Briffault’s lawI 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 Brokenman’s situation, and to several recent submissions on Stickman’s 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 women’s behavior is elegantly simple. What I found was Briffault’s 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. BRIFFAULT’S 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. and therefore no western man can really understand their thinking without intensive cross cultural study. We should not kid ourselves. This is where Briffault’s Law is vital. since they have no intention of actually working to improve their lives. and in the woman’s acceptance of delay in getting that benefit. How is this different from the bargirl on Soi Cowboy? I think only in the duration of the intended association. of any culture. So. Hypergamy is a 15 cent (about 7 pence in GBPs) word for marrying up. or had greater wealth. How does this help? If you know going in that she is there to derive a benefit. This can not be stated too many times. conclusion. I came to a similar independent. and my initial response. do women exhibit hypergamy. This left them with no response. After a few seconds of reflection I retorted that this was true for every woman in the world marrying any man. The findings were that for a period from the early 1990’s to the early 2000’s. let’s get real about this. 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. And that their actions derive from the cultural milieu in which they were reared. although not so well or concisely stated. they argued that she was just marrying me to get a better life. who among us ever marries to have a worse life? We all hope that it will be an improvement. no matter how much they study. or in the future. It is past time to take off the rose colored glasses.2. or not. The 90% marrying up rate provides ample evidence that the women exhibit hypergamy behavior. With women it is doubly so. If they do not. This behavior could be observed anywhere in the world and at any time in history. All women associate with any man only so long as they derive a benefit from the association. 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. 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). from that association. let’s get to Korski’s question. “Who is a Whore”. then make sure you are willing and able to provide that benefit. A bit of recent data that supports this proposition comes from a recent study done in the UK. 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. A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association. The hypothesis in the study was. I posit that this is BS. both in the good and the bad. Guys. 90% of UK women practiced hypergamy. and then disprove that. No man can ever understand what is going on inside the head of any woman. that you are willing and able to continue to . the amount of benefit expected. The best we can hope to do is observe their behaviors and roll with the punches. These were not poor daughters of Isaan rice farmers. Before discovering Briffault’s Law. You start with assuming not. After all. A few years ago. either current. 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). This was not a developing country. “They all are”. By Briffault’s Law if a woman is associating with you (assuming you are a man) then she is doing it because she sees some benefit. including their own. supporting their family and their wife. 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). full stop. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. And make no mistake. So.000 my life insurance would have paid. but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. and then the rest of her blood relatives. do not expect that the association will continue. and widely available. and duty are male values that we men project on women. and that the cost to you of providing that benefit is worth the benefit you derive from the association. “Any man that turns over his paycheck to a woman is a fool. they are drummed into us from the cradle on by society/culture. our families. while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. and everywhere else. when you can no longer provide for her and hers. you have never been. to no. So. and never will be. The biological imperative has always been to extend her blood line. country. because you had to earn it. only you will be responsible with it. and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo. What are hers will be first herself.” How many women are willing to die for their husbands. She could care less what happens to the husband. This is true in the UK. and sacrifice for you. and it always will.provide that benefit. do not expect that the woman in your life will be grateful. the relationship will stop. . Men love women. America. How many men continue on in their marriages. she will not have insurance. We aren’t born with these values. if you spend every dime in your retirement fund to build her and/or her mother a house (in her name of course). for a woman. and most definitely by the women in our lives (sorry. Keep control of your money. her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. whatever is good for her and her (biological) children is what is best. she told me. Be fully aware that when the benefit to her stops. after she dies. or comrades in arms? Damn few. When my second wife died. then her siblings. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most. then her parents. Loyalty. It stops there. gratitude. You must say no early and often so you preserve your ability to provide a continuing benefit. mostly. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband. but which very few. The life insurance gender statistics are well known. Have no illusions.” 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. None of this should be a shocking revelation. This is true everywhere in the world. Get over it. Mom). If you drain all your resources. honor. so they have different values. Women get different indoctrination. then her (biological) children. France. part of what is hers. 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). but that includes you too. Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). then you get what you should expect (see corollary 1). Thailand. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350. friends. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. After my first divorce I commiserated with a female secretary that was at least two decades older than me. “Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends. Deriving mutual benefits from a relationship is not a bad thing. Women do not behave like this. women actually possess. if any. and that she had run us deep into debt. Unequal in arguments While we might expect men to be more forceful than women in marital arguments. the portion where she is to provide you with companionship. loyalty. Knowing this earlier in life would have saved me a lot of pain. the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have. I believe. including your children. will be happier if men take charge of their relationships and their finances. surprising our expectations. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married (see corollary 2).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. and house you. when (not if) she decides to dump you. All are screaming it is Islamic misogyny. the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride. once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. by a ratio of 6 to 1. And. I am paying for your college tuition. according to various researchers including John Gottman [i] at the University of Washington. “I pay all your expenses. You will get from women exactly what you should expect.” 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. In the most lopsided arguments where only one argues and the other remains silent. By the way. (What is the difference between regular Barbie doll and divorced Barbie doll? Divorced Barbie comes with her stuff and all of Ken’s stuff too. We all need to take off the blinders. Recently many in the western nations have been up in arms over a law passed in. as a public service. and where the bride has promised nothing. men and women. so I was doing nothing for her. is already hers. and can make her part of the marriage contract. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded. She asked me the eternal female question. I hope it helps some of you out there keep a hand on the reins. or will have. The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. Hence. then he can refuse to feed her. Seems to me. I thought this was unduly harsh. I feed. clothe. it is an equal degree of enforcement for both sides of a contract. Everything you have. or very shortly thereafter. Presenting Briffault’s Law is a duty I felt I owed to the readership. we see an almost complete separation between men and women. the research shows just the opposite. Women argue more in almost half again as many marriages as men.e.. Why is this so? Because you. etc. The wife has it all. All of us. the first time I heard it. comfort. sex. Men are typically more stressed and confused in arguments with women and remain bitter for . and most of what you will ever make in the future.) This seems a totally destructive state of affairs. “What do you do for me?” (i. null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. it is the woman who continues to argue and the man who remains silent. if you keep Briffault’s Law (and my corollaries) in mind. So in these most severe arguments. Women tend to be more insistent. during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. Saudi Arabia that said if a married woman refuses her husband sex. Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too. Why do so many believe otherwise? We are now expected to compliment women on their multiple talents and many achievements. and she benefits from punishing the reckless egotist who goes too far over the line. a woman who just whacked her mate is still very much a woman. and quarrel. it is fair to say that men are more intimidated in confrontations with women than the other way around. meaning truly heinous and indeed unforgivable. As in the above animation. and the lowlife thug who knifes a woman is hardly a man at all. and furthermore. Men tend to concede. A man who understands her predicament surely gains her favor. recover from them more quickly. whereas men who offend women are treated accordingly. our public conduct follows our genetic interests. An illustration or two should suffice. anyone who did would be unwelcome back at the club. placate. On the other hand. Men who catch a few blows file police complaints only a tenth as often as do battered women. . Who would want to jail her? Surely. or withdraw in arguments with women. it is ordinarily the woman who sets the standards and the man who tries not to offend. Generally. and so seldom come to our attention. Chivalrous Tinted Glasses. who must rely on women to transport their genes into the next generation. and perhaps their sexual favors as well. on the other hand. meaning surely serious but perhaps understandable under the circumstances. while a reluctance to offend has been a more viable for men. although a tad risky. supporting women against offending men. while women are more comfortable amid verbal jousts. If a man stabbing a woman to death with a knife is rated a 10. it is merely a rebuff or perhaps an expression of exasperation. We are not chivalrous simply because men are physically stronger.longer afterward. [iii] Here again. to test the strength of a commitment. If she throws a splash of whiskey at him. and are ready for another round. supporting women and protecting them from men who might harm them. supporting men against women. just because she takes a swing or two? A woman. as is commonly claimed. and may join with her later to sire rug-rats with similarly understanding attitudes. must count on a man for her safety. A man and a woman are in a nightclub. and an undercover policeman would arrest him on the spot and jail him. more than it is sexist. she may be quite available. Human culture appears to be naturally chivalrous. What sort of fool would hand his wife over to the men in authority and probably lose her. it is clearly an assault. then a woman stabbing a man to death with a knife is rated only a 6. thereby allowing women set the standards were what is or is not acceptable in the relationship. A Justice survey [ii] asked men and women to judge the seriousness of various transgressions. Insistence has been a viable tactic for women. Why so? Men have been expected to protect women. Chivalrous Standards We hear little of chivalry. and some consider it nothing more than a flimsy folk-tale. Men who understand temperamental women gain their admiration. If he throws an ounce of whiskey in her face. Yet human passions are highly chivalrous. " A man defending husbands vs. in order to get along. here painting an illusion of culture as callously un-chivalrous and prejudiced against women while concealing itself as the agent of its own illusion." -Ring Lardner The Challenge So far as boys and young men are to mature into responsible adults and continue to contribute to our society. while it is conspicuously commonplace to condemn men for the many ways men mistreat women. women has got about as much chance as a traffic policeman trying to stop a mad dog by blowing two whistles. So social propriety exaggerates some facets and conceals others. . And it is now somewhat improper to honor men for any special strengths and virtues. and yet realize the realities behind the propriety. yielding a highly biased impression of men and women. 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. to use as a foundation for confidence and for constructive contribution. Chivalry itself is a master magician. Young men must understand what is socially proper to say.while it is considered sexist and terribly improper to notice limitations or moral failings. wives or men vs. as it can offend women. and operate on persons whether or not they actually need it.C. To get a larger perspective. Bureau of Justice Statistics.S. 16 July 2005 by David C.” Most often people try to dominate others and every organization is to some extent hierarchical. D. How Women Manipulate: Essays Toward Gynology « on: June 25. Assertive. Avon. Equality is fragile and fairly rare. e. Coercion usually brings quick results. and habituation. and may be so badly damaged they become useless except as entertainment or examples. Gottman and R. and they use it to take advantage of weaker states as well as for internal regulation. 1994. feudalism isn’t the opposite of democracy since it balances statuses with mutual obligations. Fitzpatric (eds. and such attendant purposes as eliminating witnesses. 1985): as cited in W. Most victims try to minimize their pain and few witnesses will risk victimization. which here means injuring and killing victims. Women are generally not punished for violence and feminists have worked to extend the privilege. and to a lesser degree businesses are examples of designed hierarchies. and abusive family interaction (New York: Praeger Press. “I’ll bear and rear your children if you’ll support and protect us. Chivalry is our prime example. sex. extortion. 01:09:51 PM » How Women Manipulate: Essays Toward Gynology « H E » Relationships :: Sexuality :: email posted Saturday. in order of increasing subtlety. though the Communists’ struggles against “cults of personality” seems to have been an attempt. Now women can not only cut out and kill men’s unborn children but maim and murder men on the basis of “date rape” and “recovered memories. With few exceptions only governments can use coercion. especially by coercion not used according to accepted rules or if the aggressor has underestimated them. aggressive. ii. iii. 1977). 182 –202. Aggressors use four methods we can term. Morrow Ideally. victims must be quickly overcome so they won’t escape or harm the aggressor. coercion.). drug. The military. The IRS is a familiar example. Unless totally helpless. Farrell.i. Federal Bureau of Investigation. relationships are equal. Criminals use it for profit. Levenson. 1988). Noller and M. The cycle of violence." In P. who can not only impose stigmatizing labels but imprison. Suzanne Steinmetz. England: Multilingual Matters. but the first two methods are also important and are easier to understand. i. "The Social Psychophysiology of Marriage. Another is psychiatrists. Our main interest is how women use manipulation and habituation. National Survey of Crime Severity (Washington. People who try to control others are here called aggressors and those they attack victims. Despite the usual corruption the United States’ built in limits to government coercion work fairly well except in certain areas. U. 214. Absolute monarchies and totalitarian states are their respective opposites. J. which is what’s happening I our gender situation and why we’re mainly concerned with informal interpersonal struggles. Department of Justice. Victims will fight back if enough are attacked or even threatened often enough. fun.: US-GPO. but it’s usually the result of defined roles and tradeoffs. a few persons like and respect each other enough to create it. In hierarchies and whenever standards break down people’s normal self-interest causes a struggle for dominance. . Perspectives on Marital Interaction (Clevedon. manipulation. A tendency not controlled in many societies. shock. is for aggressors to become heroes. 2007. Overcoming manipulation. It may be set up by coercion but is often indirect. or the like. specialize in relationship therapy. The authors’ main point here is that because our brains process information and emotions differently. You Still Don’t Understand: Typical Differences Between Men and Women and How to Resolve Them gives an interesting. This is why luxuries. and fatherhood’s role in our society. often even becoming aware of it. loneliness. is actually a form of self-actualization that doesn’t work as intended. fear. and combine sociology and marriage counseling in one book. “Remind yourself that lust is not a good judge of human character. People will simply take what they need and if they are threatened their survival instinct will eventually take over even if futile or suicidal. Men can be forced into the military by threats of prison and death while women can’t. “A woman who is always contented with her man allows him to . usually in various combinations. 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. “Remember that in our formative years. Manipulation and habituation form a different category of control methods because they aren’t directly based on the survival instinct. a bestselling work on gender relations) begins with a summary of the subjects to be addressed: casual sex. An aggressor may become dependent on the victim like the pampered elite unable to survive without servants. like having a neurosis. Since it’s not as immediately destructive as coercion. is that it uses what people want. they can for example be easily hurt while made to appear ill tempered via habit blocking. not what they need. argument styles. men focus on sex and women desire resources and connectedness. it usually relies on the desire to avoid threats and repetitions of bureaucratic procedures. The married authors both have doctorates. family. Likely the most difficult to see of the six strategies is use of victims’ consistencies and repetitions. which makes crime news and manipulation relatively safe. It can accelerate into violence if the victim despairs or gains an advantage. Extortion can be a custom. Employers use fear of losing home. The IRS is again an example. most important and oddly difficult to grasp. as when the aggressor convinces victims that obedience is the way to avoid disease. and look silly accusing someone of interfering with or imitating them. Most activities. instead. Fundamental. Institutions establish routines not only for efficiency. Manipulation has a single basis to which six strategies are applied. however complex. 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. It’s hard to say whether Richard Driscoll and Nancy Ann Davis’s recent publication is the anti-PC. as when a protection racket bankrupts a “client” or insurance rates rise too high to be affordable. Manipulation. Since it uses victims’ personal motives and traits. which are useless or at least superfluous. most cultures allowed polygamy. from driving to work to distinctive mannerisms are habitual and unconscious.” As the book progresses. the famous Charles Atlas ads are a pop culture depiction of this. Manipulators interfere with habits to cause anger or anxiety and accommodate them to arouse feelings of security and companionship. extortion can be long lasting. Their takeaway for all of us. and why few people will steal or kill to marry or social climb or get rich. and partly cause for outrage. compensation for sexual favors. The book (the title of which comes from Deborah Tannen’s You Just Don’t Understand. thus allowing them to be ridden and cheated for decades of otherwise productive lives. even though few men had the resources to support a second wife.Extortion is the use of threat. Manipulation doesn’t necessarily consume victims’ strength and resources. though it can prosecute. moral standards. A victim’s resources may be consumed. straight-shooting relationship book we need or a reductive apology and excuse for sexism. is. and future not only to get people to work and follow rules but to harass them for fun. but most will play by the rules to get what they want and only try harder if told they can’t have it.” the authors write. are expensive and necessities cheap. though. approaches to problems. This is what gives manipulation its peculiar advantage. Since people are reluctant to discuss habits even if aware of them. There’s no inbuilt defense since being manipulated. but to create and so control such unconscious behavior. manipulation often appears to them as well as to others to be their voluntary self-serving activity rather than an aggressor’s attack. the authors’ statements continue to be partly based on our historical and genetic underpinnings. alternative view of how relationships work — but often goes too far with its sexist rhetoric. To be fair. There is an incredible number of relationship advice books out there. They clearly do not intend to offend — though that doesn’t mean they are not offensive — yet they take pride in addressing gender in a politically incorrect way. It is well-written. Driscoll and Davis provide data.feel he is doing so well that he could maybe have room for another woman in his life. Some readers may agree that feminist ideology has tended to be taken to the illogical extreme: that because women are equal to men. the book tells us. All in all. But the way that Driscoll and Davis approach this perspective is too heavy-handed. when they are misinterpreting research. I would posit that just because we are equal does not mean we are identical. the book has some high points. 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. it cites research to back up even its more out-there claims. women are the same as men. women are more independent and less emotionally involved than men. don’t be too happy with your partner. with research contradicting our assumptions about what each gender does. it is hard to sort out when the authors are simply relaying sociological. While reading it. sometimes. I couldn’t 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. but need much more reassurance while in a relationship.” (This is assuming. dear” is actually quite true in that men who do what their wives wish (supposedly) have happier marriages. our popular cultural meme of “Whatever you say. the authors segue into a more advice-oriented tone.” or. and insulting to both men and women. at the very least. or you may drive him to look elsewhere! Stop being so happy! It’s 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. For instance. oftentimes men stay out of a sense of obligation until the woman has had enough. And. conflict. ladies. Even though a woman may not be the first to want to leave the relationship. simply. This obligation has both evolutionary and chivalrous origins.” smack of outright sexism.” Toward the end of the book. men are seen as cads and commitment-phobic when. women initiate divorce or separation about twice as often (in any given decade back to the 1930s). cited in the endnotes. These conclusions are reductive.) Overall. Statements such as “Soldiers are men because men can be trained to sacrifice themselves in ways we would ordinarily not expect of women. The most egregious case is perhaps in Chapter 9. . the authors state. and You Still Don’t Understand is. historical. 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. but those ideas are bound to irritate many readers. Finally. of course.) Not to mention the part where a woman who is “too contented” with her man gives him permission to take on a second partner. (Evolutionary psychologists may disagree with the authors’ interpretations here. we’re told: The caveman who bonded strongly with a woman stood a much better chance of passing on his genes. it may be interesting to learn about the authors’ ideas. fairly unique. or from true disagreement with their ideas. and when they are giving advice or suggesting change. they say. that the woman’s supervisor is even male. Forget the wage gap: Despite what other experts have found to be the case.” In other words. the authors believe that men are currently getting the short shrift and are not being recognized for their “sacrifices. “It’s a girl thing. and genetic reasoning. and understanding. in reality. They provide techniques of communication.