Briffaults law

I will start by stating that this submission has only peripheral connections to Thailand. However, it harkens back to Who is a Whore by Korski, to Brokenmans situation, and to several recent submissions on Stickmans weekly column. The common thread is the question of why women do what they do; or more precisely, how they are capable of some of the things they do after all we have done for them? I will admit to a life long, and fruitless, search for the answers to these seemingly eternal mysteries. Fruitless that is, until now. In my research of all things on the net (i.e. mindless surfing) I came upon a truly remarkable statement that explains much, if not all, female behavior. I found it by tracing back a reference made in a very interesting newspaper article, Brides of the State, first published in the "Inside Cork" newspaper, Thursday 8 July 2004. Note that we are talking behavior, which is observable fact, and not thinking or desires. Freud said that no one knows what women want. That opinion remains true, as far as I can tell. Like all truly great discoveries, such as E=MC2 or F=MA, what I found that explains the unified field theory of womens behavior is elegantly simple. What I found was Briffaults Law. (Skip the following paragraph if you are not interested in the man behind the law.) From Wikipidia: Robert Briffault was a novelist, historian, social anthropologist, and surgeon. He was born in Nice, France of a French father and a Scottish mother. After the death of his father, Briffault and his Scottish-born mother immigrated to New Zealand. In May 1896 he married Anna Clarke; the couple had three children, Lister, Muriel, and Joan, born from 1897 to 1901. Briffault received his MB, ChB from the University of Dunedin in New Zealand in 1905 and commenced medical practice. After service on the Western Front during World War I, he settled in England, his wife having died. In the late 1920s he married again, to Herma Hoyt (1898-1981), an American writer and translator. <Note: The new wife was one year younger than his oldest child. A man after my own heart.> He can be seen as French, Scottish, New Zealander (Kiwi), English (Pom), or, by marriage, American (Yank). The point of this is to state the credentials of the author and to show that this law has been there for many years; we just needed to find it. BRIFFAULTS LAW: The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. There are a few corollaries I would add: 1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2. Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1) 3. A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely). Let us start by saying much of the discussion on the Stickman site seems to start from the belief that Thai women are somehow different from all other women, both in the good and the bad. And that their actions derive from the cultural milieu in which they were reared; and therefore no western man can really understand their thinking without intensive cross cultural study. I posit that this is BS. No man can ever understand what is going on inside the head of any woman, of any culture, including their own, no matter how much they study. We should not kid ourselves. The best we can hope to do is observe their behaviors and roll with the punches. This is where Briffaults Law is vital. All women associate with any man only so long as they derive a benefit from the association. This can not be stated too many times. A bit of recent data that supports this proposition comes from a recent study done in the UK. The findings were that for a period from the early 1990s to the early 2000s, 90% of UK women practiced hypergamy. Hypergamy is a 15 cent (about 7 pence in GBPs) word for marrying up. The hypothesis in the study was; do women exhibit hypergamy, or not. You start with assuming not, and then disprove that. If they do not, then roughly 50% would marry up and 50% would marry down. During the period of the study 90% of UK women married men that made more money than they did, or had greater wealth. The 90% marrying up rate provides ample evidence that the women exhibit hypergamy behavior. These were not poor daughters of Isaan rice farmers. This was not a developing country. This behavior could be observed anywhere in the world and at any time in history. Before discovering Briffaults Law, I came to a similar independent, although not so well or concisely stated, conclusion. A few years ago, while arguing with my six sisters about my intentions to marry a Filipina half my age (marriage number 4 so I am a slow learner), they argued that she was just marrying me to get a better life. After a few seconds of reflection I retorted that this was true for every woman in the world marrying any man. This left them with no response. After all, who among us ever marries to have a worse life? We all hope that it will be an improvement. With women it is doubly so, since they have no intention of actually working to improve their lives. So, lets get to Korskis question, Who is a Whore, and my initial response, They all are. By Briffaults Law if a woman is associating with you (assuming you are a man) then she is doing it because she sees some benefit, either current, or in the future, from that association. How is this different from the bargirl on Soi Cowboy? I think only in the duration of the intended association, the amount of benefit expected, and in the womans acceptance of delay in getting that benefit. Guys, lets get real about this. It is past time to take off the rose colored glasses. How does this help? If you know going in that she is there to derive a benefit, then make sure you are willing and able to provide that benefit, that you are willing and able to continue to

provide that benefit, and that the cost to you of providing that benefit is worth the benefit you derive from the association. Be fully aware that when the benefit to her stops, the relationship will stop. Have no illusions. This is true in the UK, France, America, Thailand, and everywhere else. So, if you spend every dime in your retirement fund to build her and/or her mother a house (in her name of course), do not expect that the association will continue. You must say no early and often so you preserve your ability to provide a continuing benefit. If you drain all your resources, then you get what you should expect (see corollary 1). Keep control of your money, only you will be responsible with it, because you had to earn it. After my first divorce I commiserated with a female secretary that was at least two decades older than me, and who was herself divorced. When I told her that I had let my wife run the family finances (common in 80% of married couples in the USA), and that she had run us deep into debt, she told me, Any man that turns over his paycheck to a woman is a fool. I would add that giving any woman every penny you have in the world is just asking her to kick you to the curb and walk away from you. Deriving mutual benefits from a relationship is not a bad thing. Where Brokenman and the rest of us men lose the plot is when we expect past benefit provided to the woman to continue generating current or future association (see corollary 1). Loyalty, honor, gratitude, and duty are male values that we men project on women, but which very few, to no, women actually possess. We arent born with these values; they are drummed into us from the cradle on by society/culture, our families, and most definitely by the women in our lives (sorry, but that includes you too, Mom). Women get different indoctrination, so they have different values; mostly, for a woman, whatever is good for her and her (biological) children is what is best, full stop. So, do not expect that the woman in your life will be grateful, and sacrifice for you, when you can no longer provide for her and hers. And make no mistake, you have never been, and never will be, part of what is hers. What are hers will be first herself, then her (biological) children, then her parents, then her siblings, and then the rest of her blood relatives. The biological imperative has always been to extend her blood line. It stops there, and it always will. This is true everywhere in the world. Get over it. Men love women, but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends. How many women are willing to die for their husbands, friends, country, or comrades in arms? Damn few, if any. Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). How many men continue on in their marriages, supporting their family and their wife, while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most. Women do not behave like this. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband, she will not have insurance. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. She could care less what happens to the husband, and doesnt want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo, after she dies. The life insurance gender statistics are well known, and widely available. None of this should be a shocking revelation. When my second wife died, her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teachers union covered her funeral expenses. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350,000 my life insurance would have paid.

When does the expectation of mutual benefit in marriage go seriously wrong in the west? It goes wrong as soon as the I Dos are said, or very shortly thereafter. Why is this so? Because you, the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride, and where the bride has promised nothing. By the way, the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have, including your children, and most of what you will ever make in the future, when (not if) she decides to dump you. Hence, once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. Everything you have, or will have, is already hers. Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too, the first time I heard it, during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. She asked me the eternal female question, What do you do for me? (i.e. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded, I pay all your expenses. I feed, clothe, and house you. And, I am paying for your college tuition. She told me that all the money I earned was her money and that if she let me have any of it that was pure charity on her part, so I was doing nothing for her. I thought this was unduly harsh. The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. The wife has it all, and can make her part of the marriage contract, the portion where she is to provide you with companionship, comfort, loyalty, sex, etc., null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married (see corollary 2). (What is the difference between regular Barbie doll and divorced Barbie doll? Divorced Barbie comes with her stuff and all of Kens stuff too.) This seems a totally destructive state of affairs. Recently many in the western nations have been up in arms over a law passed in, I believe, Saudi Arabia that said if a married woman refuses her husband sex, then he can refuse to feed her. All are screaming it is Islamic misogyny. Seems to me, it is an equal degree of enforcement for both sides of a contract. Presenting Briffaults Law is a duty I felt I owed to the readership, as a public service. We all need to take off the blinders. You will get from women exactly what you should expect; if you keep Briffaults Law (and my corollaries) in mind. Knowing this earlier in life would have saved me a lot of pain. I hope it helps some of you out there keep a hand on the reins. All of us, men and women, will be happier if men take charge of their relationships and their finances.

Unequal in arguments While we might expect men to be more forceful than women in marital arguments, the research shows just the opposite, surprising our expectations. Women tend to be more insistent, according to various researchers including John Gottman [i] at the University of Washington. Women argue more in almost half again as many marriages as men. In the most lopsided arguments where only one argues and the other remains silent, by a ratio of 6 to 1, it is the woman who continues to argue and the man who remains silent. So in these most severe arguments, we see an almost complete separation between men and women. Men are typically more stressed and confused in arguments with women and remain bitter for

longer afterward, while women are more comfortable amid verbal jousts, recover from them more quickly, and are ready for another round. Generally, it is fair to say that men are more intimidated in confrontations with women than the other way around. Men tend to concede, placate, or withdraw in arguments with women, thereby allowing women set the standards were what is or is not acceptable in the relationship. As in the above animation, it is ordinarily the woman who sets the standards and the man who tries not to offend. Insistence has been a viable tactic for women, to test the strength of a commitment, while a reluctance to offend has been a more viable for men, who must rely on women to transport their genes into the next generation. Chivalrous Standards We hear little of chivalry, and some consider it nothing more than a flimsy folk-tale. Yet human passions are highly chivalrous, supporting women and protecting them from men who might harm them. An illustration or two should suffice. A man and a woman are in a nightclub, and quarrel. If he throws an ounce of whiskey in her face, it is clearly an assault, and an undercover policeman would arrest him on the spot and jail him. If she throws a splash of whiskey at him, it is merely a rebuff or perhaps an expression of exasperation. Who would want to jail her? Surely, anyone who did would be unwelcome back at the club. Men who understand temperamental women gain their admiration, and perhaps their sexual favors as well, whereas men who offend women are treated accordingly. We are not chivalrous simply because men are physically stronger. A Justice survey [ii] asked men and women to judge the seriousness of various transgressions. If a man stabbing a woman to death with a knife is rated a 10, meaning truly heinous and indeed unforgivable, then a woman stabbing a man to death with a knife is rated only a 6, meaning surely serious but perhaps understandable under the circumstances. Why so? Men have been expected to protect women, and the lowlife thug who knifes a woman is hardly a man at all. On the other hand, a woman who just whacked her mate is still very much a woman, and furthermore, she may be quite available, although a tad risky. A man who understands her predicament surely gains her favor, and may join with her later to sire rug-rats with similarly understanding attitudes. Men who catch a few blows file police complaints only a tenth as often as do battered women, and so seldom come to our attention. [iii] Here again, our public conduct follows our genetic interests. What sort of fool would hand his wife over to the men in authority and probably lose her, just because she takes a swing or two? A woman, on the other hand, must count on a man for her safety, and she benefits from punishing the reckless egotist who goes too far over the line. Chivalrous Tinted Glasses. Human culture appears to be naturally chivalrous, supporting women against offending men, more than it is sexist, as is commonly claimed, supporting men against women. Why do so many believe otherwise? We are now expected to compliment women on their multiple talents and many achievements,

while it is considered sexist and terribly improper to notice limitations or moral failings. And it is now somewhat improper to honor men for any special strengths and virtues, as it can offend women, while it is conspicuously commonplace to condemn men for the many ways men mistreat women. So social propriety exaggerates some facets and conceals others, yielding a highly biased impression of men and women. Chivalry itself is a master magician, here painting an illusion of culture as callously un-chivalrous and prejudiced against women while concealing itself as the agent of its own illusion. " A man defending husbands vs. wives or men vs. women has got about as much chance as a traffic policeman trying to stop a mad dog by blowing two whistles." -Ring Lardner The Challenge So far as boys and young men are to mature into responsible adults and continue to contribute to our society, our next generation of males must learn to sort through the prejudice and gain confidence in themselves and in what men typically contribute to our shared quality of life. Young men must understand what is socially proper to say, in order to get along, and yet realize the realities behind the propriety, to use as a foundation for confidence and for constructive contribution.

i. J. Gottman and R. Levenson, "The Social Psychophysiology of Marriage." In P. Noller and M. Fitzpatric (eds.), Perspectives on Marital Interaction (Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters, 1988), 182 202. ii. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Crime Severity (Washington, D.C.: US-GPO, 1985): as cited in W. Farrell, 1994, 214. iii. Suzanne Steinmetz, The cycle of violence. Assertive, aggressive, and abusive family interaction (New York: Praeger Press, 1977).

How Women Manipulate: Essays Toward Gynology on: June 25, 2007, 01:09:51 PM How Women Manipulate: Essays Toward Gynology

H E Relationships :: Sexuality :: email posted Saturday, 16 July 2005 by David C. Morrow Ideally, relationships are equal. Equality is fragile and fairly rare; a few persons like and respect each other enough to create it, but its usually the result of defined roles and tradeoffs, i. e. Ill bear and rear your children if youll support and protect us. Most often people try to dominate others and every organization is to some extent hierarchical. The military, and to a lesser degree businesses are examples of designed hierarchies. To get a larger perspective, feudalism isnt the opposite of democracy since it balances statuses with mutual obligations. Absolute monarchies and totalitarian states are their respective opposites. In hierarchies and whenever standards break down peoples normal self-interest causes a struggle for dominance, which is whats happening I our gender situation and why were mainly concerned with informal interpersonal struggles. People who try to control others are here called aggressors and those they attack victims. Aggressors use four methods we can term, in order of increasing subtlety, coercion, extortion, manipulation, and habituation. Our main interest is how women use manipulation and habituation, but the first two methods are also important and are easier to understand. With few exceptions only governments can use coercion, which here means injuring and killing victims, and they use it to take advantage of weaker states as well as for internal regulation. Criminals use it for profit, sex, fun, and such attendant purposes as eliminating witnesses. Coercion usually brings quick results. Most victims try to minimize their pain and few witnesses will risk victimization. Unless totally helpless, victims must be quickly overcome so they wont escape or harm the aggressor, and may be so badly damaged they become useless except as entertainment or examples. Victims will fight back if enough are attacked or even threatened often enough, especially by coercion not used according to accepted rules or if the aggressor has underestimated them. Despite the usual corruption the United States built in limits to government coercion work fairly well except in certain areas. The IRS is a familiar example. Another is psychiatrists, who can not only impose stigmatizing labels but imprison, drug, shock, and operate on persons whether or not they actually need it. A tendency not controlled in many societies, though the Communists struggles against cults of personality seems to have been an attempt, is for aggressors to become heroes. Chivalry is our prime example. Women are generally not punished for violence and feminists have worked to extend the privilege. Now women can not only cut out and kill mens unborn children but maim and murder men on the basis of date rape and recovered memories.

Extortion is the use of threat. It may be set up by coercion but is often indirect, as when the aggressor convinces victims that obedience is the way to avoid disease, fear, loneliness, or the like. The IRS is again an example; though it can prosecute, it usually relies on the desire to avoid threats and repetitions of bureaucratic procedures. Employers use fear of losing home, family, and future not only to get people to work and follow rules but to harass them for fun. Extortion can be a custom. Men can be forced into the military by threats of prison and death while women cant. Since its not as immediately destructive as coercion, extortion can be long lasting. It can accelerate into violence if the victim despairs or gains an advantage; the famous Charles Atlas ads are a pop culture depiction of this. A victims resources may be consumed, as when a protection racket bankrupts a client or insurance rates rise too high to be affordable. An aggressor may become dependent on the victim like the pampered elite unable to survive without servants. Manipulation and habituation form a different category of control methods because they arent directly based on the survival instinct. Manipulation, instead, uses the social and individual motives that psychologist Abraham Maslow called higher needs and claimed came to the fore when a person was safe and healthy. This is what gives manipulation its peculiar advantage. Manipulation has a single basis to which six strategies are applied, usually in various combinations. Fundamental, most important and oddly difficult to grasp, is that it uses what people want, not what they need. People will simply take what they need and if they are threatened their survival instinct will eventually take over even if futile or suicidal, but most will play by the rules to get what they want and only try harder if told they cant have it. This is why luxuries, which are useless or at least superfluous, are expensive and necessities cheap, and why few people will steal or kill to marry or social climb or get rich, which makes crime news and manipulation relatively safe. Since it uses victims personal motives and traits, manipulation often appears to them as well as to others to be their voluntary self-serving activity rather than an aggressors attack. Manipulation doesnt necessarily consume victims strength and resources, thus allowing them to be ridden and cheated for decades of otherwise productive lives. Theres no inbuilt defense since being manipulated, like having a neurosis, is actually a form of self-actualization that doesnt work as intended. Overcoming manipulation, often even becoming aware of it, therefore requires hard and likely embarrassing work and defense against it tends to look like pettiness or ingratitude if not an unwarranted attack on an innocent person or helpful friend. Likely the most difficult to see of the six strategies is use of victims consistencies and repetitions. Most activities, however complex, from driving to work to distinctive mannerisms are habitual and unconscious. Manipulators interfere with habits to cause anger or anxiety and accommodate them to arouse feelings of security and companionship. Since people are reluctant to discuss habits even if aware of them, and look silly accusing someone of interfering with or imitating them, they can for example be easily hurt while made to appear ill tempered via habit blocking. Institutions establish routines not only for efficiency, but to create and so control such unconscious behavior. Its hard to say whether Richard Driscoll and Nancy Ann Daviss recent publication is the anti-PC, straight-shooting relationship book we need or a reductive apology and excuse for sexism. The married authors both have doctorates, specialize in relationship therapy, and combine sociology and marriage counseling in one book. You Still Dont Understand: Typical Differences Between Men and Women and How to Resolve Them gives an interesting, alternative view of how relationships work but often goes too far with its sexist rhetoric. The book (the title of which comes from Deborah Tannens You Just Dont Understand, a bestselling work on gender relations) begins with a summary of the subjects to be addressed: casual sex, compensation for sexual favors, argument styles, moral standards, approaches to problems, and fatherhoods role in our society. The authors main point here is that because our brains process information and emotions differently, men focus on sex and women desire resources and connectedness. Their takeaway for all of us, though, is, Remind yourself that lust is not a good judge of human character. As the book progresses, the authors statements continue to be partly based on our historical and genetic underpinnings, and partly cause for outrage. Remember that in our formative years, most cultures allowed polygamy, even though few men had the resources to support a second wife, the authors write. A woman who is always contented with her man allows him to

feel he is doing so well that he could maybe have room for another woman in his life. In other words, ladies, dont be too happy with your partner, or you may drive him to look elsewhere! Stop being so happy! Its all your fault! The second part of the book brings us the authors view that chivalrous misunderstandings explain the falsity of phenomena such as women working harder than men and men earning more than women. Driscoll and Davis provide data, cited in the endnotes, to show that men and women actually work about the same number of hours once home and office hours are combined and that men earn more simply because they work more hours in higher paying jobs. Forget the wage gap: Despite what other experts have found to be the case, the authors believe that men are currently getting the short shrift and are not being recognized for their sacrifices. Toward the end of the book, the authors segue into a more advice-oriented tone. They provide techniques of communication, conflict, and understanding, with research contradicting our assumptions about what each gender does. For instance, they say, men are seen as cads and commitment-phobic when, in reality, women initiate divorce or separation about twice as often (in any given decade back to the 1930s). Even though a woman may not be the first to want to leave the relationship, oftentimes men stay out of a sense of obligation until the woman has had enough. This obligation has both evolutionary and chivalrous origins, were told: The caveman who bonded strongly with a woman stood a much better chance of passing on his genes. (Evolutionary psychologists may disagree with the authors interpretations here.) Overall, the book tells us, women are more independent and less emotionally involved than men, but need much more reassurance while in a relationship. Finally, the authors state, our popular cultural meme of Whatever you say, dear is actually quite true in that men who do what their wives wish (supposedly) have happier marriages. There is an incredible number of relationship advice books out there, and You Still Dont Understand is, at the very least, fairly unique. While reading it, I couldnt immediately tell if my negative reaction to some of the authors conclusions came from a knee-jerk response to what society has told me is anti-feminist rhetoric, or from true disagreement with their ideas. Statements such as Soldiers are men because men can be trained to sacrifice themselves in ways we would ordinarily not expect of women, or, simply, Its a girl thing, smack of outright sexism. The most egregious case is perhaps in Chapter 9, which states that working women cause conflict because it is unnatural to have *the+ woman away from home and subject to the power of another man. (This is assuming, of course, that the womans supervisor is even male.) Not to mention the part where a woman who is too contented with her man gives him permission to take on a second partner. These conclusions are reductive, and insulting to both men and women. To be fair, the book has some high points. It is well-written; it cites research to back up even its more out-there claims. And, sometimes, it is hard to sort out when the authors are simply relaying sociological, historical, and genetic reasoning, when they are misinterpreting research, and when they are giving advice or suggesting change. They clearly do not intend to offend though that doesnt mean they are not offensive yet they take pride in addressing gender in a politically incorrect way. Some readers may agree that feminist ideology has tended to be taken to the illogical extreme: that because women are equal to men, women are the same as men. I would posit that just because we are equal does not mean we are identical. But the way that Driscoll and Davis approach this perspective is too heavy-handed. All in all, it may be interesting to learn about the authors ideas, but those ideas are bound to irritate many readers.