THE RULES

[plotinus]

One day I was attending a colloquium at an astrophysics institute. When I was leaving, I walked through a corridor in a block of offices. On the door of one of the offices I saw a list of items entitled: THE RULES.


1. The Female always makes THE RULES.

2. THE RULES are subject to change without notice.

3. No Male can possible know all THE RULES.

4. If the Female suspects the Male knows all THE RULES, she must immediately change some of THE RULES.

5. The Female is never wrong.

6. If it appears the Female is wrong, it is because of a flagrant misunderstanding caused by something the Male did or said wrong.

7. If Rule #6 applies, the Male must apologize immediately for causing the misunderstanding.

8. The Female can change her mind at any time.

9. The Male must never change his mind without the express written consent of The Female.

10. The Female has every right to be angry or upset at any time.

11. The Male must remain calm at all times, unless the Female wants him to be angry or upset.

12. The Female must, under no circumstances, let the Male know whether she wants him to be angry or upset.

13. The Male is expected to read the mind of the Female at all times.

14. At all times, what is important is what the Female meant, not what she said.

15. If the Male doesn't abide by THE RULES, it is because he can't take the heat, lacks backbone, and is a wimp.

16. If the Female has PMS, all THE RULES are null and void and the Male must cater to her every whim.

17. Any attempt to document THE RULES could result in bodily harm.

18. If the Male, at any time, believes he is right, he must refer to Rule #5.


I could not resist the impulse to scribble the following at the bottom of the sheet:

NOW JUST WHO WAS IT, IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHO CAME UP WITH THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE RULES, ANYWAY?

塞 翁 失 馬

[Faust]

i wonder whether it was a male or female office.

[plotinus]

I think it is safe to assume that it was a man's office.

塞 翁 失 馬

[Carl G]

I've seen a version of those Rules before. It is typical reverse misogyny, the type so prevalent in today's popular media: the man is a boob who can't do anything right, and is practically a slave to the woman, who's smart and totally on the ball at all times.

And, this version has a blooper:

16. If the Female has PMS, all THE RULES are null and void and the Male must cater to her every whim.

Technically it would not be in the Female's interest to have any rules go null and void, since they are constructed all in her favor.

Not only was this list posted on the office door of probably a Male, it was most likely written by a man, too. Men love to place themselves beneath women, at least ideally.

[Faust]

Not only was this list posted on the office door of probably a Male, it was most likely written by a man, too. Men love to place themselves beneath women, at least ideally.

How sickly perverse. The ONLY time that I would place myself beneath a woman would be a sadomasochistic submission in sex, but other than that no shithole way. That may seem perverse to you but it's not, it's aesthetic. what do you think?

[Carl G]

The ONLY time

but other than that no shithole way.

what do you think?

I think it sounds redneck.

American term for good ol' boyish.

Run of the mill whitebread mysogeny.

[plotinus]

Lighten up, fellows! I think a little wry humour and satire was involved in the enterprise!

[Carl G]

Yah, pshaw, what are we thinking? It's definitely a man's world.

Actually we are just a bit sore 'cause in fact the little lady does run the show at our houses. That's why we like to give her a dig when we can, like here. And get to the bar after work, where we can quaff a few brewskis in peace, together. Meet us?

[sue hindmarsh]

Carl wrote:

Not only was this list posted on the office door of probably a Male, it was most likely written by a man, too.

Yes, written by a man who felt that 'his' list would have no effect on the status quo.

Men love to place themselves beneath women, at least ideally.

Men also like to consider themselves to be 'above' women. But this type of thinking is often observed in prisoners; as they find comfort and a sense of dignity considering their oppressors "the lesser beings".

.

[David Quinn]

The list was almost certainly written by a husband. He is outlining what almost every husband experiences with respect to his wife.

I wonder if the linguistic root of husband is "house bound".


-

[Nordicvs]

These were from "The Rules," by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider---a book about how to manipulate men into marriage (also a bestseller in the US from 1995 to 1997). Though I'm certain some version of them have been around as long as there have been "husbands" and something to write on.

(You can find a version of those Rules in this---good, free, online pdf---book by Jack Kammer, called "If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make All the Rules?")

I wonder if the linguistic root of husband is "house bound".
-

Right...marriage popped up the same time as husbandry.

husbandry

• noun 1 the care, cultivation, and breeding of crops and animals. 2 management and conservation of resources.

Comes from Old Norse: "hūs" (house) + "bōndi" (bound).

[Kelly Jones]

I wonder if the linguistic root of husband is "house bound".

I think it's house-band, as in, creating order and coherence.

A society with single mothers and thinkers, makes more sense than husbands and wives.


-

[David Quinn]

Nordicvs wrote:

These were from "The Rules," by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider---a book about how to manipulate men into marriage (also a bestseller in the US from 1995 to 1997). Though I'm certain some version of them have been around as long as there have been "husbands" and something to write on.

(You can find a version of those Rules in this---good, free, online pdf---book by Jack Kammer, called "If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make All the Rules?")

According to your link, the Rules were on a fax posted on a woman's office wall. As far as I know, they weren't composed by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider.

It would be perplexing if the Rules had really been composed by two women as a guide for manipulating men into marriage. Surely, a more appropriate list would be something like: dress attractively, always be ready for sex, laugh at his jokes, stroke his ego, cook him nice meals, etc.

From a female-intent-on-marriage point of view, the only benefit of these rules I can think of is that they could provide women with the confidence to believe in what they already think deep down.

But again, to me, these "rules" come straight from a husband's pleading heart.

-

[Shahrazad]

David,

Surely, a more appropriate list would be something like: dress attractively, always be ready for sex, laugh at his jokes, stroke his ego, cook him nice meals, etc.

Um, no. You obviously haven't read The Rules book that these two women published. They were more like: withhold sex for the first months (or years) of dating, never call him or return his calls, say no when he asks you out unless it's at least 3 days in advance, act unattached, be super busy, etc. In summary, play hard to get. Men love a good, long chase but they become bored after they catch the prey, and move on to the next hunt.

Men make it necessary for women to play these games, and some women are willing to play them. It's a matter of what your priorities are in life; if getting marrried is high on the list, game-playing is the price you pay.

.

[Kelly Jones]

I'm glad that Kammer's book's fault is the same as "What Men Know that Women Don't": expecting women to be conscious, responsible beings. It's very proper to make loud and vociferous demands when people aren't being fair.

However, so long as women remain wife-potential, they won't be able to come out of their intellectual cages. So, it is totally foolish for Kammer to include "Carlo's dating advice for men". It's a real psychological blooper.

I can easily imagine a woman creating THE RULES, a very bitter, repressed, and frightened woman. At the heart of woman is the belief that she must dominate all reality, and be perfectly safe and free --- but never have to work to gain this position. If my theory is correct, the "bitter authoress" became aware enough of this, to demand it in a fairly eloquent way. Basically, she is just saying, as long as she is regarded as "wife potential", she'll always believe her authoritarian self is perfectly justified. And this is true: if she is permitted to be the all-needs-taken-care-of centre of a man's life, then it's quite logical that she should demand never to have to do anything to deserve it.


-

Carlo "and 99% of guys" feel that a woman saying, "I just want to be friends" is a "kick in the guts", yet believe that attracting the most beautiful woman is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. If men intuitively know that women just don't know what friendship means, why would they think that a beautiful woman would? It's like a treatise on the abolition of slavery, ending with an advertisment for how to attract a new owner.



-

[David Quinn]

Shahrazad,

You obviously haven't read The Rules book that these two women published. They were more like: withhold sex for the first months (or years) of dating, never call him or return his calls, say no when he asks you out unless it's at least 3 days in advance, act unattached, be super busy, etc. In summary, play hard to get.

That's true. This would constitute a far better set of rules for the purpose at hand. Playing hard to get creates the illusion that the prize is more valuable. And in relative terms, it is.

To be chosen by a woman who is "hard to get" is to enter into very select company - or so the man likes to think. Of course, for those in the know, it is a sign that he is so mentally feeble that his genes have to do his thinking for him.

Men love a good, long chase but they become bored after they catch the prey, and move on to the next hunt.

Like dogs chasing cars.

-

[Faust]

The ONLY time

but other than that no shithole way.

what do you think?

I think it sounds redneck.

American term for good ol' boyish.

Run of the mill whitebread mysogeny.

wtf? It might be misogyny, but misogyny would be more sadism on my part. Read Venus in Furs to see where I'm coming from.

[Nordicvs]

According to your link, the Rules were on a fax posted on a woman's office wall. As far as I know, they weren't composed by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider.

Yeah, I checked some of the actual rules from that book: you're right---I was on the wrong page. Shahrazad nailed it. The Rules in the original post are women's 'secret' rules for men---the rules in Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider's book are for women to follow to 'get' their husband.

It would be perplexing if the Rules had really been composed by two women as a guide for manipulating men into marriage. Surely, a more appropriate list would be something like: dress attractively, always be ready for sex, laugh at his jokes, stroke his ego, cook him nice meals, etc.

I think that went out of style in the 1940s-50s. And from a feminist-age point of view, anything short of making him crawl on his belly for an hour, just to be granted the supreme right of touching her hand, will never do.

From a female-intent-on-marriage point of view, the only benefit of these rules I can think of is that they could provide women with the confidence to believe in what they already think deep down.

But again, to me, these "rules" come straight from a husband's pleading heart.

-

If by that last sentence you mean men want those rules---most do, I agree. Husband-wanna-bes in particular; the one's still suckling mommy's teat, they want all those rules, and more (for all the praise that is granted when they follow the rules and get rewarded like good dogs, just like dear ol' mommy used to do).

I'm glad that Kammer's book's fault is the same as "What Men Know that Women Don't": expecting women to be conscious, responsible beings. It's very proper to make loud and vociferous demands when people aren't being fair.

Kammer's book, somewhat similar to Zubaty's, though his more radical and far deeper, is for beginners---for men who generally (a) don't read a lot of books and of course (b) who are totally blind to/entranced by or-and sack-o-hammers' ignorant of Woman. It's generally a good beginner's guide to feminism, too.

One thing I hated about it though was the dating rubbish and its compromising theme here and there---which I understood, though: after all, it's not a philosophy book, it's more a pro-male relationship book, for guys who still want those things, or kids, or what have you. Also for suckers trapped in such relationships, to get their balls back, and their minds.

However, so long as women remain wife-potential, they won't be able to come out of their intellectual cages. So, it is totally foolish for Kammer to include "Carlo's dating advice for men". It's a real psychological blooper.

Probably. (I skipped over the "common sense dating" themed material, myself, so I don't recall any of that.) Though I doubt Kammer views "the feminine" as you or I or most do around here. (If he does, he didn't write much about it.)

Most of what's in that book guys (with some experience with women) already know, on some level, and either they couldn't put it into words before, or it was lingering fragmented or formless in their minds (as henids?), or else they never allowed themselves to really think about it (double-think feminization: "Wow, chicks can be so fucking vile and manipulative!"---shame snap!---"No, women are good and sweet and perfect!").

I'd recommend Kammer's book for real beginners, to start men thinking about some things they likely haven't thought before; after that Zubaty or maybe Robert Bly first, then some of the heavier stuff, like Quinn's (I haven't gotten round to Solway's stuff yet, so I wouldn't recommend that until I have), et cetera.

I can easily imagine a woman creating THE RULES, a very bitter, repressed, and frightened woman. At the heart of woman is the belief that she must dominate all reality, and be perfectly safe and free --- but never have to work to gain this position. If my theory is correct, the "bitter authoress" became aware enough of this, to demand it in a fairly eloquent way. Basically, she is just saying, as long as she is regarded as "wife potential", she'll always believe her authoritarian self is perfectly justified. And this is true: if she is permitted to be the all-needs-taken-care-of centre of a man's life, then it's quite logical that she should demand never to have to do anything to deserve it.

Makes sense.

[Kelly Jones]

either they couldn't put it into words before, or it was lingering fragmented or formless in their minds (as henids?), or else they never allowed themselves to really think about it (double-think feminization: "Wow, chicks can be so fucking vile and manipulative!"---shame snap!---"No, women are good and sweet and perfect!").

I love it. Great summary.

The fast slide into infantile attitudes, the less contrast there is with masculinity and reason. No wonder people think logic is harsh.

It's a bit like the "strawberry" Monkey Magic being regurgitated out of the comfy bowels of a lovely geisha, into the harsh cold air of independence. Born!

[Jamesh]

I fail to see why it matters that any group or person or thing is greater or lesser than any other.

It's all a game of blame, blame, blame for things that have been caused to be.

[Faust]

I fail to see why it matters that any group or person or thing is greater or lesser than any other.

It's all a game of blame, blame, blame for things that have been caused to be.

we're not blaming people, we want them to change.

[Dan Rowden]

I fail to see why it matters that any group or person or thing is greater or lesser than any other.

It's all a game of blame, blame, blame for things that have been caused to be.

You know this is an incoherent and self-defeating argument, so why do you keep making it? All judgements are contexual, and consciousness is by its nature contexual, so your complaint has no basis unless you can show that you are contradicting yourself, in which case you have no point anyway, which is my point.

[Nordicvs]

I love it. Great summary.

The fast slide into infantile attitudes, the less contrast there is with masculinity and reason. No wonder people think logic is harsh.

It's a bit like the "strawberry" Monkey Magic being regurgitated out of the comfy bowels of a lovely geisha, into the harsh cold air of independence. Born!

Aye, indeed.

It's all a game of blame, blame, blame for things that have been caused to be.

I'm not exactly sure to whom or in what context you posted that, but "blame culture" is fundamental to Shame Culture---and it's all wrapped up in the ego. The point of blame is to locate, assign fault and then install shame. It's a means to an end. I'm not sure who you think is doing that here.

[plotinus]

Women want mediocre men, and men are working to be as mediocre as possible. ---Margaret Mead

塞 翁 失 馬

[Esoterix]

:::::::::::::::::::
Edited for clarity
:::::::::::::::::::