically appear with faith.
But you are free to live your life as you choose as long as you assume the consequences.
I disagree with Ms. Guo too (and my guess would be that this is because we are in different Christian denominations), though not in the same way as "SeeC".
"In a relationship, the man influences the woman, not the other way around."
There is a lot of truth in this claim (although feminism has changed that a lot).
But not to the point that a woman cannot say no, demand commitment or leave.
In my denomination, Penelope's parents would have explained to her that trying to buy commitment with "cohabitation", "sex and maid service" is a terrible idea, like trying to cure a compulsive gambler by giving him money to spend.
"Where is the empathy for Penelope? She wasted her fertile 30s and paid for a dude’s rent and therapy, meanwhile she gets nothing in return."
Oh yes, on the short term (before going to the therapist) she got everything she bargained for : for a few years she could brag to everyone about how she is a succesful woman in a relationship with a successful man, and (I'm quoting Hannah here) "feel immense pride in her work, frequently celebrated by her parents, who often touted her achievements to family and friends."
You are a feminist just like SeeC. Adding a label Christian does not change the fact. You still think being a long term girlfriend is a flex. You still think a woman can change a man. You still think the damage Patrick has done can simply be mitigated by some pep talk. Good luck with that.
"You still think being a long term girlfriend is a flex."
Not at all. In fact, in my Christian denomination we do not allow
for girlfriends or boyfriends, be they short-term, long-term or whatever, we only allow for courtship and marriage, and sex only after marriage - much like in Jane Austen's novels.
"You still think a woman can change a man"
I did not say that Penelope can change Patrick, I only said that Penelope could and should have shown more discernment before choosing Patrick.
"the damage Patrick has done"
Unlike you, I do not blame one side only for all the evils (a typically feminist trait), so I prefer to speak of "the damage Patrick and Penelope did to each other".
"You still think the damage (...) can simply be mitigated by some pep talk."
I never said or believed that, I never said or believed that Penelope's path would be easy, although I wish her all the best obviously.
“a few years she could brag to everyone about how she is a succesful woman in a relationship with a successful man”
Yes, you think being a long term girlfriend is a flex worth bragging for several years. You also misinterpreted Hannah in this case. Penelope was surrounded by feminist girl bosses who thought being long term girlfriends is a flex as well. Hannah was trying to point out how prevalent this ideology is. An idea can be common and popular, but that doesn’t make it right.
“Unlike you, I do not blame one side only for all the evils (a typically feminist trait)”
Arguing for equality is a typical feminist trait. You simply think Penelope will not be more damaged than Patrick, and that is wrong. Not being able to recognize the difference of female biology and psyche is a feminist trait.
I cheered when you suggested the last fellow build the boat. That was perfect and likely just what he needed.
A common thread seems to be men not taking charge. It reminds me of the research of a Psychiatrist in Australia, I think his name is Wilkie. He wrote a book and mentioned that when men get depressed in a marriage it is more likely for the woman to attack him physically. If he can fight back she stays, if he can't she moves on. She knows she needs someone stronger than herself to maintain a sense of safety. He saw this as an ancient trait via evolution. This seemed very close to what you were describing.
I totally agree that men need to take charge but this is a very tricky proposition in today's world where masculinity is being called toxic. Take charge and quickly get labelled a toxic/controlling bastard. I wish there were an easy solution to this but i fear there is not. My personal sense is that men need to see their own value before they will be taking charge. We are living in a world that devalues men and this creates big trouble.
<This unspoken need lies behind many of the “tests” >
I hate being tested.
Sometimes, I have a sense that something is going on, but I cannot identify it, and when I ask to try and clarify, I get told I am too sensitive or that I am imagining it.
Psychologist Toby Green, author of The Men's Room had a column titled Body and Soul and she wrote about women testing men.
There's an old adage that applies here. Men marry women thinking that they won't change, but they do. Women marry men thinking that they will change, but they don't. It is, like all adages, very simplistic, but it underscores the need for negotiating future goals and timelines *before* marriage, and not just assuming that your future assumptions are correct.
There is no cultural norm for marital roles, anymore, and neither partner seems to feel that they have any responsibility to the other except to love them.
Thank you very much for the post, Dr. Spier. I am in my early 60s now, and never married nor had children. Even back in high school, I knew that that was not in the cards for me. . I have had girlfirends over the years, but only one was interested in marriage and children. I had to tell her, sorry, but I just can't do that.
Which made me wonder: do these women want a man, or do they want a man to fill the job description of husband and father? I hope that you can write about that subject. Thank you again.
Why don’t you want children Frank? If children are involved I think men should be obligated to do that within the frames of marriage, it’s one of the best predictors for children’s success and why we developed marriage to begin with. Not for the women. If you know you don’t want kids, then live how you see fit is my stance. But it’s a big gamble not to have a family. Better I have loved and lost then never loved at all.
Is it truly better to have ‘loved and lost’ Hannah? Because heartbreak can actually kill you! I keep thinking that the opposite may be true; you don’t miss what you never had. Your thoughts?
Thank you for this wonderful article. God invented marriage and He explains how to keep it; all of this in His word but many are too blinded for Him nowadays.
Great article. Very insightful. The observation about Scandinavian gynocentrism subconsciously inviting in mysogynist rapists in order to satiate a deep-seated need for order was brilliant. FWIW, this is going on all over the West. The Grooming Gang scandal in Britain is a cardinal example of this, and it has been going on for 40 years, showing that perhaps this phenomenae started very soon after women gained full autonomy in society.
I am not a big proponent of repealing the 19th, but perhaps we should repeal the 19th .
Thank you for your writings. I am a male physician, 50's in the US. My take is that the educated classes in the US do not emphasize the "private" home life of a person, but rather value the "public" professional life. This leads to the failure of recognizing the value of intimate familial relationships, relationships which generally suits women better. It is not necessarily a "domestic life," but a life that includes relationships outside of work-- charities, religious organizations, social clubs, etc. Feminism wants to forget that men and women are different, and that we can often compliment each other. The anxieties and depressions of men and women can stem from the dissonance between an individuals perceived expectations from "society" and from what they really want and what makes them tick. Being a girl boss isn't as fulfilling as they may have thought.
What advice do you have for maintaining relations with a controlling mother? I have a narcissistic and distant father who has never made any effort to connect emotionally with my mother. I’m the black sheep of my family in the sense that I’m creative and unafraid of emotion. When I was a boy, my mother did not nurture those attributes but used them as as excuse to overindulge her unmet needs from her marriage on a child. I am sensitive and artistic but my sense of personal boundaries can be extreme and my sense of independence is stubborn and protective. I fought with my mother constantly when I was young and refused to let her cook for me or do my laundry. She has never been dissuaded by my distancing behavior or learned anything from it or made any legitimate effort to improve our relationship. Often I wondered why, seeing as she was so obviously obsessed with me, she would sabotage our relationship. I realized a few years ago that the sabotage of the point. My mother enjoys going on these rollercoaster rides with me and they provide her stimulation and the fulfillment of conflict resolution and a replacement for the intimacy she truly seeks. My overly attached mother made it difficult for me to enjoy masculine activities. She prefers activities where I am isolated. For instance, I loved soccer as a youth, but she didn’t like it and put me into tennis, a sport I was not good at. Contact sports were a no. A messy room was a no. I had to be meticulously groomed at all times. Guns were a no. (My father is a loner and spent all his free time by himself. He rarely spoke to me). My mother has disapproved of every woman who’s shown a romantic interest in me and at this point I’ve learned never to introduce her to any woman I’m dating. Every woman my mother has encouraged me to date is considerably less attractive than me and shares none of my interests. I personally believe she likes these women as mates because they are less of a threat to maintaining the current dynamic.
I realized about eight months ago that I needed to flex my masculinity more (I hide it because it was so frequently attacked as a youth). I became a Christian and am now in a community of dozens on men who are positive role models and provide me with the tough feedback I need. I’ve flourished as a result. I’ve lost 40 pounds, quit drinking, no longer am a prisoner to my womanizing, and even tho I quit porn several years ago, I hadn’t quite dumped the porn brain until I got into this community and saw men be successful husbands and fathers (unlike my father who is corporally there but absent).
During the holidays, my mother noticed I had quit drinking and lost weight—something she had commented I needed to do. You would think she would be happy but instead she started tracking all the food I was eating in her presence and decided based on that alone that I was starving myself. (Before losing weight, I had been eating 4,000 calories per day and so yes to eat only 2200 per day means I’m not munching all the time or eating a second dinner after everyone else has finished eating). IMO, my mother decided to track my eating and came this premature conclusion (seeing as I don’t spend a lot of time with her) to start one of these cycles where she interrupts anything positive in my life so she can cling to me and we can be victims together and she does not have to feel the abandonment from my father. I interrupted her attempt to go on the roller coaster and put my foot down, yelling at the top of my voice and freezing her. I left their house and have not returned for any visits.
My father is 75. My mom is 70. They have no interest in changing their lives or improving their relationship with me. Despite how abandoned and judged I feel by them, I like the idea of being a family and sooner or later I forgive them and come back. But I can’t do it any longer. I have too much healthy ego now to put up with any of this and now realize this drama has kept me too busy to build my own life. Is there any hope I can set boundaries my mother will respect or do I have to essentially go no contact since she is such a nefarious actor?
Thank you for reaching out, it sounds like a complex question. So many people are trapped by pathological family members and it’s one of the most difficult things to treat.
It sounds like you’re doing much right already, great initiative to become a member of a religious community.
The best advice I can give is to keep on strengthening your situation, your identity. Become as busy as you can. When you build a strong foundation, you will be able to build strong walls as boundaries for family members who will manipulate you if they can.
Thank you for the suggestions. Will def do. Weirdly that post was the first time I’ve ever written about it. Just came out. I didn’t even realize it was so long!
Phenomenal articles. This and Part I of the series reveals how society's stability is dependent on the complementary nature of men and women. Egalitarian strips men and women with the path towards fulfilling the essence of their embodied forms (masculine and feminine) and your work is showing the psychosomatic symptoms of this existential error.
I am curious: since men and women process negative emotions differently, what collective interventions can enable them to engage the ideologies that are ruining their ability to engage with the annihilation of the complementary nature of men and women?
I ask this because the pendulum swings between two poles - a generation of well formed men but wounded ladies or a generation of formed ladies but wounded men. I have previously held the assumption that healing one gender raises the other and destroying one does the same, but I don't come across such empirical evidence to affirm this.
"Evolutionarily, women are prone to test if a man can display strength and assertiveness in the face of adversity. This provides a sense of safety."
I'll argue the face of adversity for men is female. First he must free himself from his mother, then his wife.
I have come to understand women always need to be under man's authority. Wether it be their father, their husband or our Lord Jesus. Given to only themselves, without male guardrails, abhorrent social behaviors become more prevalent and destructive.
Women crave the male guardrails the way children crave father's discipline. Discipline isn't negative, even though it has a negative conitation. Discipline is also promotions, awards, playtime, trust. The ability of a father to discipline and protect his children comes from his authority over the children.
For a husband to protect his wife and have her feel safe he must have authority over her. You can't have the responsibility without the authority.
Feminism took the husband, father authority away but still wants him to have the responsibility. It's the typical feminist hypocrisy.
Statistically, all men want children and legacy but they don't want that responsibility without the authority. They don't want the modern wife. She is insufferable and can't be pleased. She takes down households. Our own wives have become the face of adversity in our lives and modern society has removed the husbands authority to deal with her. The courts and institutions of society have created a two option solution. Divorce or long suffering.
Sadly, he suffers in silence to protect his children from an overbearing controlling mother or divorces and hopes the children aren't too damaged from her because she will leverage the children against him.
Women are the gatekeeper of sex and intimacy. Men are the gatekeeper of marriage. Men are not going to marry. It feels like a recipe to loose your peace, your children and your financial health.
Great article. I can tell you love people and it's nice to see that love includes men.
Indeed, well said and thank you!
Thank you Hannah for offering readily identifiable male (in this article) and female archetypes (elsewhere). I sympathise with the grave therapeutic dilemmas they presented for you. You write with kindness and empathy about their distress. At a personal level, it would have been better had I come cross someone like you 45 years ago.
As a client/patient of various psychological professionals and a long-retired medical practitioner myself, I wish however to challenge the oft-repeated assertion (and that you appear to ascribe to) that men's observed failure to seek "professional help" is due to their mostly evolved but culturally imposed masculine nature as well. In other words intrinsic or subconscious rather than a rational behaviour. In so doing, this explanation in my opinion unfortunately provides yet another less-than-flattering element to the pervasive modern definition of masculinity that is supposedly at its evolutionary core, somewhat if not predominantly toxic, i.e., inherently self-destructive. And thus is fixable (for everyone's benefit) only with feminising professional "help".
Permit me to offer a less accusatory (less damaging?) suggestion as to why most men avoid "professional help" - ever more so these days. Here is some context for my severe criticism of the helping professions' convenient but deeply self-serving notions about the reluctant-to-seek-therapy male. It arose from personal reflection but has growing evidence to support it.
I am now 83. Was married, then a sole parent of three young children, divorced and remarried, divorced again, celibate and single for 40 years, (and thus?) slowly becoming a content father of three and grandfather of four more wonderful adults. Starting a couple of years prior to the first marital dissolution in the late 70s, I actively sought help for serious emotional distress episodically for 15 years with various professionals. This 15 year period coincided with the growing feminisation (using misandrist feminist concepts) for marriage counselling but also occurring within the medical profession as a whole. Every interaction, often over many sessions for months or in one case 18 months, made things worse for me and therefore for my children too. But we made it OK in spite of, rather than due to "help".
(BTW, my observation and experience is that the common assertion of a recent capture of medicine and psychology by misandrist feminist ideology, say last 20-25 years, is gravely incorrect. It was evident for me in the helping professions in the early 70s and that fact is very relevant to any attempts to mitigate its profound social damage as revealed in Hanna Spier's sample case histories.)
The manageable but unfulfilling plateau of misery ended only when I happened to meet an anti-feminist counsellor, a kindred spirit to Hannah Spier. As it was for my astute therapist, so it ought to be for others in counselling, psychology and psychiatry. If a treatment is not working, look to yourself firstly for a condescending omnipotence, perhaps an incorrect diagnosis, possibly a wrong treatment and all before blaming the client/patient for not responding as you expect/want. Here then is my oversimplification for the helping professions to ponder.
* Modern men are actually not stupid.
* Modern men are rightly sceptical of overwhelmingly feminised emotional, relationship and medical "help".
* Modern men correctly avoid the "helping professions".
Men like Patrick know exactly what they are in for. Cohabitation is just sex and maid express™️ service provided for free without any commitment. He fleeced the long term girlfriend. In the olden days, Penelope’s father would give him a beating he totally deserves.
You are right but can’t blame him for playing with the incentive/punishment framework he was given to work with.
With just a little bit of empathy you can understand that he doesn’t win a whole lot by committing. A genetic legacy you might say but he has time and society won’t value him more for committing to this particular women that has enough resources to live on her own anyway.
Equality works both ways.
What I am trying to point out, is that the men who don't find a woman worth committing to, end up suffering as well. The psychiatric numbers from Norway tell that story perfectly. Men who don't have people who are depending on them feel sidelined.
The sum of life experiences by the many leads to a picture of the whole, while a picture of the whole hides unique and varied life experiences.
I say this because I often talk negatively of female behavior and the problems with modern marriage being a feminist designed contract with state enforcement.
But I speak to inform my brothers so they can understand the situation in the world. Too many fathers don't understand how much has changed in this new dating world to give their sons good advice.
But remember this marriage is good and children are good. Having a purpose greater than yourself is good. Understand the pitfalls and be wise, not lustful. Date, court with purpose.
Women as a group have fallen pretty far but you're not marrying the group. Individual experiences will have some women seperate themselves from the chaos of the group and present and opportunity for someone to wife a woman deserving of the title.
Good luck and God bless you my brothers. It's a noble task to take up, to make a family. Looking for a needle in a haystack is easy compared to this endeavor. You're looking for a special needle in a needle stack. They exist. You just can't find them the old usual way.
They may exist but not on this planet…
I completely agree with that. It’s just very hard to understand it without being introduced to the idea. From society’s standpoint he appears as a successful man who has it all and he get rewarded for it in all kinds of hedonistic pleasures.
The true cost of all this will come much later which is why it’s very hard to understand what you are trading off in the moment.
So you are right that he would benefit in the long term (society also) but the message is that he is winning the game. If we didn’t ideologically force all women into the workforce, he wouldn’t find so many women willing to have a relationship without him committing and we would get the « correct « behavior.
I always say, hate the game, not the player !
Dear Mr “Equality works both ways”
I have never advocated for your said equality. In a relationship, the man influences the woman, not the other way around. Penelope wanted marriage, but it didn’t happen because Patrick didn’t want to get married.
I never advocated for empathy in this case. In fact, I would suggest Penelope not to even piss on Patrick if he were on fire.
What you said about society not valuing men’s commitment is entirely false. The Patrick type man would discard his long term cohabitating girlfriends and marry the next woman to his liking in a heartbeat.
Where is the empathy for Penelope? She wasted her fertile 30s and paid for a dude’s rent and therapy, meanwhile she gets nothing in return.
Empathy? You can go empathize Patrick all you want. Not me.
Nobody said you advocated for equality personally nor that it is your fault in particular.
But this is the ideological framework that has been pushed by different powers, generally under the pressure of various groups of women.
If that bothers you, you should really target your anger at those who made all of this possible not at those who appear to be « winning « .
Society is not valuing his commitment: the offer is to accept the risk of divorce and have half his net worth taken away regardless of his faults; in exchange he would just get the exact same thing he is already getting.
You seem to believe he would marry the « right « woman but considering what was said I doubt it, he just won’t marry unless he is forced to or there is a benefit (doesn’t seem like he wants kids so even that can’t be a motivator).
I empathize with Penelope too but the fact is she just played the game poorly.
You seem to confuse empathy with sympathy.
I understand very well how Penelope might feel but I just don’t have that much sympathy for her case. Make no mistakes, I don’t have any sympathy for Patrick, I think he is the typical douche who has it all and think like he should be able to do whatever he wants instead of the right thing.
Using empathy just means putting yourself in his shoes and seeing that he is doing what his best for Patrick, which is expected human behavior.
You want people to feel bad for Penelope when the whole reason she was with him is precisely because he was so successful with a lot of options. I’m sure there are plenty of men who would have committed to Penelope, she just felt that they weren’t good enough for her.
She wrongfully believed that she could get what she really wanted in the first place by victimizing herself. If she had told that mariage was a non negotiable factor at the start, Patrick would be in the wrong but had she said that the relationship wouldn’t even have existed in the first place.
The whole thing is typical of women’s duplicity which is why it is hard to feel much sympathy for her case. He might be an asshole but at least he was honest, you can’t blame him for sticking to the behavior he said he would have…
This wouldn’t happen if society didn’t pretend to make women « independent « and that what they really wanted/needed was to be exactly like men. At the men games, they will lose, almost always; there are a few women who are somewhat benefiting from that but everybody else is paying for it. The bottom half of men are loosing just as much if not more if that’s any consolation…
I think you should direct your anger at the advocates of those rules, not at the perceived winner of the game !
The game you referred to is the institution known as marriage. You do not believe in marriage at all.
You are the one who’s lost faith in the concept or prospect of marriage. I do not need your advice. Have fun writing long paragraphs fantasizing about divorce.
You are right, I do not believe in the institution of mariage because it is just a shadow of its past and completely meaningless. You cannot expect any real commitment from a woman, so why a man should do it?
I'm not fantasying about divorce, there is a large amount of studies/data about that. The ones who keep on trucking are those at the bottom because it would be financially too costly and those at the top (that is unless they are filthy rich) because it would weaken their power.
Faith/beliefs are not a way to live your life, the computer you type this on didn't magically appear with faith.
But you are free to live your life as you choose as long as you assume the consequences.
I disagree with Ms. Guo too (and my guess would be that this is because we are in different Christian denominations), though not in the same way as "SeeC".
"In a relationship, the man influences the woman, not the other way around."
There is a lot of truth in this claim (although feminism has changed that a lot).
But not to the point that a woman cannot say no, demand commitment or leave.
In my denomination, Penelope's parents would have explained to her that trying to buy commitment with "cohabitation", "sex and maid service" is a terrible idea, like trying to cure a compulsive gambler by giving him money to spend.
"Where is the empathy for Penelope? She wasted her fertile 30s and paid for a dude’s rent and therapy, meanwhile she gets nothing in return."
Oh yes, on the short term (before going to the therapist) she got everything she bargained for : for a few years she could brag to everyone about how she is a succesful woman in a relationship with a successful man, and (I'm quoting Hannah here) "feel immense pride in her work, frequently celebrated by her parents, who often touted her achievements to family and friends."
You are a feminist just like SeeC. Adding a label Christian does not change the fact. You still think being a long term girlfriend is a flex. You still think a woman can change a man. You still think the damage Patrick has done can simply be mitigated by some pep talk. Good luck with that.
"You still think being a long term girlfriend is a flex."
Not at all. In fact, in my Christian denomination we do not allow
for girlfriends or boyfriends, be they short-term, long-term or whatever, we only allow for courtship and marriage, and sex only after marriage - much like in Jane Austen's novels.
"You still think a woman can change a man"
I did not say that Penelope can change Patrick, I only said that Penelope could and should have shown more discernment before choosing Patrick.
"the damage Patrick has done"
Unlike you, I do not blame one side only for all the evils (a typically feminist trait), so I prefer to speak of "the damage Patrick and Penelope did to each other".
"You still think the damage (...) can simply be mitigated by some pep talk."
I never said or believed that, I never said or believed that Penelope's path would be easy, although I wish her all the best obviously.
You wrote
“a few years she could brag to everyone about how she is a succesful woman in a relationship with a successful man”
Yes, you think being a long term girlfriend is a flex worth bragging for several years. You also misinterpreted Hannah in this case. Penelope was surrounded by feminist girl bosses who thought being long term girlfriends is a flex as well. Hannah was trying to point out how prevalent this ideology is. An idea can be common and popular, but that doesn’t make it right.
“Unlike you, I do not blame one side only for all the evils (a typically feminist trait)”
Arguing for equality is a typical feminist trait. You simply think Penelope will not be more damaged than Patrick, and that is wrong. Not being able to recognize the difference of female biology and psyche is a feminist trait.
Great series Hannah and thanks for the mention.
I cheered when you suggested the last fellow build the boat. That was perfect and likely just what he needed.
A common thread seems to be men not taking charge. It reminds me of the research of a Psychiatrist in Australia, I think his name is Wilkie. He wrote a book and mentioned that when men get depressed in a marriage it is more likely for the woman to attack him physically. If he can fight back she stays, if he can't she moves on. She knows she needs someone stronger than herself to maintain a sense of safety. He saw this as an ancient trait via evolution. This seemed very close to what you were describing.
I totally agree that men need to take charge but this is a very tricky proposition in today's world where masculinity is being called toxic. Take charge and quickly get labelled a toxic/controlling bastard. I wish there were an easy solution to this but i fear there is not. My personal sense is that men need to see their own value before they will be taking charge. We are living in a world that devalues men and this creates big trouble.
Great stuff Hannah!
<This unspoken need lies behind many of the “tests” >
I hate being tested.
Sometimes, I have a sense that something is going on, but I cannot identify it, and when I ask to try and clarify, I get told I am too sensitive or that I am imagining it.
Psychologist Toby Green, author of The Men's Room had a column titled Body and Soul and she wrote about women testing men.
There's an old adage that applies here. Men marry women thinking that they won't change, but they do. Women marry men thinking that they will change, but they don't. It is, like all adages, very simplistic, but it underscores the need for negotiating future goals and timelines *before* marriage, and not just assuming that your future assumptions are correct.
There is no cultural norm for marital roles, anymore, and neither partner seems to feel that they have any responsibility to the other except to love them.
Thank you very much for the post, Dr. Spier. I am in my early 60s now, and never married nor had children. Even back in high school, I knew that that was not in the cards for me. . I have had girlfirends over the years, but only one was interested in marriage and children. I had to tell her, sorry, but I just can't do that.
Which made me wonder: do these women want a man, or do they want a man to fill the job description of husband and father? I hope that you can write about that subject. Thank you again.
Why don’t you want children Frank? If children are involved I think men should be obligated to do that within the frames of marriage, it’s one of the best predictors for children’s success and why we developed marriage to begin with. Not for the women. If you know you don’t want kids, then live how you see fit is my stance. But it’s a big gamble not to have a family. Better I have loved and lost then never loved at all.
Is it truly better to have ‘loved and lost’ Hannah? Because heartbreak can actually kill you! I keep thinking that the opposite may be true; you don’t miss what you never had. Your thoughts?
Dont be Oliver.
Never.
Thank you for this wonderful article. God invented marriage and He explains how to keep it; all of this in His word but many are too blinded for Him nowadays.
Great article. Very insightful. The observation about Scandinavian gynocentrism subconsciously inviting in mysogynist rapists in order to satiate a deep-seated need for order was brilliant. FWIW, this is going on all over the West. The Grooming Gang scandal in Britain is a cardinal example of this, and it has been going on for 40 years, showing that perhaps this phenomenae started very soon after women gained full autonomy in society.
I am not a big proponent of repealing the 19th, but perhaps we should repeal the 19th .
Thank you for your writings. I am a male physician, 50's in the US. My take is that the educated classes in the US do not emphasize the "private" home life of a person, but rather value the "public" professional life. This leads to the failure of recognizing the value of intimate familial relationships, relationships which generally suits women better. It is not necessarily a "domestic life," but a life that includes relationships outside of work-- charities, religious organizations, social clubs, etc. Feminism wants to forget that men and women are different, and that we can often compliment each other. The anxieties and depressions of men and women can stem from the dissonance between an individuals perceived expectations from "society" and from what they really want and what makes them tick. Being a girl boss isn't as fulfilling as they may have thought.
What advice do you have for maintaining relations with a controlling mother? I have a narcissistic and distant father who has never made any effort to connect emotionally with my mother. I’m the black sheep of my family in the sense that I’m creative and unafraid of emotion. When I was a boy, my mother did not nurture those attributes but used them as as excuse to overindulge her unmet needs from her marriage on a child. I am sensitive and artistic but my sense of personal boundaries can be extreme and my sense of independence is stubborn and protective. I fought with my mother constantly when I was young and refused to let her cook for me or do my laundry. She has never been dissuaded by my distancing behavior or learned anything from it or made any legitimate effort to improve our relationship. Often I wondered why, seeing as she was so obviously obsessed with me, she would sabotage our relationship. I realized a few years ago that the sabotage of the point. My mother enjoys going on these rollercoaster rides with me and they provide her stimulation and the fulfillment of conflict resolution and a replacement for the intimacy she truly seeks. My overly attached mother made it difficult for me to enjoy masculine activities. She prefers activities where I am isolated. For instance, I loved soccer as a youth, but she didn’t like it and put me into tennis, a sport I was not good at. Contact sports were a no. A messy room was a no. I had to be meticulously groomed at all times. Guns were a no. (My father is a loner and spent all his free time by himself. He rarely spoke to me). My mother has disapproved of every woman who’s shown a romantic interest in me and at this point I’ve learned never to introduce her to any woman I’m dating. Every woman my mother has encouraged me to date is considerably less attractive than me and shares none of my interests. I personally believe she likes these women as mates because they are less of a threat to maintaining the current dynamic.
I realized about eight months ago that I needed to flex my masculinity more (I hide it because it was so frequently attacked as a youth). I became a Christian and am now in a community of dozens on men who are positive role models and provide me with the tough feedback I need. I’ve flourished as a result. I’ve lost 40 pounds, quit drinking, no longer am a prisoner to my womanizing, and even tho I quit porn several years ago, I hadn’t quite dumped the porn brain until I got into this community and saw men be successful husbands and fathers (unlike my father who is corporally there but absent).
During the holidays, my mother noticed I had quit drinking and lost weight—something she had commented I needed to do. You would think she would be happy but instead she started tracking all the food I was eating in her presence and decided based on that alone that I was starving myself. (Before losing weight, I had been eating 4,000 calories per day and so yes to eat only 2200 per day means I’m not munching all the time or eating a second dinner after everyone else has finished eating). IMO, my mother decided to track my eating and came this premature conclusion (seeing as I don’t spend a lot of time with her) to start one of these cycles where she interrupts anything positive in my life so she can cling to me and we can be victims together and she does not have to feel the abandonment from my father. I interrupted her attempt to go on the roller coaster and put my foot down, yelling at the top of my voice and freezing her. I left their house and have not returned for any visits.
My father is 75. My mom is 70. They have no interest in changing their lives or improving their relationship with me. Despite how abandoned and judged I feel by them, I like the idea of being a family and sooner or later I forgive them and come back. But I can’t do it any longer. I have too much healthy ego now to put up with any of this and now realize this drama has kept me too busy to build my own life. Is there any hope I can set boundaries my mother will respect or do I have to essentially go no contact since she is such a nefarious actor?
Dear Justin
Thank you for reaching out, it sounds like a complex question. So many people are trapped by pathological family members and it’s one of the most difficult things to treat.
It sounds like you’re doing much right already, great initiative to become a member of a religious community.
The best advice I can give is to keep on strengthening your situation, your identity. Become as busy as you can. When you build a strong foundation, you will be able to build strong walls as boundaries for family members who will manipulate you if they can.
I wish you all the best,
Hannah
Thank you for the suggestions. Will def do. Weirdly that post was the first time I’ve ever written about it. Just came out. I didn’t even realize it was so long!
Phenomenal articles. This and Part I of the series reveals how society's stability is dependent on the complementary nature of men and women. Egalitarian strips men and women with the path towards fulfilling the essence of their embodied forms (masculine and feminine) and your work is showing the psychosomatic symptoms of this existential error.
I am curious: since men and women process negative emotions differently, what collective interventions can enable them to engage the ideologies that are ruining their ability to engage with the annihilation of the complementary nature of men and women?
I ask this because the pendulum swings between two poles - a generation of well formed men but wounded ladies or a generation of formed ladies but wounded men. I have previously held the assumption that healing one gender raises the other and destroying one does the same, but I don't come across such empirical evidence to affirm this.
Sounds like feminist propaganda
Damn i wish i was Patrick
All of the dudes need to internalize the movie fight club