In-Charge Women and Slumping Men

Paleo Retiree writes:

Here’s a little scene I witnessed the other day at an airport:

Woman superior

There’s much to be remarked on in this photo where current relations between the sexes go. As for the woman: her attitude of wide-awake in-chargeness: her broadly-spread, crossed legs, as aggressive as a pro baseball player’s, taking up space purely for the pleasure of establishing a territorial claim; the CEO-in-the-making zigzag of her spine; the combo of intensity and aloofness in her facial expression, pressing her point home coldly and firmly. She’s all cockiness, assertiveness, impatience, guidance, and command. As for the b.f.: slumped-over, exhausted, submissive, soft and collapsed. What’s more to be said about him?

But what I found myself  focusing on was the placement of the woman’s right hand. Was she really rubbing and scratching the back of her man-boy’s head and neck? Yup, she really was. Here’s my reading of her gesture: She was stroking her b.f. as though calming, placating, soothing and controlling either a very young boy or a small, temperamental, and not very bright pet. She’s showing her man no more respect than she would a new purse. Maybe less, in fact: Hubby/b.f. as a lifestyle accessory.

In recent years I’ve witnessed many, many young women treating their men this way; and I’ve seen many, many young men accepting this kind of treatment — and, for all I know, even welcoming it.

It’s hard to convey how repulsive this looks to an old-timer, and by “old timer” I mean something like “any guy who did a little growing up before ’70s feminism.” I can assure readers that almost no man of my generation would allow himself to be treated like this by his woman. It can be mega-lovely to accept touching, stroking and attention from a lady-mate, god knows. But soothing is something that should happen in private, not public. And even when you do choose to accept some womanly warmth, affection and sympathy  — and if you aren’t going to get that from your woman, why are you bothering with her at all? — it’s something that you should never do submissively.

Were today’s young men never taught the meaning of the word “self-respect”?


About Paleo Retiree

Onetime media flunky and movie buff and very glad to have left that mess behind. Formerly Michael Blowhard of the cultureblog Now a rootless parasite and bon vivant on a quest to find the perfectly-crafted artisanal cocktail.
This entry was posted in Photography, Sex, Trends, Women men and fashion and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to In-Charge Women and Slumping Men

  1. Your Daddy says:

    You manboobed mangina….. if you ever had the balls to look up WHY men are going their own way and why cunts are acting like (or faking acting like) men … you would realize your blaming of men for female induced civilizational destruction is another reason why men lose. YOU aren’t a Man, you’re a Eunuch. Neither man, nor woman and too dumb to be operating your computer. Learn some game for fuck’s sake.


    • LOL. I’m also apparently not man enough to be able to tell whether or not you’re a bot or just an inadvertent self-parody. Care to enlighten? (Apologies, by the way, if you’re doing a deadpan imitation of a Manosphere idiot to be funny. If so: well-played.)


      • Converted Mangina says:

        oh my god. You have changed the entire world view of the manosphere with your snark. Now take those jiggling man-tits off the internet cause you’re obvioously not interested in self improvement …. or maybe you are…level 10 Masturbator! 😉

        All bow down to the Snarky Lil Twat. Ode to fapness xD


  2. Caramba says:

    The guy is asleep, give him a break. He will wake up and beat her merciless for doing this lol


  3. My guess is that the authors of Heartiste are gay. One of my friends recently remarked that the feminists and the men’s issues guys deserve one another.
    Few people are even aware of the men’s issues movement. My experience is that the guys within it are almost all bisexual or gay. This is almost never reported, but the gay male community split over the scapegoating of men that is feminism. Most of that community went to the gay activist camp and built a phony history of persecution at the hands of straight men as a way to deflect the lingering stigma of the AIDS epidemic. A substantial minority went to the men’s issues camp.
    So, I’m increasingly seeing Heartiste as drama queens vs. fag hags. I’m not denying that that’s entertaining. But, the old version, i.e., the Ridiculous Theater, was funnier.


    • Caramba says:

      “My experience is that the guys within it are almost all bisexual or gay.” There is only one way to gain such experience…


    • ironrailsironweights says:

      I’ve always been rather suspicious of Roissy’s fascination with butt sex. While he goes on about doing it to women, my concerted belief is that men who constantly talk about doing anal to women secretly fantasize about being on the other side of the equation, so to speak.



      • Bill Brasky says:


        I remember a lot of references to it in what little I’ve seen of that faggot McFarlane’s Family Guy…Always seemed so weird to me when guys are into that.


  4. Sad Clown says:

    Sleeping is so beta.


  5. burke says:

    yeah she’s pacifying him hoping he’ll stay asleep so she can focus on the important stuff. it looks terrible but i guess he’d rather be sleeping than talking.

    as for heartiste, if that’s your impression of the community (gay) it might be because a lot of the pickup stuff actually is very much acting like you’re gay (i.e. not enchanted by women). the less people know about it the better, from the perspective of guys that like girls.


  6. slumlord says:

    Ray, I see it all the time in my work. The women have definitely more balls than the men.

    What’s really surprised me is the lack of psychological resilience in men. I never ever thought that I was some type of “macho man”, but for the life of me, I’m glad I don’t have daughters as the pool of young men whom I think have “manly” characters is extremely small.

    And this issue about psychological resilience isn’t just confined to the average Joe. I’ve seen more than my fair share of “sexual alpha’s” who crumble when things don’t go their own way. Psychological toughness, or what used to be called “grit” just doesn’t seem to be there anymore.


  7. Will S. says:

    You didn’t even mention the obvious: she’s busy chatting away on her GD iPhone. THAT is more important to her, clearly; the bf is an afterthought…


  8. Felix Muntz says:

    I think you could have also focused on their attire; it too, is very telling.


  9. ironrailsironweights says:

    Dunno. The woman’s yakking on her phone is not a sign of dominance. While it might mean nothing at all, it can be a sign of insecurity. I’ve seen and heard enough young women constantly talking twaddle on their phones to think this way.



    • I’m not sure that “dominance” and “insecurity” don’t often co-exist. In my experience of the bossy/aggro younger women, they’re often mega-cocky on the surface and made of anxiety and goo inside.


  10. betterthantheoriginalwally says:

    Someone snoozing in an airport waiting area and a chick on her phone? I will say there may be more to it than meets the eye, but it doesn’t scream lack of self-respect.


  11. Orthodox says:

    Dude’s passed out and he’s still getting KINO.


  12. Scott says:

    All I want to know is, what was she yakking about? You were close enough for the pic, you had to have overheard. Was it assertive CEO stuff, or was it traditional hen squawk?


  13. agnostic says:

    Nothing too unfamiliar from the mid-century or Victorian era. Complacent and/or bossy women thrive in environments with plummeting crime rates and a social sphere that shrinks into the private, nuclear household (away from public spaces). They feel less and less of a need for male protection, and recognize that they’re more capable of running a household than cooperating with others to “run” a public space.

    Women who don’t take men for granted, and who are more playful, show up in the opposite environments — rising-crime and more public-space-dwelling. Men protect from the bad guys, and are more able to (cooperatively) govern public spaces. The Romantic-Gothic period, the Jazz Age, the Eighties…

    That seems to be the main story behind the long, gradual rise of complacent and bossy women — the dramatic decline in homicide rates (and hence of violence rates in general) over the past 400-500 years, and living so much of our lives in private nuclear units rather than being out-and-about, over the same period.

    There are cycles around that secular decline, and whatever you think about rising crime rates themselves, they also accompany periods of more public living, and both of those give us girls who are more charming, sweet, and playful.


  14. agnostic says:

    Since nobody here is old enough to directly remember adult / married life back in the ’50s, it’s worth taking a look at portrayals of the zeitgeist that resonated with mainstream audiences, like the covers of the Saturday Evening Post.

    Not only in gritty film noir movies about fast-talking dames and wise-cracking broads did we see the same basic breed of woman shown in the picture above. Even in the mid-century Norman Rockwell world, the prevailing picture of men and fathers was the Doofus Dad. The gals are all confident, in-charge, with docile men waiting on them.

    Just like the past 20 years, only it seemed a little more good-humored back then, and less snappy than today. But roughly the same shift in the power balance, slowly away from men (where it had been in the ’20s), and toward women (the mother as moral paragon in the age of Dr. Spock).

    Here’s a look at covers from the end of the ’50s, though they’re not very different from other mid-century years. You can click earlier years at the top.

    LOL at the one (Nov. 22, 1958) where the husband is being forced by his wife to disassemble his “den” (his “man-cave,” complete with a mounted fish that’s now taken down from the wall), which she is converting into a nursery with sappy, uber-kiddie wallpaper. And he’s just standing there with a befuddled, impotent look on his face. Again, pretty typical of the mid-century Doofus Dad genre, and uncanny in its familiarity to young or young-ish couples these days.


    • Sir Barken Hyena says:

      Interesting stuff, thx


    • I’m old enough to remember a bit of ’50s America (and of course the marriages from ’50s America that endured into the ’60s and ’70s). Doofus Dads were definitely part of the scene, and American women have always been notorious for their bossiness. But this particular moment (the one in my snap) isn’t one you’d ever have seen at the time.


  15. bjk says:

    She’s looking right at the camera. Did you hold the phone at your knee and point it up at her, and she knew what was happening?


    • That’s exactly how I squeezed off the shot, pretending to be fiddling with the camera rather than actually shooting pix. I think her eyes are in fact slightly to one side — in any case she gave no indication of registering that I was snapping shots of her.


  16. I am continually disappointed by your sexist and reactionary reactions to small moments open to a wide variety of interpretations but narrowly judged by you. Good work!


    • Thanks for sharing.


    • Seriously. This post is so ridiculous. You have no idea the context of the situation. To fit into your ideal worldview: Perhaps he is exhausted from working many all-night shifts to take the little woman on vacation and she is lovingly showing her appreciation while making sure the tots are safe. Perhaps someone’s relative died and she’s talking to family members, while he catches a nap. (Oh, wait is that just hens clucking?) Maybe she’s a CEO and he’s her house husband.

      In the end, who cares? If you get this worked up about imaginary situations, I hope your little woman is worried about your blood pressure but heaven forbid she make a phone call in the airport to perhaps check on a doctor’s appointment for you. (Also, FYI, sitting that way is comfortable, not imaginary dick-swinging.)


      • Let me introduce you to a psychological concept called “projection.” Examples of it abound in your comment. For instance: “You have no idea of the situation.” No, *you* have no idea of the situation. I was there, after all, while you weren’t. Another example: “If you get this worked up …” No, you’re the one who’s worked up. Me, I was feeling rather bemused when I snapped the photo, and rather bemused all over again when I wrote the posting. Word to the wise, not that you strike me as someone who’d ever consider accepting a little useful feedback: Being prone to projection, and especially being prone to it while also having a taste for self-righteous grandstanding, is not an attractive trait. Now go work on yourself a little. Or beat up on a beta, or stare at your your smartphone, or something.


  17. Matthew Wilder says:



  18. epiminondas says:

    What we really want to know is how you got that shot.


  19. Pingback: Father Knows Best: End of Summer Edition | Patriactionary

  20. Toddy Cat says:

    “Being prone to projection, and especially being prone to it while also having a taste for self-righteous grandstanding, is not an attractive trait.”

    There’s an entire generation out there like this. We’re doomed. And I’m glad to see that Agnostic continues to maintain that things have not, Not, NOT gotten worse since the 1950’s and 60’s, no matter what those of us who were actually there may remember. There are so few things that one can count on in these troubled times, and Agnostic’s dislike of Midcentury is one of them.


  21. Pingback: Creepshots Or Not: Isla Vista | Uncouth Reflections

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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