The Rosetta Stone of Womens Behavior

http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSubmissions2009/read...

The Rosetta Stone of Womens 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 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

1 of 6

10/2/14, 9:26 PM

The Rosetta Stone of Womens Behavior

http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSubmissions2009/read...

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%

2 of 6

10/2/14, 9:26 PM

The Rosetta Stone of Womens Behavior

http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSubmissions2009/read...

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

3 of 6

10/2/14, 9:26 PM

The Rosetta Stone of Womens Behavior

http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSubmissions2009/read...

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

4 of 6

10/2/14, 9:26 PM

The Rosetta Stone of Womens Behavior

http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSubmissions2009/read...

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.

5 of 6

10/2/14, 9:26 PM

The Rosetta Stone of Womens Behavior

http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSubmissions2009/read...

Stickman's thoughts:
I notice more and more men are against the idea of marriage, against
the idea of giving their life away. When we read this it is very easy to
not just understand their decision, but t respect it too!
The author cannot be contacted directly but you can email Stick who will forward emails to the
author.
The publisher of this website, NOT this article, can be contacted at:
stickmanbangkok@gmail.com.

6 of 6

10/2/14, 9:26 PM