The Rosetta Stone of Women’s Behavior

By Old, Fat, and Bald

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 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

A man after my own heart. We should not kid ourselves. no matter how much they study. There are a few corollaries I would add: 1. All women associate . I posit that this is BS. New Zealander (Kiwi). A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association. including their own. both in the good and the bad. 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. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association. 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. BRIFFAULT’S LAW: The female. an American writer and translator. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male. or. In the late 1920s he married again.> He can be seen as French. The best we can hope to do is observe their behaviors and roll with the punches. by marriage. <Note: The new wife was one year younger than his oldest child. The point of this is to state the credentials of the author and to show that this law has been there for many years. no such association takes place. of any culture. This is where Briffault’s Law is vital. American (Yank). 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). we just needed to find it. Scottish. English (Pom). And that their actions derive from the cultural milieu in which they were reared. to Herma Hoyt (18981981). not the male.died. 2. and therefore no western man can really understand their thinking without intensive cross cultural study. No man can ever understand what is going on inside the head of any woman. determines all the conditions of the animal family.

“They all are”. It is past time to take off the rose colored glasses. Guys. I came to a similar independent. Before discovering Briffault’s Law. they argued that she was just marrying me to get a better life. The 90% marrying up rate provides ample evidence that the women exhibit hypergamy behavior. 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). How is this different from the bargirl on Soi Cowboy? I think only in the duration of the intended association. or had greater wealth. The findings were that for a period from the early 1990’s to the early 2000’s. 90% of UK women practiced hypergamy. This can not be stated too many times. and then disprove that. This behavior could be observed anywhere in the world and at any time in history. and my initial response. from that association. let’s get real about this. This was not a developing country. and in the woman’s acceptance of delay in getting that benefit. or in the future. After a few seconds of reflection I retorted that this was true for every woman in the world marrying any man. A few years ago. . “Who is a Whore”. After all. So. During the period of the study 90% of UK women married men that made more money than they did. or not. 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. With women it is doubly so. conclusion. A bit of recent data that supports this proposition comes from a recent study done in the UK. If they do not. although not so well or concisely stated. Hypergamy is a 15 cent (about 7 pence in GBPs) word for marrying up. This left them with no response. let’s get to Korski’s question. the amount of benefit expected. do women exhibit hypergamy. either current. You start with assuming not. who among us ever marries to have a worse life? We all hope that it will be an improvement. These were not poor daughters of Isaan rice farmers.with any man only so long as they derive a benefit from the association. The hypothesis in the study was. then roughly 50% would marry up and 50% would marry down. since they have no intention of actually working to improve their lives.

full stop. and sacrifice for you. You must say no early and often so you preserve your ability to provide a continuing benefit. when you can no longer provide for her and hers. our families. and everywhere else. gratitude. Be fully aware that when the benefit to her stops. Women get different indoctrination. and most definitely by the women in our lives (sorry. Loyalty. if you spend every dime in your retirement fund to build her and/or her mother a house (in her name of course). Have no illusions. and that she had run us deep into debt. but which very few. “Any man that turns over his paycheck to a woman is a fool. After my first divorce I commiserated with a female secretary that was at least two decades older than me. that you are willing and able to continue to provide that benefit. then you get what you should expect (see corollary 1). France. Mom). women actually possess. This is true in the UK. so they have different values. 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). and that the cost to you of providing that benefit is worth the benefit you derive from the association. And make no mistake. If you drain all your resources.” 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. So. mostly. you have never . for a woman. America. When I told her that I had let my wife run the family finances (common in 80% of married couples in the USA).How does this help? If you know going in that she is there to derive a benefit. Deriving mutual benefits from a relationship is not a bad thing. We aren’t born with these values. they are drummed into us from the cradle on by society/culture. So. honor. only you will be responsible with it. do not expect that the association will continue. Keep control of your money. and duty are male values that we men project on women. because you had to earn it. but that includes you too. whatever is good for her and her (biological) children is what is best. to no. then make sure you are willing and able to provide that benefit. the relationship will stop. do not expect that the woman in your life will be grateful. she told me. and who was herself divorced. Thailand.

and most of what you will ever make in the future. friends. the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have. the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride. including your children. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most. Hence. she will not have insurance. The biological imperative has always been to extend her blood line. This is true everywhere in the world. When my second wife died. when (not if) she decides to dump you. and where the bride has promised nothing.000 my life insurance would have paid. once you enter into the contract you have nothing left . Why is this so? Because you.been. By the way. then her siblings. supporting their family and their wife. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350. part of what is hers. and it always will. but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. It stops there. Men love women. How many men continue on in their marriages. “Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. or very shortly thereafter. What are hers will be first herself. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. or comrades in arms? Damn few. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband. and never will be. The life insurance gender statistics are well known. and widely available. and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo. 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. Get over it. None of this should be a shocking revelation. her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. then her parents. if any. country.” How many women are willing to die for their husbands. and then the rest of her blood relatives. Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). after she dies. then her (biological) children. She could care less what happens to the husband. while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. Women do not behave like this.

” 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. You will get from women exactly what you should expect. then he can refuse to feed her. Saudi Arabia that said if a married woman refuses her husband sex. etc. All of us. “I pay all your expenses.. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married (see corollary 2). “What do you do for me?” (i. will be happier if men take charge of their relationships and their finances. The wife has it all. All are screaming it is Islamic misogyny. as a public service. Seems to me. We all need to take off the blinders.e. (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. I thought this was unduly harsh. Recently many in the western nations have been up in arms over a law passed in. I believe. I am paying for your college tuition. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded.) This seems a totally destructive state of affairs. The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. if you keep Briffault’s Law (and my corollaries) in mind. And. the first time I heard it. null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. and house you. Everything you have. or will have. men and women. loyalty. the portion where she is to provide you with offer her. I hope it helps some of you out there keep a hand on the reins. . I feed. clothe. comfort. Knowing this earlier in life would have saved me a lot of pain. is already hers. Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too. it is an equal degree of enforcement for both sides of a contract. and can make her part of the marriage contract. sex. Presenting Briffault’s Law is a duty I felt I owed to the readership. She asked me the eternal female question. so I was doing nothing for her.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful