Monday, August 19, 2013

"Whoever Loves the Least is in Control"

"Woman's age-old instinct [is] to nurture and sustain life, man's instinct [is] to protect and defend it..." - Anne Baring

When I was 21 and in college, my girlfriend told me her mother had informed her, "Make sure your husband loves you more than you love him." I had immediate red flags go up (with klaxons going off, too) because what my girlfriend was told, "Whoever loves the least is in control."

I figured her mother had control issues - and I was amazed she told her daughter this. Fortunately, her daughter did not listen to her mother.

Not long after my girlfriend told me this her mother visited, and we went out to dinner. My girlfriend asked me something (I don't remember what), and I said, in front of her mother, "No. Why? Because I don't want to."

Her mother looked shocked, which I expected. Perhaps she realized I was in charge of the relationship. This is how it should be. By the way, I don't think her mother liked me very much.

Whenever two or more people are involved in anything, someone ends up in charge, because there is no such thing as equality. There never has been, and there never will be.

In a relationship, the man should be in charge (although not in the way most people automatically think). If it's not him, then it's her. If it's not him, men become (as we see today) "emasculated, predators, parasites and slugs."

You can see the "predators" in the PUA/"Game"/hedonists. In the long run, they are going to be sorry. Very sorry. I've seen how the lives of these guys turn out. It ain't pretty.

If women are in charge, they become burned out, used up, bitter, hateful toward and contemptuous of men, blaming all their problems on them, convinced that men are disloyal and useless. I've seen these women turn into cat-owning spinsters.

One way around all these messes is to live according our true natures. Men and women should be complementary, in harmony, in balance with each other. Societies should be set up to develop this. Ours is not.

Men are supposed to be in charge/control, to lead, to take responsibility, to love women, cherish them, lead them, provide for, defend and protect, teach. (Don't give me any of that Alpha/Beta/Gamma crap; that's exactly what it is.)

Even the Bible says the man shall be the head of the household.

Every culture in the world has agreed on what men and women are supposed to.

Let's use the Eastern concepts of Yin/Yang. Yin is the capacity to be receptive. Yang is the capacity to be creative (if one is creative, there has to be that which is receptive to it). Yin/Yang is the concept of duality. Yin and Yang are compliments and opposites in life.

Yin is female and Yang is male. Yet with Yin is a bit of Yang and within Yang is a bit of Yin. Carl Jung also noticed the same thing, which he called the Animus and the Anima.

Women are more Yin and men are more yang. Women become unhealthy when they're not good at being receptive, because they are not utilizing their primary trait, which is receptivity. Men become unhealthy when they do not utilize their gifts of contribution and creativity, which are their primary traits.

"Contribution and creativity" are why men have created everything in the world. Women who have are statistical outliers.

Self-sacrifice and accomplishment are good for men and they would be wise to devote themselves to pursuits that enable them to give and to feel the flourishing/well-being (the Greek eudaimonia) that comes from surmounting challenges, which means they give of themselves to what they can do best. Men need to know they have an impact and a positive effect on others. They want to leave their mark, to make a difference (in the Code of Chivalry this is listed as "To fight for the welfare of all").

Yang (male) protects Yin (female) and Yin nurtures Yang. Together, they form a complete whole - and the word "whole" comes from the same root word as "healthy," "hale," and "holy."

Since men are more yang, they tend to be more aggressive/assertive and are apt to label situations as threatening/broken, which requires them to fix it. Their predominant yang makes them protective of what they might perceive as yin - or something or someone needing protection. In the West this was encoded in the aforementioned Code of Chivalry - to protect the weak and helpless, to succor widows and orphans, to be armed and willing to do violence to malefactors.

This need to protect and serve is inherent in the yang. It is a necessary and very powerful force. And though it can be increased or repressed, or perverted in some way, especially by the rules of different cultures and society, it is very important for women to understand that it is natural for men to feel this way, and not attempt to change or repress it.

Now let's go back to the idea of "controlling."

Whenever a woman calls a man "controlling" (unless he's a narcissistic whackjob), you might just want to dump her. Such women generally have some issues, generally involving their fathers. What they are really saying is that they want to be in control, to have the final say. And that is a very bad thing, for them, for men, and for society.

Such women usually drive away the good men, then wonder "where are all the good men?" These women offend men and drive them away. Often, these women are emotional vampires.

The way many relationship are today are lose/lose, instead of win/win, as they are supposed to be. They are supposed to be based on reciprocity and trust.

To be win/win, all people have to do is act according to their true natures. And, of course, society should help them live according to it. Which, currently, it does not, since it overwhelming supports feminism, to the detriment of men, women and society.


Anonymous said...

110% correct.

Anonymous said...

A sincere question...If you state that the categories, alpha, gamma beta etc. don't exist and it's bullshit, doesn't it contradict your statement that whenever two individuals engage in an activity together, someone ends up in charge. Wouldn't that person be the alpha in that relationship.

If what you say about alpha, beta etc. is not true how come some are born leaders and in every time real hierarchies of men existed?

Bob Wallace said...

The word "Alpha" comes from the study of canines and it means "parent wolves." That's all it means.

Transfer it to humans and what you get is a patriarch.

I've covered all of this in past articles. So have others.

Paul, Dammit! said...

Good stuff, but you're factually far off the mark with the alpha/beta designation. The wolf example is a relatively small one. The seminal study on alpha/beta/gamma behavior, where breeding dynamics were concerned, was used in a study of tree sparrows
Moller and Ninni published a decent summary of these studies.
Further support for the common behavioral traits that we group into designators like alpha/bets is found in virtually all social mammals and birds with some wide ranging connection.
Now, why you'd disregard rigorously supported behavioral studies and yet wax orgasmic over some bullshit arbitrary Asian metaphilosophy that bears no resemblance to reality; that's a question.

I will say that I think you're corect to question the popular conception of PUA/manosphere definition of Alpha/Beta behavior. Some folks have taken a lot of that stuff and runs with it to the point that 'being alpha' is an exercise in applying Apologetics to Social Darwinism.

Bob Wallace said...

Men have created everything in the world; that automatically makes them creative. Every culture has been patriarchal; that makes them dominant. Men are more rational than women. All of that makes men creative, dominant, and rational.

These things, and women's qualities, have been noticed in the West for thousands of years,

Transferring studies on birds to humans is dubious at best. Or any animal studies. You might as well use dandelions, such we share 25% of our DNA with them. And about 50% with earthworms, I believe.