The Moral Agency of Dogs

You have total responsibility and limited control.  It’s a labor of love.

Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Length: 1,600 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes + 31:35 minutes of videos

In our previous discussions, women’s level of moral agency has been compared to that of children.  This analogy seems to have been lost on some readers, and I’ll assume it’s because they have no children of their own.

As a philosophical exploration, let’s take a look at the moral agency of dogs.  Maybe this will resonate with those readers who can’t identify with the humbling experience of having children.

The Agency of Dogs is Determined by the Authority Structure

I never wondered whether dogs had agency until I had watched a few episodes of The Dog Whisperer, starring Cesar Millan. Take a look at this video and see for yourself.

Aggressive German Shepard Problem – Solved by Cesar Millan (2020/2/2) Length: 4:40

Here, Cesar points out that the German Shepherd, Savannah, is aggressive towards everyone because she can sense that her owner, Ron, lacks the ability to protect himself. If dogs can sense that their owner is weak and defenseless, then they will be motivated to act as a protector of the owner. If dogs feel their owner has no authority, then they will try to fill the vacuum of authority by asserting a place of authority themselves. So we see that dogs do have a sense of agency in defending their territory and protecting their owners and loved ones. But this agency is strongly dependent on the structure of authority. Dogs know instinctively who the top dog is, and they fall in line.

Cesar’s solution is for Ron to learn martial arts so that he can develop a sense of inner strength and self-confidence. After Ron practices karate for a while, he gains the confidence necessary to convince Savannah that he truly has authority and doesn’t need her to protect him. As you can see in the video, after Ron gets his inner game together, Savannah is much better behaved and is obedient to Ron’s lead.

Women are the same way. If they can’t get the sense that a man is confident and self-controlled, then they’ll feel insecure and try to assume a position of authority in the relationship. The difference between dogs and women is that dogs will try to protect their owner by being aggressive to everyone else, while women will try to destroy their marriages by taking their aggressions out on the man (e.g. contentiousness, fitness tests, etc.).

Agency and Testosterone

One important piece of information that we gained from Ron and Savannah’s story is that a dog’s exercise of agency conforms to the structure of authority. Apparently, this also applies to humans too.

Commenter Info brought our attention to a couple scholarly articles indicating that testosterone isn’t only associated with dominance but also submission to legitimate authority.

  1. Inoue, Y., Takahashi, T., Burriss, R.P. et al. Testosterone promotes either dominance or submissiveness in the Ultimatum Game depending on players’ social rank. Sci Rep 7, 5335 (2017). [DOI]
  2. D. Terburg, S. Syal, L.A. Rosenberger, S.J. Heany, D.J. Stein, J. van Honk, Testosterone abolishes implicit subordination in social anxiety. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 72 (2016), pp. 205-211. [DOI]

The first paper reports that testosterone promotes either dominance or submissiveness in the Ultimatum Game depending on players’ social rank. The second publication indicates that testosterone helps make people comfortable with subordination once a hierarchy is established.

Testosterone, and Agency, lends itself to the authority structure!

Agency and Trust

A small number of people are extremely skilled in managing their dogs. But some owners are clueless, lazy, and negligent about taking care of their dog.  They just want the dog to be well-behaved at all times and they get angry and frustrated with the dog when it doesn’t do what they want, and this only makes the dog more anxious and ill-behaved. In the next video, Cesar illustrates how to release a dog’s fears and insecurities and create an atmosphere in which the dog can trust in the authority of the owner.

Confronting Richard | Dog Whisperer (2012/7/31) Length: 2:46 minutes

As Cesar Millan demonstrates, most ill-behaved dogs are in a continual state of confusion and distrust of their owners, and so they behave accordingly. Cesar explains that the chihuahua, Richard, bites everyone because he is very insecure, has way too much power, and gets attention at the wrong time.

Cesar’s solution is to demonstrate his authority by confronting Richard until he can release his fears and anxieties, find rest, and learn to respect his authority. This is the first step towards trust.

Women are the same way. They will throw up all kinds of defense mechanisms (e.g. bulverizing, evading, gaslighting, lying, making excuses, etc.) until a man will confront them, demonstrate authority, and hold them accountable. The difference between dogs and women is that dogs will gradually grow to trust their owner more over time, while women will often doubt a man’s authority at the least sign of weakness and will backtrack to a more primitive state of reckoning, often in an attempt to usurp control (e.g. denying sex, secrecy, silent treatment, stonewalling, etc.).

Dogs have Personalities

In the video above, Cesar corraled a contentious chihuahua — a breed of dog known to be a belligerent fice. Such a dog needs to be contained in the home and not allowed to roam outside.

But let’s say you have a calm, friendly Collie.  She likes to run and play outside.  It would be morally cruel to keep her penned up in a small cage all the time.

Now let’s say you have a Rottweiler. If the Rottweiler bites the mail man, who is responsible for covering his medical bills?  It would not be unreasonable for him to expect the owner of the dog to pay.  If he did, then it would be the morally responsible thing to do.  If the mail man is seriously injured, then you might serve some prison time.

OTOH, if the Rottweiler bites a thief breaking into the home at night and incapacitates him enough to be apprehended by the law, then you have just done society a favor.

Dogs are Trained through Operant Conditioning

If you want your dog to be disciplined and well behaved, then you’ll have to learn how to use Classical and Operant Conditioning and mete out rewards and punishments at exactly the right moments, and on a continually ongoing basis. Cesar Milan demonstrates how to do this.

How To Train Your Puppy! (With Cesar Millan) (2022/4/15) Length: 24:49

As you can see, it requires a patient and full-time effort to dispense regular discipline, and it will take some time for the dog to learn.

For the moment, all discipline seems not to be pleasant, but painful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterward it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

Hebrews 12:11 (NASB)

Yes, we love and esteem those particular dogs (and women) that are well-behaved, well-disciplined, and well-trained!

Dogs have a Feral Nature

In spite of all the hard work you might do in teaching and disciplining the dog, the dog may relapse into feral behaviors at any time.  If this should happen, there is not much you can do other than to continue disciplining the dog.

A dog is short lived, 10 to 15 years at most.  (That’s about the same length of time that women are young, beautiful, and fertile.)

If you want your dog to have pure bred puppies, then you’ll have to do a bit of work to find another person who has a dog of the same breed as yours who is willing to let him out to breed.

If your dog copulates with the neighbor’s dog and has a litter of puppies, then whose puppies will they be?  Whose responsibility will they be? Who will have to buy dog food and supply medical care for these puppies?

If these puppies are mongrelized, whose fault is that?  Isn’t it because you let the dog out at night and left things to chance and mother nature?

What if you lived in a society that made it a punishable offense to put your dog on a leash, to keep it penned up, to teach or discipline it, or to arrange, limit, or restrict its shagging habits in any way?  And at the same time, this society also requires by law that you must take full responsibility for anything the dog does!

In this case, it is no longer a civilized society, but an enslavement to the dog-eat-dog law of the jungle!

This girl loves her siberian husky.

Conclusions

As we can observe from Cesar Milan’s expertise with canines, it’s somewhat juvenile to assume that dogs either have moral agency or they do not.  In reality, the agency demonstrated by dogs depends on…

  1. The structure of authority.
  2. The authoritative presence of the owner.
  3. The dog’s relationship with its owner.
  4. A history of Classical and Operant Conditioning.
  5. The nature / personality of the dog.
  6. The context of a given situation.

The most poignant lesson that Cesar teaches us is that relationships are dynamic, and a clear structure of firm authority and an established trust in that authority are paramount.

If you choose to have a dog, then you’ll need to spend a bit of time to care for the dog and teach it how to behave.  It will require expenses.  There will be times when the dog creates trouble, maybe even serious trouble.  Even the most well behaved animals are prone to the error of biting the hand that feeds them and regularly engaging in feral behaviors like shagging indiscriminately.

There will also be moments of excitement and joy.

As any dog owner will tell you, owning a dog is a labor of love.  People have dogs because they love them, in spite of all the time invested, the extra expenses, and having to sweep up hair, mop up urine, and scoop up sh!t on a daily basis.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Animal Kingdom, Boundaries, Calculated Risk Taking, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Collective Strength, Competence / Competition, Conflict Management, Conserving Power, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Determination, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Discipline, Discipline and Molding, Enduring Suffering, Female Evo-Psych, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Game, Game Theory, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Inner Game, Introspection, Joy, Leadership, Love, Male Power, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Parenting, Perseverance, Personal Domain, Personal Presentation, Persuasion, Power, Psychology, Purpose, Relationships, Respect, Science, Self-Concept, Sphere of Influence, Stewardship, Strategy, Teaching, The Power of God, Trust, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to The Moral Agency of Dogs

  1. info says:

    Even mad dogs get put down.

    Like

  2. okrahead says:

    Aaaannnd… you went there. Oh boy.

    Glad I wasn’t drinking coffee while reading this.

    A note on operant conditioning and rewards… Rewards will be most effective if randomized. Automatically giving a reward every time the desired behavior occurs will eventually lead to a negative feedback loop. “I will only perform the action if I know the reward is guaranteed.” Effective use of rewards should be unpredictable by the subject, which more or less correlates with game theory of behavior.

    Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      And we have yet another instance of science backing up RP observations.

      “A note on operant conditioning and rewards… Rewards will be most effective if randomized. Automatically giving a reward every time the desired behavior occurs will eventually lead to a negative feedback loop. “I will only perform the action if I know the reward is guaranteed.”

      From Heartiste’s 16 (or XVI) commandments of poon ….

      VI. Keep her guessing

      True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        sounds exhausting, still catering to her whims

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Lastmod,

        “sounds exhausting” is correct. If you cater to her whims you are doing the wrong work. The rewards are usually as simple as giving a compliment with a reason, such as “I really like what you’ve done decorating. It makes the house feel like a place to relax and enjoy.” This is not all that much effort because it’s something normal people do to show appreciation. I only do something like this when what she does something that fits what I want done for my home.

        Which brings me to the truest part of your comment, the work. Husband is the term for the married man because husbandry is absolutely the role. Once you get the farm and barnyard running well the work becomes easier maintenance work, but it never fully goes away.

        The work can be hard but most men don’t mind it when the work is put towards things they love. Think of a man tirelessly restoring a classic muscle car or spending hundreds of hours training a hunting dog. The man does not mind working on those things he loves because they please him and he’s making them better. Scott with Mychael is a marriage example of this being the case.

        Issues arrive in the marriage when the woman, who is meant to be plowed regularly and yield bounty for the husband’s farm refuses to be plowed or grows briars that choke out much of the bounty. Now the husband has hard choices to make. There is hard work in removing briars from the field and once they are there, they are almost certain to grow back. So the husband reevaluates the field and comes up with other, uses for it even though they will be less productive. There is still work to be done on the field, but it does not yield a bounty and he purposes the field for something that requires the minimum amount of effort on his part. When he does have to work on the field he knows that his efforts could be better spent on something else. This work is exhausting.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Anonymous says:

        We’re talking a wife / woman / help meet. Not a “pet” not a “dog” or some inanimate object like a muscle car (this is the example that is frequently used here….yet none of you have a restored 1968 Chevelle or 1969 Dodge Charger you’re working on…most of you like most men, have to take a car to a mechanic or a body shop to restore a paint job……also, what man has the time to raise his kids, train his wife, work 40 plus hors a week, all the other duties in church, on the farm, or whatever to “restore” a muscle car. The answer is zero.)

        All this work to just signal to other men “that you are gettin’ some” and to have her take half anyway when the divorces happens…..and if it doesnt happen, you are hamstering, running and spending a life training her, and she still may not obey.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “…yet none of you have a restored 1968 Chevelle or 1969 Dodge Charger you’re working on…”

        I restored a 1982 Honda CB400. Does that count?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        I worked at a local Rod and Resto shop when I was in college. The cars we restored were 1st place show winners. One appeared in Rod and Custom magazine. Had a couple classics of my own, including a 1953 Chevy Bel Aire, a 1968 Chrysler 300, and others…

        But I’m not sure any of that would count by your reckoning…

        Or you might think I’m just making all this stuff up to brag on an internet forum.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        No. He said muscle car. A 1982 Honda is not a muscle car, so no it doesn’t count.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “We’re talking a wife / woman / help meet. Not a “pet” not a “dog” or some inanimate object like a muscle car (this is the example that is frequently used here…. Yet none of you have a restored 1968 Chevelle or 1969 Dodge Charger you’re working on… Most of you, like most men, have to take a car to a mechanic or a body shop to restore a paint job…… Also, what man has the time to raise his kids, train his wife, work 40 plus hors a week, all the other duties in church, on the farm, or whatever to “restore” a muscle car. (The answer is zero.)

        All this work to just signal to other men that you are “gettin’ some” and to have her take half anyway when the divorces happens….. and if it doesn’t happen, you are hamstering, running and spending a life training her, and she still may not obey.”

        There is missing a point and then there is the above comment. There is no ambiguity at all because I came right out and said what the point was.

        “The man does not mind working on those things he loves because they please him and he’s making them better.”

        But for those of you in the back of class, here is the executive summary. A man puts time and effort into those things he loves and does not mind doing it. The effort does not seem like effort to him because he enjoys doing it. Conversely, those things that are a pain in his @$$ are a chore he has to deal with and for all the work he puts into these things it feels like lots of effort.

        Oscar —

        A 1982 Honda CB400 absolutely counts. I hope you have had years of enjoyment from it.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “A 1982 Honda CB400 absolutely counts. I hope you have had years of enjoyment from it.”

        It was fun, but I spent more time working on it than riding it, so I eventually got rid of it.

        Metaphor alert!

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        I have to work hard everyday at my job. Its a pain. Stress headaching induced career. I do it because its pretty much at my age “work or starve” and I promised since getting clean that ANY job I have I will do it better than anyone else.

        With that said……

        My rewards come when I “own” it and fix it. Usually its just a good nights sleep.

        I am in the “back of the class” because I was never allowed up front to begin with. I like the things I like for what they are…but comparing moral agency of women to pets, training a dog, restoring a “muscle car” is just more confusion and humble bragging of what you got, most didnt and more coming up will never get.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “I am in the “back of the class” because I was never allowed up front to begin with.”

        Wait… What? Just recently you said you were “part of an elite” when you were making six figures in the tech industry in the ’90s. Now you’re saying you were “never allowed up front to begin with”?

        At least one of those statements is a lie.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        Jack, you worked for a company that did this. It wasn’t you hauling the 1959 Plymouth (Christine) from the junk yard to the house and restoring it in your shop while working a career, married with children running around… i.e. having the time to do that….. while being a leader in church, getting 50K IOIs a day from women, going to college full time….

        That was a job you had. It wasn’t your hobby. If it was… I guess I have nothing to say.

        You guys are just experts on everything here.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        It was both a job and a hobby, but I didn’t work there for a paycheck. I worked there as part of an informal agreement that we would work on my own cars from time to time. Sometimes the owner would let me handle some minor repairs on my own and let me keep the cash payment from the customer. After I learned the tricks of the trade, I set up a body shop in my uncle’s garage and restored a couple old Chryslers for my cousin and uncle. My uncle’s car (a 1967 Chrysler 300) won awards in local car shows.

        I’ve spent countless days scrounging through old junk yards for parts and pieces. Some great memories there.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        No Oscar, you called me an elite and agreed because having a discussion with you about anything is pointless.

        I am in the back of the class, anything I have, I worked 10x harder than you because I am low IQ.

        I am in the back of the class because men like you cant and will not allow anyone to improve. Incessant put downs. The need to AMOG on any topic. You were the guy who flushed my head in the toilet in high school, and the tells me when I am older “aw, get over it, so what”

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Well Jack you sure showed me. I have nothing left to say on that.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “No Oscar, you called me an elite”

        You just lied again. I asked you if you were an elite when you were making six figures in the ’90s. You said that you were.

        You lie so often you can’t even keep your lies straight.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Man I wish had kept the pictures of the 1983 Nighthawk 650 I did. Totally on a budget in Mychales apartment garage when we were dating. I ordered the stickers from a vintage sticker place, used rattle can paint. Found all the used (but way cleaner) parts I needed on ebay, including a whole new exhaust. I paid like 500 bucks for it, not running. Put another 1000 into it and it was great ride during graduate school. Mychael loved riding on the back on super cheap dates to the beach or wherever on weekends.

        Like

    • Scott says:

      This is called an intermittent reinforcement schedule.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. feeriker says:

    Dogs may not have moral agency, but at least they give unconditional love and are (mostly) easily trainable in obedience to minimum standards of behavior.

    I find laughing nowadays whenever I see women with little more moral agency than their dogs attempting to train those same dogs.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Show me a family with a well trained dog, and I will almost guarantee you they have well behaved children.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Random A says:

        There is a definite hierarchy in a family with well-behaved children. You see them, you know mom is well-behaved and dad is at the head. They’re setting the examples the children follow. The family dog will recognize the authority, the hierarchy and the love present in such a family, and will be quite happy in this environment. Think of it as a pack.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Random A,

        Dogs appear to inherently know and accept hierarchal structures and thrive in them. There is a reason that dogs are man’s best friend after all. They see the man as their lead and fall in line.

        Like

  4. naturallyaspirated says:

    My thinking on this topic has narrowed to agency primarily being a woman’s choice to submit and accept the guidance and support of the men in her life. Her choices within that framework are largely dependent on the structure created for her. If/when she fails in some realm, it is usually a failure of submission to that structure, but it can be failure of those leading her.

    If the leadership guiding her is inconsistent / inadequate, it places her in a difficult position; failure is in some sense being imposed on her. (Her agency is not the issue.) She is not wired for consistent moral behavior without guidance. Along those lines, if her failures are ones of usurping leadership, then it’s a submission error which is primarily her agency run amok.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Yeah.

      The prime problem today is women not submitting to their husbands.

      I have no problem with women not submitting to men. If a woman doesn’t want to submit to a man, she needs to stay single her life long and do it all herself, including all provisioning for herself and all safety-security issues. She will need to assume prime responsibility for all of that herself.

      Liked by 3 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “I have no problem with women not submitting to men. If a woman doesn’t want to submit to a man, she needs to stay single her life long and do it all herself, including all provisioning for herself and all safety-security issues. She will need to assume prime responsibility for all of that herself.”

        Amen to that! I’d add, “And shut up about men being your problem. You’re your own problem… Deal with it yourself and stop blame shifting. You made those decisions in your youth, now you deal with the down line consequences of those decisions, just like men have to do.”

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Deti & RPB,

        This is where men can actually do something. Stop rescuing foolish women from the consequences of their foolishness.

        When a “strong, independent woman who don’t need no man” suddenly transforms into a damsel in distress, don’t fall for it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “When a “strong, independent woman who don’t need no man” suddenly transforms into a damsel in distress, don’t fall for it.”

        Agreed. This is a lesson the blue pill men need to learn, among others. I’ve noticed that a number of blue pilled, middle-aged men are susceptible to this. I know one 63 year old guy that is falling for a 61 year old woman (61!), who is a damsel in distress and also a master at love bombing men with attention. The blue pill fifty and sixty something men I’ve noticed just eat it up, like they’re freaking 20 some years old or something! And, it doesn’t have to be a sixty something woman, the forty somethings can get to them pretty easily too.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        RPB,

        Yes, Gen-X-and-older men are more susceptible to the trick. Millennials-and-younger men are less susceptible, but still need to be reminded.

        Don’t fall for it!

        Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        RPB. You hear older women lament, “I can’t find a man!”, day and night… and sure they don’t have the unlimited options when they were young, but… Several older women I know are online dating and still at 50 getting dates every week. I may have options with young women but a ton of simps are still chasing these 50-somethings! It’s ridiculous. That’s the last thing on my mind — dating women my own age — and women really don’t even expect me to accept a few of these old chicks who think they own me. The simps just cannot see that these same women ghost them for decades until retirement age. “Oh! It’s my soul mate!” Disgusting.

        Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “If the leadership guiding her is inconsistent / inadequate, it places her in a difficult position, failure is in some sense being imposed on her (her agency is not the issue). She is not wired for consistent moral behavior without guidance.”

      Here’s the reality problem with this sentiment. In 99.99% of all cases a wife just has to go along with whatever her man does. She chose him, now she lives with whatever it is that he does. Even if he doesn’t tell her what to do explicitly, she can be submissive by not hindering him in what he does.

      What actually happens is that the wife decides that what the husband is doing is not good enough and takes it upon herself to sin in one of two pathways. She either grabs for control outright or prods / nags / belittles him to take control the way she wants him to take control. Often its a little of both for a while until she decides he’s incompetent to lead the way she wants to be lead and fights for complete control.

      Mancaves are how men keep distance from wives like this. It’s also why men have became so proficient at distilling delicious spirits that they can then imbibe in their man caves.

      Back from the not so serious rabbit trail …. failure is not imposed on the wife by whatever lack of leadership is. She readily grabs failure and rides it for all its worth. If we take an honest look at scripture and ourselves, none of us are wired for constant moral behavior without guidance. Even with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our wiring will always be messed up until Heaven.

      Women sin against their husbands in God’s ordained hierarchy, the way that men sin against God in the hierarchy. The way God corrects us is the way we are to correct our wives.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        New concept … followership failure: The inability of a wife to accept she chose a man that does not “lead” the way she thinks he should.

        If it weren’t so true it would be d@mn funny.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        RPA, et al.,
        Followership Failure would be a subset of Unsubmissiveness, along with and very similar to Vanity Rebellion.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Of course Jack, but can you imagine a marriage seminar with a course on “Followership Failure”. It’s 100% true and comedy gold.

        Submissiveness is a term more to the conceptual side that most people don’t fully understand. Following is a concept that is ubiquitous. Hence “followership” directs the attention to what the person who is not leading should be doing. Plus it stands in stark contrast to the churchian “failure to lead” folks (FYI it’s almost impossible to fail to lead as a husband since the husband sets the tone and objectives for his family, over which he has dominion.)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        RPA,
        Yes, followership takes the focus off of “toxic masculinity” which is a red herring that is often used to deflect the discussion. Followership could also be framed as a demand without the usual trigger language (i.e. those horrible words, “obey”, “submit”, and “trust”). I think you’re on to something here!

        Liked by 1 person

  5. studentray57 says:

    How about a “shock collar” to keep them within the boundaries?

    Like

    • Lastmod says:

      lol. In the next few years, this will be touted as “an appropriate and logical thing to do to keep you wife and daughter in line” (your wife and daughter mind you, not theirs….they married feminine docile, obedient women)

      Liked by 1 person

      • studentray57 says:

        Lastmod, bitterness oozes out of your pores. You wear cynicism as a tuxedo and a top hat. As I cried out for help, the Holy Spirit led me to the Christian Manosphere.

        For the past 3 years I’ve read DS, Jack, Dalrock, and many others. Because of their obedience to the Holy Spirit and the Word, my 2nd marriage was saved, my oldest son’s marriage was saved, and my youngest son married a God fearing Virgin!

        It got worse before it got better, and God’s word wins the day. The “sh!t tests” are starting to get humorous nowadays. I’ve read a lot of your comments, and pray that you lay it all down at Calvary. Yahweh truly rewards those who diligently seek him.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lastmod says:

        So you are using the shock collar already?

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        DS says God doesn’t owe us anything, and this is a “faith of suffering”…

        You pray nothing of the sort for me. None of you do. If you are… your prayers are indeed going unanswered.

        Never wore a tux or a tophat. I’m not a PUA.

        Like

  6. Scott says:

    If your marriage has deteriorated to the point where you are imagining yourself as a pet owner to her pet in an analogy you may be in trouble.

    I will continue to bang this drum until I die.

    Techniques that are designed to extract behaviors from your spouse that you have constantly stay on top of (and she should be doing because she wants to) will make you resentful after a while.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Scott,

      The marriage is only in trouble if the husband thinks of his wife like a cat. If he thinks of her like a dog they are good to go. 🙂

      Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Also …

      “Techniques that are designed to extract behaviors from your spouse that you have constantly stay on top of (and she should be doing because she wants to) will make you resentful after a while.”

      It starts as resentment. It turns into survival mode where the man only cares that her behavior does not intrude on his life past whatever boundary he has set to make it worth staying. The marriage will be characterized by a husband that is irritable, generally withdrawn/guarded from his wife, short tempered with her, sharp tongued in his language with her and indifferent to how any of this effects her emotionally.

      Basically, he goes full ‘thedeti’. The ground rules are laid out for what it will take for him to stay and he’s intolerant of her even approaching his boundaries because he’s apathetic to the marriage. But he also realizes the cost to his finances and kids if he has to pull the pin on the grenade.

      He’ll never really open up to her again or trust her again. Life becomes accepting what is good enough, instead of God’s idea of a deep personal bond with a spouse, and he finds a way to muddle through for whatever his reasons are. She’ll feel all of this and eventually realize what she could have had but lost.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        “She’ll feel all of this and eventually realize what she could have had but lost.”

        Absolutely brother! You have described the second order and final effect of this as I see it. I’m not sure if [we] are right, but I hope so.

        I mean, at the end of her life, lying on her deathbed, does a contentious wife who nagged her husband and gave him grief for decades think to herself, “I am sure glad I kept after him like that. This is a just and right end.”

        Nuts!

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scott,

        Is does not take until the death bed. Mrs. Apostle went back to some old tactics, which I have zero patience for at this point in life and called out as being in bad faith (I made a call on something that was well within my biblical authority and she came back with a “but you do x” tactic). The discussion moved to text and she sent me this.

        “At the end of the day, we’re never going to be the couple that finds joy in out marriage bc we are unable to move beyond past hurts and neither of us feels lie the other truly has our back. That’s the sobering reality.”

        She’s just now realizing this after 12 years of limiting sex followed by 5 years of a sexless marriage (less than 5 times a year). Welcome to the party Mrs. A.

        Here is where I am at. I will know she has fully changed when she obeys. Those things that are my priorities become her priorities. Those things that are my desires are what she does. No excuses. No rationalizations for why she won’t/can’t do simple things for me that are well within my biblical authority as her husband.

        Until she finally fully submits she’ll get the proportional response from me. It took me nearly 20 years of her behavior to realize and then accept that Mrs. Apostle is a quid pro quo kind of person. Now that I know the rules she inherently lives by I can live by them too.

        It’s not what I thought marriage should be, but it is what I have. I have boundaries to make it all worth it to me and give my kids a stable family that will be to their benefit. Ideal? No. Reality? Yes. And it is still a life that is better than 99.999999% of all those in human history.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “Ideal? No. Reality? Yes. And it is still a life that is better than 99.999999% of all those in human history.”

        I think at some point, most men realize the difference between the ideal and the reality. At least, the fortunate ones do. It’s a thought something like, “No matter how much I obey God, no matter how faithful I am… In a world broken by sin, this is as good as it gets.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        I don’t want to psychoanalyze too much here, but hope you don’t mind if I take liberties.

        This:

        …we are unable to move beyond past hurts…

        Sounds like projection. My guess is, you, RPA could “move beyond past hurts” if the conditions were there (repentance and turning away from the behavior) because you are a man. Men have a natural ability to let bygones be bygones once accountability has been attained.

        I can’t tell you how many of my male friends I have hurt, gone to the and came clean and the issue was burried forever. It’s a guy thing.

        It is she who cannot “move beyond past hurts” and she is putting that voodoo on “we” to soothe herself by making it sound like something you both did wrong.

        In my first marriage, I was on the edge of my seat with forgiveness and forgetting the whole thing. I wanted so badly to forgive because I LOVE it when two people are fully restored. Any time I hear a story about it, I get tearful. It is a beautiful thing. The olive branch was held out and all she had to do was take it. But this process was denied — short circuited by stupid secular ideas like, “I think I just married the wrong guy”, and “I don’t think you have the tools to be the kind of man I need you to be.”

        I also bet that you have bent over backwards trying to atone for whatever wrongs you have committed to a near prostrating-yourself-level and never felt like those thing were truly let go.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        Hence, here we are talking about how to use classical and operant conditioning techniques perfected on salivating dogs and stupid pigeons to help men figure out how to get what should just be natural in marriage.

        This world is a stupid mess.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scott,

        “I also bet that you have bent over backwards trying to atone for whatever wrongs you have committed to a near prostrating-yourself-level and never felt like those thing were truly let go.”

        At one point I tried; notes telling her I loved her, flowers, 5 Love Language type stuff that didn’t work, but that is not the case now. All she had to do was follow along with me and have sex with me. But she pushed too far. Now, there are no apologies, no prostrating and no compromising what I want. Granted, what I want is well within any woman’s domain of control.

        I care that she is fit and muscular for her frame. I care about body composition, not size or weight. I care that she dresses in ways that I find attractive and sexually alluring (completely socially acceptable and common for the conservative South), even if these are things she does not want to do. I care that she prioritizes those things I want for my household over things that I don’t.

        Well, until she does those things that I like but are not ‘her favorite’, I will not do anything that is not ‘my favorite’ for her. And some of her things are bigger in time and cost. Tit for tat, quid pro quo, scratching each other’s back, whatever you want to call it, is the set of rules her behavior indicates are the rules she plays by. I think those rules are less than ideal, but if that is how she needs things to be to learn to be fully submissive, then I will not do anything for her that requires any sacrifice on my part she is not willing to make on hers.

        Basically, she made my life miserable being argumentative, contentious, and rebellious, and now I will have nothing but complete submission (obedience). Those aren’t the rules I prefer, but those are the rules of the game she understands. Those are the rules of the game I will no longer ignore. She may not like it but these are the rules of the house she constructed. (D@mn, I am beginning to sound like thedeti.)

        One of my issues is that I have trouble forgetting. As in, I can still see the facial expressions and hear her words and tones as if they happened yesterday. When I brought up how a bad sex life makes for a bad marriage and that made me think having kids with here was a bad idea she left the room without addressing my concerns and, smirking while looking over her shoulder, told me that not having kids was “a deal breaker for me.” (exact quote) I wanted to tell her that divorce was the only option but did not because God doesn’t like divorce (this is the BP version of me she eventually killed). I remember being in tears on my 41st birthday over the pain of a sexless marriage. It is the only time I’ve cried in front of her and she told me, “That’s not very attractive.” (exact quote) After months of trying to get her to act like an actual wife, the topic of all the past years of being denied sexually came up and she told me, “You’ll just have to get over it.” (exact quote)

        These are a handful of examples. There are many others that are in my memory as if I had recorded them a moment ago. It’s why I am no longer swayed by her emotions or accept a mere movement in the direction of what I’ve asked instead of doing all of what I have asked. It’s why I don’t apologize for wanting what I want and expecting her to comply with my wishes.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        “I remember being in tears on my 41st birthday over the pain of a sexless marriage. It is the only time I’ve cried in front of her and she told me, “That’s not very attractive.” (exact quote) After months of trying to get her to act like an actual wife, the topic of all the past years of being denied sexually came up and she told me, “You’ll just have to get over it.” (exact quote)”

        The howitzer of the husband’s ire is usually directed at distant targets that threaten the peace and stability of the home. However, when nearby threats are known, howitzers can be lowered to fire a horizontal trajectory at nearby targets.

        Slowly turning the handwheel until the nearby horizontal target is within sight.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        “Love languages”

        Dear God.

        Here’s why the “love languages” thing doesn’t work.

        First, it has appeal because it seems so intuitive. It has a truthyness to it. Sure, everyone gives and receives love in different ways. How lovely. Gosh. Why didn’t I think of this before?

        All normal healthy virile mens’ primary love language is sex. The euphemism in the book is “physical touch.” Whatever is second is a DISTANT second.

        “Physical touch” is code for “banging it out all hours of the night until the bed falls to pieces.”

        So, the man thinks:

        “This is great! Her love is [whatever it is]. I shall go to the marriage therapist in good faith and learn it! Whatever it is I will practice that language day and night! If it is words of affection I shall never stop showering her with poems and love words and praise and descriptions of my undying devotion. If it is acts of service I will spend all the days of my life fetching her things and performing whatever tasks she requests just like Wesley in the “Princess bride.” I shall do this every minute of the day! And she, also going into this in good faith will learn from this marriage authority figure that MY love language is rubbing bodies together in every position, all times of the day, every day until we are slipping up against each other from sweat! Surely the problem is she needs someone with a degree and a license to explain what I need. She will be so happy to have FINALLY figured what I need and we will live happily ever after!”

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

        Do folks reading along see how stupid this is?

        First: she already knows your love language. You have been explaining it, fighting over it, hammering out the details for years. She is not confused about this. Every time you have one of these fights, you are convinced it’s all straight now. And nothing changes.

        Second: she doesn’t care. In fact, she uses this knowledge to get you to behave in ways you would never do for any other human on this earth unless they were blackmailing you or threatening to kill your kids.

        Love languages…

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

        Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        The Love Language stuff is great IF you happen to share the same love languages. It makes communication smoother. But if you don’t have the same love languages, then you’ll never become as proficient in the other person’s love language such to come across as sincere. It will always appear belabored and sorta fake. Yet, once the topic has been breeched, the other person will expect immediate high quality responses. It’s so frustrating that it’s probably doing more harm than good.

        Scott’s description sounds like a covert contract.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scott,

        I forgot to answer this one last night.

        “My guess is, you, RPA could “move beyond past hurts” if the conditions were there (repentance and turning away from the behavior) because you are a man.”

        Yes I could move beyond past hurts. The reason is that I got an inkling of this in myself a couple months ago. I’d asked her to do something that is not her favorite but that I really like. She said she would. It was a moment where she was agreeing to finally being fully obedient with my request (vs the usual of only going as far as she wants and not doing all of what I ask). For a couple weeks I was genuinely happy and could see what marriage could be like.

        She never followed through and it brought me back to the reality of who she is. I have not broached the subject again nor will I. But when she asks for something she really wants, the answer is going to be not this time and that she is going to have to show me multiple years of changed behavior until I consider it. I’ve been down the road of her doing something for a shorter time to get what she wants and then stopping after she gets it. That is never happening again. The change has to be real and proven over an extended period of time prior to her getting anything.

        Those are just the rules she created with her past behavior.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “…she already knows your love language. … She is not confused about this.”

        Yes.

        Women know exactly what men want. A wife knows exactly what her husband wants. And women can and are able to give those things to us.

        It’s just that they don’t want to give those things to us. And it’s that they believe they don’t have to give those things to us. They believe they shouldn’t have to give those things to us.

        That’s the frustration.

        Liked by 3 people

  7. Dismas6875 says:

    Not to derail the conversation, but this popped in my (atheist) mind (serious question) – while I’m aware your different denominations may have different official stances about it: do dogs, or generally animals for that matter, have immortal souls?
    Thank you

    Like

    • Scott says:

      The text (and following tradition) only speaks about this once, and it suggests that animals have soul, but it is not immortal.

      Human souls are returned to God (to whom they belong) and the animals soul is returned to the ground (they just end and die).

      Like

      • Dismas6875 says:

        Thanks Scott!

        Like

      • Scott says:

        It’s a super thin argument, (based on one verse and the contemporary commentary) and probably doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of the story arc. In whatever way what animals have is like a “soul” what does it matter if it does not cross over into eternity?

        Like

      • Scott says:

        It does, however offer a rationale for not being cruel to them.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scott,

        I’ll offer that not being cruel to animals is part of Adam’s purpose of husbandry in the garden. The concept that those things that a man is responsible for are things he cares for to some extent, is true.

        I hunt and my ideal is a clean kill with little to no suffering. I want to eat meat and that means something tasty has to die, but unnecessary suffering is barbaric.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        I agree that having dominion over coupled with the commandment to be good stewards is the more compelling argument against unnecessary suffering and cruelty to animals.

        But the idea that man (and no other beings) is created in Gods image is ultimately the reason an ethical marksman is the preferred method of taking an animal is lost on most people.

        Even Christians I’m afraid are confused on this topic.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Walk into any random church and survey the crowd with the ethical dilemma, “If you were faced with a situation where you could only save the life of a stranger or your dog…” and they will not perform much better than their secular counterparts.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        They will come up with totally stupid sh!t like, “What if my dog is trained to save the stranger?” Or, “What if the stranger turns out to be Hitler?”

        The answer is wrapped up in the “image of God” matter.

        One human life is worth more all the giraffes in Africa.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @Scott

        All women who aren’t saved by the Blood of Christ will have their day in Court. Comes with the dignity of being “Imago Dei.”

        While rabid dogs get put down without such a thing. The fact is that women don’t even have that “accountability” in the West in particular.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Exodus 20:8-10
        8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.

        Deuteronomy 25:4
        You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.

        Treating animals that way had to have been revolutionary in a culture where the average human got treated far worse.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Scott says:

    “No matter how much I obey God, no matter how faithful I am… In a world broken by sin, this is as good as it gets.”

    Interesting. When I look at this world, with all it’s natural wonder, things to see, places to go, relationships to have, opportunities to take advantage of, I think to myself, “This is as bad as it will ever get.” (Because what is next? Eternal communion with God and the believers.)

    Taking stock of everything I have been given, even with the trainwreck of several bad painful-ending LTRs (not just my marriage) in the rearview window is still a net gain.

    In those relationships, I know without a doubt that I gave everything I had to make them work, the point of nearly giving myself a stroke.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      “Interesting. When I look at this world, with all it’s natural wonder, things to see, places to go, relationships to have, opportunities to take advantage of, I think to myself, “This is as bad as it will ever get.”

      Readers take note — the ultimate detachment!

      I know we still have an eternal hope, but personally, I still feel like I have failed with what I have been given.

      Luke 16:10-11 (ESV)
      10 “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. 11 If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?

      Being honest, trying your best, is no safeguard against failure. Perhaps I am too hard on myself?

      Like

    • cameron232 says:

      I’m happy for you that this is where you’re at Scott. From your accounts this wasn’t always the case, so it’s not clear this is the real you. You once suffered from depression, thoughts of su!cide, no? What changed for you? The sacramental life? Or is it just that you got the goods. The loving, affectionate wife and kids, the professional success and status. If the latter, your current worldview seems precarious and other men not as gifted and blessed can’t imitate it. I’d like to think it’s the sacramental life.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Cameron

        I am the living embodiment of Andy Dufresne.

        No, I was never falsely imprisoned for a murder I did not commit. But I have been to a pretty dark place in the wake of my divorce.

        In the book and movie, Andy is placed in solitary confinement for playing Mozart to the prison yard. And when he comes out, his friends notice that he is smiling. He says, “easiest time I have ever done”, which they find bewildering. He says, “I had Mr. Mozart to keep me company.” They thought he meant the warden let him bring the record player with him, but he explained to them that he just kept playing the music back to himself in his head.

        He says,

        “…there are places in this world that aren’t made out of stone. That there’s something inside… that they can’t get to, that they can’t touch. That’s yours.”

        Viktor Frankl writes about this in his book, “Man’s Search for Meaning.”

        “A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth-that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which a man can aspire.

        Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of human is through love and in love.

        I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for the brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved. In a position of utter desolation, when a man cannot express himself in positive action, when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings in the right way-an honorable way-in such a position man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved, achieve fulfillment.

        For the first time in my life I was able to understand the meaning of the words, “The angels are lost in perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory.”

        Yes, I was “suicidal” while in my own version of Frankl’s concentration camp and Dufresne’s solitary. But there is a place in my heart she couldn’t get to. A place where I was free to imagine any possible outcome I chose. I could envision a more perfected version of myself. A future me that was not in this canyon with a shotgun in my mouth thinking abut my cheating wife.

        As long as you can imagine that place and time exists, you will live. You must. You owe it to yourself to stay alive until it becomes reality. Mychael was not even a part of my imagination at that point. But I knew something like that existed, and I would either find it, or die trying.

        I have always been like that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Also, it is important to remember, in the Shawshank story, that two of Andy’s friends, Brooks and Red had the same choice set before them.

        Brooks chose death, and Red, scared out of his mind of the unknown chose to dream big and travel to Mexico to see his friend.

        “I hope to see my friend and shake his hand. I hope the pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams. I hope.”

        Montana is as beautiful as I imagined it in my dreams. And I would have gotten here, with or without the new wife and family.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Nietzche’s paradox about unrequited love – that the lover would not trade his love for indifference – seems to be answered by Frankl’s bliss in contemplation of his beloved. But when his beloved doesn’t reciprocate the bliss of such contemplation would be very fleeting. There’s a reason unrequited love is such a powerful negative experience.

        What good is Montana’s beauty without her? Montana can’t love you back. It’s cold like wife #1’s heart. I’m sure wife 1 was beautiful too.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Cameron-

        Here’s the thing. At the point Frankl was having this epiphany, he was cold, scraping for the little morsels at the bottom of the soup vat, another day of breaking up rocks or whatever, starving. He was near death.

        His wife was already dead, in another camp. But he did not know this.

        The vision he saw of her face, smiling, was a coping mechanism that kept him future-oriented. The actual vision, in my opinion, and experience, is less important than the ability to keep it clear in your head.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I get it Scott. As a psychologist you’re trained to recognize effective and ineffective coping mechanisms. She was dead but he didn’t know that. Ignorance is bliss I guess. What would have happened if he did know? What would have happened if there were no Mychael?

        It feels shameful to compare ourselves to a holocaust survivor with a dead wife. I guess if he can have hope and find bliss in contemplation of what he finds beautiful then we all can. But as a psychologist you have to know that there’s such a thing as subjective experience in how people process things.

        Thanks for the thoughts to meditate on.

        Like

      • caterpillar345 says:

        “The vision he saw of her face, smiling, was a coping mechanism that kept him future-oriented. The actual vision, in my opinion, and experience, is less important than the ability to keep it clear in your head.”

        @Scott,
        Isn’t this essentially the function of “seek you first the kingdom of God and all these things will be added to you“? A future-oriented vision that you’re driving towards?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Caterpillar-

        Its an interesting thought. I have long since thought of the Frankl quote as one of the most Christian-sounding things I have ever read, and he is a Jew.

        I think Frankl is saying that the most pure form love — love that you entreat whether or not the object of your affection loves you back — is the path to true contentment.

        He did not know if his wife was alive, and I don’t think it mattered. He conjured up a vision of her in his mind and focused his love on her like a laser beam. This kept him alive for the moment.

        I think this is related to what you are writing about.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Correction, “was” a Jew. He passed away in the early 90s.

        Like

  9. Lastmod says:

    The killer Pink Floyd song “Dogs” from the 1977 album “Animals” comes to mind, especially the last movement or “third” of the song:

    Who was born in a house full of pain
    Who was trained not to spit in the fan
    Who was told what to do by the man
    Who was broken by trained personnel
    Who was fitted with collar and chain
    Who was given a pat on the back
    Who was breaking away from the pack
    Who was only a stranger at home
    Who was ground down in the end
    Who was found dead on the phone
    Who was dragged down by the stone

    Our Friday meeting at work. I was TOLD. Not asked, “So Jason will be the manager contact on call for the Thanksgiving Holiday.” No thank you’s from the rest of the team.

    It was “assumed” that chump Jason will take the phone, will take the additional duties for calls in our 178 property portfolio here in Los Angeles. Jason doesnt have kids, family, a wife, plans, and IF he complains or gives reason as to WHY he should not be on call, we will gang-alpha him just like we all did in high school and he will submit. He doesn’t have a choice, we “the cool kids” have already decided this. We’ll tell him to be a good sport. Give a pat-on-the-back and smile and say how-important-he-is-to the-team, how he “belongs” and “matters”…

    (Same schlock I heard in church. “Go in the parking lot and direct traffic, Jake and Joan are a couple and have to be fed, and God believes families are important!!!!”)

    I nodded in acceptance. Making a protest, or defense as to why I should not would have men like Oscar calling me a whiner. Don’t want to be that! Real men take their assigned duties, unless its a task THEY feel they are above…..

    I know how to play the office game. A decision was made… without me. Nothing you can really do. Quit? Sure, go to another company and have the same thing happen. “Oh Jimmy has little ones.” “Jane is a first time grandma. She has to be there!” “We go by seniority here, so you are going to have to do this.”

    My second year here, and it has been dumped on me again. It will be the same with Christmas and New Years. “You don’t have children.” “Mike and his new flavor of the month are taking a very romantic weekend in Cabo during this holiday, he can’t cover it!” “You are not married. You are not getting IOIs from every woman in the office……. You “good sir” will do tasks like this.” Why? “Because we said so!”

    In the end, men like myself have to do this, or we’re not being a team player, and the whole office will look at me as if I am the one who hates children, is bitter, is jealous….

    And if I don’t stand up for myself, the same people will tell me, “You must like being a doormat, real men stand up for themselves!”

    Anyway…..

    Liked by 5 people

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

      In the end, men like myself have to do this, or we’re not being a team player, and the whole office will look at me as if I am the one who hates children, is bitter, is jealous….

      Jason, I’m saying this out of love, brother, but if you think they’re going to disrespect you either way then do what makes you happy and let them throw their tantrum. You’re going to have to choose who you respect more, yourself or the opinions of people who care not for you, because you’re not going to gain their approval by rolling over and being bitter about it. It’s your Thanksgiving too, you deserve to have a good one.

      P.S. This isn’t a “man up” speech. This is a “Jason is important too and needs to be a little selfish and love and respect himself, for the good of himself” speech.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Lastmod says:

        Garbage human being does the “garbage work”

        Kimd of where the dice fell. I mean, what was I doing anyway??????
        Go where for Thanksgiving? I was going to be sitting at home anyway. Its just the principle. Jason doesnt have children, isnt f*cking half the single women in this office, isnt a father. Is OLD compared to the rest here.

        I was kind of the obvious choice for this.

        Suppose I did put up a defense and “stood up for myself” and you were my co-worker with a wife and kids and family. You would protest. State “I have family!” as would everyone else, demand to see or have HR present to see firsthand how “people with families are treated by this company!”

        Really, in the end,……a decision was made, behind closed doors with a few “top people” and it was decided. It would surprise me if this was decided way back in January in some meeting that I was not invited to.

        It was announced this way on purpose to squelch any dissent from me (12 years at IBM…I knew exactly the technique and why it was done this way).

        My late mother was a RN. A good one. A senior OR nurse by the time she died. Countless Christmas mornings she had to be at work because she was a senior OR nurse. Emergencies happen. Plenty of “family” events were attended partly by her growing up. Someone who needs a bypass or has a stroke and needs immediate medical attention doesnt wait until “the presents are opened” or “the family holiday meal is finished”

        All the malls are open on Friday. Who will handle a flood? Who will handle the heat going off in one? What happens if there is an earthquake? Who will be the point of contacty? SOmeone has to be during holidays. Sadly, in the situation I am in…it will pretty much always have to be me.

        I dont like it. It makes feel useless, and cheap…and frankly, taken advantage of. What can I do? Demand the day off? Talk to the Executive like a “bratty little sister” and make her laugh and give the holiday to someone else, make them work?

        Really, I can’t. Scott could get away with saying “no” , a maybe few (nah, most of you could say “no”) but in a world like ours…….men again like me are loathed, but needed to keep things like this running. The odd thing is, its always been like this……..and for the life of me, I know if I was banging the boss, was married with little children, or deemed “hot” by the female staff, I wouldnt have been told I was “covering the holiday weekend”

        Liked by 5 people

  10. feeriker says:

    “[I]f I was banging the boss, was married with little children, or deemed “hot” by the female staff, I wouldn’t have been told I was “covering the holiday weekend”…

    For some reason I’m picturing the scene in the movie Office Space where the office is burning to the ground. Meanwhile, office doormat / punching bag Milton is half a world away sitting on a tropical beach sipping a cocktail.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      still being an a-hole too. To the staff at that resort. Milton didn’t contribute to that movie. Sure, he might have gotten a bit of the last laugh but people still didn’t “like him”

      Nor did he get Jennifer Aniston, or any other of the female characters. So did he really win? No, the hero was that actor……the one that gets the girla and passes the bad rash back on to folks like Milton.

      No, I am not a Milton, but I tell you……every office needs “that guy” who has to cover the weekends, the holidays, the emergencies while the rest can talk to their families, friends and dates and IOIs on “how important they are to their company”

      Hence why I never forget to drop into the janitors office or shop on ANY properties I supervise to say hello. Sit a spell, and get to know them. I know exactly what it feels like to be “ignored” at work while expected to make decisions like a CFO but be paid minimum wage….and corrected for not making the “right” decision.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Joe2 says:

        “…but I tell you…… every office needs “that guy” who has to cover the weekends, the holidays, the emergencies while the rest can talk to their families, friends and dates and IOIs on “how important they are to their company”…”

        A properly managed office has protocols in place for handling such situations rather than relying on ad hoc decision making or designating a “that guy” who is the fall guy who has to do the work.

        A good example are supermarkets which (in my area) are open to 3 PM on Thanksgiving Day. Some staff is needed to work (albeit skeleton) while the majority of the staff enjoys the holiday. Stores need and do have staffing protocols in place so the store continues to operate smoothly.

        The situation you find yourself in is the result of a management failure which is very surprising considering you work for a very large property management company.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Joe. Many stores offer extra pay for holidays and look for volunteers through that incentivization. At least that tells them they are valuable. I’m sure it doesn’t take the sting away.

        I don’t shop on the big holidays and avoid needing even gas stations. When my wife and I were first married (wedding 1 week before xmas) she worked at a pet store. We both went and cleaned puppy poop xmas morning.

        Like

  11. Red Pill Apostle says:

    Jack,

    “I think at some point, most men realize the difference between the ideal and the reality. At least, the fortunate ones do. It’s a thought something like, “No matter how much I obey God, no matter how faithful I am… In a world broken by sin, this is as good as it gets.”

    Stolen joy is the insidiousness of the prosperity gospel, which is implied by the act for reward logic in your quote. The reality of our human condition is that we deserve severe punishment in this world and in the eternal, but for whatever his reason God has stayed his wrath on earth for the moment, and poured it out on Christ for the eternal.

    So compared to what I am owed, my life is pretty d@mn good, even with all the brokenness in my marriage. I also have joy in knowing that God has put me on earth and given me my life for his purposes and that going through life I am fulfilling what he has for me to do.

    Think of Paul’s life. Lots of struggles on earth and none of them were because he wasn’t following God’s direction for his life.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Pingback: Did Eve have Agency? | Σ Frame

  13. Scott says:

    If anyone gets a chance, take a look at the netflix documentary “State of Alabama vs Brittany Smith”

    Quite typical mainstream narrative of “misogyny”

    The case concerns a woman who was attempting to use Alabamas “Stand Your Ground” law in her murder defense. She failed to make the case and is/was tried for murder.

    And of course, the “investigative” documentary is seeking to answer the question “are Stand Your Ground laws only for white men?”

    Please.

    The one fact of the case that the documentary never brings up (and I had to search the internet to learn) is that her brother brought a gun to the house and then she shot the victim with it.

    This is a form of “premeditated” self-defense that often does not work in these cases. If she had the ability to call her brother to bring over a gun, she could have fled. This, and other discrepancies in her story are what the prosecution and the judge (a woman) got hung up on, and ultimately denied the use of this defense tactic.

    There will never be a rational system in this country. Even “Stand your ground” is now a suspect concept, because white men.

    Like

    • Scott says:

      You don’t get to have someone bring a gun to your “self-defense” situation. This is what normal people call “murder.”

      Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Plus, there are so many good concealable options available these days that there is no need to have someone hold onto your premeditated self defense side arm because carrying ruins the way your outfit looks.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        With that said, you dont bring a gun to a riot looking for a fight, and when the fight happens “call it self defense” as the case with Rittenhouse

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Kind of but I think rittenhouse went to defend like a car lot of a friend or something.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. feeriker says:

    “I mean, at the end of her life, lying on her deathbed, does a contentious wife who nagged her husband and gave him grief for decades think to herself, “I am sure glad I kept after him like that. This is a just and right end.”

    I really do believe that some of them must think / say exactly that. Just like I’m sure that on Judgment Day some of these same women are going to argue with God, the Almighty Creator, to His face when He imposes obviously just eternal punishment upon them.

    Like

  15. thedeti says:

    Everyone is in a contemplative mood.

    In all this, I like to think I have hope. I have always had hope that things will get better. I’ve never been divorced. I’ve never been suicidal over Mrs. deti’s maltreatment of me, though I’ve been pretty low at times.

    My dad turned 83 last week. His wife of over 53 years – my mother -died in March 2o21. She’s been gone just under 2 years.

    He misses her terribly. He says “I was with her 53 years, and it wasn’t long enough.” This despite her bad treatment of him. This despite him having to spend much of his retirement caring for her while she was ailing.

    Dad still gets up and goes to a courthouse bailiff job a couple days a week. Sings in the church choir. Drives 100 miles or so to visit me now and then. Even has a lady friend he has lunch with sometimes (but he doesn’t talk about this very much). He still seems to enjoy life. He still seems to have some hope.

    Think I’ll do that too.

    Liked by 5 people

  16. Pingback: Jack on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: What we’ve learned about Female Agency | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s