She wants to have her cake, crumpets, and pie a la mode, and eat them too!
Length: 2,400 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes
In The Masculine Dilemma (2020 December 13), I described how men are often faced with a choice between two types of women: a woman whom they are sexually hard attracted to, or a woman who would actually make a good wife.
In The Christian Marriage Dilemma (2021 February 26), I discussed how Christian men seeking a wife are faced with a dilemma. Basically, the difficulty lies in the fact that western women who are nominally church-going Christians are notably less Christian-like than the typical non-Christian woman in other locations such as the far east. Much of this difference is due to acculturation, but the cultural convergence of churchianity amplifies the hypocrisy and denial.
The Feminine Dilemma (2018 October 27) illustrated the dyadic choice that women are faced with: being either dominant or submissive, and being either dependent on male authority, or being (sexually) independent.
We have a lot of dilemmas going on!
But it seems that Christian women have another dilemma of their own!
For example, Elspeth expressed that her daughters are having some difficulty in finding a suitable Christian husband. A discussion on this can be found under Novaseeker’s post, Deciphering Concepts of Attraction (2021 April 19).
“Sorry. I don’t know what else to tell you.
There are no palatable solutions. Currently, the only solution is for the Daughters to remain unmarried and sexless; or marry neomaxizoomdweebies and be unhappily having sex, and mostly sexless.
What you are looking for is an extremely tall order: A SAM Jr. You’re searching for a needle in 10,000 haystacks. This is a nearly impossible task. I don’t envy you.”
Is it really so confounded? Let’s examine this closely.
The Engineer’s Dilemma
Based on Carl’s syllogisms at Black Label Logic, The Engineer’s Dilemma is laid out as follows.
Major Premise: To get Y, [insert product] must be X.
Minor Premise: [Insert product] is not X.
Conclusion: Therefore, [insert product] cannot get Y.
In the engineer’s case, X and Y represent “higher quality” and “more sales volume”, respectively. (I’ve reversed X and Y as was given in Carl’s post to match real marketing behaviors.) The actual relationship is not linear, but more of a bell curve as shown in the image below. Here, price is an indicator of quality. The following discussion focuses on the area in the left half of the graph.
Since increasing quality is costly, the typical way that western engineers approach this dilemma is by adding value to the product. Asian engineers will increase utility and shave costs, leading to a very useful but low quality product.
Carl also illustrated how this syllogism can be widely applied to a number of cases.
Major Premise: To get success [the product] must be perfect.
Minor Premise: [The product] is not perfect.
Conclusion: Therefore [the product] cannot be successful.
This is a basic cause-effect relationship where it is assumed that people will prefer to buy a higher quality or “perfect” product, given that the price-for-quality is reasonably acceptable.
The Marriage Dilemma for women (Argument A)
The Feminine Marriage Dilemma is a variation of the Engineer’s Dilemma. Here, women try to engineer their relationships according to their desires, needs, preferences, and hypergamous liking. Applying this logic to the feminine viewpoint goes something like this.
Major Premise: To have a satisfying relationship/marriage, my husband must be reasonably* tall, reasonably* attractive, reasonably* successful, and have the “right”* combination of alpha/beta traits. (I’ll abbreviate this as “being worthy* of marriage” according to her estimations.)
* Here, “reasonably”, “right”, “good”, and “worthy” must be translated from femtalk because hiding behind these adjectives is a world of meaning that is never explicitly stated. The implication is that he must be above 6 feet tall and in the top 22%. Comprehensively, the bottom line is that all these qualities should satisfy the woman’s hypergamous filters, leading to a visceral state of attraction and comfort.
Through years of buck riding and error, most women eventually find the premises to be,
Minor Premise 1a: Men who are worthy* of marriage are not offering commitment.
Minor Premise 2a: Men who are offering commitment are not worthy* of marriage.
Conclusion: Therefore, I cannot get a good* husband.
Of course, if she does manage to marry, this conclusion continues to stand as a justifiable reason (in her mind) that her husband is not good* by whatever metric the hamster can churn out.
As we know, this combination of traits is already a dilemma in and of itself. The crux of this dilemma lies in the fact that women are seeking to maximize hypergamous opportunity. This is already well known around the sphere, but I want to point out that their spiritual motivation in doing so is to experience a sense of grace, meaning, women want to feel like they got a man who is better than what they deserve. But gaining satisfaction in this endeavor proves to be impossible because their expectations have been raised to an untenable zenith by cultural influences, and also through their experiences of bedding hawt Chadwicks. Furthermore, the precious princess entitlement complex prevents them from ever realizing how undeserving they are.
Of course, women are not as logical as this, but their internal assessment of the situation goes through the same kind of algorithm. IOW, they see that their favorite brand of cereal is not currently in stock on the shelf, so they think it is unavailable.
The Feminist Trilemma (Argument B)
As an alternative to the Marriage Dilemma, women who do not prioritize marriage are more than willing to engage in other ingénues to satisfy their personal prerogatives, at least until real world opportunities to do so have dried up. (This momentous occasion of a woman’s life is also called “hitting the wall” or “going over the falls”.) Much has already been written about this dynamic, so I won’t go into further detail here.
At the most basic limbic level, women are looking for a turn-key, ready-to-go Tingly Respect relationship. This much comes quite naturally to the feminine nature. But feminism has taught modern women to add on the qualification that he must be “respectful”, when once translated, means that he must be chivalrous without being embarrassingly obsequious. That is, he must supply a constant tap of resources and consistently offer affirmation. He must be subservient to her whimsical desires, must never violate her ego, and must let her do whatever the ħәll she pleases. In other words, he must fully enable her self-worship, and do so automatically and without questioning, which is an inversion of Headship mind you. This, as we well know, is contradictory by nature. Respectful men (according to this definition) are not Tingle-inducing men, and vice versa. So feminish women have an additional qualification which sets up an alternative dilemma (or a trilemma).
Minor Premise 1b: Men who are Tingle-inducing are not “respectful”.
Minor Premise 2b: Men who are “respectful” are not Tingle-inducing.
Conclusion: Therefore, I cannot find anyone who is worthy*.
Many women will find a compromise between 1b and 2b. This is a tolerable solution because the relationship is not expected to last much longer than what is required for an adequate resource extraction, and it is absolutely necessary for the man to be “respectful” in order for this scheme to work.
The Feminist Christian Marriage Quadrilemma (Argument C)
It will be shown that the oxymoronic title of this section is actually an accurate description of what I am about to describe.
To make matters more difficult, women coming from a Christian background are urged to add to this list of traits the additional qualification that he must also be a strong mature Christian (among many other things). Christian women are, of course, unwilling to sacrifice any of the trappings that secular women hold most dear, so for christianeasy women submerged in secular churchianity, the ridiculous argument then becomes…
Minor Premise 1c: Christian men (or the men at church) are not worthy*.
Minor Premise 2c: Men who are worthy* are not Christians.
Conclusion: Therefore, I cannot get a Christian husband.
* It is observed that most Christian men fall into the “respectful” category of Premise 1b, but fail on the Tingle-inducing requirement, therefore, they are not considered worthy*.
Putting all these arguments together, this rationale becomes a triple dilemma (or quadrilemma) that in their minds, looks like this.
Women hold out on marriage, thinking that they will somehow, by the grace of the Tingle god, stumble across a man with the perfect combination of all four traits, shown in the center of the figure above.
However, since there are no “respectful” men who can induce Tingles nor exercise headship, the real situation takes the following form.
However, this arrangement only holds true while women are young and pure. As they (1) age and (2) engage in more illicit sexual activities, the green circle (men who are offering commitment) gets pushed farther away from the red circle (men who induce the tingles) and closer to the blue circle (men who are respectful, but unable to produce Tingles).
By the time a woman has reached the wall, the diagram looks like this. Unfortunately, this is the time when women begin to think seriously about marriage. As you can see from the diagram, it is true that “There are no good* men left!” who are offering commitment. It is also noted that men who are truly Christian (i.e. able to deliver Headship) can no longer be “respectful” about it.
When faced with this quadrilemma, the majority of Christian women will prioritize the “Tingle” qualification (Premise 1b), and drop the “Christian” qualification (Premise 1c), and lately, even the “marriage” qualification (Premise 1a), and continue on with their lives. (Remember CH Maxim #10: Tingles uber alles.) But later in life, especially after children come along, the inherent difficulties in this compromise will rear its ugly head.
Too much Engineering, not enough Salesmanship
In the same post, Carl also described the Salesman’s Dilemma – trying to sell a low quality or defective product.
The logic statements for the Salesman’s Dilemma are the same (X and Y represent “higher quality/perfect product” and “sales volume”, respectively). The difference between the Engineer’s Dilemma and the Salesman’s Dilemma is one of context. The engineer is tinkering with X (trying to make a perfect product that will sell easily). The salesman is trying to maximize Y (trying to sell an imperfect product that is already engineered).
As such, the Salesman’s Dilemma has the X and Y variables reversed.
Major Premise: To get X, [insert product] must be Y.
Minor Premise: [Insert product] is not Y.
Conclusion: Therefore [Insert product] cannot get X.
Carl described this as follows.
“The major difference between the salesman and the engineer is that they are both avoiding having to do something they dislike, but they also want to avoid different forms of criticism. The salesman wants to avoid being criticized for not getting his product sold, because his identity is tied up in being a salesman. The engineer wants to avoid being criticized for building a bad product, because his identity is tied up in being an engineer. Both of them forget that most people aren’t salesmen or engineers and will not be able to tell the real difference.
This is more pronounced with the engineer, because he sees all the flaws in his product, and engineers have a tendency to be highly detail oriented people who have a mind that always seeks to improve whatever is their focus at a given time. The reason I refer to this as the Engineer’s Dilemma rather than the entrepreneur’s dilemma, is that there is an upper natural limit to the salesman’s activity, because once you make the sale, you usually get a date when the product has to be delivered. For the engineer, he can tinker for his entire life provided he doesn’t run out of funds and never reaches a state of perfection. For every flaw he fixes, he discovers a new one, for every prototype he builds he gains knowledge and experience that shows him a way to make it better.”
In my opinion, most women in the west these days concentrate too heavily on the engineering approach, and neglect the sales aspect.
Women also focus on quality more than on value. A salesman’s job is easy when he offers value at a reasonable price.
However, it stands to reason that women should focus on the sales approach before marriage, and the engineer approach after marriage.
Note: We also see women try to engineer procreation in the form of “family planning”. Here, it is often assumed that she should have either 1.61803 or 2.71828 children between the ages of 32 and 40. Children conceived before this window are quietly aborted. Children conceived after this window have a greater chance of being autistic, etc.
Confusion within the Feminine Christian Marriage Dilemma
In a previous post, The Feminine Dilemma (October 27, 2018), we analyzed how women must navigate a very complicated decision of whether to join with a man in a long term relationship, or else pursue an independent lifestyle. If a woman decides to have a male partner in any capacity, she must then choose which power structure she wishes to have in her relationship. Of note, it was found that a woman’s willingness to submit, and to be a help meet to a man, is a critical factor in determining her life path. Yet, we see so many women trying to pick and choose the most desirable facets of each of the outcome choices (that is, AF AND BB), while at the same time, doing everything within their power to evade the submission aspect.
The fact is that women who maxx their N count while neglecting submission and honeycraft practices are going to have fewer men offering proposals from which to choose, and those men who remain available to having an LTR are likely to be the low-power, submissive type of man (i.e. a feminist-type marriage arrangement). The reason for this is simply because men naturally gravitate towards, and offer LTR’s to women, who are submissive, respectful, agreeable, attractive, and so on, AKA, having a high MMV. Thus, it becomes quite apparent that those women who pursue an independent life path, such as Feminism, and the Courtly Love model, which requires a partnership, are naturally going to face a lot of cognitive dissonance.
Typically, the sales volume declines with an increase of a product price. It has been observed, however, that for some luxury goods the sales volume may increase when the price increases.
This bifurcation in sales volume is precisely the reason why Apple offers two models of the iPhone. One appeals to people on a limited budget who “just gotta have an iPhone”, while the other provides the extravagant quality that Apple is famous for, to those who are willing to pay for it.
Likewise, we see a bifurcation in the quality of women – women who go for the AF/BB Marriage 2.0 route that is toted by feminism, and women who prepare themselves for the long haul with a husband. This bifurcation was covered in an earlier post, DTF Cupid DTFCupid (2017 December 17). From men’s perspective, the lower quality woman appeals to those men who “just gotta have a hot chick”, while the other provides the quality of wife that appeals to men who are serious about commitment.
It stands to reason that if a woman desires a high quality man’s commitment, then she needs to put herself in the latter category of high quality wife material, which means that she needs to be looking for a husband long before the pool of worthy* men has drifted away from being an option for marriage. I’ll guess that 25 is “too late”. They also need to refine their skills at picking out men who are actually capable of offering a marital commitment, which may require her to choose a man who is a few years older than herself.
Women have grown better at “selling” themselves as sex objects, but they have forgotten the art of “selling” themselves as potential wives in marriage. The way to do this is to demonstrate her value to a man. My advice to Elspeth and other Christian parents with daughters is to give up the idea that a worthy man will miraculously show up on the doorstep, because we are living in hard times. Instead, it may be necessary for the daughter to pick out an eligible man and then do the work of proving to him that his life would actually be better with her as his wife. Give him the serendipitous sense that he’s getting something better than what he deserves. This kind of investment will not be lost on the man, but is likely to turn his view of her into wife goggles. It is my conviction that God will be faithful to return to her that which she gives to others. Of course, this kind of attitude needs to continue after marriage. If she doesn’t follow through, then it’s certain to be a rough ride.
This is so obvious to men, but why is this truth so obscure to women? I’m sure some of them never get the memo, but most are simply refusing to face up to this truth, humble themselves, and do the hard work of becoming a higher quality woman who provides real value to a man’s life.
- Twin’s Dad: Reading The Curve – The Quality vs Price aka Why Frugal Works (2020 March 8)
- Chegg Financial Studies: Sales volume increases with price for luxury goods
- Black Label Logic: The Engineers Dilemma (August 31, 2018)
- Radix Fidem: Encouraging Faith Under Persecution (2018 October 15)
- Σ Frame: The Christian Conundrum (2021 March 1)
- Σ Frame: Ethical Issues Surrounding the Christian Conundrum (2021 April 5)