Thursday, September 30, 2010
While this is true it is not entirely accurate, and is in fact a tired old feminist saw that has been used against men for decades, if not for over a century. What this line of thinking fails to recognize is that those men are serving women – in exactly the same manner as every other biological, living, breathing entity on this third rock from the sun does. The way “life” works is that the male is the sexual servant of the female.
“Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” — Robert Briffault (The Mothers, I, 191)
So yes, men are in the positions of power, and those men are doing bad things to other men… but why are they doing it? They are doing it because naturally males do the bidding of the female.
Women are society – while men are the outliers of society. Let me state that again: Women are society. What women want, society wants. What women find distasteful, society finds distasteful. What women value, society values, and so on and so on.
Think of it like the typical herd of animals. Of course there are males and females, but is the composition of the herd a fifty-fifty split between males and females? Absolutely not! The herd is mostly females, with a dominant bull screwing them all, and young sexually immature males making up the rest. When the young males reach sexual maturity, they challenge the dominant bull for breeding rights within the herd. Either the young up and comer dethrones the bull and takes his place as the breeder, or the bull defends his postion successfully – but no matter the result, the loser leaves and lives on the fringe of the herd… and is constantly trying, or challenging, to try and get back in – in other words, the loser males (betas) are constantly trying to find acceptance back into the herd – they desire to be back in, to be part of the “society” that is virtually 100% female.
Women ARE society – while men are on the outskirts of it. Thus, men are independent because nature forces them to be, while women are collective herd creatures. (Society).
So, virtually anything that men “do” in society, they only do because females have given them the social approval to do so. If females withdrew their societal support, the “alpha” male in power would lose all of said power and would be replaced by another that females felt was more suitable.
Philalethes has written a few posts about this that explain it rather well:
Philalethes #19 – Not Much Happens That Women Don’t Approve Of
Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?
Quote: "WTF is it with you and Philalethes kissing the ass of the Almighty Power of Women? Men make civilization AND society. The only society that [women] make is the “Real Housewives of NY” TV show kind. Women have power only when manginas are too pussy to be in charge."
Indeed, and Philalethes makes quite a point of this too. One thing which he discusses is how women innately attempt to keep men as powerless as children – because women have 100% totalitarian control over children. When a man “becomes a man” he grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female.
It is when this happens that men begin to have usefulness to both society and thus, to women themselves. Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.
This is why so many societies try to “cut the apron strings” in one form or another. In our culture, children were to be educated by their fathers after the “tender years” had passed. Many cultures, even more or less matriarchal ones, have recognized the need to separate boys from the influence of women so that they may outgrow mother’s power and into men – a sphere that is higher than that of women in the hierarchy, thus making men that have “something women themselves cannot accomplish,” and therefore becoming both useful and attractive to women.
Thus all of the “rites of passage” that are found in cultures all around the world – mostly with the intention of severing boy’s ties to female power, and teaching him to cultivate his own power that surpasses it. It is this power – the power that surpasses the female, which you are trying to illustrate with your Atilla example – you are merely providing an example of exactly what I am talking about – he grew his power outside of the influence of women (women cannot teach men to be men, only to be children), and thus his sexual attractiveness also greatly increased. See above to Briffault’s Law in the post you are criticizing – Attila offered a benefit to women (power, prestige, social proofing etc. etc). The thugs you speak of are doing the same.
Btw, it is not neccessarily “bad-boys” that women are attracted to but rather men who are strong enough to grow out of the female reach of control. What women are attracted to are “hard guys” who won’t put up with female bullshit – indicating they are not under female power. The problem with us today is the only men left who are “hard guys” are the badboys and thugs who are decidedly anti-social. The rest of the men in our society never really grow out female totalitarianism, and thus women resent them as failures and don’t want to fuck them, or even give them nominal respect, for that matter.
I don’t really see how you are ranting against either myself or Philalethes, since both of us repeatedly state pretty much the identical things you are saying. I suppose pointing out the underlying factors and conditions of why women need males to grow into men is something men should not discuss because…???
It is not only Philalethes and me who argue this, btw.
“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” — Karl Marx
“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel
"Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs" — Immanuel Kant
"But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same." -- The Politics of Aristotle
As Philalethes points out in other posts of his – think of men as a “big stick” to females – a tool. That is what men are to females – a big tool that she uses to do things she cannot do herself, or finds too distasteful to do herself. Women compete amongst eachother to have access to the biggest stick. However, if a male never grows out of female influence, he will never develop the traits neccessary to truly offer woman what she cannot do herself.
Also, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between “society” and “civilization.” Primitive hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago lived in a “society” even though there was no civilization yet founded on earth.
To say that female “society” creates things like Desperate Housewives is not accurate – a female “civilization” would create that (if all the other neccessary things to film a TV show magically fell from the sky). Society is merely a group of people living together. There is a society of primitive people in Papau New Guinea, but there is no real form of civilization to go along with it.
P.S. Here's a series of relevant articles from The Men’s Tribune.
The Methods of Women
The Balance of Power
The Feminist Totalitarian State
Quote: Thank you very much for your explanation, and I agree with what you said in it completely!
So I went back and read your comment [and it] seemed to be saying that a man’s power can only be derivative, and that women will always actually be guiding and controlling everything.
I was ranting against that idea. And I am still a little confused.
Are you saying that ... stuff stops being true when: “a man ‘becomes a man’ [and] grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female. . . . [because] Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.”
If so, then I think that the fact that this social power of women to control and limit males can be (and should be) overcome by boys as they become men (for the well-being of both men and women, and to satisfy women), should be emphasized (when you and Philalethes write about such things).
Yes, I agree.
This is a confusing concept but I believe it is very real none the less. It must be doubly so for women who are ruled by emotion/passion more so than men. Thus for a woman, even when she wins she loses. (While she tries to overpower the male through her wiles, she is ultimately dissatisfied with the types of males she successfully overpowers. Ah, hypergamy!) A life ruled by passion leads to short-term gratification but long-term suffering. Men are also ruled by passion but theirs is slightly more tempered by reason than women’s, which leads to one of the causes for Patriarchal societies placing the man in charge. (ie. It is “anti-animal”, just like so much of the rest of the universal moral code: Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, honor your father and mother etc. etc – all things that are “anti-nature” and thus represent man “rising up from being a beast of the field” through his own ability to consciously reason why he should resist behaving like an animal and rather choosing a better, more rational way).
The Proprietor of Pussy, the Vanquisher of Vicarious Vaginal Vagueness, aka Roissy himself, alludes to a similar train of thought in his Sixteen Commandments of Poon:
III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
"Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore."
IV. Don’t play by her rules
"If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.".
XV. Maintain your state control
"You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her."
While men must grow out of the power of females in order to become useful, it is still the females who decide what is and what is not acceptable. Men and women are both halves of the same species, not as two entirely separate groups who have no effect upon the actions of another, although be it noted – the female affects the actions of the male to a far greater extent than the other way around.
“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001
Think back to the example of the herd, where the bull breeds the lot of females. Is it entirely that the bull gets to breed because he is the strongest and most aggressive of all the males… or is it that the females choose the bull because he has displayed the traits neccessary for them to choose him as the alpha? The bull doesn’t fight the females and overpower them – he fights other males to put on a show for the females so they will accept him as their mating choice.
“Cherokee women didn’t have titled positions. The men had those. But women had the Women’s Council. They had a lot of control. People forget that… With the Iroquois, the chief was a man, but the women chose the chief, they nurtured him, they installed him. Women could take him out.” – Wilma Mankiller, principle chief to the Cherokee Nation, 1987-1995, speaking at the University of Arizona in January 2002, as broadcast on C-SPAN, June 1, 2002
One of the problems we have is that ”what women want” is not static, but rather it is fluid – ever-changing according to the social needs of the day. In days gone by, women decided they needed strong men who would stick around and protect and provide while at the same time leading the family – and that’s the kind of men that society produced, because that’s what females wanted. Today, women want weak, spineless poofs for provider husbands, and aggressive overt sexual displays from their sperm providing “alphas” and thus, that’s what we have.
If the economy collapses and our civilization begins to crumble and thus, life begins to get harder, most likely women will begin to find the values of the protector-provider role, with the female being more submissive, to be more attractive, and thus men will become that way in order to attract the females. (Women become more submissive relative to the safety of society – think of a man & woman living in a cave, hearing a bump outside – the man will be the one sent out to investigate and if she follows him it all, it will be behind him, peering over his shoulder & using him as a shield. The safer society is, the more confident she is to march out without her shield – the less she “needs a man”).
Another interesting concept Philalethes puts forth which is somewhat related is in regard to species of animals that only have females, of which there are a few species found on earth (ie. lizards):
In the same way, he asserts that the male’s biological purpose is to serve the female, in that these female-only species are incapable of evolving and therefore can only exist in a completely safe ecological niche where there is no competition with competing species that are male & female, because a female-only species does not have the ability to evolve without the male. As we often assert in the MRM, males have greater ability to adapt than females. A female-only species can only survive in a static and safe environment. As soon as elements of adversity are introduced, species with two sexes fast out-evolve single sex species and render them extinct. As is often said in the MRM, males will survive better because of our innate ability to adapt.
This plays into a few other concepts that are related in regard to “the essense” of male and female, something which I refer to as “spike” (male) vs. “rhythm” (female). I explained this general concept in this piece titled Male and Female: Equal But Different
Males “spike” and vary much more wildly than females do, who tend to cluster around the average, while men exist far more in the outliers – ie. IQ where males inhabit the outliers of both 70 and 130 IQ in far greater numbers/variability than females who are clustered more around the mean of 100IQ. This concept comes through as “male” or “female” in a plethora of instances between males and females.
Some believe that this is the genetic purpose of the XY vs XX – because it enables evolution. The missing leg that creates the “Y” is what makes men far more variable, whereas the extra leg that creates the female “X” is what holds these genetic mutations (the positive ones) in the human genetic code.
So, a fella like Einstein, for example, is a deviation from the norm because of his high IQ, and because his high IQ makes him stand out from the normal population in a positive light, more females will find him sexually attractive because of this mutating trait, and thus more women will choose to bump uglies with him and those positive mutations will get locked into the human code via the female's genes, not the male's. Many such “mutations” are passed through the female, not the male, even though some of them may only affect males themselves (such as colour blindness).
Here is a superb comment by Rollo Tomassi (comment #33) that encompasses the theme of this concept so perfectly, that I simply had to reproduce it as an add-on to this already lengthy piece:
Simon, the Matrix has you.
Men, such as yourself, accept as normal expectations of themselves as men is uniquely defined by a feminine imperative. What I think eludes most men (even self-aware Alphas) is that our most deeply internalized expectations and desires, and how we go about actualizing them, are primarily rooted in what best serves the feminine imperative. What we perceive as “doing the right thing” is almost universally reinforcing of feminine primacy.
For example, I took issue with Kay Hymowitz here, who’s shit you’re essentially parroting.
Her frustration with these so called “boy-men” wasn’t over a concern for men needing to improve themselves, but rather a disappointment that they were deliberately shirking their responsibilities to the female imperative – essentially “manning-up” and providing for a wife and family. I even confronted her on this on a live Q&A chat she held. Her answers were a testament to female solipsism. While any and every woman should be empowered to “have it all” – career, family, husband, etc. and be equally respected to choose any or none of the above, men in the Matrix of the feminine imperative, to even be called men, must be facilitators of her choices. Men, in her terms, must want to better themselves in order to satisfy a global female centric reality. So solipsistic is the female imperative that it’s a totally alien experience for women to propose that perhaps we should respect men’s choice not to participate in it. We’re expected to respect, even champion, a woman who breaks out of the mold of traditional gender expectations, but not men. That man must be shamed and ridiculed as ‘shallow’, selfish and immature BECAUSE he wont acquiesce to that feminine reality. The feminine imperative has built such a complex social structure for men to participate in that it cannot risk them becoming self-aware. Men in this Matrix must be conditioned from birth to normalize what is best for the feminine. Even at the expense of his own life.
So while you may be correct in your assessment that men should in fact be more apt to better themselves, your ultimate purpose of appeasing the feminine for your own benefit is gravely flawed.
Comment #90 -- by Rollo Tomassi
The widespread societal feminization for the past 60 years has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man while at the same time denigrating masculinity. What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled “Patriarchy” and oppressive. Assuming all the same boy-men Hymowitz complains of took her message to heart and “manned-up”, 6 months later her complaint article would be about how horribly oppressive, chauvinistic and misogynistic these “new men” had become.
Essentially this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women control their fates (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.
The short version is that, as in most other things in life, women want their cake and to eat it to. Whatever serves the feminine purpose is the responsible, correct thing to live up to for men, but that which doesn’t is shamed and quashed socially.
ALL women (yes, I said “ALL”) solipsistically presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essence everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine social frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.
Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.
“If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst.” -- Esther Villar, The Manipulated Man
If I Only Had a V -- by Angry Harry
Five Stars ***** Woman (An Exposition for the Advanced Mind) -- by David Quinn
Monday, September 27, 2010
Yes, it'll get you squeaky clean and make you smell good too!
As pretty much every man with an ounce of common sense and observational abilities will declare, there just is no freakin' Patriarchy anywhere to be found out there.
There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).
There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995)."
Is it a stretch to take this beyond childhood female on female bullying and say that women also aggress against men in the same manner?
"Patriarchy" is pure projection of what women know about "the Sisterhood." They believe the Patriarchy exists because they know the Sisterhood exists.
How far does this collective projection go? .
How about the false accusation that men regard women as objects, as chattel, as a means of production? Hmmm... I don't know, but women obviously regard men as a work animal which women use to provide for food, clothing, shelter and luxuries for herself and her children. And women believe that her husband's labour is her property. This is why she sues her ex-husband for it after divorce. Who is treating who like a yoked farm animal, like chattel?
Hmmm... if women were running the world, there would be no more war? Well, since women got the vote around 90 years ago, the world has embarked on the most violent, most war filled century in the history of mankind - all during a time when women did/do run the world, because they hold 53% of the vote, and therefore they controlled those who started said wars and destruction.
Yup, even on the internet, we now hear things about how bad, bad men are "cyber-stalking" women and threatening violence and rape against feminists who blog man hatred on the web. Lol! Holy Projection, Batwoman! Is there one single anti-feminist on the internet who has not, over the past few years, been subjected to relentless threats of violence from cyberstalking feminists and mangina's who believe that anyone speaking out in opposition of them is fully deserving of any and all vile threats that can possibly be conjured up? Please!
In almost every single accusation that feminists throw at men, one can find projection of their own horrible behaviour onto the behaviour of men. And they get away with it because women in general can readily identify with these kinds of behaviour. Projection!
This is not new. These ideas about women's behaviour and moral character have been around for a long time. From the Bible to Aristotle, from Kant to Schopenhauer... and as "misogynistic" as feminists keep claiming that these people are, thus the reasoning for censoring the thousands of years of "Gender Studies" that existed before feminism, no-one has been better at proving correct these previous notions about male and female characteristics than the feminists who hate them the most, and the mainstream women who are complicit in letting them get away with it.
Man, this is some great soap!
Zenpriest #53 - Feminism Really is All About Projection
Friday, September 24, 2010
Lol! Control over your bodies in the form of getting a tattoo? Holy Gender Studies, Batman! I would have thought control over your body would have been, like, being toilet trained - or perhaps possessing the mobility of a biped.
Now, there's something not new. Women trying to decide for men what is sexy about women. One wonders what women would say if men pulled the reverse. And why do you want to feel sexy? I thought all the fembots in gender studies hated that the world views them as sexual objects? Why do chase after making yourself feel like one then?
“My parents aren’t into them,” she says, “but my nieces think they’re very cool. My grandma is, like, horrified of them. She didn’t even want to hear the story.”
Go figure, I'll bet her parents and grandmother don't consider themselves feminists either. Granny must be wondering what the hell making yourself "ugly in a sexy way" has to do with the whole empowerment thing, along with the saner XY bearing sex. But as long as she feels justified that they are cool because her nieces think so. Maybe they should advise her on her stock portfolio too. Though, what do you expect after the way young girls are raised in a feminized world, getting read "I've Got Two Mommies - (with 40 tattoos)" from daycare onwards, while running around wearing a T-shirt saying "Boys are stupid - throw rocks at them."
“And maybe most importantly, these days everybody knows you can have a tattoo removed. It’s not the lifetime commitment it once was.”
Yeah, more dizzy logic here. It is very expensive to get a tattoo removed, so I hope you starting socking $100/mo into a separate account for the laser treatments. The decent guys who could afford to pay for you having them removed aren't attracted to you anymore, remember? It's bikers and thugs who you'll be dating now. And no man should have to pay for your stupid mistakes, so make sure to start up that bank account - and don't go spending it on shoes you don't need just because there is a 10% off sale. The whole "tattoo removal argument" is kind of a scam anyway, because even with expensive lasers, the tattoos never fully go away and the skin never returns to normal. Imagine what that big tramp stamp above your ass will look like when it's "removed." But who needs a real dose of reality when the herd beckons you to act?
"Other people's tattoos are like other people's children: Only you can see how bad they are." -- Comic Claudia Cogan
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Actually, for the past few days I have been reading up on propaganda and brainwashing techniques and that led me to reading about the "cult mentalities" of various religious cults for a day or so. Communism uses many different techniques that are similar to religious cults in that they actively promote half truths, use brainwashing, allow for no dissenting, revise history etc. etc.
I haven't researched all of this enough to write a piece on it yet, but I have come across several "cult tests" and many, many other pieces which show how "cult mentality" both works and is enforced. It is becoming evident to me how many purposeful brainwashing techniques have been employed by Marxofeminists - not only on women, but on men as well.
Example: Compare this description of a Communist Brainwashing Technique to how Marxofembots convert weak minded men into becoming manginas with the use of guilt:
Guilt induction is a very powerful tool for manipulating people's minds. In his study of Communist "brainwashing" of American and British prisoners during the Korean War, Edward Hunter wrote:
The Reds had found that the easiest way to subdue any group of people was to give its members a guilt complex and then to lead them on from self-denunciation to self-betrayal. All that was required to put this across was a sufficiently heartless exploitation of the essential goodness in people, so that they would seek self-sacrifice to compensate for their feelings of guilt. The self-sacrifice obviously made available to them in this inside-out environment is some form of treason. -- Edward Hunter, Brainwashing, From Pavlov to Powers, p. 169
For example, the brainwashers would criticize a white prisoner for having lived a live of luxury, never caring about the fate of the poor Negroes, being just an uncaring heartless monster who went along with the Capitalist agenda because he personally benefited from it, even if it was killing others. Then the confused white fellow had to confess all of that in public self-criticism sessions. Then, to make amends, he had to do something like snitch on a fellow prisoner, or memorize and espouse Communist dogma. And then it went on and on like that until a few prisoners had switched sides.
Also in play is the mass scale brainwashing that has been foisted upon women. For example, examine these criteria which are deemed essential for any effective brainwashing or mindcontrol program, as described by Margaret Thaler Singer: "Create a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, guilt, and dependency."
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
It is becoming obvious to me that Marxofeminists have copied many of these tactics to push through their completely irrational agenda of hatred and ultimate societal destruction - specifically pushed by the Marxofeminists who were not useful idiots - like Dworkin, Mackinnon, French, Morgan, Greer et. al.
It is also becoming apparent to me that many of the people who most virulently condemn what the philosophers of the 19th century said about the differences between the sexes despised such works not because they were wrong, but because they were often right and the people who have been condemning and censoring these "old views" the most are the ones who actually believe in these views 100% and are exploiting women by using them! And they might get caught if these views became common knowledge again! They fully recognized that it is easier to run society into the dirt by playing on women's natural succeptibilities and manipulating them to in turn manipulate men.
Here is an example of someone who has studied cults, Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq., where we find the following:
No one considered whether or not there was a gender differentiation in a person’s vulnerability to cults and cult recruitment, and, particularly, whether women were more susceptible to recruitment. Recent research, however, has consistently produced samples that are 60% to 70% female (Chambers, Langone, Dole, & Grice, 1994).
This is one of the best pieces I have found so far describing the various methods that cults use to brainwash people. Have a browse through it and see what you think:
It is fairly long and detailed, but it sure is interesting to browse through and is conveniently broken into easy to digest sub-sections - you will be amazed by the COUNTLESS similarities!
"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The Fraud of Feminism - Belfort Bax, 1913 pp24-26
At the time of writing, the normal person who has no axe to grind in maintaining the contrary, declares the sun to be shining brightly, but should it answer the purpose of anyone to deny this obvious fact, and declare that the day is gloomy and overcast, there is no power of argument by which I can prove that I am right and he is wrong. I may point to the sun, but if he chooses to affirm that he doesn't see it I can't prove that he does. This is, of course, an extreme case, scarcely likely to occur in actual life. But it is in essence similar to those cases of persons (and they are not seldom met with) who, when they find facts hopelessly destructive of a certain theoretical position adopted by them, do not hesitate to cut the knot of controversy in their own favour by boldly denying the inconvenient facts.
One often has experience of this trick of controversy in discussing the question of the notorious characteristics of the female sex. The Feminist driven into a corner endeavours to save his face by flatly denying matters open to common observation and admitted as obvious by all who are not Feminists. Such facts are the pathological mental condition peculiar to the female sex, commonly connoted by the term hysteria; the absence, or at best the extremely imperfect development of the logical faculty in most women; the inability of the average woman in her judgment of things to rise above personal considerations; and, what is largely a consequence of this, the lack of a sense of abstract justice and fair play among women in general.
The afore said peculiarities of women, as women, are, I contend, matters of common observation and are only dis-puted by those persons--to wit Feminists--to whose theoretical views and practical demands their admission would be inconvenient if not fatal. Of course these characterisations refer to averages, and they do not exclude partial or even occasionally striking exceptions. It is possible, therefore, although perhaps not very probable, that indi-vidual experience may in the case of certain individuals play a part in falsifying their general outlook; it is possible--although, as I before said not perhaps very probable--that any given man's experience of the other sex has been limited to a few quite exceptional women and that hence his particular experience contradicts that of the general run of mankind. In this case, of course, his refusal to admit what to others are self-evident facts would be perfectly bona fide.
The above highly improbable contingency is the only refuge for those who would contend for sincerity in the Feminist's denials. In this matter I only deal with the male Feminist. The female Feminist is usually too biassed a witness in this particular question.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
But the fact is that it is not just MRA's that are fighting this battle. Before we all go blinking insane trying to rationally argue some sense into feminists and their pussified political mangina lackeys, we should stand back and recognize that ultimately the battle is against Marxism and there are tremendous amounts of people fighting its many different assaults on freedom and the very foundations of Western Civilization.
The problem is that we don't recognize that we are all fighting the same thing, resulting in us being divided - and therefore we are easily conquered, as has been plainly evident for the past several decades.
The main thing that must be realized about the goal of Marxism is that it must first destroy society in order for their new utopian society to emerge from the ruins of the old. This is not a joke! This is a common theme heard over and over again from Marx to Lenin to Gramsci to feminists to gay rights activists. The similarities in their words and thoughts are astounding! What they all agree they must do to bring down the present society is simple:
1 - Eliminate Christianity/religion from society
2 - Destroy Marriage and the family unit
These two things must be accomplished before the Marxist utopia can arrive. Why? Because these are two things that exist in society which virtually all men who are committed to them will die to defend. The Marxist elitists will never be able to control the direction of the masses as long as people believe in the unwavering authority of the Bible, nor as long as people have the natural urge to protect and nurture those who they love in "family situations." Marxists need human robots who will do what they are told without causing much of a fuss.
What the cultural Marxists have been brilliant in doing is fracturing their opponents into so many different groups that they are each virtually powerless to launch a counter-offensive.
- Many MRA's are anti-religious, and therefore are alienating themselves to potential allies.
- Some MRA's are for abortion and so they are alienated to anti-abortionists.
- Many father's rights activists only oppose custody and family law - but couldn't be bothered about other draconian laws against men, like biased rape laws.
- Religious activists are for strengthening marriage and are against abortion but many are also proudly proclaimed feminists and would rather light themselves on fire than recant it.
- Those who oppose the evolution theory are written off as religious nuts even though many who question it are not religious at all. (And who told us religion was "nuts" to begin with?)Questioning evolution theory in Western schools is asking for a quick dismissal because it is essential in discrediting religion.
- Environmental groups are hellbent on passing Marxist style restrictions on society, especially since the "Global Warming Report", yet there are many scientists and historians out there who are screaming on apparent media-deaf ears, that since humans have been recording temperatures there have been many dramatic, decades long temperature shifts that are similar to what we are experiencing - both warming and cooling.
The list could go on almost forever about all of the anti-freedom movements that have taken hold since the 60's "anti-establishment movement" has become the "new establishment." And we should all recognize that every one of the groups opposed to the Marxist left has the same frustration with fact distortion, advocacy research, illogical logic and basic bulldozer "Brown Shirt" tactics that MRA's face!
The fact is, those freedom loving hippies from the 60's didn't know the first thing about freedom, but they did get propagandized about Marxism - over and over again. Now they are in power and are carrying out their drug induced utopian vision via any totallitarian means their elitist egos see fit. Marxism has no room for honesty, integrity, civility, logic and the like. Marxists believe the ends justify the means and the "new utopia" is the ultimate end - therefore, they will bulldoze any and all opposition, believing with their elite view that they know best, and the rest of us are just silly children who don't know what's good for them.
It's time for all of the various groups to recognize that we don't have to agree on everything. What we have to do is put our differences aside and defeat our PC Marxist overlords first. We can work out the details later - when we can have free access to all the facts.
United, we could kick these dipshits to the curb.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Here is an article from the website, which I particularly enjoyed:
THEY JUST DON'T GET IT
From their lofty moral high ground, feminists have applied women’s superior ways of knowing to gently remind us male heathens that we just don’t “get it”. I would like to return the favour. Here are some things that feminists just can’t seem to wrap their brains around.
Feminists complain about the under-representation of women in the workplace. They want to enjoy the same employment opportunities as men. They don’t get it that for men, work is not a hobby. They don’t get it that for men, work is not something you do if you like, something you do if your fancy takes you, something you do to while away the hours. For the vast majority of men, not working is not an option. Men do not have the freedom to stay at home to rear the children if they like, or to do nothing particular if their fancy takes them, or to do the shopping if they’re bored, or to get a part-time job to make friends, or to watch the soapies to have something to talk about.
Feminists don’t get it that higher paying jobs aren’t generously bestowed on men out of the goodness of their bosses’ hearts, just because they are men. They don’t get it that if women were as efficient as men and as profitable as men to employ, then there would have to be something seriously, gravely wrong with any organisation choosing men over women, just because they are men. Feminists just don’t seem to understand that organisations function according to the laws of supply and demand, profit and loss, and make those recruitment decisions most likely to benefit the bottom line. To do otherwise is to deserve to fail.
They don’t get it that if a majority of women don’t want to do certain types of work, then perhaps it might be a little difficult balancing the numbers. Feminists don’t get it that focusing on equal outcome instead of equal opportunity is not equality but bias. If you want to balance the numbers of men and women in government or in coal mines, what do you do if a majority of women prefer not to work, or if they prefer not to expend the same effort and commitment to their careers as what men are required to do? If you want to balance the numbers of men and women in parliament, what do you do if you can’t find women who want the job badly enough? Recruit check-out chicks? Or bored housewives?
Feminists don’t get it that mowing the lawn, or repairing the car, or painting the bedroom, is domestic work. They think that men do these things to get out of doing the dishes.
The statistics from the feminist website, Gender Gap in Government, (link now defunct) will shock you. WOMEN ARE 52% of the adult population, yet even after over 3 decades of affirmative action, women have barely dented the ranks of politicians. Are women really be this lazy?
Feminists don’t get it that women's failure to participate is not due to oppression. Instead of blaming others for their own laziness, they should look inwards. Feminists' cherished statistics prove conclusively that even today, with all the affirmative action policies that have been enshrined in law, with everything that has been done to facilitate women’s access to men’s jobs without their having to earn them, women are still not pulling their weight. Feminists don’t understand that they have now provided us with proof of what we have known all along - that women are bone lazy, and that they never actually wanted to work.
Feminists don’t get it that when women have the escape-hatch of stay-at-home mom, they are more likely to pull out of the career paths that might otherwise lead to higher salaries. Stay-at-home moms are less likely to have the sort of career experience that pays well. The presence of the stay-at-home escape-hatch profoundly influences the choices that women make.
They don’t understand that only men fight wars, pollute environments and generally, do the dirty-work also of women, because women are too comfortable in the security provided by men to be bothered to do it themselves.
They don’t get it that the reason that the majority of people over 60 who are now living in poverty are women is that they are more likely to have been married to providers who are now dead.
Feminists don’t get it that when a woman dresses to be looked at, she’s going to be…… looked at. They don’t get it that when a woman dresses to lure, she’s going to be…… approached. Perhaps it's a bit too deep for them. It is a rather difficult notion well beyond feminists’ grasp, as it is founded in abstract, rational principles (rationality) foisted on everyone by The Patriarchy.
They don’t get it that women’s fantasies about being raped reveal a secret about women’s sexuality. They don’t get it that rape scenes in novels written by women for women derive their appeal from tapping into this private side of feminine nature. They don’t understand the connection between their thoughts and their longings or the duality that exists between being protected and being violated. Sure, feminists reassure us, rape is terrible and just because a woman fantasises about being raped, does not mean that she wants to be raped. What they don’t get is that women’s unspoken secrets can influence and justify (in their minds) the choices that women make, in fashion and in men. They don’t understand that the thrill of dressing to lure, to be desired, to be dominated and to be taken, can come at a price and so, has its responsibilities.
They don’t get it that when women choose wallets without character, they might finish up with characters who won’t share their wallets.
Feminists don’t get it that, when a man cheats on his wife, there is usually a woman who cheats with him. And no, it’s not because of something he put in her drink.
They don’t get it that when women say no and then give in to the types of jerks least likely to take no for an answer, other men are going to have a hard time believing that no means no.
Feminists just can’t seem to wrap their brains around the fact that, the women that enforce, supervise and participate in the tribal African custom of female genital mutilation are not, actually, men dressed in drag. And no, the fact that men generally do not participate in sacred women’s rituals (such as FGM) does not mean that innocent mothers, grand-mothers and aunties have had their drinking-water drugged by scheming patriarchs.
They don’t get it that when women wear fashions and apply lipstick and makeup in order to deceive men, they are not helpless victims of a Beauty Myth, but active participants, motivating companies to give them more of what they demand.
Feminists don’t get it that blaming men for the oppression of women is like blaming mothers for the oppression of little boys. And little boys become men. They don’t understand that what goes around comes around.
They don’t get it that feminism is the princess syndrome taken to its logical conclusion. They don’t understand that feminism cannot exist without chivalry, without Patriarchy’s Galahads who have traditionally always done women’s dirty-work.
There is so much that feminists don’t get, one can be forgiven for wondering whether there is something inherent in the nature of femininity that precludes women from understanding the most basic, simple logic. With women’s silence and complicity while the injustices rage against men, we might forgive those who regard feminism as proof that women are less able than men in almost every sphere of life. You will have to be patient with them. You will have to remind them that feminism is not about women, but about chivalry, and feminist women demanding and extracting privileges from men. If feminist women are nincompoops, what does that make the men that so readily comply with their demands?
Thursday, September 09, 2010
We all know what projection is… the “projecting” of one’s own behaviour onto another’s. But, could women have so much of a herd mentality that they are capable of projecting as an entire gender?
Think about it.
Women believe that men are violent towards children, yet ALL research shows that the problem is really with women… is it that women are so willing to believe this about men because they know something about themselves?
Women are quick to jump on the bandwagon of “psychological abuse” for things as minor as an impolite facial gesture, believing it is just as damaging as physical abuse – yet women are definitely the major perpetrators of psychological abuse. Just google “social aggression” or “relational aggression” and discover how researchers have attributed this as a stereotypical female form of aggression… So are women so quick to believe this is a form of domestic violence because they recognize the sheer hatred and malevolence in their own hearts when they do this to other people – often their spouses.
Do women believe the myth that men hold them in oppression via the threat of violence because they know deep down that they hold men in oppression via the threat of “social/relational aggression?” Think about it, who is walking around with T-shirts & bumper-stickers advertising their psychologically abusive domestic violence tendencies? “Zero to Bitch in 2.0 seconds” comes to mind, yet I’ve never seen a guy walking around with a t-shirt proudly proclaiming “Zero to Fist in 2.0 seconds.”
Which gender proudly proclaims they are high-maintenance – also a borderline advertisement of an abuser. Is this because they truly want men to behave callously and rude to them? Otherwise, why would they think that moniker is even remotely funny?
Are women so willing to believe in the deadbeat dad myth because they know themselves that were the shoe on the other foot, they would quickly become a selfish dead-beat mom? The evidence suggests this is true.
Women believe in the need for "womens' healthcare departments." Could this be because they know that if they were in the position to split resources between genders that they would quickly take care of women before men - so they automatically believe that men are doing this to women? (Of course, while forgetting about all those honourable guys who stuck women in their lifeboat seats).
Think about when a woman posts in on-line dating ad. What does she say about herself? She is a STRONG, INDEPENDENT woman. She likes to get her way, she is a successful career woman…blah, blah, blah. Is she projecting what she herself is looking for in a man? Could be. Cause I don’t give a fuck about your career, honey. I care that you are feminine enough to make me feel masculine.
This is why women get tattoos and advertise themselves playfully as “bad girls.” Women like bad boys – so they think that men also like bad girls. WE DON’T. We like nice girls. But here’s the real kicker, when she’s dating “Hank the Hell’s Angel”, do you think he asks her nicely and considers her feelings when he gets her to blow all of his buddies at the biker jamboree? Hell no, he tells her “on yer knees, bitch!” So perhaps when women are saying that they would like a guy with a nice sense of humor who is respectful and will listen, they are actually projecting characteristics THEY WISH THEY HAD THEMSELVES! Cause it’s obvious that nice guys aren’t what turn them on, is it?
This mentality women are displaying is just as stupid as men growing tits & wearing lacy boxers to attract women.
Projection – by BusterB
Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind – In Mala Fide
Monday, September 06, 2010
They can do this because they really believe it. Camille Paglia remarks somewhere in the “Sex and Violence” essay that the structure of the relationship between the sexes requires the female to be the passive receiver of male action, and unfortunately women have come to believe that this superficial melodrama actually reflects the real state of things. Which, of course, it does not; but only a few women take the trouble (or, perhaps, even have the necessary intelligence) to become aware of this truth.
The “wise women” of older and indigenous cultures know this, but modern women have forgotten–which is why I find feminists’ pretense to being “wise women” laughable. A real “wise woman” knows her power and doesn’t need to flaunt it. I actually met such a woman once: a Mohawk shamaness; she was awesome. She was also kind and considerate toward men, as she knew that she could either support or destroy them, and that it was in her best interest to support them being their best. Feminists take exactly the opposite view, believing that using their power to suppress and destroy men proves their “superiority.” This is akin to a carpenter deliberately dulling his saw, breaking his hammer. In a word, stupid. Feminists disprove their claims by their own actions.
I heard once of a study done by putting video cameras in singles bars; it was found that every encounter began with a covert, subliminal glance from a woman to a man: an invitation. In most cases, this invitation is unconscious on the woman’s part. And so, she believes (and so men believe) that he made the first move, that she is merely the passive object of his active power.
Quote: "The sad fact is that many men are literally afraid of their wives."
Yes, especially now, as nearly all of us have been heavily conditioned to that fear by what our mothers did to us when we were born. The “balance of power” between the sexes is actually very delicate, as it depends entirely on women raising their sons to be strong and independent, able to meet their future wives in the arena and hold their own. When mothers give in to their own greedy impulse to keep their “little men” mother-bound, weak and dependent, their daughters will not have developed men to marry. And, following their mothers’ example, will believe a healthy relationship consists of dominating their men. Look around.
Quote: "The good news is that as we age and get into our upper 40′s and beyond the hormones begin to dissapate and some of our pre-puberty clarity returns."
Well, I don’t know about “pre-puberty clarity”; I’d say it’s more like a combination of life experience with the slow dissipation of the “hormone-induced fog.” I remember when I was in my early 30s reading a biography of Gandhi wherein that great man remarked on what a relief it was as he got older that the slavery to sexual desire faded. At the time I found his sentiment nearly incomprehensible; now in my 60th year I have a better understanding what he meant. The purpose of all those “initiation rituals” discussed in another thread is to help a male master himself, so he is not ruled by his impulses. A man ruled by his impulses will also be ruled by women, and a man who is ruled by women will be unable to give them what they really need.
Quote: "I think I understand what you are saying here…that women by default have power and a vested interest in their position and in their capacity to manipulate men. The circumcision fiasco is more a result of this than a planned action. Is that what you are saying?"
Uh, not exactly, I don’t think. Again, this subject requires more time and energy than I presently have to do it justice. One thing I am saying is that there is more to the world, and to our experience, than what appears on the surface. This world we live in is a realm of paradox, and cannot be understood until we go beyond the conventional way of seeing and thinking.
An Oriental teacher I studied said, “Everything has a front and a back. The bigger the front, the bigger the back.” The front of the relationship between the sexes is what we all see, and what women believe when they say that they are the helpless victims of male power. That’s the front; the back is much the same, but reversed, like a photographic negative. And (mostly) unconscious. Our being is like the proverbial iceberg: what is conscious is above the surface and visible; the unconscious is below the surface, invisible to the ordinary mind, far larger, and dangerous. It is what we all do unconsciously that hurts us most. The solution, then, or at least the beginning thereof–as I see it–is to bring what is unconscious into the light of consciousness.
It is precisely because the natural realm of women’s power is in the unconscious that we cannot afford to turn over the running of the world to women–and why, when that happens, women suffer as much as men (or even more). “Equality” between the sexes is a myth; either one or the other is “on top.” In the natural order of things, first the female contains the male, physically and emotionally; but eventually, if the male fulfills his potential, the male contains the female, mentally and spiritually. In the beginning, it is the female’s task to protect and nurture the male, so that later on he will be able to protect and nurture the female and her offspring–who become the next generation, and repeat the cycle. The circumcision program breaks this fundamental contract, by aborting the proper development of the male.
Again, when women attempt to use their power deliberately, the result is destruction. It is not exactly an accident that the #1 feminist “issue” is abortion–the supreme act of irresponsibility, whose apparent “necessity” arises directly out of the female’s inability to control her own unconscious power. Notice that feminists never speak of their “right to choose” not to engage in the activity which results in “unplanned” pregnancy. If they were able/willing to “plan” at that end, abortion would never be “necessary.” But they take sex as an unavoidable, unquestionable given, because apparently they are unable to restrain their impulses.
Quote: "Sometimes they would refuse to assist in circumcisions and sometimes they would form groups within the hospitals to function as conscientious objectors to the procedure."
This is interesting. So far as I’m aware, the only place nurses have organized to resist circumcision is here in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where about a dozen years ago some two dozen nurses at the local hospital stepped out as “conscientious objectors.” It was their action which brought the issue into public view here, which eventually resulted in my reliving the experience myself, which … well, it’s a long story. They remain a continually persecuted minority in their place of work.
Certainly there are “some women who are working for what is just”; but they remain very few. And, to my mind, “what is just” is not really the point; it’s a lot deeper, more fundamental than that. “Justice,” again, is a concept, a product of the intellect, the “male” side of human consciousness. It’s abstract, cerebral. What I’m interested in is women realizing that the present trend is not functional; it just won’t work. Unless what they really want is more suffering. I don’t bother to argue with women about “justice” or “fairness” because I understand that that isn’t what really motivates them. The female is fundamentally practical, the ultimate pragmatist. Only when she realizes on a level below, and prior to, conscious thought, that what she is doing isn’t working, will she change.
This is why I rather think the disease must be allowed to run its course. They want it all? If that’s what they want, nothing men can do will stop them, so might as well quit resisting and let them do it. Just go fishing, I say. Let them stuff themselves until they choke on it. “Never argue with a woman” is not just an old joke; it is really the wisdom of wise men of old. To carry it off, though, a man must know himself and be in control of himself. In short, he must be a man, not an overgrown mama’s boy–which is what nearly all of us are these days. Including, I will add, myself: only in my 50s have I gotten some clarity on what was done to me (and not done for me) in childhood and youth, and begun to try to figure out how to grow myself up, in the midst of a culture which does its best in every way to discourage me in this endeavor. A culture totally dominated and run by women. Who clearly do not understand that one hand does not benefit by cutting off the other.
Previous Philalethes Index
“Cherokee women didn’t have titled positions. The men had those. But women had the Women’s Council. They had a lot of control. People forget that… With the Iroquois, the chief was a man, but the women chose the chief, they nurtured him, they installed him. Women could take him out.” – Wilma Mankiller, principle chief to the Cherokee Nation, 1987-1995, speaking at the University of Arizona in January 2002, as broadcast on C-SPAN, June 1, 2002
Friday, September 03, 2010
I saw this book in the library and applied my usual test: looked in the index for “circumcision.” Not a mention of what is clearly the preemptive, decisive, surgical first strike in the war she purports to be writing about.
Christina Hoff Sommers appears to mean well, but like others of her type she isn’t ready to really challenge feminism, she just wants to adjust it a little so its uglier aspects will be tucked back out of sight. Another book by her asks “Who Stole Feminism?” Nobody “stole” feminism, Christina, it’s only that with such overwhelming success its real character has become plain for all the world to see.
This is a complex subject; ‘fraid I don’t have time right now to examine it fully. I realize that my statement might seem mysterious to someone who hasn’t thought it through as I have. I’ll try a few points, in hopes the picture might fill itself out with some thought.
First, one thing I’ve realized over the last decade of thinking about the American infant male circumcision program, and the wider/deeper subject of relations between the sexes, the origin and nature of female power, etc., is this: It is not necessary to be conscious of ones power in order to use it effectively. This fact is key in understanding the entire phenomenon of feminism, as well as female psychology. The power exercised by women, like the powers of Nature whence it is derived, is primarily unconscious. This is why, although it is obvious to anyone who really thinks about how the world works that it is women who have and use the real power, women see themselves as helpless victims–and can usually, easily convince men to agree with their world view.
“Women run the world. No man ever did anything unless he was allowed or encouraged by a woman.” – Bob Dylan (interview in Rolling Stone, late 1980s)
Thus the rape victim who becomes incensed if someone suggests that perhaps she might have had something to do with what happened to her, when she wandered half-drunk, in short-shorts and halter top, into a locker room full of testosterone-enhanced males. “But I didn’t do anything!” she wails, and the feminists scream about “blaming the victim!”
Again, it is curious that even while any biologist (including even female biologists) will affirm that in all other species sexual behavior is totally controlled by the female, her needs, cycles, and signals, amongst humans the idea that the female is anything but a victim of oppressive male power and violence is totally unthinkable. Why? Female power, subtly, unconsciously applied: what women do not want to acknowledge will not be discussed.
Ever wonder how it is possible for a little, tiny woman to control a great, huge, hulking man? Think about it. Obviously, the idea is preposterous: the one who is more powerful must dominate the one who is less powerful. Yet we see this archetypal encounter acted out all around us. Feminism is successful precisely because its basic premise is not true!
The Zuni Indians, whose home is in what we call western New Mexico, have a story, about a couple of young hunters who one day freed a dragonfly from some mud. The dragonfly, being of course a magical creature, offered its saviors a couple of wishes. The first young hunter said he would like to be the smartest man in the world. “Done,” said the dragonfly. The second young hunter naturally was a little miffed at this, but then he had an idea: “I want to be smarter than the smartest man in the world,” he said. “All right,” said the dragonfly, “you’re a woman.”
I’m old enough to remember Harry Belafonte’s great hit song in the 1950s: “Dat’s right! De woman is – uh! – smahtah! Dat’s right. Dat’s right.” Never forget this. However, also remember that “smart” is not necessarily the same as “wise.” In older times, it was this knowledge, more than anything else, that male elders passed down to their sons, nephews and grandsons. More than anything else, it is the loss of this knowledge that has led to our present predicament.
(I remember another song from the 50s, an early rock-n-roll ditty whose refrain went, “De girl cain’t he’p it, de girl cain’t he’p it…” I’ve come to the conclusion, based on observation of the actual results of several decades of feminist denial, that this is true–and that a “civilization” based on ignoring this fact cannot last.)
So no, I wouldn’t say the circumcision program was a “deliberate move.” Like much of what women do, it didn’t (and doesn’t) have to be “deliberate,” i.e. consciously conceived and executed, to work very well indeed.
As I understand it, the circ program was first marketed during the Victorian era (the time when “civilized” women spoke of the “limbs” of a table, because “legs” was too suggestive–also the time of families, like my father’s, of a half-dozen children or more, sometimes many more) as a “cure” for the terrible problem of masturbation, the “nasty habit” to which boys were unfortunately all too susceptible, which at the time was the known cause of a whole host of both personal health difficulties and societal ills. As that idea fell out of fashion in the early 1900s, newer “scientific” excuses were made up. Which also are obviously bogus, not holding up even to brief examination. So why is the circ program such a “sacred cow”? Nobody will talk about it, the media won’t discuss it, mothers become hysterical when it is questioned. Again, female power: what women don’t want to confront will not be discussed.
Note that the circ program is based on the idea that there’s something wrong with males–something, indeed, that requires drastic corrective measures. This is the very cornerstone of feminism. I note also that the American practice of male circumcision came out of the same Northeastern WASP/Puritan cultural matrix (check the origin of this word) which also produced Prohibition–another force-based “solution” to the problem of What’s Wrong with Men–and Feminism, whose official birthday was at a conference (originally to promote “female suffrage”) in upstate New York in 1848.
Feminism is based on the proposition that there is no significant difference between the sexes. This is usually taken to mean that women are not “inferior” relative to men, but this is just another red herring. The truth is that female power–if/when she wishes to use it–totally trumps anything a man can do. Feminists insist on being dealt with as if they were men, and ignorant, “honorable” men do just that–and don’t/can’t see the knife under the table, in the realm of darkness which is women’s real field of power. “Take back the night!” is misleading: they never lost it. As Camille Paglia makes clear, there is truly “No Law in the Arena.” Whatever else it may be (and sometimes it can be very pleasant), the sexual encounter is a war, and, as I remarked elsewhere, women (a) don’t fight fair, and (b) fight to win. Men enter the arena handicapped by ideas of honor–but if we abandon such principles, we betray ourselves. If we attempt to meet women at their own level, we lose–and so do they.
This picture is the truth behind that old axiom of male wisdom: “Never argue with a woman.” I’ve not yet come across a woman who is willing to really confront what I’m talking about here. Sooner or later, she will take evasive action, like Scarlett O’Hara: “I don’t want to think about that, and I don’t have to, so I won’t, and you can’t make me.” True, I can’t, if she doesn’t want to. Throughout human history, this tactic has worked for women, as it must. This is the reason for all the “keep women in their place” “oppression” that feminists complain about. Now that they have been allowed out of “their place,” the results are becoming plain.
The only thing men can do in response to female power is to create a limited, artificial realm where such power is not allowed to rule–and then show women how it is in their interest to subject themselves to the discipline necessary to live in such an environment. This can be called human culture, or civilization: a way of living together and relating that is different from how other, unconscious animals do it. Where the rule of law–an artificial, human construct–is paramount, rather than the rule of power. In order for this to work, men must be wise to women’s tricks, and not allow them to get away with the kind of unconscious manipulation that is their natural, instinctive skill. None of this is easy, which is why it is not easy to be a man: because to do this, we must also be aware of the trickster in ourselves, and not let ourselves “get away” with anything that is less than our best: self-aware, and self-disciplined.
All I have time for now; perhaps some food for thought. Regarding the subject of circumcision itself, some useful links if you haven’t seen them:
Sexually Mutilated Child
Circumcision Information and Resource Pages
A Brief History
Of course, you’ll see little or no mention of women/mothers and their role in any of this information–because they’re seldom if ever evident on the surface of events. However, note the Bob Dylan quote above. I put it this way: There is no human culture that is not fundamentally a Matriarchy. Any apparent “Patriarchy” is no more than a front for the Matriarchy that really runs everything in this world. It wouldn’t be happening if it didn’t somehow serve the female agenda.
Previous Philalethes Index Next
Philalethes #1 - Feminist Allies?
Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist.
Philalethes #16 = Who Stole Feminism? Nobody!
Philalethes #21 - Circumcision
Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?
Philalethes #24 – Who’s to Blame II