It's funny to me that this whole discourse is happening right now, because just last night and totally unrelated to any of this (bc my spouse is not an online person aware of any of this stuff), we were talking about who the weirdest or dumbest or craziest people were we'd dated before getting together, and my husband said to me, and I quote: "one thing I can say is I've never dated a ditz. I can't date a woman who can't yell at me. If she can't hold her own and push back on me when I'm full of shit, and if she's not good at something, it's just way too boring and I can't have any interest at all." He's 50 and right-leaning, so this isn't a case of a young guy who doesn't know better or a soyboy or something.
The thing is, he also has basically zero "masculine insecurity" bc he actually has total competence in actually masculine domains. The problem with most of these online complainers trying to build themselves up with weak, child-like women is that they don't. This whole conversation is bizarre to me because in my local bubble/subculture, men still have actual masculine skills and competencies and this whole topic is just non-existent and would make no sense. If you hang out with guys who can actually like lift and build and fix heavy shit that needs to get done (not just weights in a gym), or who fight fires or work in heavy industrial infrastructure or hunt food or any of this stuff that is 1. Useful, 2. Provides tangible value, and 3. Requires actual physical strength and technical skill...their masculine value is entirely obvious and they have zero insecurity about it with women and accordingly generally look for women who also add value to their lives, not some lower down submissive weakling whose primary value is to making them feel emotionally secure about being dominant/powerful. Most of them are married to women they are perfectly happy to brag and tell anyone that she's smarter than them and runs the finances or whatever. There's zero problem there at all.
It seems to me that most of the guys pushing this shit are soft boys who didn't get the respect of their male peers when they were younger and are trying to fix their adolescent neuroses about it with an ideology of domineering women as adults (this Isaiah guy, Matt Walsh, most of the types on Twitter), and in a few cases like probably Andrew Tate, they likely grew up in an excessively brutally masculine culture as kids with an asshole, abusive dad and are basically traumatized from it and can never stop feeling like that weak little boy so they have to constantly prove that they're now the abusive asshole just to feel emotionally secure.
The fact is, men have one very clear and simple masculine value, that women DO need and value and respect: they are way more physically strong and powerful than we are. And also more willing to face danger and risk take in situations like when there's a fire or natural disaster or a kid who's fallen down a ravine. That's their value.
They are not better at thinking or making money or really anything else, than women. They are physically more powerful, more risk taking (which is plenty of times bad, but when it comes to saving someone in a burning building, provides value), and slightly more mechanically adept. Now, don't get me wrong, men have plenty of value on other things just like women do, but physical power is the primary manner in which they hold monopolistic, singular value, much like women do with making babies.
I view all this as basically caused by the fact that lots of men nowadays simply *don't* provide any masculine-specific value, to women or anyone else, and they feel that deep down inside and it causes them terrible feelings of anxiety about it. 200 years ago almost every man was a farmer. He used his physical strength every day. Even 50 years ago, virtually all men knew how to fix things like vehicles and appliances and household stuff, which women simply can't do bc our hand strength is insufficient. But young guys nowadays often don't even know how to do any of that stuff. And so some of them are desperately trying to meme and ideologize respect and submission from women into being, when they don't actually provide anything a woman can't do perfectly well herself, other than provide a dick.
My advice, if they want to gain admiration, respect, and willingness to accept leadership (in specified domains) from women, is for them to lean into and develop actually masculine qualities that are valuable and useful to women. Like it's really simple. Building muscles to preen in the mirror is not useful to women though it may look good. Having the strength to haul heavy shit and carry her out of danger if she twists an ankle while you're out on a hike does. Being able to build and fix things in your actual house does. Using your increased risk taking skills to do things that help others...like search and rescue, or any of the other stuff where danger and value are linked does. Using your risk taking to fuck up your own and her life with gambling addictions or other stupid shit does not.
Like...honestly it's really simple? Either just be a nice fun, funny, kind, enjoyable person to be around that people get value from just because you brighten their day...which is one way to go. OR if you can't do that bc you're not actually charming and kind of funny, then provide real masculine value and that means your grip strength and your muscles. People will value you when you provide value, and you don't have to spend all your time coming up with fake ideologies and religions and memes trying to convince everyone of the reason you should be respected and submitted to even when you're not providing any actual value to anyone's life.
I am 65 years old and worked in blue-collar jobs until I finished my college degree (mostly with night school) and entered the white-collar corporate world. I know how to do a lot of things… construction, electrical, plumbing, cabinet making, etc. I never considered that I was different than other men until I started hiring younger males to work for one of my companies and had to teach them how to use a cordless drill. We have feminized so much of the male population and modern females are also impacted by this in ways they cannot understand because they have been feminized too. They are not satisfied with their relationships with these soy boys, yet their education programming has told them that those other males are too toxic. So not only do they not know how to use a cordless drill, those that do are politically incorrect and need to be assassinated.
This is true, these guys get demonized or disrespected and painted as thugs or stupid or more likely to be violent. All of that would be laughable just 40 years ago because it was an expectation most men knew how to do that stuff even if it wasn't for their profession. It also is not my perception at all that those things are mostly the case. Yes, there is like a 10% of guys who are just basically criminals or dregs of society/abusive jerks. But that's not remotely the norm and I don't find that regular, normal men who have those sort of core masculine competencies are like that at all, and actually they're generally far more normal and way less neurotic about women, probably bc they're not insecure in themselves. These young guys seem to be obsessed with parodying a totally fake cartoon version of being a tough guy by like taking steroids and spending all the time in the gym or acting like misogynist he-men...yet simultaneously aren't interested in developing any skills in actually useful types of masculine competency that women *do* value and respect bc we know perfectly well we are literally incapable of doing those things (or we can, but it's much, much harder and takes way longer and more energy bc we're not as suited). And you're right that young girls also are not taught about the fact that they actually WILL care about and value these things when they are grown and running a household, they're likewise just looking at superficial stuff when they're young and dating and have no home or children to protect. Which is too bad, because every grown woman sure does, but she might not realize it til fairly late in the game.
I didn't go to law school until I was 30. Even when I was starting out as a lawyer, my colleagues -- my age plus 5 to minus 7 -- liked making fun of the various physical jobs I'd previously had. Mostly because of my evident joy in recounting each of them. And so many of my biglaw colleagues had been bookworms in hs & undergrad, and had gone straight to law school.
Carpentry is the one area where I've just totally failed. Which is also a source of much mirth. But I can fix some of the simpler things that go wrong in the house.
I very much agree with all this based on my own life. I was a computer nerd growing up, became very good at that, but mostly failed to grow any man skills, despite growing up on a farm and being (through no work of my own) tall, dexterous and coordinated. (In my defense, there was bad family shit in my childhood that complicated matters). These choices proved remunerative but I grew into an insecure, unsatisfied, unhappy, fat, occasionally depressed, chronically single 30 year old.
Over the last ten years I’ve gradually leaned in to all the man skills I disdained when I was younger and I love it. [I’m the guy with the planes.] I still work in tech because my job pays way more than I could make anywhere else, and I’m still good at it. But, it’s not the center of my life at all now. I’m just so much happier these days, and I’m pretty sure I’m much nicer to be around.
Unfortunately it seems I figured this all out after everyone paired off. I’m in my 40s and I live in the most men-heavy metropolis in America. This life capital may prove to be a stranded asset. We shall see. At any rate, I’m happier, I wish I had done the thing you describe so many years ago.
Good! See that's the thing, I don't feel like I'm encouraging activities guys wouldn't like or would just be doing to please women or whatever. Most men actually inherently enjoy that stuff! And get a sense of self respect and groundedness and enjoyment from being able to do that kind of useful, technical stuff. I can't help you with your gender ratio situation though, that is tough luck. Probably you could expand the scope of your dating geography and find lots of women who would appreciate your skills I bet.
Where I live, men who can wield chainsaws to clear roads and harvest firewood are very valuable to their communities and families. When I see one at work, I think to myself, “That's a man.”
I’m curious, have you ever seen a man go through a man-skills glowup firsthand? Any recommendations for young men who want to expand the range of practical skills they bring to the table, but who likely can’t dedicate any big chunk of time to it (e.g. the time it would take to go through a trades program)?
My little brother is currently going through such a glow up. He is 30 and was previously a fairly stereotypical video-gamw addicted, overweight guy with lots of toys and stuff and zero usefulness or skills that might be helpful to anyone else. But now he has gotten married and has a house, so it is kind of forced onto him (people seriously underestimate how often something breaks and needs to be fixed once you get a house, and how much time you end up spending at Home Depot lol). YouTube is your friend! You can learn anything there! I know our local wood store regularly gives free woodworking classes on various topics. Most towns and cities put on community courses in all kinds of topics like this that you can take in the evenings for $25 - $75 dollars. And you can get used tools on Facebook marketplace or estate sales for a steal. But unfortunately I can't give much more advice beyond that bc this definitely is not my domain. 😊
Hm, so how do you explain the fact that college educated men are much more likely to get and stay married than blue collar men, who presumably are much more likely to have these masculine skills you're talking about? Revealed preferences seem to suggest that women don't actually value those skills that much in the dating world.
College women are also much more likely to be married and stay married. Are you saying it's bc they're masculine? No, more likely bc people with college degrees are generally better at making decisions and delaying immediate gratification for long term goals, things like that. Also, there is no discrepancy between having a college degree and having masculine competency, up until the past 20ish years with young guys specifically. My dad has a PhD and was a scientist and he did all that masculine shit and fixed and built things, out additions on our house etc. My husband has a college degree. Where I live, every guy with a college degree also knows how to do those things and has the tools to do them. It is literally just the urban millennials and Zoomers who don't, and mostly bc they don't want to. And I'm saying that is the source of their masculine insecurity and why they are so much more likely to be trying to convince women to be weak, helpless, and dependent, than either Gen X or Boomer guys. They could solve their problem pretty easily by just learning how to do some actual masculine skills with their inherent masculine abilities...they don't seem to want to.
As I noted, the *other* simple option is to just not be concerned with such things and accept general liberal egalitarianism where the man and woman do not do or provide particularly sexed skills in the first place. That works perfectly fine too and tons of people do that and are perfectly happy with that. It's guys who 1. want/need to feel some kind of masculine authority/dominance, while also 2. Refusing to provide any actual masculine utility or value, who are mostly the ones bitching and moaning endlessly and trying to propagandize online about why women should just purposely be submissive, weak, and helpless and look up to them. Like, it makes no sense. Why would they? And if they really don't want to develop any specifically masculine competencies...which is totally fine and no one is saying they have to...then they should just accept an egalitarian role or one where they're going to share power. You can't meme these things into being when it's just based on practical realities. 150 years ago most men in this country that lived in their own house *literally built it themselves*. And their wife spent every waking hour on labor bc it actually takes all day long just to make meals and keep clothes clean and mended when you don't have a fridge or gas stove or indoor plumbing or electricity. Men don't need a woman to cook and mend clothes or do laundry anymore bc all of that stuff is trivially easy to do or pay for with barely any investment of time. Hardly any man is capable of building a house and we rely on pros to do that now. So either give up the charade and just treat each other like people instead of roles once based on material circumstances OR get good at providing the type of value that only men can, which is primarily their grip strength and physical power. It is literally the case that most women often can't open jars.
Excellently written. Indeed I recall once thinking I wanted a needy girlfriend who's life only revolved around mine, but when I got one then novelty quickly wore off.
It's not deeper than the word "submission" giving women the ick. If there was a different word that didn't give you the ick, we could just say that so you all feel better. The CHH lady is also lying, no 13 year old boy ever complained to someone's mother about her daughter's agreeableness. Please stop trying to retcon "girls like assholes" into "guys like bitches", thank you.
Did you actually read Helen's article? To the end? I realise you may be a "tl;dr" person but had you done so you would realise how wildly innaccurate (and irrelevant) your reply is.
I believe this guy is saying that you do not understand what he is saying because your English reading skills are weak. (ESL is an obsolete initialism, “English As A Second Language”, which has been replaced by ELL, “English Language Learner”.)
I got that bit. It was the original comment. Women would accept being required to be submissive if we called it something else and I’m trying to replace one narrative without one about men liking bitches? Or something?
I think his point was that women have the ick about the term “submit” and are fine with what it entails if it was called something else.
I might be reading into it because I agree with this idea. The word submit means certain things in people’s minds. In terms of relationships I believe it’s come out of Christian scripture saying women need to submit to their men or something along those lines. I have seen pastors describe and explain the context behind the term in scripture (and not just what it means today) and it’s sounded quite reasonable. That’s why I agree with his comment that it’s the way the word submit lands today that gives women the ick, but what it’s supposed to entail is much more palatable and generally acceptable to women.
Well, I did set out what it entails and no. If we called requiring women to be quiet, obey their husbands, stay in the domestic realm, not vote etc. “freedom” Id still not be a fan.
Helen! What a lovely nuanced dissection of the kernel of this matter. It elegantly explains, at least why I, have had such an ambiguous hold on the tradewife movement. It’s been obvious it doesn’t hold water but still there’s something to be said about sex differences influence on relationships. Thank you!
My husband of nearly 27 years is a stubborn mule of a man. I am mostly agreeable but I will dig my heels in when I need to or when it is an area where I have expertise.
He had the more dominant personality of the two of us. More Type A and ambitious and I am more laid back so mostly whatever he wants is fine with me.
I have the stronger personality and my husband is more easy-going, but he is also a stubborn mule of a man and this doesn’t map onto ‘dominant’ and ‘submissive.’ He’s just happy going with the flow until he isn’t. It looks like this:
Me: I think we should do this!
Him: OK, we can do that like this.
Me: OK.
x 10
Me: I think we should do this!
Him: We should definitely not do that.
Me: But if we just..
Him: No
Me: Or we could…
Him: Still no.
Me: OK
I tend to steer most of the things but I am moveable on them. He steers a minority of the things but is immoveable on them.
Like for me most things don’t matter. But I was never going to budge on things like not allowing my sons to be circumcised for example. Or long term breastfeeding.
I think that in a normal, healthy relationship leadership or dominance ebbs and flows. Even relationships that tend towards male dominance will always have periods or situations where those roles are reversed, and the success of the relationship will depend on both partners ability to adapt to these swirls and eddyies. If they want their relationship to succeed then neither partner can afford to fail to step up when that's required, nor can they allow themselves to freak out when their partner takes charge in a situation that they know how to handle better.
The good news is that women generally do value masculine traits and find them attractive. We did, after all, play a significant role in selecting them.
? there’s literally nothing in recent science that suggests masculine domorphic features are sexally selected by females, it is generally accepted that women had essentially no direct mate choice, it was all deals between males or male parents.
I have to disagree. It's like you've never met a human.
HOW, I ask you, do you expect to make a Mohawk or Lakota woman DO anything or marry anyone? Without getting stabbed?
Is this only some cultures? I don't see how you're going to not have a violent end in Viking women, Sicilians, Spanish or Greeks.
Yes, the RICH people did this thing in history. But they're freaks and weirdos who don't represent like 1:1,000,000 of their society. The Kardashians R not Us. The tavern girl and the miller -- of which there are 100,000 -- were going to hook up and all their families and communities will be made entirely miserable for the next 40 years if they don't. THAT, is human nature. Nor do their mother, brother, or father want everyone to be miserable, you have to live with these people. But you could also read all common (ie not knightly) literature over all time. "Seneca Indian Myths" Curtain Possibly "Magdelene and Balthazar" Stephen Ozment.
Many of the arenas in which men thrive – sports, the military, the clergy, etc. – have strict and rigid hierarchy. One leader (coach, commanding officer, pastor/bishop, etc.) to whom the rest, well, submit. Part of me has always wondered if trad men are projecting — that so many of them have an obvious and easily accessible submissive mode, they claim to want their partners to have one too, with them as the one submitted to, because it’s so familiar and comfortable for them.
Would love to read it if you ever write about this angle.
This is what I find. Men have much, much, much stronger wiring for dominance and submission, and when they have that wiring they operate gladly on both sides of the equation and actually are FAR more willing to be comfortable with and play the submissive role to a higher ranking man than any woman is, mostly bc we just don't have that wiring in the first place. The big secret being women do *not* actually view anyone (male or female) as better than them or deserving of more or whatever, it's not an instinct that naturally resonates. Put a group of guys together and the very first thing they like to do is create a ranking system of badges, pins, hats, titles, stars, outfits, tattoos, flags or whatever in order to clearly and visually make it clear who is higher and lower on the totem pole. Women don't do that. Their first instinct upon coming across an unknown new possibly hostile group is "take me to your leader". That's not even a question I think would occur to women, because most of us don't ever feel that we have one.
This does not reflect my experience here in Ireland anyway. Perhaps women see status where men see hierarchy for the sake of efficient coordination. It is after all a sought after quality in a mate for women, while the reverse is not true.
I don't find it to be true that women seek status even 10% as much as guys talk about them doing so and think they do so, it's all projection. They mostly seek resources and protection and social support and masculine competencies that women can't do (lift heavy things etc). Sometimes those things are tied to status but if you gave most women the choice between having her own trust fund or getting the same amount of money from a high status husband, she'd rather have her own. There are literally millions of men with tons of high status among other men that women have zero interest in, and half the time men are upset it's bc they think women go for losers and guys they don't respect as being high status enough.
Indeed, status is just a proxy for those other characteristics. I'm just quoting research, these are all average effects. I'm not in the US, I really don't hear much of this generalised gender stuff where I live. Young men and women are coupling pretty happily. The term "loser" is not one I ever hear. Possibly a big cultural dimension to all this was my main point. Men getting upset about women's choices would be frowned upon where I am. In general status is not very explicit here, maybe a post colonial thing.
Americans are all descended from a bunch of insane delusional strivers who left everything and everyone they knew to go strike out in an unknown place bc they were convinced they would end up "winners". No one talks about any of the stuff you see online IRL and most of the stuff you see online is the neuroses of people who are always online and doesn't reflect normal people who aren't. 😊
I think this is not what they think and is demonstrated with a study of men in groups:
Boot camp, start out all hating and bucking each other, end up a team as all allies and friends, even though there is a hierarchy.
With women it's the opposite: they start out all pretending all to be friends, at the end only decide who they hate most, while putting on a happy face. They too have a hierarchy, but not a team: it's far more unstable.
So they are projecting the one style of submission on the other. If you have a CO, you obey him because it's practical to do so. When he's shot, no one panics, the next on in line is immediately in command, down to last man standing. It's so taken for granted, no one even thinks of it. We don't sit down and have a popularity vote or draw straws or argue when the Major is shot.
But HOW do you get "Leadership"? A: With competency. There's no popularity there, or not really. The "Leader" will defer to the guy who knows explosives -- or plumbing -- better if that is required. If he doesn't he's neither a man nor a leader, and everyone notices and looks to replace him. Being a Leader IS deferring.
So back to your presentation, they -- this modern type we hand-waved out of air -- are requesting to be the "Leader" without having any "Competency". That's not being a man, it's hardly being a boy...I'm not sure what you'd call that. A dangerous fool? If he already had competency as a Family, she would already look to him as a "Leader", and so would their children. It can't be faked. If he doesn't then pretending won't help: go fix yourself.
So as a man, and also as proximate to Christians all my life, I have absolutely no idea what they mean about men being the "Leader of the Household." There is no coherent modern definition that I can present, working or unworking: it's gibberish. What was ORIGINALLY meant -- as one here said -- is so archaic and pre-medieval you have to translate it 5 times to understand it, but it is at least brave and coherent in its own terms.
But the few who might know that, are not able to communicate to the modern minds who hear it usually, and that's the knee jerk reaction of women hearing "Submissive" without asking what you mean. As above, men are submissive to their Boss, we are submissive to the law and courts for instance, but when women hear "Submissive" they refuse to be submissive to anything or anyone at all? That's odd. Why? Men do and think nothing of it, which is exactly why they think nothing of saying it (to women). You're "Submissive" to a crooked and insane law of politicians but not to your own lover and best friend? Your values might be way off, but I do understand their reaction to what they're hearing. Do the women though? When they say they'll refuse to be submissive to their husbands, but will immediately be to their boss and court instead? ...Sounds like the VP of Exxon is your real husband in that case, not me. Think.
I am probably just not intelligent enough to follow you. You say things I've said many times about the Christian stuff, but at the end you sound just like the Christian tradwife women who spend all day, every day on social media talking about what dedicated submissive partners they are and how they simply submit to their husband instead of a boss. *shrug*
That's a hierarchy for a very specific purpose, typically an almost singular purpose: victory. When coordinating a bunch of men, someone needs to be the lead. When outside the context of that thing, much of the "leader / submissive" valence goes away (at least in my experience; I'm sure there are cultures where it doesn't; the military is probably one of them).
For many men, at least, they don't view their marriage as a subject for victory. It's a relationship and a family, not a team sport or a mission. There can be aspects of family that are more game-like or mission-like, such as planning and executing a vacation, getting a chore done, etc. that can bring out some of those "leader / subordinate" behaviors.
CHH is a lying skank. She never was trad. She's like you, the concept disgusts her, she just feels no qualms about lying so now we have this made up story about how she was totally based and tradpilled as a fucking child. Yea right. Snotty ass thing to do. "Oh that thing you want to tty? I already did it, mastered it even. Turns out it doesn't work so you can't do it either" <- literally never even tried the thing just wants to control other people
In the movie Joy Luck Club, the character Rose Hsu, a Chinese immigrant to the US, models this situation. She marries an American, Ted. Ted is initially attracted to Rose's assertive, forthright nature. She marries him after he confronts his snobbish mother for making racist comments towards her. Throughout their marriage, Rose and Ted grow apart, mainly because Rose, desperate to fit in with Ted's associates, becomes submissive and demure at the cost of her own identity and interests. Ted loses interest in her because of this, and it isn't until Rose figures this out and reasserts herself to tell him to leave because he has been cheating. This act causes Ted to be attracted again to her.
I think this is just the ubiquitous problem of human insecurity being toxic to relationships. Men don't want submissive women, and women do not want submissive men. Everyone wants to have a relationship with emotionally stable people owning sufficient self-confidence, but without it being a source of snobbish jerkiness behavior.
You've just made my loose, halfway considered hypothesis much stronger. The overwhelming majority of online discourse does indeed posit that relationships between the sexes involve victory and battle and such.
Damn. I am apparently really onto something. In a way it's kind of cute, men trying to turn women into sexier versions of themselves. 😂
It’s the immune response that a generation of boys has to growing up in a post-patriarchal gynocracy dominated almost entirely by women who don’t (and can’t) understand them, and treats their budding masculinity as something disruptive/dangerous/threatening that needs to be snuffed out for the good of the boys themselves, and everyone around them.
I think that in a normal, healthy relationship leadership or dominance ebbs and flows. Even relationships that tend towards male dominance will always have periods or situations where those roles are reversed, and the success of the relationship will depend on both partners ability to adapt to these swirls and eddyies. If they want their relationship to succeed then neither partner can afford to fail to step up when that's required, nor can they allow themselves to freak out when their partner takes charge in a situation that they know how to handle better.
It's funny to me that this whole discourse is happening right now, because just last night and totally unrelated to any of this (bc my spouse is not an online person aware of any of this stuff), we were talking about who the weirdest or dumbest or craziest people were we'd dated before getting together, and my husband said to me, and I quote: "one thing I can say is I've never dated a ditz. I can't date a woman who can't yell at me. If she can't hold her own and push back on me when I'm full of shit, and if she's not good at something, it's just way too boring and I can't have any interest at all." He's 50 and right-leaning, so this isn't a case of a young guy who doesn't know better or a soyboy or something.
The thing is, he also has basically zero "masculine insecurity" bc he actually has total competence in actually masculine domains. The problem with most of these online complainers trying to build themselves up with weak, child-like women is that they don't. This whole conversation is bizarre to me because in my local bubble/subculture, men still have actual masculine skills and competencies and this whole topic is just non-existent and would make no sense. If you hang out with guys who can actually like lift and build and fix heavy shit that needs to get done (not just weights in a gym), or who fight fires or work in heavy industrial infrastructure or hunt food or any of this stuff that is 1. Useful, 2. Provides tangible value, and 3. Requires actual physical strength and technical skill...their masculine value is entirely obvious and they have zero insecurity about it with women and accordingly generally look for women who also add value to their lives, not some lower down submissive weakling whose primary value is to making them feel emotionally secure about being dominant/powerful. Most of them are married to women they are perfectly happy to brag and tell anyone that she's smarter than them and runs the finances or whatever. There's zero problem there at all.
It seems to me that most of the guys pushing this shit are soft boys who didn't get the respect of their male peers when they were younger and are trying to fix their adolescent neuroses about it with an ideology of domineering women as adults (this Isaiah guy, Matt Walsh, most of the types on Twitter), and in a few cases like probably Andrew Tate, they likely grew up in an excessively brutally masculine culture as kids with an asshole, abusive dad and are basically traumatized from it and can never stop feeling like that weak little boy so they have to constantly prove that they're now the abusive asshole just to feel emotionally secure.
The fact is, men have one very clear and simple masculine value, that women DO need and value and respect: they are way more physically strong and powerful than we are. And also more willing to face danger and risk take in situations like when there's a fire or natural disaster or a kid who's fallen down a ravine. That's their value.
They are not better at thinking or making money or really anything else, than women. They are physically more powerful, more risk taking (which is plenty of times bad, but when it comes to saving someone in a burning building, provides value), and slightly more mechanically adept. Now, don't get me wrong, men have plenty of value on other things just like women do, but physical power is the primary manner in which they hold monopolistic, singular value, much like women do with making babies.
I view all this as basically caused by the fact that lots of men nowadays simply *don't* provide any masculine-specific value, to women or anyone else, and they feel that deep down inside and it causes them terrible feelings of anxiety about it. 200 years ago almost every man was a farmer. He used his physical strength every day. Even 50 years ago, virtually all men knew how to fix things like vehicles and appliances and household stuff, which women simply can't do bc our hand strength is insufficient. But young guys nowadays often don't even know how to do any of that stuff. And so some of them are desperately trying to meme and ideologize respect and submission from women into being, when they don't actually provide anything a woman can't do perfectly well herself, other than provide a dick.
My advice, if they want to gain admiration, respect, and willingness to accept leadership (in specified domains) from women, is for them to lean into and develop actually masculine qualities that are valuable and useful to women. Like it's really simple. Building muscles to preen in the mirror is not useful to women though it may look good. Having the strength to haul heavy shit and carry her out of danger if she twists an ankle while you're out on a hike does. Being able to build and fix things in your actual house does. Using your increased risk taking skills to do things that help others...like search and rescue, or any of the other stuff where danger and value are linked does. Using your risk taking to fuck up your own and her life with gambling addictions or other stupid shit does not.
Like...honestly it's really simple? Either just be a nice fun, funny, kind, enjoyable person to be around that people get value from just because you brighten their day...which is one way to go. OR if you can't do that bc you're not actually charming and kind of funny, then provide real masculine value and that means your grip strength and your muscles. People will value you when you provide value, and you don't have to spend all your time coming up with fake ideologies and religions and memes trying to convince everyone of the reason you should be respected and submitted to even when you're not providing any actual value to anyone's life.
I am 65 years old and worked in blue-collar jobs until I finished my college degree (mostly with night school) and entered the white-collar corporate world. I know how to do a lot of things… construction, electrical, plumbing, cabinet making, etc. I never considered that I was different than other men until I started hiring younger males to work for one of my companies and had to teach them how to use a cordless drill. We have feminized so much of the male population and modern females are also impacted by this in ways they cannot understand because they have been feminized too. They are not satisfied with their relationships with these soy boys, yet their education programming has told them that those other males are too toxic. So not only do they not know how to use a cordless drill, those that do are politically incorrect and need to be assassinated.
This is true, these guys get demonized or disrespected and painted as thugs or stupid or more likely to be violent. All of that would be laughable just 40 years ago because it was an expectation most men knew how to do that stuff even if it wasn't for their profession. It also is not my perception at all that those things are mostly the case. Yes, there is like a 10% of guys who are just basically criminals or dregs of society/abusive jerks. But that's not remotely the norm and I don't find that regular, normal men who have those sort of core masculine competencies are like that at all, and actually they're generally far more normal and way less neurotic about women, probably bc they're not insecure in themselves. These young guys seem to be obsessed with parodying a totally fake cartoon version of being a tough guy by like taking steroids and spending all the time in the gym or acting like misogynist he-men...yet simultaneously aren't interested in developing any skills in actually useful types of masculine competency that women *do* value and respect bc we know perfectly well we are literally incapable of doing those things (or we can, but it's much, much harder and takes way longer and more energy bc we're not as suited). And you're right that young girls also are not taught about the fact that they actually WILL care about and value these things when they are grown and running a household, they're likewise just looking at superficial stuff when they're young and dating and have no home or children to protect. Which is too bad, because every grown woman sure does, but she might not realize it til fairly late in the game.
I didn't go to law school until I was 30. Even when I was starting out as a lawyer, my colleagues -- my age plus 5 to minus 7 -- liked making fun of the various physical jobs I'd previously had. Mostly because of my evident joy in recounting each of them. And so many of my biglaw colleagues had been bookworms in hs & undergrad, and had gone straight to law school.
Carpentry is the one area where I've just totally failed. Which is also a source of much mirth. But I can fix some of the simpler things that go wrong in the house.
I very much agree with all this based on my own life. I was a computer nerd growing up, became very good at that, but mostly failed to grow any man skills, despite growing up on a farm and being (through no work of my own) tall, dexterous and coordinated. (In my defense, there was bad family shit in my childhood that complicated matters). These choices proved remunerative but I grew into an insecure, unsatisfied, unhappy, fat, occasionally depressed, chronically single 30 year old.
Over the last ten years I’ve gradually leaned in to all the man skills I disdained when I was younger and I love it. [I’m the guy with the planes.] I still work in tech because my job pays way more than I could make anywhere else, and I’m still good at it. But, it’s not the center of my life at all now. I’m just so much happier these days, and I’m pretty sure I’m much nicer to be around.
Unfortunately it seems I figured this all out after everyone paired off. I’m in my 40s and I live in the most men-heavy metropolis in America. This life capital may prove to be a stranded asset. We shall see. At any rate, I’m happier, I wish I had done the thing you describe so many years ago.
Good! See that's the thing, I don't feel like I'm encouraging activities guys wouldn't like or would just be doing to please women or whatever. Most men actually inherently enjoy that stuff! And get a sense of self respect and groundedness and enjoyment from being able to do that kind of useful, technical stuff. I can't help you with your gender ratio situation though, that is tough luck. Probably you could expand the scope of your dating geography and find lots of women who would appreciate your skills I bet.
Where I live, men who can wield chainsaws to clear roads and harvest firewood are very valuable to their communities and families. When I see one at work, I think to myself, “That's a man.”
On the nose!
I’m curious, have you ever seen a man go through a man-skills glowup firsthand? Any recommendations for young men who want to expand the range of practical skills they bring to the table, but who likely can’t dedicate any big chunk of time to it (e.g. the time it would take to go through a trades program)?
My little brother is currently going through such a glow up. He is 30 and was previously a fairly stereotypical video-gamw addicted, overweight guy with lots of toys and stuff and zero usefulness or skills that might be helpful to anyone else. But now he has gotten married and has a house, so it is kind of forced onto him (people seriously underestimate how often something breaks and needs to be fixed once you get a house, and how much time you end up spending at Home Depot lol). YouTube is your friend! You can learn anything there! I know our local wood store regularly gives free woodworking classes on various topics. Most towns and cities put on community courses in all kinds of topics like this that you can take in the evenings for $25 - $75 dollars. And you can get used tools on Facebook marketplace or estate sales for a steal. But unfortunately I can't give much more advice beyond that bc this definitely is not my domain. 😊
Hm, so how do you explain the fact that college educated men are much more likely to get and stay married than blue collar men, who presumably are much more likely to have these masculine skills you're talking about? Revealed preferences seem to suggest that women don't actually value those skills that much in the dating world.
College women are also much more likely to be married and stay married. Are you saying it's bc they're masculine? No, more likely bc people with college degrees are generally better at making decisions and delaying immediate gratification for long term goals, things like that. Also, there is no discrepancy between having a college degree and having masculine competency, up until the past 20ish years with young guys specifically. My dad has a PhD and was a scientist and he did all that masculine shit and fixed and built things, out additions on our house etc. My husband has a college degree. Where I live, every guy with a college degree also knows how to do those things and has the tools to do them. It is literally just the urban millennials and Zoomers who don't, and mostly bc they don't want to. And I'm saying that is the source of their masculine insecurity and why they are so much more likely to be trying to convince women to be weak, helpless, and dependent, than either Gen X or Boomer guys. They could solve their problem pretty easily by just learning how to do some actual masculine skills with their inherent masculine abilities...they don't seem to want to.
As I noted, the *other* simple option is to just not be concerned with such things and accept general liberal egalitarianism where the man and woman do not do or provide particularly sexed skills in the first place. That works perfectly fine too and tons of people do that and are perfectly happy with that. It's guys who 1. want/need to feel some kind of masculine authority/dominance, while also 2. Refusing to provide any actual masculine utility or value, who are mostly the ones bitching and moaning endlessly and trying to propagandize online about why women should just purposely be submissive, weak, and helpless and look up to them. Like, it makes no sense. Why would they? And if they really don't want to develop any specifically masculine competencies...which is totally fine and no one is saying they have to...then they should just accept an egalitarian role or one where they're going to share power. You can't meme these things into being when it's just based on practical realities. 150 years ago most men in this country that lived in their own house *literally built it themselves*. And their wife spent every waking hour on labor bc it actually takes all day long just to make meals and keep clothes clean and mended when you don't have a fridge or gas stove or indoor plumbing or electricity. Men don't need a woman to cook and mend clothes or do laundry anymore bc all of that stuff is trivially easy to do or pay for with barely any investment of time. Hardly any man is capable of building a house and we rely on pros to do that now. So either give up the charade and just treat each other like people instead of roles once based on material circumstances OR get good at providing the type of value that only men can, which is primarily their grip strength and physical power. It is literally the case that most women often can't open jars.
Excellently written. Indeed I recall once thinking I wanted a needy girlfriend who's life only revolved around mine, but when I got one then novelty quickly wore off.
What sensible people want: “when we have differences (which we will), how are we going to look for solutions that work for both of us?”
Rather than “needing to be right”, defensiveness, stonewalling.
Good read: The Power of Us, by Terry Real
It's not deeper than the word "submission" giving women the ick. If there was a different word that didn't give you the ick, we could just say that so you all feel better. The CHH lady is also lying, no 13 year old boy ever complained to someone's mother about her daughter's agreeableness. Please stop trying to retcon "girls like assholes" into "guys like bitches", thank you.
Perhaps if you rephrased, I might be able to grasp your meaning?
ESL huh?
Well, you don’t have to, but I’m not going to try to guess.
Did you actually read Helen's article? To the end? I realise you may be a "tl;dr" person but had you done so you would realise how wildly innaccurate (and irrelevant) your reply is.
I don’t even know what I’m being accused of.
I believe this guy is saying that you do not understand what he is saying because your English reading skills are weak. (ESL is an obsolete initialism, “English As A Second Language”, which has been replaced by ELL, “English Language Learner”.)
Will wonders never cease?
I got that bit. It was the original comment. Women would accept being required to be submissive if we called it something else and I’m trying to replace one narrative without one about men liking bitches? Or something?
I think his point was that women have the ick about the term “submit” and are fine with what it entails if it was called something else.
I might be reading into it because I agree with this idea. The word submit means certain things in people’s minds. In terms of relationships I believe it’s come out of Christian scripture saying women need to submit to their men or something along those lines. I have seen pastors describe and explain the context behind the term in scripture (and not just what it means today) and it’s sounded quite reasonable. That’s why I agree with his comment that it’s the way the word submit lands today that gives women the ick, but what it’s supposed to entail is much more palatable and generally acceptable to women.
Well, I did set out what it entails and no. If we called requiring women to be quiet, obey their husbands, stay in the domestic realm, not vote etc. “freedom” Id still not be a fan.
I thought maybe you have different terminology and were thrown by the jargon. I agree that the comment comes across as nonsensical.
No. You can dress it up however you want, it wouldn’t matter. The days of men lording over women are over.
Helen! What a lovely nuanced dissection of the kernel of this matter. It elegantly explains, at least why I, have had such an ambiguous hold on the tradewife movement. It’s been obvious it doesn’t hold water but still there’s something to be said about sex differences influence on relationships. Thank you!
This was fantastic.
My husband of nearly 27 years is a stubborn mule of a man. I am mostly agreeable but I will dig my heels in when I need to or when it is an area where I have expertise.
He had the more dominant personality of the two of us. More Type A and ambitious and I am more laid back so mostly whatever he wants is fine with me.
I have the stronger personality and my husband is more easy-going, but he is also a stubborn mule of a man and this doesn’t map onto ‘dominant’ and ‘submissive.’ He’s just happy going with the flow until he isn’t. It looks like this:
Me: I think we should do this!
Him: OK, we can do that like this.
Me: OK.
x 10
Me: I think we should do this!
Him: We should definitely not do that.
Me: But if we just..
Him: No
Me: Or we could…
Him: Still no.
Me: OK
I tend to steer most of the things but I am moveable on them. He steers a minority of the things but is immoveable on them.
That feels right.
Like for me most things don’t matter. But I was never going to budge on things like not allowing my sons to be circumcised for example. Or long term breastfeeding.
Best article I’ve read in a long time!
I think that in a normal, healthy relationship leadership or dominance ebbs and flows. Even relationships that tend towards male dominance will always have periods or situations where those roles are reversed, and the success of the relationship will depend on both partners ability to adapt to these swirls and eddyies. If they want their relationship to succeed then neither partner can afford to fail to step up when that's required, nor can they allow themselves to freak out when their partner takes charge in a situation that they know how to handle better.
The good news is that women generally do value masculine traits and find them attractive. We did, after all, play a significant role in selecting them.
? there’s literally nothing in recent science that suggests masculine domorphic features are sexally selected by females, it is generally accepted that women had essentially no direct mate choice, it was all deals between males or male parents.
I have to disagree. It's like you've never met a human.
HOW, I ask you, do you expect to make a Mohawk or Lakota woman DO anything or marry anyone? Without getting stabbed?
Is this only some cultures? I don't see how you're going to not have a violent end in Viking women, Sicilians, Spanish or Greeks.
Yes, the RICH people did this thing in history. But they're freaks and weirdos who don't represent like 1:1,000,000 of their society. The Kardashians R not Us. The tavern girl and the miller -- of which there are 100,000 -- were going to hook up and all their families and communities will be made entirely miserable for the next 40 years if they don't. THAT, is human nature. Nor do their mother, brother, or father want everyone to be miserable, you have to live with these people. But you could also read all common (ie not knightly) literature over all time. "Seneca Indian Myths" Curtain Possibly "Magdelene and Balthazar" Stephen Ozment.
Many of the arenas in which men thrive – sports, the military, the clergy, etc. – have strict and rigid hierarchy. One leader (coach, commanding officer, pastor/bishop, etc.) to whom the rest, well, submit. Part of me has always wondered if trad men are projecting — that so many of them have an obvious and easily accessible submissive mode, they claim to want their partners to have one too, with them as the one submitted to, because it’s so familiar and comfortable for them.
Would love to read it if you ever write about this angle.
This is what I find. Men have much, much, much stronger wiring for dominance and submission, and when they have that wiring they operate gladly on both sides of the equation and actually are FAR more willing to be comfortable with and play the submissive role to a higher ranking man than any woman is, mostly bc we just don't have that wiring in the first place. The big secret being women do *not* actually view anyone (male or female) as better than them or deserving of more or whatever, it's not an instinct that naturally resonates. Put a group of guys together and the very first thing they like to do is create a ranking system of badges, pins, hats, titles, stars, outfits, tattoos, flags or whatever in order to clearly and visually make it clear who is higher and lower on the totem pole. Women don't do that. Their first instinct upon coming across an unknown new possibly hostile group is "take me to your leader". That's not even a question I think would occur to women, because most of us don't ever feel that we have one.
This makes so much sense to me. Yes. Thank you for saying it so clearly.
This does not reflect my experience here in Ireland anyway. Perhaps women see status where men see hierarchy for the sake of efficient coordination. It is after all a sought after quality in a mate for women, while the reverse is not true.
I don't find it to be true that women seek status even 10% as much as guys talk about them doing so and think they do so, it's all projection. They mostly seek resources and protection and social support and masculine competencies that women can't do (lift heavy things etc). Sometimes those things are tied to status but if you gave most women the choice between having her own trust fund or getting the same amount of money from a high status husband, she'd rather have her own. There are literally millions of men with tons of high status among other men that women have zero interest in, and half the time men are upset it's bc they think women go for losers and guys they don't respect as being high status enough.
Indeed, status is just a proxy for those other characteristics. I'm just quoting research, these are all average effects. I'm not in the US, I really don't hear much of this generalised gender stuff where I live. Young men and women are coupling pretty happily. The term "loser" is not one I ever hear. Possibly a big cultural dimension to all this was my main point. Men getting upset about women's choices would be frowned upon where I am. In general status is not very explicit here, maybe a post colonial thing.
Americans are all descended from a bunch of insane delusional strivers who left everything and everyone they knew to go strike out in an unknown place bc they were convinced they would end up "winners". No one talks about any of the stuff you see online IRL and most of the stuff you see online is the neuroses of people who are always online and doesn't reflect normal people who aren't. 😊
I think this is not what they think and is demonstrated with a study of men in groups:
Boot camp, start out all hating and bucking each other, end up a team as all allies and friends, even though there is a hierarchy.
With women it's the opposite: they start out all pretending all to be friends, at the end only decide who they hate most, while putting on a happy face. They too have a hierarchy, but not a team: it's far more unstable.
So they are projecting the one style of submission on the other. If you have a CO, you obey him because it's practical to do so. When he's shot, no one panics, the next on in line is immediately in command, down to last man standing. It's so taken for granted, no one even thinks of it. We don't sit down and have a popularity vote or draw straws or argue when the Major is shot.
But HOW do you get "Leadership"? A: With competency. There's no popularity there, or not really. The "Leader" will defer to the guy who knows explosives -- or plumbing -- better if that is required. If he doesn't he's neither a man nor a leader, and everyone notices and looks to replace him. Being a Leader IS deferring.
So back to your presentation, they -- this modern type we hand-waved out of air -- are requesting to be the "Leader" without having any "Competency". That's not being a man, it's hardly being a boy...I'm not sure what you'd call that. A dangerous fool? If he already had competency as a Family, she would already look to him as a "Leader", and so would their children. It can't be faked. If he doesn't then pretending won't help: go fix yourself.
So as a man, and also as proximate to Christians all my life, I have absolutely no idea what they mean about men being the "Leader of the Household." There is no coherent modern definition that I can present, working or unworking: it's gibberish. What was ORIGINALLY meant -- as one here said -- is so archaic and pre-medieval you have to translate it 5 times to understand it, but it is at least brave and coherent in its own terms.
But the few who might know that, are not able to communicate to the modern minds who hear it usually, and that's the knee jerk reaction of women hearing "Submissive" without asking what you mean. As above, men are submissive to their Boss, we are submissive to the law and courts for instance, but when women hear "Submissive" they refuse to be submissive to anything or anyone at all? That's odd. Why? Men do and think nothing of it, which is exactly why they think nothing of saying it (to women). You're "Submissive" to a crooked and insane law of politicians but not to your own lover and best friend? Your values might be way off, but I do understand their reaction to what they're hearing. Do the women though? When they say they'll refuse to be submissive to their husbands, but will immediately be to their boss and court instead? ...Sounds like the VP of Exxon is your real husband in that case, not me. Think.
I am probably just not intelligent enough to follow you. You say things I've said many times about the Christian stuff, but at the end you sound just like the Christian tradwife women who spend all day, every day on social media talking about what dedicated submissive partners they are and how they simply submit to their husband instead of a boss. *shrug*
That's a hierarchy for a very specific purpose, typically an almost singular purpose: victory. When coordinating a bunch of men, someone needs to be the lead. When outside the context of that thing, much of the "leader / submissive" valence goes away (at least in my experience; I'm sure there are cultures where it doesn't; the military is probably one of them).
For many men, at least, they don't view their marriage as a subject for victory. It's a relationship and a family, not a team sport or a mission. There can be aspects of family that are more game-like or mission-like, such as planning and executing a vacation, getting a chore done, etc. that can bring out some of those "leader / subordinate" behaviors.
CHH is a lying skank. She never was trad. She's like you, the concept disgusts her, she just feels no qualms about lying so now we have this made up story about how she was totally based and tradpilled as a fucking child. Yea right. Snotty ass thing to do. "Oh that thing you want to tty? I already did it, mastered it even. Turns out it doesn't work so you can't do it either" <- literally never even tried the thing just wants to control other people
You seem nice.
In the movie Joy Luck Club, the character Rose Hsu, a Chinese immigrant to the US, models this situation. She marries an American, Ted. Ted is initially attracted to Rose's assertive, forthright nature. She marries him after he confronts his snobbish mother for making racist comments towards her. Throughout their marriage, Rose and Ted grow apart, mainly because Rose, desperate to fit in with Ted's associates, becomes submissive and demure at the cost of her own identity and interests. Ted loses interest in her because of this, and it isn't until Rose figures this out and reasserts herself to tell him to leave because he has been cheating. This act causes Ted to be attracted again to her.
I think this is just the ubiquitous problem of human insecurity being toxic to relationships. Men don't want submissive women, and women do not want submissive men. Everyone wants to have a relationship with emotionally stable people owning sufficient self-confidence, but without it being a source of snobbish jerkiness behavior.
You've just made my loose, halfway considered hypothesis much stronger. The overwhelming majority of online discourse does indeed posit that relationships between the sexes involve victory and battle and such.
Damn. I am apparently really onto something. In a way it's kind of cute, men trying to turn women into sexier versions of themselves. 😂
It’s the immune response that a generation of boys has to growing up in a post-patriarchal gynocracy dominated almost entirely by women who don’t (and can’t) understand them, and treats their budding masculinity as something disruptive/dangerous/threatening that needs to be snuffed out for the good of the boys themselves, and everyone around them.
Men want equal partners. That’s the big secret.
In some sense, but they also want them to be women - which isn’t a purely aesthetic difference. I value and respect women as women.
And what does that mean? What is a woman to you?
I think that in a normal, healthy relationship leadership or dominance ebbs and flows. Even relationships that tend towards male dominance will always have periods or situations where those roles are reversed, and the success of the relationship will depend on both partners ability to adapt to these swirls and eddyies. If they want their relationship to succeed then neither partner can afford to fail to step up when that's required, nor can they allow themselves to freak out when their partner takes charge in a situation that they know how to handle better.
I refer to it as passing the (director’s) baton back and forth.
There’s a place for passing the runner’s baton, too, but it’s different.