YOUNGFOGEY writes:

What struck me most about your reader’s note in this entry was the admission that this guy’s wife holds him in contempt. My guess is that she doesn’t despise him because he wants children and she doesn’t. She probably despises him because he has been neutered by the culture, offers her very little in the way of direction and leadership and refuses to even attempt to get the upper hand in marriage. The wife may treat him with contempt because he is simply too beta. Maybe she doesn’t want to have kids with a guy like that.

I know I am writing about a situation I have no first hand knowledge of, but the situation I have described is so common that it’s not unreasonable to assume this dynamic is at play. The first step for this guy has got to be to step up the alpha, then worry about kids.

I know you may be loathe to recommend it but this might be a guy who could benefit from reading some Roissy or Athol Kay.

Laura writes:

You may very well be right.

Also, perhaps this couple is living a life that now depends on her income and she doesn’t see how she can be a mother and have a career. He may be refusing to acknowledge this reality and to figure out a way that she can be a mother.

Nevertheless, it is still wrong for her to flat out refuse to have children. No matter what he has done and how he has acted, he doesn’t deserve that. That is a violation of the marriage vow at its most basic and a great betrayal. Also, he might become more of a man with fatherhood.

                                  — Comments —

Roger G. writes:

If he’s making a living, bringing the money home, and treating her decently, she should love him to death and treat him like a king, his alphabetic designation notwithstanding. If he’s not sufficiently forceful for her taste, she should build him up and encourage him in developing assertiveness; particular means of positive reinforcement spring directly to mind. We men really are dogs, you know – we cherish loving and affectionate training, and respond magnificently to appropriate incentives. Roissyish manipulation should be resorted to only if there are children for whom the marriage must be preserved; otherwise, dump her and get a proper wife. But this time make it clear what is expected of her.

Laura writes:

I agree about encouragement. The man should not have to figure out complex Roissey-esque maneuvers, for pete’s sake. This isn’t strategic warfare. It’s a marriage. She should love him and encourage him, tenderly showing him how to be strong. It’s love that makes a man strong, not rejection.

Jeff W. writes:

I agree 100 percent with Laura when she says that love makes a man strong. Here are a couple of quotes from Sigmund Freud:

“A man who has been the indisputable favorite of his mother keeps for life the feeling of a conqueror. “

“When you were incontestably the favorite child of your mother, you keep during your lifetime this victor feeling, you keep feeling sure of success, which in reality seldom doesn’t fulfill.”

Of course Freud was talking about a mother’s love rather than a wife’s love, but the principle is the same.

Such writers as Roissy, etc. advise men on how to find sex in a loveless world. But it is much more important that they find love in this loveless world. In Roissy’s terminology, this means that a man should try to find a woman who will still love him even though he sometimes acts like a beta.

Youngfogey writes:

I am not a men’s rights fanatic like those with whom you have had some unpleasant interactions lately. Still, I am able to detect latent misandry like that in the subtext of Roger G.’s comment. 

A man in the situation your reader described who takes Roger G.’s advice is bound for heartache. First, it makes no sense to talk about what this woman should do. Should obviously doesn’t matter much to her. Either that, or she is so confused about what she should do because of her feminist indoctrination that talking to her in those terms is pointless. 

Second, men are not dogs. Not only is this metaphor dehumanizing, but it perpetuates a wrong image. The marriage we are discussing is likely in distress because the husband has been yearning for too much “affectionate training.” A husband who needs to be trained through incentives and rewards, who seeks his wife’s approval is the living definition of beta. 

Any man whose attitude toward his wife is like that of a pet wanting approval and reward is failing to lead his family. Rather than being the woman’s pet, he is supposed to be her leader. It is his job to guide her, not her job to train him. 

Third, to talk about Game as a series of complex maneuvers or manipulations betrays a shallow understanding. What is called Game in the mano-sphere used to be called “acting like a man.” In marriages where acting like a man comes naturally to the husband and acting like a woman comes naturally to the wife, maybe strategy isn’t needed. 

In most post-feminism marriages, however, it is. Besides, the guy married to the feminist already has a strategy. His strategy so far has been to be a nice, White Knight chump. We can see how that’s worked out. If he wants to be a good man and actually love his wife he might have to pursue some strategies that seem counter-intuitive. Call those new strategies manipulations if you like, but they might be what love requires of him.

Laura writes:

Youngfogey is correct that this woman appears beyond loving attention for her husband since she has gone so far as to deny him children.

However, I do not think by saying the man should be loved and that affection would change him, we were in any way equating him with a dog. (Oops, I see Roger did in fact refer to men as dogs.) A wife’s love shouldn’t be a form of training, an act or maneuver in itself, but the genuine expression of appreciation and admiration.

Every normal man should want some appreciation. But any man who hangs on his wife’s approval as a pet or little boy would be seriously annoying. Youngfogey speculates that this man  may be that way and suggests Game. I agree Game might help him if he has been acting that way.

I do not dismiss Game as simply a form of strategic warfare. To the extent that Game recognizes that women want men to lead and be in charge part of the time, it does offer valuable insights and suggestions. However, it also can be simplistic. And, of course, some women are too narcissistic to love anyone, whether he is manly or not.

David C. writes:

Just one correction to Roger G.’s otherwise helpful comment: Roger, if you wish to call yourself a dog, that is your business, but please do not presume to speak on my behalf in that derogatory fashion. I am not a dog. I do not “cherish loving and affectionate training;” in fact, I rather resent it. Thank you.

John E. writes:

I agree with Youngfogey’s point about the dog-man metaphor. A man should guard against looking at himself this way, nor think it helpful for his wife to look at himself this way. This may be a difficult thing, as it can be a self-satisfying and endearing picture of oneself, but it is not manly.

Laura writes:

You are right about the dog comment. I didn’t take it in on the first reading because I was focusing on Roger’s point that a man deserves affection. And, also it never occurs to me to think of men as dogs, except in a joking way.

Roger G. replies:

Anyway, there is a story they tell in Breadalbane, known to all us Ashkenazim. It goes like this:

Gordon of Achruach was at feud with Campbell of Kentallan, who hired certain Gregora, landless men, who took the Gordon unawares while he was hunting in the Mamore.  And they cut off his head and put it in a bag to show the Campbell that the work was done.  That was the way of it.

And as they fared for Kentallan the Gregora came by the Gordon’s door at Achruach, and went in, and the Gordon’s wife (little knowing she was a widow) bade them to table, as the custom is, and went out for the Athol brose.  And while she was gone the Gregora winked at one another, and set the Gordon’s head on a dish, with an apple in the mouth, to see what the good wife would make of it.  that is the Gregora for you, hell mend the black pack of them.

And the good wife came in, and saw her man’s head bloody on the board, but kept her countenance and said never a word, only smiled on the Gregora and bade them good cheer.  The Gregora wondered at this.  Has she not seen it? was in the mind of each of them.  Still she never looked at the head, but said a word to her ghillie and sent him forth.  And smiling on the Gregora, she told them a tale, never looking at the head, and held them spellbound, for she was great at the stories, and very fair besides.  The Gregora wondered, has she not seen it yet?  This is not canny, was in their minds, and they said they must be for the road, but she held them there by her tale and her presence, and so they bided whether they would or no.  That was the way of it.

And still she spoke and looked not on the head, until the ghillie returned with her men of Achruach, who came in swift and sudden and stood behind the Gregora seated, one to one, and each Gordon with his dirk at a dirty Gregora neck.  And she told on till the tale was done – aye, she was great at the stories – and then said she: “I see my man is come home, and has but an apple to eat.  Give him to drink also, wine red and warm.”  And at her word they they slew the Gregora where they sat, and the red blood ran.  That was the way of it.

And the ghillie said:  “Oh, mistress, how did you keep your countenance this long while in the presence of yon fell thing, and beguile these stark men?”  And she answered:  “The day I cannot keep my countenance, and hold men in their place and work my will on them, that is a day you will never see.”

That was the way of it.  That was a woman of the Gordons for you.

Laura writes:

Fortunately, the Gordon’s wife lived in a pre-feminist age. Thus her talents couldn’t run amok. In all likelihood, she wouldn’t have gotten away with refusing her husband descendants or treating him with contempt.

David C. writes:

Roger, that was a really great tale. I see my man is come home, and has but an apple to eat. Give him to drink also, wine red and warm.” And at her word they they slew the Gregora where they sat, and the red blood ran. Awesome!

Still, if you mean to present this tale as evidence that men are dogs, well — sure enough, you provided examples of men who acted like helpless, easily captivated animals. At the same time your tale proves the point that I think the rest of us guys (Youngfogey, John E., and I) are making: Look what happens to men who act like dogs.

Maybe this is precisely your point.

Roger writes:

Much thanks.

Oy. Of course I don’t mean literally that men are dogs. I’m trying (I’ll admit less than effectively) to make a point by means of exaggeration and humor.

If I’m mistaking the Christian perspective, I apologize, and please understand that I greatly respect Christianity and Christians. But I see the Christian (and particularly St. Paul’s?) take on this issue, and I agree with it entirely, as comprising three points:

1) The wife is to submit to the husband, and accept him as head of the family.

2) The husband is to see himself as a servant to his wife and children.

3) Each is to focus on his/her own duty, rather than that of the other.

And I see the feminists as yammering against point 1), while disregarding 2) and 3).

Jesse Powell writes:

The comments, from the prior post (“A Sterile Marriage”), “What is a man to do who was married while young to a woman who became increasingly feminist . . .” and “I might add that she is angry, bitter, spiteful and treats him with contempt” really do sound to me like there is a problem in the power dynamic of this marriage; that the man has allowed himself to become “beta”. Why would a wife become “increasingly feminist” in a marriage? It sounds like the wife has gained power at the husband’s expense; that the power dynamic of the relationship is deteriorating. Furthermore, a wife who “is angry, bitter, spiteful and treats (her husband) with contempt” is showing the classical signs of female resentment against a “beta” man. 

Women don’t like being in relationships with men who are “beta”, with men they can push around; a man needs to assert himself and to “lead”, to become “alpha”; I would even go so far as to say that being “alpha” is a part of a man’s duty and obligation towards his wife. I think that when women act in aggressive or domineering ways towards men this behavior is often misunderstand as the woman wanting to be in control and that therefore the man is being “nice” or accommodating the woman’s wishes when he gives in. This is the wrong way to look at assertive behavior in women. 

When a woman is assertive with a man her preference is that the man stand up to her and show that he is in charge, that he is willing and able to lead, and the woman’s second ranking preference is that she be in charge bossing the “beta male” around. You see, a woman wants to be led by a strong and competent man, that is her first choice, but if the man she is with is weak or “beta” then she wants to be in charge. By challenging the authority of the man the woman puts herself into the best situation she can be in; if the man is strong and “alpha” then the man will be able to assert his authority against the woman’s challenge and in this way maintain a healthy relationship. In both cases the woman wins because by challenging the man’s power she forces the man to reveal himself as either strong or weak and if the man is strong she submits to him, which is her preference, and if the man is weak she dominates him, which is her preference when she is with a weak man. 

A woman wants to submit to a strong man so that the man will be in a position to take care of her. If the man is weak and therefore unable to take care of her the woman wants to dominate the weak man so that she will be able to take care of herself. The woman who is with a weak man will then resent the man for his weakness since he is not taking care of her like he should. This is the dynamic that is in play when women challenge the power of men. 

I very much agree with Youngfogey when he says:

Any man whose attitude toward his wife is like that of a pet wanting approval and reward is failing to lead his family. Rather than being the woman’s pet, he is supposed to be her leader. It is his job to guide her, not her job to train him. 

I furthermore take issue with Roger G. when he says “If he’s making a living, bringing the money home, and treating her decently, she should love him to death and treat him like a king . . .” No, the man “bringing the money home” is not enough; the man has leadership and judgment responsibilities in addition to his “provider role”; a man has a duty to lead and exert authority in addition to, and as a part of, his “provide for and protect” role; the woman is entitled to the “alpha man” she longs for in her heart. 

It very much seems to me the husband whose wife is denying him children should look into ways of increasing his power and assertiveness in the marriage, learn some “game,” and envision himself as the rightful leader of his family taking on all the responsibilities that that entails, before he despairs that his marriage is irretrievably broken.

Roger responds:

Maybe we agree and disagree on some points. So live and be well. But this I say (to everyone). Enough with the Greek already! And keep Petruchio and Kate out of the audience and up on the stage! Eschew “games”! I admit the man does have to muster up enough courage to lay out 1)-3), as above. But do it directly; no ploys. If she’s not trying to live up, then muster more courage, send her down the road, and find another. No resorting to psy-ops; this is too important.

Please follow and like us: