Husbands have to say “But Mom”

Barbara Rainey is talking about censoring media in the home. She starts by pointing out that censorship can stratify by age of the children and that younger kids be protected from older kids’ preferences.

We’ve seen that an older teen who is making the right kinds of choices can help you establish the right standards for your younger children.

So far so good.

So although everyone has personal tastes in media–TV, movies, music–parents need to take responsibility for setting and maintaining boundaries that work for the entire family

Still tracking ok. But comes the rub.

[  ]you have the right to screen–and to bar–all media consumed by everyone in the household.

Everyone in the household.

I ran afoul of this early in my marriage. I was a new Christian and all in with what was happening as my wife expressed how she didn’t like me listening to a certain musician because he or she was gay. She didn’t like certain fiction I read because she considered it evil. None of these things had anything to do with sex or pornography. She had been raised and lived as a young adult with a set of boundaries, determined by her mother and older sisters, that included:

  • I cannot recall the designer but a certain female designer of clothing was allegedly a satanist, so her family would boycott stores that carried it.
  • The cartoon, The Smurfs was verboten. It had some shamanic aspect.
  • SpongeBob was resisted due to “the way it was drawn”
  • The Little Mermaid movie “had a witch in it”
  • So forth.

I threw away CDs and books. I went to all Christian music and fiction. And I resented it. Years later when we separated for a time and I awoke to my musical preferences and my reading and film preferences it was like a dead part of me returned to life. When we reconciled I did not revert back to the censorship, nor will I ever again.

We are sensible about these things. We do not live unfettered in this regard. And her preconceived rigidity relaxed.

Now with three kids old enough to be able to see what they are made of, when I compare my brood to those who suffered their entire childhoods under mothers that restricted things based on urban legends and a perverse sort of in-group peer pressure to out-Dugger each other, I’m very confident in having made mostly good choices.

Rainey quotes her son’s reaction to the restrictions.

“But, Mom . . .”

I wonder how many men feel they need a similarly functioning lament to lay on their wives.

Playing hide and seek with the truth

This is from a 13 year old article from Family Life. It didn’t improve with age.

This is blatantly toxic advice for resolving sexual tension in marriage born of low sexual frequency.

Romance for a man means sex. He cannot imagine romance without having sex. Romance for a woman can mean lots of things, and sex may or may not be a part of it.

Romance is basically a game. It is a specific game. It is a game of “hide-and-go-seek.” She hides it and you seek it. If you find it, you will indeed agree that it’s good! On the other hand, if you don’t find it, you have one of two options. First, you can get nasty, mean, and bent out of shape and just be a miserable old grouch for the rest of your life. I have met a number of men just like that. Or second, you can remind yourself, it’s a game. Sometimes I win, and sometimes I lose. But that’s the fun of playing the game.

But there’s a second part to this game, and this is not fair. However, we dealt long ago with the fact that some things aren’t fair; it’s just the way they are. Guys, you must understand. What is romantic to your wife, say, on Monday, may not necessarily be romantic on Tuesday. Indeed, women are adept at moving the romance on a regular basis, sometimes even hiding it in places where they can’t even find it. When you go searching for romance in the place where it used to be, but now you discover that it is no longer there, don’t be surprised if looking over your shoulder is the woman that God gave you, and with her eyes she says something like this, “Yes, my darling. I moved the romance. It’s somewhere else now. And I’m going to wait to see if you love me enough to look for it all over again.”

Now again, guys, you can get angry, mean, and bent out of shape, or you can remember, it’s a game. And games can be fun. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. But it’s all a great game. Men, if you will approach romance in this way, not only will you find it fun, but you will also get better at it along the way.

How cute. He has taken the clear admonishment of The Lord and turned it into a game. Has made the wife’s refusal not a matter of her ignoring her clear obligation but a matter of her being playful and making life a fun game for her husband. The writer says the man can have a blast playing this game. Even when, as he says clearly, it is not winnable from the get go.

He says, “sometimes even hiding it in places where they can’t even find it”. This is the ultimate way of getting responsibility off the woman for her actions. It is, after all, an action to hide something is it not?

He doesn’t stop with her lack of obligation nor with her lack of responsibility. He additionally celebrates the fact that she can taunt him with his sex drive when he says,

“Yes, my darling. I moved the romance. It’s somewhere else now. And I’m going to wait to see if you love me enough to look for it all over again.”

Twisted? Sick? A perversion? Yes. All those and worse.

There are several bullet points in the article but I’ll touch only two more more. First

4) She needs intimate conversation. A woman needs a husband who will talk with her at the feeling level (heart to heart). She needs a man who will listen to her thoughts about the events of her day with sensitivity, interest, and concern. Daily conversation with her conveys her husband’s desire to understand her. Wise men learn soon after marriage that women are masters of code language. They say what they mean and expect you to know what they mean, and the particular words really don’t matter. Unfortunately some men are simply ill prepared and a little dense at this point, and it often gets them into serious trouble.

Another game. Decipher nonsense. No matter if she strings together random words or even makes up new ones…he is dense if she doesn’t know her well enough to get her point.

If she says, “The vorvg is flarb” he just knows that she is feeling nervous and vulnerable about something happening with her group of friends. The particular words don’t matter.

More toxicity on a kebab.

Finally,

5) She needs honesty and openness. A woman needs a man who will look into her eyes and, in love, tell her what he is really thinking. He will explain his plans and actions clearly and completely to her because he regards himself as responsible for her. He wants her to trust him and feel secure. He wants her to know how precious she is to him. Growing openness and honesty will always mark a marriage when a man loves a woman.

Notice that when the man is honest, its not to tell her that he opposes some course opf action she is undertaking. its to explain HIS plans and actions to her so that she can trust him as he executes them. In other words he is seeking her approval about him. If whats on his mind is anything convicting….say he wanted to tell her she shouldn’t be -hiding the romance-that would be mean and overbearing.

I wonder how after all these years this group is still able to sell this poison. even the Lift is not worth all this is it?

Between selfishness and martyrdom, the middle kingdom of matriarchy

Many in the sphere write that women are incapable of loving. I understand why they make this claim but cannot endorse it. Yet I’d claim that even with all of my self derived terminology tied to the word empathy, I cannot say that women are the empathetic champions they are made out to be.

We celebrate the empathy of women when we herald them at Mother’s Day. Men’s groups, pastors, counselors, even pedestrians we encounter daily are fast with a remark about the sensitivity and emotional availability of women.

Then we hear that love is an action, not a feeling. We hear that spoken to men, while we see lack of it in practice overlooked in women. The veneer, the facade, it is well crafted. The materials of construction are not dissimilar to those same materials that are used to construct elaborate passive aggressive ruses that are deployed to exert soft control of men and of children by women.

Indeed, soft control…the female leadership strategy of preference, is at the center of the amalgam of her actions. This stretches across all races, ages, socioeconomic groups and the religious as well as the irreligious.

For now the religious.

I’ve written before about the matriarchy that is the rural southern Baptist home that is at once held forth as the pinnacle of patriarchy while being in truth a den of overlapping matriarchies. Ive written about my own in-laws who are wonderful people and good citizens. Good Baptists after all make good citizens.

The mother softly controls all things through a combination of hints and offers, compliments and complaints, and just quiet muttering as if to self but aimed like a laser for the target ear. Over the 26 years Ive been around them it hasn’t gotten worse as they reached elderly status. Rather it has shown keen versatility in that she leverages age related nuances brilliantly to evoke -the appropriate response-, that being the response she designed into the strategy.

The simple example. We were to attend the opening of a new venue for tourists in the city where we live. The in-laws have been here for wife’s and son’s graduations…her from nursing school and him from high school. Its raining cats and dogs and lemurs and we are postponing this outing. My father in law suffers Parkinson disease and the resulting shuffling feet. He must use a walker. So we are delaying and I said I would go get the brake light fixed on their car. They cannot drive but they have a big old Lincoln Town Car that my wife drove them here in, back from Texas, so they would be comfortable.

I sat to read and or write on the PC. MIL came past asking had I seen her car keys. I indicated where they were and she said, “I was just making sure you had no trouble finding them”. Men reading here know the translation of the passive aggressive language is, “Are you gonna sit there or go fix the car like you said you would?”

That’s the easy stuff. Wives do that daily. Why be direct when you can make yourself feel better by being polite? Like the expression “me gustaria” or “quisiera” in Spanish. At least those are words that are designed for passive politeness. They are not obfuscations, though I’m guessing a Spanish speaking woman could deploy them as such.

Worse are the manifestations of selfishness and or martyr complexes, used individually or in combination. The selfless matriarch will say, “oh why’d you not ask me, sit down and relax I will do that” when she sees you dealing with the ox that’s obviously been laying in the ditch all day for days. Its like inviting someone to go somewhere knowing all along they cannot attend  due to a conflict. Credit for the selfless generous act but no doing. Or, doing the act, grunting in the effort (again, not an arisen with age thing) and accepting the resulting sympathy and gratitude.

My oldest and more kindred of my two excellent sons is red pill aware and perceptive of nuance. He said to me Thursday while we played tennis that what he sees now in the in-law marriage dynamic and what he thought he saw as a kid are vastly different. That MIL is plainly mean to FIL. He’d heard her call him “idiot”.

When he was a child the kingdom appeared to have a king, the queen seemed deserving of her crown. The kingdom seemed a patriarchy because the daughters…my wife and sisters…hovered around their father doting and repeating his legendary tales. He was an affable king beloved by all in his sphere. Loved so much that even the queen occasionally joined in the quoting of significant histories.

I’d entered the kingdom as an adult and found some unidentifiable discomfort each time we passed through the outer lands and entered the kingdoms. The queen was the moral authority of all, of even the king. The queen had the harried countenance of a bond servant, rarely taking meals at the main table, choosing to instead stay amongst the things of work, of meal preparation and clean up. She was lauded. She would respond when the king called, “bring me a goblet of milk”. But she could not tolerate the kings physical presence if the king showed human affection. If the king made comments, as he did when 50 years of marriage were celebrated, that he’d been blessed with the best wife in the history of the lands, she’d not demure, she’d not express gratitude or hint at mutuality. She’d address him dismissively in response.

Now the king is old and infirm. He is in many ways helpless. And the queen has been able to more openly usurp. She is more openly verbally derisive and now that she has established herself in her home as the able and capable one she brings her authority into the kingdoms of her children but in the old passive ways.

We had an ER situation with my youngest son this past week. Stroke like symptoms, garbled speech, forgetful, etc. Urgent CT scan, all manner of blood and urine tests, no diagnosis…symptoms persist, answers forthcoming. And the queen seemed out of sorts that this emergency was drawing attention and sympathy away from her. She overtly downplayed the situation. She reminded everyone of every emergency past and present existing amidst her immediate sphere. One person’s dog was killed by a truck, another grand child was just recovering from Lyme disease, news that if on paper was old enough that it would be yellowed, another was unemployed, one daughter had suffered leukemia as a child (untrue, an exaggeration, the girl had some other condition prefixed with leuk,  and don’t worry, my son was just a growing 18 year old…tired because of growing, nothing to see here despite his childhood history of seizures and the pending EEGs and MRI to come next week. .

Petty of me to spread these rumors through the outer kingdoms. They are low rumors and will settle with no resulting upheavals.

We’ve managed to resist and must maintain only another week. Soon she will return to the newly established middle kingdom of Matriarchy and the royal female influence in the outer lands will wane. .

Mind Bending Linearity

Is it just me or should the ad below not have the linear vs. non-linear reversed? I have an employee who is a very non-linear communicator. He backs up and takes sideways tangents filling in superfluous details, often losing himself there and never returning to the point. I have not mastered hiding my impatience 100% of the time but he is aloof to it anyway.

Can feminism have so corrupted the culture that non-linear communication is the presumed default mode for the boss, and linear that of the employee? Depending on the industry its difficult for me to imagine non-linear communicators advancing the ranks in numbers that would make this the default assumption.

Linear

Like an old loafer

I hadn’t slipped into reading the daily Family Life emails in many months. They recycle them and even when they are new they say the same things in different ways.

Today I opened one. I think it deserves comment.

Rainey leads with:

I’m telling you—men just have it easier.

That alone deserves comment but its too broad for a short post. Luckily he explains himself.

  1. Your last name stays put.

  2. The garage is all yours.

  3. Wedding plans take care of themselves.

  4. You can never be pregnant.

  5. Wrinkles add character.

  6. The occasional well-rendered belch is practically expected.

  7. You’ve got one mood all the time. Usually.

  8. Phone conversations are over in thirty seconds flat.

  9. A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.

  10. You can open all your own jars.

  11. You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness. Usually.

  12. If someone forgets to invite you somewhere, he can still be your friend.

  13. Your underwear is $8.95—for a three-pack!

  14. The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.

  15. You only have to shave your face and neck.

  16. You can play with toys all your life.

  17. One wallet and one pair of shoes—one color for all seasons.

  18. You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.

  19. You can “do” your nails with a pocket knife

Lots of angles there, ways to humorously refute these things. For example, I could ask why having the garage as mine is something I should feel fortunate about. That tact is fruitless and childish.

What I do want to point out is that buried in silly lists like this are hidden sins we almost never see under the light of God’s truth. Lets take them by number.

  1. Pride
  2. Who cares
  3. Pride….in that the idea that an elaborate wedding must be done, regardless the money, regardless the conflict it causes, regardless the fleeting nature of a day where things are stepped up due to peer pressure and envy.
  4. I don’t know what to call it but even if stated in jest, this testing of God’s design for women and holding forth that because men cannot do it men are better off is looking a gift from God in the mouth
  5. Vanity
  6. Who cares
  7. This one represents a choice. Its a choice men and women can make to have a cheerful disposition. I’m not suggesting whistling past the graveyard here or walking around mumbling “all things work together for the good”. But moodiness is  having low or no immunity to ones own emotions in terms of how it impacts the way they deal with others.
  8. If a woman wants her call over in 30 seconds it is within her power to end it in 30 seconds. They are rare but women exist who can be concise. This is a distraction from other more important things she may need to be doing. If a phone conversation topic rises to the level of needing a good long yammer, then do the long yammer. Sitting that aside, women talking endlessly on the phone are getting something they want from the conversation or they wouldn’t do it. Heaven knows they are driven to empathy seek by communicating.
  9. Vanity
  10. Who cares
  11. Dishonesty and selfishness. The words “extra credit” are revelatory. It inst extra credit. Its the utter lack of credit afforded men for the things we do daily that are taken for granted. Its that we get credit at all for acts of kindness, not that its extra. This point says that women are envious of that credit. One may respond that they don’t get credit for their daily work either. Well, the day after Mother’s Day is a bad time to raise that argument.
  12. Pettiness
  13. Not really that cheap anymore. Plus, I just bought my wife some underwear at Target that were no more expensive than my own, which indeed come in a package.
  14. Vanity.
  15. Jealousy. Lack of good humor.
  16. Vanity
  17. Vanity
  18. Vanity

His coddling close:

Realize that her life comes with a lot of stuff you don’t have to put up with. Take the time to genuinely listen and understand because God created her as a gift for you.

No, I don’t need realize that, or if I do I need to then whine about my own sorry state. It is good to listen. I suspect for Rainey it must be especially good because he listens and hears nothing except the shortcomings of husbands.

I know he likely has a similar list 18-0 degrees out of phase. It could be nit picked as I have this one. The difference is that people read this about women and go full-furrowed-brow . Reading a similar list written with the genders flipped the reaction is as if to clear satire.

Most of the items are choices, not gender differences created by God.

Swimmer asked for the definition of Empathogasm

Commenter ‘swimmer’ has asked that I explain or define my term empathogasm, stating it had been lost when a hard drive corrupted or something.

I am flattered that someone would take the time to record the explanation of a term that I probably made up on the spot the first time I needed it. Personally I like the term because it, like The Lift, fits perfectly as a description of the motive for certain behaviors. It is certainly not clinical, but it is efficacious in making succinct what I posit is an inner drive women have that I suggest is loosely analogous to the male sex drive.

The description, if I recall, was built from an example. The epiphany hit me one day a few years ago while seated around the neighborhood pool with my wife and youngest daughter. The pool attracts mostly moms and kids. The moms are in the back half of their 30’s as is typical for parents of kids 7 and under. We, however, have a late child whose birth came when my wife was 40 and I was 43. So we have a decade between us and the parents of our youngest daughters cohorts.

My wife as as prone to seek empathogasms as any woman, so I was fascinated that as she and some of the moms shared small talk, the communicating pairs were really straining to reach the climax, the empatholgasm. I’ve witnessed my wife and her friends or new acquaintances score one with minimal effort, yet this day the frustration was evident (for he with eyes to see).

When men meet we exchange facts. Birthplace, work, how many kids, maybe whether we like to fish or golf or hunt. We may get to the point where we are exchanging opinions. But we exchange them for informational purposes until we develop (unfairly) a first impression of who we are and where and if we fit. Acquaintances, buddies, friends? Decorum will dictate then whether we stay banal and discuss sports, get more ideological and talk politics, get personal but with reserve and talk faith or spirituality, or we open up and really share stuff. Not gonna happen very often in a first meeting.

Women however are exchanging facts along with opinions and value judgements until they sense there is something they can peel layers from and get deeper. For example:

“Oh your daughter goes to Maple Elementary?…Mine too” (this is where the metaphorical touching turns to heavy petting, there is a shot at an empathogasm here)

A careful often passive discussion about some value judgements regarding the school may ensue until one or the other expresses a feeling about some aspect of the school, a teacher, a policy, etc.

Sometimes they leave the topic frustrated as the petting was clearly leading nowhere. So they start another topic and exchange opinions about that. Could be diet, discipline of kids, something about the neighborhood, whatever things inform women’s initial conversations. Usually not deeply personal things like husbands or a particular child of theirs, so forth.

They will cast about sometimes rapidly firing off test facts and opinions seeking a spark that signals “willing partner”. As they narrow down to that topic they move very obviously to a place where one expresses a feeling about something and the other lights up as if the pleasure center in the brain took a surge and says, “you feel X about Y……I KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU FEEL!”

That is the empathogasm. The whole dynamic is a little  bit like a man trolling a bar and finding the girl he thinks he may have a shot at for sex. Not a sure thing, but the exchange of information and the initial light conversation signals something or it doesn’t. Same for these women.

If a woman can end-cap a conversation with “I know exactly how you feel”, in the case of a newly met person the woman will leave the encounter saying she thinks she and that woman can be fast friends. No empathogasm, …eh, she thinks,….”she was ok”. Its the same for women who are long time friends. If they have a phone call that doesn’t yield an empathogasm about something, it will end sooner and be far less satisfying than especially the ones there they achieve the apogee of communication titillation, the multiple empathogasm.

Some have temporarily lost their vision after one-a-those.

Now consider how this empathogasm craving impacts the communication dynamics between wives and husbands. Take the empathogasm as backdrop for understanding the whole “I dont want to have my issue fixed, I want you to listen”…and it makes sense. Consider the Joel and Kathy nonsense about how if a man doesn’t literally KNOW his wife’s heart (something I only can understand in empathogasm terms, otherwise its meaning is lost on me) he is a failure as a husband. Those are all strongly worded things if they were not about something that finds a literal drive for some kind of climax as the motive.

Grant Amy some common sense

Amy’s gone and done it again. For how many years will I have to live with the fact that I ran, not walked, to buy her CD Age to Age with El Shaddai on it. Its going to be at least until her latest altruistic flog passes to and through the American evangelical zeitgeist.

She has an opinion piece up at Fox News where she opens with an  emotional hook that I can express in a math lesson. To remember the  correct order of operations in math you can use the acronym BODMAS.

When Grant says her favorite prayer is:

“Lord, lead me to the ones I need. And, to the ones who need me.”

Her acronym is BOD-my-ass because she has it ass backwards.

Forget all that because that’s not the worst of it.

She proceeds to share heart tugging anecdotes, which actually can have value. I get that. But she takes the warm broth of empathy she has generated and throws in a cold turd from left field.

Over 220 million women around the world have raised their voices to say that they want to avoid their next pregnancy but lack the information or contraceptives to do so. To say this takes extreme courage. And to hear this and do something about it takes courage. This means talking about pregnancy and birth and newborns with influential leaders across the United States [my bold]

Did she just say that 220 million women are unaware how they get pregnant? And by mentioning leaders in the U.S. is she on about insurance and Sandra Fluke stuff, or is she saying women in the U.S. are equally baffled that after laying back and enjoying it so often they have  thought of every county in England, then they are shocked that their pants start getting snug and their belly buttons are inverting?

The feminist leaning emotional ideas start popping up randomly like whack-a-mole.

I can empathize with these women around the world who want a chance for education, employment, and a happier, healthier family.

Will someone map her thoughts for me? Or point me in the direction of the thread… maybe just the “frayed not” from that punchline.

What does Amy make you think of?

Yea, me too….Vince Gill, sheesh.

F U Big Lou

Who has heard the Big Lou term life insurance commercials?

I heard one for the first time as I drove to tennis this evening and was appalled. I thought, however, that it was a local company and where I live this kind of kitsch is well tolerated. After Googling and finding several links that led to similar schlocky insurance businesses in other cities I suppose this idiocy may be heard elsewhere.

Big Lou’s insurance asks women if their husbands are getting fat and unappealing. Voice over is someone’s attempt to imitate an accent from one of the boroughs of NYC. They recommend the wife call Big Lou and get 1 MM bucks worth of insurance on the loser and stop wasting money trying to feed him healthy food. after all, they say, he will look pretty good with that million dollar policy on him.

 

 

 

Daughters protect elderly remarried mother from her second husband’s sex drive

78 year old Henry Rayhons is charged with raping his wife while she was in a nursing home.

The wife, Donna, a widow, and Ray a widower had married in 2007. Shortly thereafter she was diagnosed with early dementia and by 2014 was unable to live without full care in a facility. Henry says they did have sex early on at her behest, there in her private room. But that after a clinician told Henry and Donna’s two daughters  that Donna could no longer consent to sex he respected the boundary.

He faces 10 years in prison if convicted.

If it is true that patients have moments of lucidity, and if as the article says, patients are considered OK to make decisions about many things that are not trivial, why not sex?

Is this feminism and take back the night in geriatric expansion mode? Have they been so tainted with false media accounts of rape and so branded by the ruining of careers and lives with the Duke case that they are now going to show that men are a danger to their wives once the wife has dementia?

This is not complicated. It has no basis in anything that should point to criminality. I say so what if he had sex with her. If it was not medically dangerous and the wife didn’t object, where’s the problem?

The problem, in this case, seems to be the two daughters who never liked that mom was a geezer pleezer. It feels like they rushed at the opportunity the install the geriatro-chastity belt for their own reasons and are now happy to put a man away for 10 years whether he did it or not.