Wednesday, 15 July 2009

Britain's Loser Culture - Part 6: The Trouble With Men and Women

You are hoist by your own petard I am afraid, when you compare the acquisition of a woman with the acquisition of a pet you would eventually tire of, the moment she loses her looks!

While men complain about being treated like meal tickets, women complain about being treated as sex objects, and therefore treat each other as means to end, something Kant told us we must not do.

Not that an old cynic like me would find that at all surprising, but I just wish people would be more honest about it, instead of harbouring impossibly high expectations of romantic love.

I have already said that I include myself amongst life's losers because I am not already partnered. In fact, I have not even met anyone I remotely fancy who has rejected me! This is a state of affairs I find shocking, but then my mother's mocking comments that most British men are poor and lazy jobless welfare claimants explains a lot. And those who are not on welfare, who still have jobs and are middle class, middle-aged and professional invariably have had the stuffing knocked out of them after their divorce.

My Chinese girlfriend comments on the meanness of English men, compared with those of Chinese men who wish to woo her: how little they have, how little they expect to give in the way of entertainment and gifts, and how easily they expect a woman to part with her favours.

I am quite aware that a woman in middle age looking for a decent man is like a man on a low income without prospects looking for a big house in a nice neighbourhood. What I find interesting and also disturbing is that younger and more attractive women cannot find decent men either.

Yes, the dinner guest said he had had a messy divorce. Only millionaires and very resourceful men these days can survive a divorce when half their assets are taken by their ex-wives. Ordinary mortals will find themselves too poor to be of any interest to a decent woman after a divorce, and women, as we know, are mostly obsessed by income and status, as they should be.

It is better for a nation that its women are obsessed by status and income than by casual sexual encounters.

While I would have no difficulty agreeing that men are punters and women prostitutes, one should at least know what one is worth and what one can acquire with what one has, bearing these "facts of life" in mind. Unfortunate is the woman who does not know her own value, or sells herself short, and subsequently rues the day, when it is too late for her to repair the damage of a bad decision. Her worth, ie her looks, are a depreciating asset, and she cannot be put back in the position she was in when she married her unsuitable partner, not even with cosmetic surgery.

As for my girlfriend who would not come to dinner, she is just like so many other women I know, who do not seek the company of men unless there is something in it for them, ie the prospect of finding boyfriend or husband material. It is not that this particularly surprises me, knowing what I do of her, only that it was so pointed. She did not want to talk about politics, she made it clear, but what did she want to talk about? Her idea of the perfect evening was to enthral men she wanted to attract, but, knowing that the men would be too poor and old for her, she made her excuses and declined.

She would have come if they were women, I am sure, simply because she would expect to enjoy their company and conversation more.

If you have any experience of French women, their attitude is even more pointed. They won't even speak to you once they have made up their minds that you are not a prospect. In fact, they will not even be seen to be speaking to you and will cut you dead in the street if you greet them, if they have made up their minds that you are a low-status male with whom any public associaton is an embarrassment.

Such a woman would no more greet such a man in the street than you would your dustman, your drug-dealer, your therapist or the prostitute you consorted with.

But snobbish and rude Frenchwomen are the obverse of charming Frenchman because he knows that is how he must be to have a chance of acquiring such ruthless women as partners.

I am only surprised that so many Western men do not understand this and are not told this by their parents. But perhaps this is not that surprising because most boys grow up without their fathers. Perhaps they feel they do not need to, because most of their women are so infamously promiscuous anyway.

I do not feel I judge the men I know by impossibly high standards. These are only the standards that my mother enjoins me to adhere to, for my own good.

All I ask is that they are not stupid, not scared, not mad, bad and sad, and not poor.

Napoleon Hill in his book Think and Grow Rich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_and_Grow_Rich which I would recommend to any poor man who wants to do more than live in hope of winning the lottery, explains the positive role sexual attraction could play for men. However, it must be borne in mind that this would only work if women were not as a rule encouraged and expected to be promiscuous.

If a man is not attracted to women, or if the attraction is weak, or he does not in fact want children, he will leave women alone, and lead a carefree single life, untroubled by the biological imperative of attracting a female that other men also desire, or attempting to impress her with his status and wealth, or provide for the children he may have with her.

As you said, women and men of our parents' generation coupled more easily. That was because most people married for children and economic reasons, and women were economically disadvantaged. Now that women are in fact economically advantaged through the process of asset-stripping their husbands by this procedure known as no-fault divorce and the Sex Discrimination Act, and are financially independent, they quite understandably do not see why they have to put up with male foibles.

Now, foolishly, people marry for romantic reasons only to find that romance does not last. But marriage was invented by wiser generations who already knew that.

I, N , take you, N ,
to be my husband,
to have and to hold
from this day forward;
for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
till death us do part;

These promises are only meant to kick in when the magic has gone.




http://www.ukmm.org.uk/

http://www.newfathers4justice.com/

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Institutional-Injustice-Family-Courts-Work/dp/1903386489

http://www.family-men.com/Summary%20of%20Divorce%20Law%20since%201970.htm

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Woman-Racket-Steve-Moxon/dp/1845401506

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1038469/Save-males-A-new-book-says-society-biased-AGAINST-men-Ridiculous-Hardly-says-Amanda-Platell.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Miseducation-Women-Professor-James-Tooley/dp/0826450946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Vilar

No comments: