Jenny Riddell takes a tougher line. “All secrets tell you something about yourself.
Even the most superficial lie has a story behind it that is representative of a deeper truth. Some people lie about things like getting a parking ticket or breaking something precious, because they are scared of their partner’s anger, so why then do you want to avoid anger?
If you have to lie about buying your tenth pair of shoes this month, why are you buying so many? Perhaps the only good secret is one where you realise at some level that you are keeping things back to avoid harming your partner, but you know it says more about you than about them.”
Strange way to start an article, in at the deep end.
Throughout that Times article, the consistent theme was childishness, a new infantilization of women [while men have always been like that], an intolerance and a seeking for justifications, any justification for destructive behaviours. Marriages have always been made or broken by women – they are the little engine in there, plugging away either supportively or destructively … and destructively in a subtle way that the man is often unaware of.
That article can only sow the seeds of doubt in men about their partners.
There are massive lies being churned out in our society today, from the political utopia of the socialists which is just plain unsustainable through to the personal front. There’s no accident in it whatsoever but that’s the subject of a whole series of posts I’d rather not get into here.
What is lacking, what is missing, is a culture of tolerance in very key ways.
There is the faux governmental enforced tolerance to contend with, making firms take on young, disabled, black, gay, foreign women in preference to anyone else, there is the faux tolerance which calls anyone with a divergent opinion racist or sexist and this rubbish is swamping not just the new generation but it is also backwashing into previous generations who feel they’re missing our on the fun or more seriously, on a “chance of happiness” they’re constructing for themselves, not really knowing how to measure happiness any more, failing to realize that happiness is created and the deepest fulfilment is in working hard with a partner to create something worthwhile.
Said one self-forgiver:
“I have occasional harmless crushes, delicious fragments of a fantasy life that can also, if I am wise enough, tell me some important things about my life.”
This was said by one woman interviewed for the article and note her age – 45 and her job – architect, a professional woman. Note the little self-justification – “harmless” crushes. How harmless would the husband she’s cheating on see that as being?
I know a couple of men too and some women who have “harmless little crushes” and it is ultimately corrosive to the relationship. Another woman says, in the article:
The trouble with modern relationships is that we are supposed to share every intimacy.
What a bizarre statement.
No dear, the trouble with modern relationships is precisely the opposite – that people are withdrawing into their own world more and more and not sharing intimacies.
It’s getting like two parallel and separate entities temporarily travelling alongside one another, as long as the one doesn’t impinge on the pleasures and interests of the other, a quite destructive mindset with no chance of success in the long term.
It’s incredible selfishness and that article’s author finds over a hundred women of like mind to bolster her case. That’s the other tendency – the snowballing effect. Issues come up in the home but Jane down the road has had a fling, Caroline, her other friend has had one too, it’s all quite harmless provided you’re secretive about it, so I want my slice of the action too.
It excludes any sort of real solution – perhaps actually trying to work it out together?
Anyone remember the word “together”? I don’t see it anywhere in this article, in a national newspaper, read by people up and down the country. And if these readers are already thinking along the lines of the justifications in the article, offered in a sort of, “We’re all people of the world, aren’t we?” then it is hugely corrosive.
There is also this myth that our partner must somehow complete us – the idea of a soul mate.
Who said it was a myth?
If it was a myth, then the whole structure of relations in society would not be based around it and the vast majority of feminist thinkers who’ve peddled this garbage to women through the media, home journals, Cosmopolitan and so on, through film and television, might be vindicated.
But women are waking up, sometimes at a very late stage, that they do want the home and family, that it is not a dirty word; they know it is something they’re told not to want because they’re told they can only find fulfilment alone and that women alone are happier with a bicycle.
There is this constant drip drip drip of destructive ideas masquerading as home truths and calling black white and white black.
Women are being told they’re not happy and so they try this “not being happy” on for size and the Grima Wormtongues beside them whisper, “There, you see, you’re not happy, are you? Be yourself, ditch men.” Then a national daily runs a poll and finds [let’s pull a numer out of the air]: “63% of women are not happy in marriage,” and women up and down the country feel it must be so.
Nowhere in this is found the simple notion that the most fulfilling state for anyone is in a loving, caring relationship. That’s never presented as the poll question. Never.
So many defences are erected against the notion of fulfilling one’s partner, except in a negative way – not fulfilling the partner, using extrinsic criteria.
“Society’s moved on since then,” is one of the worst constructs trotted out, the idea that not trying at all is somehow modern, in keeping with our onwards and upwards path, that commitment, fidelity, genuinely trying, great tolerance and willingness to be elastic enough because you want it to work – that that is somehow old-fashioned, something your grandparents did and then you convince yourself [or let others convince you] that they weren’t happy, on the grounds that you know of strife they had in their marriages.
What is never said is that despite all the strife, so many of that generation would not have swapped that state of marriage for today’s climate of people living in their own little boxes, so many people doing it at the pleasure of the state and on benefits. “Oh yes, well they didn’t know any better, they weren’t spoiled for choice as we are today,” is the reaction to those of two generations ago.
There is zero justification for painting a picture of the past as one unhappy couple after another, right across the nation – that was not how it was at all. Fortunately the songs and literature of the time, the popular material, not the Sylvia Plath type, show that people accepted the institution and even embraced it.
In the time warp which was the Russia of the 1990s [it’s all disintegrated along western lines now], there was a quite poignant moment for me.
It was supper time so I went to the kitchen, as I do, to help out with the preparation. I was set in my place by my girlfriend who had quite firm ideas what my purpose was and didn’t want me encroaching on her area. Now I didn’t like that any more than the western culture’s selfishness in relationships. I spoke to her about that and told her that in the west, women would be horrified that she was getting me my supper.
“I’m not getting you your supper. I’m getting us our supper and I want it done the way I like. You can cook for me on Friday – should be amusing.”
That had zero to do with gender roles and how men are oppressing women and how the only fulfilment for a woman is alone and the only fulfilment for a man is as a Don Juan. It was simply that she wanted to do it. That was all. She wanted to do things because she cared and quite a bit of it, admittedly, was because the culture expected it.
It had the effect on me of wanting to do things for her. The whole thing was cumulative. I became more concerned with her welfare than if she’d insisted on her own “rights” in the relationship, as western women are urged to do.
The obvious question is why I’m still not with her.
For many reasons, not least being that I succumbed and then she did as well, to precisely the cr-p that is being peddled by this woman in her Times article. The number one reason she quoted later, after it was all over and we rediscovered one another, was that I didn’t give her the time she needed. You see, there were distractions, she saw that and she became distracted too and I can tell you the lovers were lined up to take over my position with her.
The Times article quotes a woman whose partner and she were separated for business reasons. “I immediately started to feel lonely, she said and so I had an affair.” That was the sum total of it, if not the exact words – read it for yourself.
What sort of constancy was that? What sort of pathetic creature would immediately drop into an affair, justifying it in tears that she just couldn’t help herself, could she? I mean, what bloody chance does society have with that attitude that the moment your partner is away, you succumb to “natural” temptations which everyone is meant to forgive you for?
One thing the article did say right was:
So where does the line lie these days between the secrets that are essential for a contented life together, and those that undermine the trust that is equally important?
“The difference lies in the motivation,” says Paula Hall. “If the secrecy is about maintaining your autonomy, then that’s OK. But if it’s about a deceit that breaches the trust between you, then it is more dangerous.”
“The really toxic secrets create drift and stop you feeling intimacy with your partner,” says Cecilia d’Felice [psychologist].
Giving space and handling secrets – two key factors.
But there is one more – our moral code. We still have the vestiges – because utter destruction of values takes generations, not just a few years – of the model of two faithful partners making a life together and then a family. It is not specifically Judaeo-Christian but the moral code which wraps around it and stood the test of time for so long was Judaeo-Christian and it did prevent ideas taking hold which have been shown to be so destructive.
There’s no panacea here.
People are weak and selfish no matter what code they’re under. But the Judaeo-Christian model of morality did tend to stay people’s hands, in the sense that it prevented widespread Sodom and Gomorrah type scenarios, where the old fed on the young and all sorts of behaviour needed bigger and bigger fixes for satisfaction – today in other words.
The notion of personal satisfaction always replaces “fulfilment through giving” when society is softened up by destructive forces, a very subtle shift at the start but the thin edge of the wedge and the Stones even sang about it – can’t get no satisfaction.
No you can’t get no satisfaction when you’re substituting fixes, drugs, whether sex or narcotics or whatever obsession you like, in place of the deeper contentment which mutual giving provides.
We have a great deal of mysogyny out there today. This is partly a reaction against the misandry of women who can only see one side of the question. Such women are called feminists. It’s also the way the government has got behind all the wrong causes [e.g. the CSA] and bashing men is a popular pasttime. And then it is the third force I’m always writing of on this blog – Them – who know full well that this type of attitude can only break up society along gender lines and create deep resentment. The State walks in and picks up the pieces.
Young men need to be educated that women need respect and protection, not because they demand it in a whinging way but because they make themselves worthy of it and even if they don’t, to offer it to them anyway, the manly thing to do.
Young men need older men, not women, telling them this and we need the old style of educator back in schools – fair, firm and friendly, a role model himself and instilling in boys the principles of chivalry as a matter of style and taste.
In combination with this, we need lady educators of the old school as well, instructing girls in the way grandmothers used to do, on how to go about achieving the ends they want, using their very femininity and protecting their virginity as a lever of delayed gratification for the male, to achieve those ends, most importantly – respect.
But far more important than this – that’s an ancillary role in the kids’ lives – we need parents to work closely together, showing the kids what is possible between a man and a woman and providing the role models upon which the kids’ base their values.
Just as the whole Albion Alliance thing relies entirely on grassroots action at local level, so the “right relation” between the sexes depends very much on the role model the parents present.
Further reading here.