Caspars Unfriendly Ghost

I missed this comment when it was made. Linked for the context and reproduced below,  Ive made bold the part that I want to unpack.

Rebellion is so subtle and so ingrained, and the daughter of Eve so deceived about her own motivations, that to “decide not to rebel” is quite out of her reach, as though she would know her own rebellion even if pointed out to her. Rebellion to a woman is water to a fish. And it’s not even that “rebellion” is done with a furious countenance or gnashing of teeth; more often it’s a sweet smile and a pretense of submission. A woman can turn submissive behavior into a means of control; I can’t explain that but you’ve seen it. It’s diabolically subtle and clever, and she doesn’t even know she’s doing it.

She has to be taught what her submission must look like in specific case after specific case, so that she knows what its absence looks like. But for that to happen, her father or husband has to be aware, and that in many cases isn’t happening either. In my case, even after two or three years opening my eyes to the Matrix, I still struggle with recognizing and articulating the concepts needed to do this well. Too often the rebellion, the passive aggression, the dig, or whatever it is (her toolbox is extensive and instinctive), the verbal shiv is in deep and she’s down the road before the realization even hits. “Hey, wait a minute…I’ve just been stabbed, and I’m bleeding my life out!” C-D-E (Cane-Dalrock-Empath) have been good at taking apart these techniques; it’s been very helpful but I still often feel like an old dog trying to learn new tricks.

And then, pointing it out is risky, too, and is more likely to return indignation than gratitude. Why? Because her goals are worthy but her means are wrong (“If I had submitted to you there it would have hurt our marriage. Are you telling me you don’t want a better marriage?”). There’s a reason men have shorter lives; we die for our wives, at their hands as it were, because we don’t know how to deal with the confounding dissonance. The missus thrives on it even while it kills me, literally.

 The Called-to-titudes

 I have spent some kilobytes describing the behaviors Caspar mentions, often by using specific examples.  I have not learned a technique for dealing with this but I think I am able to hear it in real time as she speaks. There are the words she is saying, which may or may not be related to an overarching theme of the day/week/month and there are the words she is not speaking but which represent the real goal of the phrases chosen. These are almost always interrelated to a strand of narrative that has been running for years, decades maybe.

Christian counselors, pastors, well meaning friends…they seem quick to point out (to men) the ways we are called to deal with our wives. How we are called to be and what we are called to do. One thing they say is that we need to understand our wife’s heart. Joel and Kathy types aside, that men are “called to” know what women want etc. without directly being told may not be such bad advice after all.

The men who can see the dynamics Caspar describes unfolding in real time are getting very close to “understanding her heart”. Trouble is, its not a pretty thing. Its more like witnessing some kind of amoebic behavior where the amoeba doesn’t just flee the probe. It rushes equally towards and away from both [emotional] pleasure and emotional pain. Erratic because being pierced by the probe (pain) is worth the pleasure that it can yield later (empathogasm).

An example would be her setting out boundaries and ever tightening them in the normal micromanagement that women try and do. Much of the hidden narrative behind the actual spoken words has control as the objective. But be careful if control is not in subtext, but rather is overt, because then its a trap to be sprung later whereby she gets to experience the pain of his boundary violation and , even if in her own mind only, she can marinate in a solution of 50% anger 50% faux empathy with self.

Ignoring Game

 

The way I deal with it is that I don’t deal with it. I’m not recommending this because it doesn’t have an altruistic motive unless you count marital stasis and outward peace in the home as a good goal.

I once , not more than a couple of years ago, spoke calmly and at length with her about this. I did so relentlessly returning to the topic which was showing her that this behavior, the one that I agree she mainly has no idea she is doing, results in countless lies being told daily.

Most women have a sanctimonious honesty policy. From dating profiles to marriage testimonies to divorce screeds, “One thing I will not tolerate is a lie”, they will say. I used that to pierce the veil and found that once she agreed that when she says X she means Y and that that is a lie, it fell to a combination of her being honest (with herself….I already knew) and a series of rationalizations that filed it away using another trick.

When they mess up, or when they are shown an unflattering image of themselves instructively, wives do not file that away as a lesson learned. They file it some other way, often so different from reality that they can extract that memory years later and have the audacity to use it to debate a similar matter but use the filed thing as righteous defense.

Therefore, ignoring it may not be what I am called to do in the mainstream. But they should be careful. Because when they challenge Caspar or me or any man who understands what is occurring we can say with  authority, “Dude, I know her heart…knowing her heart is not what you REALLY are suggesting”.

Ignoring* it is to not cater or pander to it. It is to serve her and the family in their true best interests and to depend far more on input that is not hers when making a measure of himself, though he will find that her opinion of him increases. I believe the step where her deception is laid out for her is essential and must be handled with prayer and mustered confidence and will. Lacking her finding, if but for a moment, no rhetorical rope ladder to avoid copping to the dishonesty all you will have is another argument where you are impeached with your yes and your no.

 

*Some would call this just simple passive aggressive behavior on her part. And oh, it is, but it is so much more than that. Its unfair to passive aggressive people to call this behavior passive aggressive. Ignoring could be construed as borrowing from game. It isn’t. Its not literally ignoring her, dread, not communicating at all, whatever. Its moving along as if she isn’t saying the hidden things because those things are not profitable for her, for the husband, or for the family. This makes it tough for the accusation to be leveled that the man is missing his called-to-titudes.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Caspars Unfriendly Ghost

  1. Dude, what’s this obsession with women’s submission? How insecure must a man be to expect that women should submit to him? Unseemly.

    If you would not like to be in a permanent position of submission to another, in an intimate relationship and not in your job, etc., you have no right to expect that others should.

    Women are no different. Nobody likes to be a servant/slave. Nobody normal, that is. Your religious beliefs are not doing you any favor if they convince you that women should accept the role because a mythical being said so.

    Ever heard of cooperation, instead of dominance? Try it sometimes, you’ll feel better. And freer.

  2. Darrin

    Did you miss all the references to the recent World Quilting Congress held at the George R Brown Convention Center in Houston? This is a quilters post in a quilting forum.

    Gosh I’m sorry man. I was hoping fellow quilters would come along side my points.

    Seriously, do you just read a few words and react , or do you troll manosphere sites plopping down out of context comments or are you honestly unable to suss out what I was writing about? It wasnt, in this case, submission. Dollar to your fritter you didnt even actually read the thing. If you did and you still stand by your Lift Chasing comment, please keep it off my comboxes.

  3. Darrin:
    Female submission is the source of feminine power. (Caspar misses that point too). It’s actually you male feminists who disempower women by forcing them into roles they were never designed to fulfill. The only ‘mythical beings’ out there are moral relativists who want to substitute their own fantasies against the realities of nature.

  4. I agree that ignoring this behavior is the best way, because women often follow a man’s lead by observation, and by working it out logically in their own minds. Caspar’s argument is flawed on two fundamental points: that female rebellion is natural and that female submission has to be learned. Actually, it’s the other way around.

  5. Eric,

    “Caspar’s argument is flawed on two fundamental points: that female rebellion is natural and that female submission has to be learned. Actually, it’s the other way around.”

    Your dispute is with the Apostle Paul, not with me.

  6. I don’t believe in Churchian Game, if that’s what you mean. And where does St. Paul say that women can’t decide against rebellion?

  7. @Eric. In the Garden of Eden God cursed Eve with increased pain in child birth and, because she tried to usurp God’s power and her relationship to her husband, he gave her a punishment that fit her “crime:” Your desire will be to control your husband BUT he shall be your master.” (use your bible dictionary and/or concordance to find out what “for” actually means if your translation uses that instead of the more accurate “to control.”)
    Women CAN decide against rebellion but that’s the point: rebellion against man is woman’s default and natural state. She has to be deliberate and A, acknowledge this and b, take realistic action to train herself into a habit of co-operation with and value for her husband or father. Most Churchian woman conduct a little “submission theatre” for public consumption but never actually interrupt their campaign of manipulation against their husband or father. That’s where men’s knowledge of scripture, female methods and motivations comes in so useful, we can call B.S. and provide the accountability that is so lacking from the rest of the culture.

  8. @Empath,

    I’m finally back at a keyboard where, rather than just texting back sound bites (back-byting?) to those of contrary opinion, I can properly thank you for the honor of being quoted for a post, and not just any post–a Thanksgiving post no less, and perhaps some of the clearest writing I’ve read on this blog.

    Who indeed is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon the ghost of a dog such as I? Actually, Caspar or Gaspar was anecdotally one of the three kings (Reyes) who waited with gifts on the infant Jesus. I don’t know which gift was Caspar’s, although myrrh for death and burial would fit the ghost theme.

    The phrase “mustered confidence and will” resonates in the cranial cavity. You have to gird up your loins, screw up your courage. It’s a spiritual battle, this thing of doing what we are commanded. We think they ought to just fall in line, but our task is no less difficult and against nature for us than theirs is to them.

    Some of the kilobytes you refer to were that green grass post of long ago, which at some level I knew that I had to understand, even though it took reading it two dozen times. I sensed that it was about the water I swim in. That episode described therein perfectly encapsulates the subtle, relentless dueling mentality of the female; she knows intuitively how to get to you, although she would deny it even to herself, not being conscious of it. And while she doesn’t do an outward victory dance, she can’t wait to do it again; she’s relentless, relentless, relentless. You become afraid to even interact. Diabolical!

    Cane had a post called “They Want Differently”, which I’ve also meditated on and which I would summarize and expand thus, “Men ask themselves if they can have what they want without getting caught having it. Women ask themselves how they can get what they want without getting caught wanting it.” A man’s sin is easily identified by the object itself. Woman’s sin not so easily identified because the means of getting are manipulative. Getting a result through subtle means is chick crack, and there’s plausible deniability in it.

    Cheers in the continuing struggle, brothers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s