Philalethes' Essay List

.

Essays by Philalethes:

.
Philalethes #1 – Feminist Allies?
.
Philalethes #2 – The Sexual Noise is Deafening
.
Philalethes #3 – The Anti-Logic of Women
.
Philalethes #4 – What Do Women Want? It’s What We’ve Got! We Just Aim to Please, Ma’am!
.
Philalethes #5 – Women’s Use of Power
.
Philalethes #6 – In Women’s Image?
.
Philalethes #7 – All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom
.
Philalethes #8 – When the Cow Rides the Bull, Priest Watch Your Skull
.
Philalethes #9 – Immaculate Conception
.
Philalethes #10 – Male vs. Female Thinking
.
Philalethes #11 – The End Results of Female Suffrage
.
Philalethes #12 – Foreign Women
.
Philalethes #13 – A Letter to Devvy Kidd
.
Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist
.
Philalethes #15 – Women are Out of Control in Our Culture
.
Philalethes #16 – Who Stole Feminism? Nobody!
.
Philalethes #17 – When Women Rule
.
Philalethes #18 – Opposed to Woman Suffrage?
.
Philalethes #19 – Not Much Happens That Women Don’t Approve Of
.
Philalethes #20 - Chivalry
.
Philalethes #21 - Circumcision
.
Philalethes #22 – Don’t Tell Me the Truth; You’ll Hurt My Feelings
.
Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?
.
Philalethes #24 – Who’s to Blame II
.
Philalethes #25 – You Can Have as Much Freedom as You Are Willing to be Responsible For, But No More
.
Philalethes #26 – The Law
.
Philalethes #27 – In the “Battle of the Sexes”, If She Wins, She Loses
.
Philalethes #28 - Feminism is Successful Precisely Because Its Basic Premise Is Not True
.
Philalethes #29 – They Can Do It Because They Really Believe It!
.

Philalethes #29 - They Can Do It Because They Really Believe It!

Quote: It has always fascinated me how the fems can deny ANY responsibility in a rape victim.

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

Philalethes #28 - Feminism Is Successful Precisely Because Its Basic Premise Is Not True!

Quote: Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a fine book on the subject, “The War Against Boys.”

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
NOCIRC
NOHARMM

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
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

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

Philalethes #27 - In the "Battle of the Sexes," If She "Wins," She Loses!

In truth, this [is] the real, difficult paradox of gender relations, and especially of the female position. The two sexes are like sparring partners; we must strive with each other to keep each other strong, healthy, and alert. However, the female, as the original creator of the male, actually holds all the power; the male is strong only as she allows him to be. So she’s faced with a difficult conflict of interests: in the “battle of the sexes,” if she “wins,” she loses! A few women ... are beginning to realize this, though they still don’t understand what to do about it. I could almost feel sympathy for women faced with this fundamental conundrum, if I weren’t so conscious of what their unconscious rage has cost me.

If women are oppressed, they are oppressed by their own creations. We are the front men, fall guys and whipping boys for the conflicted complexities of female psychology. As graphically illustrated in this woman’s confusion.

Quote: "So relax, I think her intentions are absolutely good here."

Ah yes, those wonderful “good intentions” that, in the female/liberal mind, excuse anything and everything. Frankly, I don’t care a whit what her “intentions” are, I care only what she (or anyone) actually does.

The encounter of the sexes is not, in Mao’s words, “a dinner party.” It’s serious business, the origin of birth and death, a dance of creation/destruction between the two most dangerous predators on the planet. “How do porcupines mate? Very carefully.” It’s like sparring partners in a martial art: we keep each other strong, healthy, alert, we teach each other and check each other’s excesses. In order for it to work, we need each other whole.

For the past century, American women have been using Mother’s power to cripple their sons. The short-term results have been gratifying to short-sighted females like the author of this article, who appreciates the “independence” the feminist movement has given her. In truth, women are no more “independent” than they ever were, but because they’ve transferred the job of protecting and caring for them from the men they personally know to the State, they can pretend to themselves that they no longer need men. Modern women are as “independent” as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. All that’s changed is that men, who still do all the dirty, dangerous jobs that must be done, and pay all the taxes and alimony and child-care payments, and fight the wars, etc. etc., that enable women to have the comfortable world they want, no longer get the respect we used to get in return. In the long run, this is a recipe for disaster. We may be stupid, but we’re not harmless.

Women have always controlled men. It’s the natural order. Ever notice how so many teenage girls have an affinity for horses? They’re exercising the same set of skills: how to control a large, dangerous but very useful animal. Any girl who owns a horse will understand that treating the animal with respect is the best way to have a successful relationship. Unfortunately, many (most?) women do not seem to understand this basic fact in their relations with men. As Camille Paglia points out, the great tragedy of sexual relations is that women believe their own “defenceless victim” mythology. Delusion, as the Buddha says, leads to suffering.
.
Previous Philalethes Index Next

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related:

Bonecrcker #44 – Women Have Contradictory Love

Fitness Testing (Shit Tests) 

Philalethes #26 - The Law

As I said above, this essay raises some important points, but unfortunately is not very well thought out or presented. I believe I understand what the writer is trying to say, but I also understand that this is because I’ve been pursuing a course of study for some two decades that’s taken me far away from the conventional collective consensus of present-day culture — a consensus that’s been carefully nurtured by the forces Graham Strachan wrote about (in his response to Devvy Kidd), who “want to destroy the institutions of civilisation so they can rule over the wreckage.”

As Will Rogers remarked, it’s not what folks don’t know that hurts them, so much as what they think they know that ain’t so.

In order to understand the subjects under discussion, we must first understand that there are two kinds of “law” being referred to.

Two thousand years ago there lived in Cairo a famous rabbi named Hillel, who was widely celebrated for his knowledge of the Law. One day, the story goes, a Roman military officer, having heard of the rabbi’s fame, challenged him to expound the Law while standing on one foot. The rabbi raised one foot and said, “Do not do to others what is hateful to yourself. That is the whole of the Law; the rest is merely commentary.”

This is the “Law of Nature and of Nature’s God” to which Thomas Jefferson referred in the Declaration of Independence. And it was on this Law, more or less, that our Republic was founded. This is not the “law” that is studied and elaborated in modern university law schools, or practiced by modern lawyers, or enforced in modern courts. All these are concerned with human law, otherwise known as statutory or case law. At best, human law is, as the rabbi said, a commentary and clarification on God’s Law; at worst — and most often — it is an attempt, by the endless obfuscation at which our immature minds (smart is not the same as wise, though smart thinks it is) are so skilled, to get around God’s Law.

The hundreds of yards of “law” books in the State Law Library a few blocks from my house (I’ve been there to do research) are almost entirely concerned with this kind of “law.” As the Roman historian Tacitus famously remarked, “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

Those who are most skillful at this obfuscation are called “lawyers.” It is not an accident, I believe, that the United States, the world capital of feminism, also hosts, by orders of magnitude, a larger population of lawyers per capita than any other country. Or that, for instance, last I heard, out of 100 members of the federal Senate, 98 are lawyers. The original 13th Amendment to the Constitution would have prevented members of the Bar from holding government office. I really don’t believe it was an accident that this amendment was somehow conveniently forgotten during the “Civil War.”

Those who have studied Law from the perspective I am outlining commonly make a distinction between what is Lawful and what is merely “legal” — i.e. sanctioned by human “law” though it may violate the “Law of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Most of what goes on “under colour of law” nowadays is in the latter category.

A single example should suffice: Any workable human system of laws must begin with a statute outlawing murder. This is clearly an application of the Law cited by Rabbi Hillel: since I would hate to be killed against my wish, I must not impose the same fate on another. No society which allows its members to kill each other without restraint can possibly survive. This is why the first of the Judaeo-Christian Commandments addressing social relations (after those defining the relationship of man to God) says “Thou shalt not kill.” And why the first Buddhist Precept is “Do not kill.”

It is not an accident that the number one feminist “law” was the Supreme Court decision that “legalized” abortion. Abortion is clearly murder in the sight of the Law expounded by Rabbi Hillel, but under our modern system of “law” it is allowed. Thus it must be clear that the “law” which presently rules is not the same as the Law. The difference is absolute, and crucial.

It’s important to understand that we in the present-day United States live under the original Constitution of the Republic only in regard to Article I Section 8 Clause 17, which grants Congress the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over any territory which is the property of the federal government, or has been ceded thereto by any of the States. Through a process of “legal” sleight-of-hand that has been going on since the 1860s, all the territory of the formerly sovereign States has been gradually transferred into this jurisdiction, while the Citizens of the same States have been induced to trade in their natural sovereignty, as claimed in the Declaration and guaranteed in the Constitution, for a federal “citizenship” under the so-called 14th Amendment, which makes them “subject to” the jurisdiction of the United States, i.e. chattel with which the latter authority may do whatever it will.

This is, according to many researchers who’ve spent many years investigating recent history, the reason for all the excesses of our current governmental/legal system — from the “income tax” through the “family courts” to a president declaring war on his own — which, though it still wears the trappings of the original Republic, has actually been converted into an empire in the classic mold, with all power vested in the State, which rules its citizens according to its own whims.

The author does indeed cite some precedents in law for his argument, including several Supreme Court cases and a key provision of the federal Constitution (“No State shall…pass any…Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”). I don’t have the resources at hand to look up the case cites, but the name Hale vs. Henkle (or maybe it was Henkel) I know I’ve seen in some of what I’ve read in my studies. So I wouldn’t dismiss the “legal” basis of his argument out of hand. Unfortunately, though the principles involved are really quite simple, getting back to them requires a lot of work clearing away the all the underbrush of obfuscation that’s been piled into all our heads by the system of education, indoctrination and control run by the government and the corporations that control the government, all of them in turn controlled by lawyers and their ilk.

And of course, I would agree that it won’t succeed in court, not only because it hasn’t been sufficiently worked out, but because the court system is specifically designed and operated to avoid the truth behind this argument. There are effectively no Article III courts left in America today; what we now call “courts” are merely administrative tribunals whose function is not to determine the truth but simply to decide how much the guilty (anyone who’s summoned into such a court is assumed to be guilty) must pay. I’ve heard of a few who’ve been able to confront the court system directly and force it to acknowledge and obey the “Law of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and the original Constitution, but this is very rare and requires really advanced skills.

Quote: "An argument requires an offer, acceptance and consideration, and this situation requires all but three of these elements, since bearing a child can hardly be considered an “offer,” while being born can hardly be considered 'acceptance.'"

I assume you’re referring to a “contract” requiring offer and acceptance. How else then would you characterize the process by which a new human life appears in the world? The “offer” is made when the individual decides to engage in sexual congress; the offer is “accepted” when it results in the creation of a new human life — a life which is fully equal in fundamental character and rights (if the concept of rights is to have any meaning at all) to those of the parents. The “consideration” is (1) whatever it is we think we get out of sex — which must be something, considering how much most of us are willing to spend for it, and (2) what we get out of having progeny (satisfying the “urge to reproduce,” etc.), in exchange for (3) the energy spent in the support and rearing of the child. That both of these “rewards” are mostly sought out of instinct rather than reason (which is why there are nearly seven billion humans on a planet that cannot possibly support than number “in the style to which we’ve become accustomed”) does not mean they are not real, or that the consequences of our seeking them are not real.

Of course, most of us have probably insisted at one time or another in our childhood that “I didn’t ask to be born!” To which I recall my mother responding that according to her memory of the process of childbirth, I certainly did! It’s basically a question of responsibility. Am I responsible for my existence or not? To be human, in my view, I must accept that responsibility, with all its implications. If I am unwilling to do so, I have no basis to claim the rights of a human being. Nor, I believe, will I have any hope of getting out of the prison wherein I find myself.

I understand your unease with the “insulting” implications of this line of reasoning. However, I think we have to start with what’s real, and what’s real is that in this world, the male of any species is, to begin with, no more than a means to serve the female’s ends, which are the ends of Nature Herself: the endless production of more life. Nature doesn’t “insult” anyone, any more than does an earthquake. Reality just is; attempting to ignore it will only make everything worse.

Yes, “when we assess and define the ‘needs’ of civilization, we are actually referring primarily to the needs of women and children.” Don’t forget that “men” also were once children. There never has been a man who was not a child first. That men may develop and concern themselves with issues beyond the simple “needs” of women and children does not excuse us from first seeing to those needs as well as we are able. You can’t build the roof before the foundation and walls, and they must be built well if the roof is to last.

And the point — again, not very well made, but it’s there — of the article under discussion is that the traditional “patriarchal” cultural system did better at that than the matriarchy that’s recently been made to replace it. Or, more exactly, that the matriarchal system actually has not replaced it, since men are still being held responsible under “patriarchal” principles as if they were still the heads of the families from which they’ve been ejected. And that a system thus based on a lie cannot possibly succeed. So the author demands that women really shoulder the responsibilities that men have carried in the past, now that they have demanded the power/freedom that men have had based on that responsibility. Or admit that their whole ideology is a lie, so we can get to work on solutions that might actually work. In other words, put up or shut up.

My response to the idea that “women and children are civilization and humanity” is to say that it is precisely because men are somewhat “outside” the world of women and children that humanity has any chance at all of becoming more than just another kind of chimpanzee, eternally trapped in the endless round of birth-and-death. It is not an accident that all the great moral/religious teachers of human history have been men. Either the purpose of life is just to keep the wheel turning, grinding out suffering for all eternity, or it is to find a way out of this trap. Each of us can choose between these two; if there’s any meaning at all to human life, it must begin with how we respond to this choice.

You see, I don’t believe there really is a war between the sexes. I don’t believe the real interests of men and women differ in the least. The lesser may be at war with the greater, but the greater is never at war with the lesser. A child may dispute its parent’s authority, but the parent, if the authority is genuine, is never in conflict with the child. Man may think he is at war with God, but God is not at war with man; and a man who understands this is not at war with women, though women may be at war with him.

The traditional authority of the male in the “patriarchal” family can be properly understood and exercised only in the understanding that “to rule is to serve.” This is why Jesus washed his disciples’ feet. And the male can play his role successfully only when he understands that he too is subject to a Higher Authority. Most of the problem with the “patriarchal” family has resulted from men forgetting this fact. Encouraged, I will add, by women. “Women rule the world; no man ever did anything unless allowed or encouraged by a woman.” (Bob Dylan said that.)

Quote: "There’s nothing about a woman’s gender which will make one single bit of difference to a baby, since it doesn’t know a breast from a baby-bottle as long as it provides equal nourishment."

Well, you may think there’s no difference between a woman’s breast and a baby bottle, but I do. It’s a religious question, really; you’re a materialist, and I’m not. You believe that everything can be reduced to chemicals, no more; I do not. Apparently you also believe the feminist dogma that there is no real difference between the sexes beyond an “accidental” variation in plumbing arrangements; I do not. Even in the “men’s movement,” I find most men these days thinking like women. Which is why I wouldn’t call myself a “masculist” or whatever; I’m not at war with women over who gets what goodies. I suppose it’s unavoidable, since the “men” of our time are the sons of the women who created feminism; but this will have to be addressed if there’s to be any response to feminism besides a mirror of its own fallacies.

Quote: "And let me remind you that in a few years men will create their sons by themselves through the use of artificial wombs. We don’t need women to obtaining eggs anymore, so ectogenesis will be a by-word for the end of matriarchy."

Well, maybe so, but that’s not a world I would want to live in. That’s really responding to feminism on its own level, and will certainly not get us out of the pit. I’m not the least bit “submissive” to women, as I think my writing should make clear. Respect is not the same thing as submission. I try to be polite because I believe that’s my job as a man, as Kipling wrote in his famous poem: “If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs….”

I try to recognize and acknowledge reality, the better to respond to it effectively. I try to see women as they are, precisely so they won’t rule me. It’s certainly not easy, because of the “hormone-induced fog” Warren Farrell so aptly identified, which rules all men’s view of women. But neither capitulating to their unconscious, arbitrary power, nor responding with unreasoning anger (at which they’ll always be better than we are anyway), nor running away in fear (where shall we go? Mother is everywhere) is a productive response. “Artificial wombs” do not address the issue, any more than do any of the artificial rearrangements of reality promoted by feminism.

“Independence” is an interesting concept; though I believe Jefferson was mostly correct, and advanced human progress greatly, it must be understood that true “independence” exists only against a background understanding of our absolute interdependence with the entire universe, including our fellow beings, and most especially the “opposite sex.” It is precisely the feminists’ childish idea that they can be “independent” in some absolute sense that has led to all their mischief.

Regardless of how well or poorly this essay presents its case, the point it raises is crucial: either you believe that the “Law of Nature and of Nature’s God” is absolute, or you believe that it can be abrogated, modified, juggled, finessed, jawboned, whatever, by human cleverness. If you believe the latter, then eventually all you will be left with is the “Law of the Jungle.” Which is where feminism, and all its sister ideologies, are taking us.

.
Previous Philalethes Index Next

Philalethes #25 - You Can Have as Much Freedom as You Are Willing to be Responsible For, But No More

... Basically it comes down to the lesson my father taught me: that freedom and responsibility come together, that I could have as much freedom as I was willing to be responsible for, but no more.

Having broken the marriage contract and declared her “independence” and full capability to be the head (as well as the heart) of the family, woman should be held to her words. If she is the head of the family, she should provide its support, as man did when he was its head. If she is unwilling to render her part of the traditional exchange between the sexes, man should not be required to contribute his part either.

But of course, in the present circumstances, this will never happen.

When it comes to questions of responsibility, woman makes Ronald Reagan (the “Teflon president”) look like Uncle Remus’s Tar Baby. Woman’s unwillingness (perhaps even inability) to acknowledge responsibility for her own power, even as she uses it ruthlessly and without restraint, is the fundamental psychosis of the human species, which may well lead to our total self-destruction.

The concept of “fairness” is not native to the female mind. To a man, “fairness” is a check on personal greed: “what’s fair” means getting less than the most I may want, so that everyone may have some. To a woman, “what’s fair” means “I get what I want”; if she doesn’t get what she wants, it’s “not fair.” Add unchecked political power to this kind of “thinking,” and you have — well, what we have.

This is why the 19th Amendment was the direct road to our present matriarchal totalitarian collective. American women were “given” the same political power as men, but not required to shoulder men’s responsibilities. They have freedom without responsibility, otherwise known as “license.” According to the law dictionary, “license” is “permission to do what would otherwise be unlawful” — in essence, to exercise freedom without being held responsible for the consequences. Men created a society of laws to enforce responsibility and thus allow freedom; the modern matriarchy has turned it into a society of license. Notice how nowadays you have to get a license for everything?

Human life entails an unavoidable internal contest, between our nature-as-given from our animal antecedents, and our potential as creatures of reason. Insofar as we are ruled by the former, we are no more than extra-clever chimpanzees, subject to the same endless round of suffering birth-and-death as all the other dumb creatures. However, we can escape that fate if we are willing to use our reasoning capacity and subject our behaviour to its rule.

The ability to reason is certainly present in the female mind; woman, after all, is the human species, man is merely a variation on her theme. However, where man has an incentive to develop his reasoning capacity, because he lacks woman’s overwhelming natural power, woman, possessing that power and using it, usually without conscious thought, does not have such incentive. Or at least, she “thinks” she doesn’t.

Nature is utterly practical; she wastes no energy she can avoid spending. So long as woman, fundamentally a creature of Nature (the very same Goddess feminism worships), can get what she wants without subjecting herself to the discipline of conscious thought, she will continue to take everything she can — even if, like a horse that’s got into the oats, she eats herself to death. On her own, she doesn’t know any better.

This is why a matriarchal political system cannot lead us to a better world; why, indeed, the matriarchy of the dim past (so celebrated in feminist myth) gave way to the patriarchal system that created civilization — including all the conveniences women now take for granted, as well as the very concepts of equality and fairness (entirely products of the male mind) they use to wrest ever more privileges from cowed and bewildered men.

Perhaps our present headlong dive into chaos can be averted, but only if, and when, women themselves decide they want to change course. For it is always women’s natural power that decides our collective fate. Girls do indeed “rule”; boys, as always, can only give them what they want — if we have anything to do with them at all. We cannot make the fundamental decision, because we don’t have that power; after all, it is women who make men, not vice-versa. If we don’t wish to participate in the collective self-immolation, we can only withdraw and turn away — as many men have done in the past.

We can take charge if they ask us to — which is essentially what happened some 10,000 years ago, when women decided (unconsciously, but nevertheless it was their decision) they wanted something better than “grass huts” to live in, and put men in the driver’s seat so we could create civilization for them. Now they seem to have decided that we’ve given them what they wanted, and they can take over again and run it for themselves. I don’t think this will work; cell phones and SUVs or no, women have not changed that much in the last ten millennia. I can point this out — and get blasted, as I have been — but there’s not much more I can do to affect the situation; they have the power.

We can’t take them on head-on; in that arena their power is overwhelming. The only thing that’s likely to get their attention is a wholesale departure, a turning-away, a refusal to cooperate. There are ways to avoid the crushing burden of modern “fatherhood” as defined by the matriarchal court system. Unfortunately, to do so requires a man to betray his own best self-image: to become, in the short term at least, as irresponsible as women. And accept without complaint the shame women will heap on them for doing so — this very shaming being one of their principle means of exercising power over men.

Naturally, few men are able to think their way through to the long-term wisdom of such a strategic retreat, despite its obvious logic: for if women are absolutely morally superior to men, then men should follow their example, and do our best to behave like them. Notice the general moral collapse of our culture; where before at least lip-service was paid to concepts of honour and responsibility, now it’s positively fashionable to take everything you can, and too bad for the loser who’s fool enough to restrain his greed.

In the end, all this will happen anyway, as our civilization collapses under the weight of feminist irrationality and avarice, and we return to those grass huts. Which women will rule as absolutely as they have always ruled the home, their natural realm of power. You go, grrrl!

Previous Philalethes Index Next
.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related:

Bonecrcker #153 – People Can Choose Anything They Want To… But They Can’t Choose The Consequences

Philalethes #24 - Who's to Blame II

Quote: "I find it curious that by exposing an inconsistency in feminist thinking, I’m (indirectly) accused of blaming women. I consider this an unnecessarily defensive reaction."

I hope you don’t have the impression that I was making such an accusation. My comments were directed at the remark(s) I quoted, and others similar (not by you), which demonstrate just the knee-jerk feminist reaction you discuss here.

My take on that reaction, the reflexive, sometimes almost violent refusal to acknowledge any similarity between female and male genital mutilation, is that it is a turf defence: The entire edifice of feminism is built on the definition of the female as the eternal helpless victim of male power, thus to admit that the “oppressor” (i.e. the white male) might be a “victim” in any circumstance would literally jerk the ground right out from under the feminist position. Moreover, I believe that all women know, whether they admit it to themselves or not, that infant male circumcision is an expression of Mother’s power; thus the instant refusal to even look at the issue, because to do so will necessarily lead to other thoughts they cannot bear to contemplate–including that they may be to “blame” for this egregious wrong.

In my own case, my mother has steadfastly stonewalled the subject for the last ten years. She was, has been and is in most respects a very good mother, but I suspect that as the notion of “blame” figures large in her thinking (as it does with most people, and especially, I feel, with women), her instinctive, emotional response is to refuse to deal with something that, if allowed into her consciousness, would, as she understands it, force her to feel very badly about herself.

The solution to this dilemma, as I’ve attempted to suggest, is to dump the concept of “blame,” which is useless in any case, since its only effect is to perpetuate suffering. As a Buddhist, my single aim is to decrease and if possible to prevent suffering; anything I do or say must be measured against this standard. If someone has done harm, of course that must be redressed if possible, but to add “guilt” or “blame” to the situation is a waste of energy that could be better used for the real task: to determine exactly what happened, why, how, and what best can be done to correct it.

So long as those whose power is the final authority in the situation refuse to acknowledge this fact, the cause-and-effect chain of suffering will continue. Including, I believe, in the case of infant male circumcision, many of the very same behaviours of men that women so complain about. Any badly abused animal will tend to be unreliable, treacherous, and sometimes violent; infant, pre-rational baby boys who were so savagely violated by their mothers–who in this world can we possibly trust if we cannot trust our mothers?–naturally grow into men who subconsciously fear women, and such fear can easily lead to unexpected violence–unexpected even by the perpetrator–when circumstances evoke such deeply repressed, unconscious feelings. Even at best, the encounter of the sexes will always be confusing, frustrating and sometimes frightening; the wisest preparation is to leave our children whole and support their growth into whole, internally-secure beings who can deal with challenges without losing their mental equilibrium.

Circumcision of children of either sex, like the branding of cattle or the docking and cropping of the tails and ears of dogs, is the physical manifestation of Mother’s instinctive sense of ownership: that her children are her possessions, to be modified to suit her tastes, and used to gratify her needs. After all, she made them, didn’t she? But is this the proper attitude toward children?

Previous Philalethes Index Next
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?

Philalethes #21 - Circumcision

Philalethes #23 - Who's to Blame

Quote: "Please remember that if all fathers spoke out against this [circumcision] it would be a much harder thing to promote. Fathers routinely circumcise their children as much as mothers. … I think instead of focusing on how to blame feminism for this one …."

Please note that I never use the term “blame.” I am not the least bit interested in blame, which concept I regard as both meaningless and counterproductive. Blame is extra, an emotional load dumped on the situation that is totally unnecessary for understanding, and in fact will impede understanding, because as soon as “blame” appears, everyone will be so busy trying to avoid it that there will be no time or energy left for simple understanding. “Blame” is a useless hot potato, which solves nothing and makes a problem a lot worse than it would be without it.

I am interested in facts, in cause and effect. I am interested in preventing suffering, thus in determining who has the power to do so in any given case. Whoever has the power to prevent suffering in a particular situation, but does not do so, is responsible for the suffering in that situation. That’s just a fact. “Blame” is unnecessary.

If you step on a rake, you are likely to get clobbered in the face by the handle. There’s no “blame,” it’s not anybody’s “fault”; it’s just simple cause and effect. There’s no need to add anything more to the picture. If you curse yourself, or curse the rake, you’re wasting energy that could be better used paying attention so you won’t step on the next rake.

If you want to prevent suffering, it is necessary to understand whose power is primary in a given situation, because if you put your effort into persuading those who do not have the real power to change it, you are wasting your time.

I find it amusing how, after decades of listening to women complain about not being taken seriously, when I do take them seriously, in an arena where it is clear to me that their power incontrovertibly rules, suddenly it’s all about how powerless they are, how everything is someone else’s–i.e. men’s–fault. Sorry, I don’t buy it.

After all, if women have the “right to choose” to terminate their child’s life, do they not also have the right to “choose” to cut off part of his body? Can’t have it both ways. I say they do have the power to do both, but that’s not the same thing as a “right.”

But this sort of thing, endlessly repeated, is why in the end I find I simply cannot take feminism seriously. They say they want to be regarded, and treated, just like men, but when it comes down to any real situation where the consequences might be even slightly less than fun, suddenly they’re using all their ancient power to avoid just that. They bat their pretty little eyelashes and whimper, “Poor little me! I have no power here! It’s all those male doctors!”

Similarly, after agitating so hard to have the choice of joining the military, during the Gulf War most of the females somehow suddenly, mysteriously became pregnant and had to be sent home. Oh, gee gosh, I wonder how that happened?

I’m in favour of living in Reality, because only if we’re dealing with the real world–not some fantasy in our minds–do we have a chance of preventing what suffering is preventable. Women do not belong in the military, for the simple reason that the military’s job is to protect women. Any baboon troop that put its young females in the defensive ring on the perimeter would soon be an extinct baboon troop. It’s ridiculous. Only in a decadent empire, where there’s no real risk of losing a war (or so people believe, just as they did in Rome toward the end) would such an idea be considered.

Nevertheless, all the men fall for it. As we must. I don’t mean just the men in this forum; in a decade of occasionally speaking out on the issue of circumcision, I’ve received far more resistance and ridicule from men than from women. Though this is painful, I understand why. The Prime Directive for males of all species is: Please the Female. Which is why I do not hold men, including fathers, ultimately responsible for the Infant Male Circumcision Program. It’s not our “choice.”

Quote: "The medical industry was male run for many, many years and circumcisions were done then too."

Of course, the medical industry is still mostly “male run.” But at whose behest? Doctors are hired hands, service providers. If they do not provide the service their customers want, they will be out of business. The circumcision program began with “modern medicine” providing something that 19th-century, Victorian women wanted: “scientific” proof of their suspicion that there is something fundamentally “wrong” with men, and something modern, scientific and efficient to do about it. The Infant Male Circumcision Program came out of the same “hygienic” thinking that also birthed Eugenics and, eventually, the Nazi programs to “improve” the species “scientifically.”

(Of course, it is interesting to note that as more and more women become doctors, the circumcision rate is not affected–though, unlike the male doctors, they have not been subjected to it themselves. So what’s their excuse? I’m sure they will have one.)

This is why doctors offer women the “choice” of circumcising their sons. And it is a choice. Any woman can “just say no,” and her son will remain intact. I know several women who did just that. This is fact. Where power lies, there also resides responsibility. Like the sign on President Truman’s desk: “The buck stops here.”

Quote: "Most women do NOT know they really have a choice on this, and women are not the only one making this decision. Most parents are told, as often as not by male doctors, that circumcision is necessary."

And why do women “not know” they have a choice? Because they haven’t taken the trouble to research the issue. And because apparently the idea of cutting off part of their sons’ sexual organs seems to them entirely normal. Why? I’d bet if the doctors told them it was necessary to circumcise their daughters, they might give the question just an teensy little bit of thought before signing on the dotted line. And, increasingly, women are making this decision on their own, in this age of “single-parent” families. Fathers are, after all, redundant.

Note how the hospital responded in the Flatt vs. Kantak case: “The mother chose the procedure.” They’re right. She’s challenging the issue on the only grounds she has: that they misinformed her. Which, if it works, might blow the whole issue open. But the question still remains: why did she not question further at the time, since it was her choice, and her responsibility? If she had had a daughter, and the same choice had been offered, are we to believe she just would have gone along with it, without question? If not, why not?

Quote: "This was going on LONG before feminism was even thought of. Not every injustice is directly caused by feminism."

Well, actually, I use the term “feminism” to refer not only to the modern “movement” dating from 1848, but to the age-old operation of female power of which what we now see is only a recent, ridiculous–though very effective–manifestation. And of course, very few “injustices” are directly caused by feminism, or female power; usually women use men as tools to rearrange the world as they want it. But that’s what they do, have always done, and always will do, so long as there are men in addition to women.

What is the quickest, most efficient way to provoke a man into murderous anger? Cast aspersions on his mother: e.g. “Your mother wears old Army shoes!” Everyone knows this. Any circumcised American male who questions the infant circumcision program is going up against the greatest, most powerful, absolute authority he has known, or will know, in his entire life: MOM. This is not easy. What is the invariable refrain of every father who wants his son to be circumcised? “So he’ll look like his father.” IOW, so his father will not have to confront this sometimes shattering question in his own life. Easier just to pass it on to the next generation unexamined.

Do you really want your sons to question your maternal authority? Think about it. What would that do to your life, your family? Does Mother know best, or not? Which is it? If Mother does not know best, why is it that mothers get custody in the overwhelming majority of divorces? BTW, I understand that in the 19th century and earlier–before the Infant Male Circumcision Program, “female suffrage,” Prohibition, Hillary, etc. etc.–it was fathers who were assigned custody, because they were seen as the responsible parent. Interesting.

There can be no comparison between the views of women and the views of circumcised men on the subject of circumcision. Expecting men to “lead” in this instance is ridiculous–especially after decades of insisting that men should follow women’s “lead,” without question, in all situations.

Female power is subtle. Most of the time, women are not consciously aware of their power and how they are using it. Which is the real tragedy, for it is women’s unconscious use of their power which causes most of our suffering–the avoidable part, anyway. Nevertheless, the Law is “Ignorance is no excuse.” Because ultimately the Universe’s books will balance. In human societies, men pay for women’s ignorance. Which is the entire reason for the “patriarchy”: because somebody must be responsible, and women won’t do it, men must do it, so men have (had) the authority that comes with that responsibility. Where the buck stops, there also is the decision-making power, apparently at least. But in fact, men are always playing catch-up, cleaning up after the effects of women’s unconscious use of their power.

Men would not exist if women did not create them. Keep this in mind; you will never understand the relationship of the sexes without this fact as foundation. Females can exist without males–as has been proven by the many species which used to be sexual but no longer are, because the females simply stopped producing males–but males cannot exist without females. The power to create is also the power to not create. No analysis of the comparative power of the genders has any validity unless it starts from this point.

The “myth of male power” is truly a myth in both senses: (a) it is not true, and (b) everyone believes it.

So, why do females create males? Nature is ruthlessly economical; She does nothing without some reason, some utility. Perhaps sex first happened, ca. 1.5 billion years ago, by an accident resulting from a random cosmic ray striking a nucleus; but it would not have continued, prospered and prevailed if it did not work. Sex works for two reasons: (1) it provides for swift evolution to meet changing circumstances and challenges. And (2) Expendable males (remember, she can always make more if she needs them) can be assigned to various chores which females prefer to avoid. Even now, in the Golden Age of Feminism and Gender Equality, we can see this in operation, as women use their newly-won “equality” to invade work areas such as corporate boards that have previously been exclusively male, but somehow mysteriously neglect to insist on becoming garbage”women,” or being subject to military conscription, etc. etc.

And while campaigns to bring these discrepancies to public attention may be useful, ultimately I believe they will fail. Because women do have the power, and will always have the power, to avoid what they do not wish to confront. Including their buck-stops-here responsibility for what happens to their children.

Of course it’s all about choice for women. It always has been, and it always will be. Until men grow wombs and begin gestating and giving birth–i.e. until men become women–there will always be this fundamental inequality between the sexes. And of course, there’s no need for men to become women; if that’s where we’re headed, the simple way is for women to stop producing men. As many species have done–though none, so far as I know, among the warm-blooded birds and mammals.

That’s why I don’t fight against feminism. That would be pointless. What I do is put forward the truth. The truth is, women can have it any way they want, because they hold the power. No man has any power but what has been lent to him by women. However, there is one check on women’s power: Natural Law. Even women cannot decide to have water flow uphill, or time flow backward. And even women cannot repeal the law of karma. Whatever you do to another you yourself will eventually experience, in this lifetime or another.

Quote: "Years ago, I went to a circumcision of a child born to two friends of mine. (It was horrible and a real eye opener.) The procedure was performed by a male rabbi, as part of a religious ceremony, and attended by myself, my wife, both parents, an aunt, and an uncle — four men and three women, and the male rabbi performed the mutilation."

Of course it was performed by a rabbi. It’s his job, is it not? But who is he working for? Actually, it was probably a mohel, though maybe a rabbi can be both. Traditional mohels even keep one of their thumbnails (I believe it is) long and sharpened specially for this ritual. Then they suck the blood off the baby’s chopped penis with their mouth. Charming picture, no? Ooh, look out–don’t want to be anti-Semitic!

Think about this: This is where this whole business comes from. This is not some accident; it has deep roots in the atavistic past of Middle Eastern desert tribes, long before Judaism existed. It’s a remnant of the Golden Age (so the feminists tell us) of Goddess worship, when men and boys were sacrificed to keep Her happy. As, in fact, we still are. Not much ever changes, really.
.
Rabbi Hillel, when asked to expound the Law while standing on one foot, said, “Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself. That is the whole of the Law; the rest is merely commentary.” It is unfortunate that his own people have paid no more attention to this truth than has anyone else. But that’s the way of the world.

Quote: "I imagine in countries where FGM is still practiced, the mothers support the procedure as much as the fathers. It is cultural."

Indeed they do. In fact, in at least one instance I saw in the newspaper in the mid-1990s, an African immigrant father in New Jersey or somewhere was desperately resisting his wife’s insistence that their daughter be circumcised. That was a hoot for the feminists. The real question is, what is “cultural”? Is “culture” something that comes down from the sky and envelopes us all against our will? I don’t think so. I think “culture” is simply a term to describe how we, human beings, organize how we live together. And again, the primary power in that organization is the power of women. “Culture” is women’s creation first, modified, with women’s permission, by men.

As I’ve written before, I find it interesting that whenever the subject is something men do to women–e.g. rape–it’s always clear that men are responsible; but when it’s something that mothers do to their children, suddenly it becomes “cultural,” or “society does it,” or “a tradition.” Women are coated with Teflon. For men, the principle has always been that “ignorance is no excuse”; but for women, ignorance is always an excuse.

Funny; in another thread where I expressed some feeling of compassion for the suffering of an insane woman who killed her husband, I was excoriated for wanting to “exculpate” her. Which I did not; I’m just sorry for anyone’s suffering. Here, on the other hand, I am criticised for holding women–millions of ordinary, supposedly wide-awake, sane, sensible women–responsible for what they have voluntarily done to their sons. While, it seems, several men who criticized my ”chivalry” elsewhere are quick to jump in here and pick up the burden for the little woman. I haven’t even said I wanted them “to fry”–or to be circumcised. I don’t want anyone to be circumcised, or hurt in any way. I just want the truth on the table, so we can have a meaningful discussion.

Quote: ”Are there ready made info packets to download for distribution?”

I don’t know about downloads ... [but] NOCIRC in particular provides pamphlets, etc., all very “non-confrontational.” Sure, that’s fine; whatever it takes to stop it. It may very well stop without the real truth ever being publicly acknowledged. Of course that would be better than nothing; but I’m still going to speak the truth when the subject comes up. Because if the root cause is never addressed, then like a cancer that’s been “cured” by surgical removal of some body part, it’ll only reappear elsewhere.

I too am happy to see a woman thinking about this and other issues. But this is primarily a men’s forum, and that’s whom I’m primarily addressing here. If a woman, who is supposedly my “equal,” wants to join our discussion, I’m all for it; but I’d suggest she be prepared to face some hard truth–as men do, when they’re not adjusting their words so as not to offend women’s delicate sensibilities.

Again, I’d suggest reading some Camille Paglia, some women can and do think fearlessly, and talk sense (more or less). I welcome any woman who is willing to undertake this discipline.

Thanks to anyone who has taken the trouble to read this long, hastily-written essay. I have to get back to work now.

Previous Philalethes Index Next

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

Philalethes #21 - Circumcision

Philalethes #9 – Immaculate Conception

Philalethes #7 – All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom

Zenpriest #3 – Repressing Sexuality

Philalethes #22 - Don't Tell Me the Truth; You'll Hurt My Feelings!

... I wish to clarify that I certainly do not oppose responding to what cries for rebuttal, only that I feel how such response is done is important. Cowshit should be identified as such, but constantly “taking offence” makes us look like thin-skinned sissies, and does not encourage women, feminist or not — or anyone else — to respect us.

Feminists already hold us in contempt; women who might be inclined to respect us will do so only if we act like men.

If we support creating an environment where everyone must tiptoe around to avoid “offending” anyone, we have already lost to the abuse of female power — “Don’t tell me the truth; you’ll hurt my feelings!”

A meaningful, useful dialog between the sexes requires that men be men, not merely half-assed copies of women. Sure, I have feelings, but if we’re engaged in discussion in order to determine the truth (and I don’t see any other reason to bother), then my feelings are irrelevant, and should not be brought into play. If the truth “offends” me, that’s my problem; if it’s not the truth, why should I be “offended”? If I say it’s a lie, it’s because it’s a lie, not because it “offended” me.
.
Previous Philalethes Index Next

Philalethes #21 - Circumcision

Quote: "While an interesting correlation is made between circumcision rates in the USA and other industrial countries and the rate of male violence this seems inherently flawed. There is no empirical evidence for this sort of claim."

Well, no, I don’t guess there is. Nor can there ever be. “Empirical evidence” is a myth, really, in relation to non-quantifiable factors like human feelings and behaviours. Nevertheless, since I became aware a decade ago of what circumcision did to me, (1) I have been in a state of severe shock and post-traumatic stress, and (2) I’ve noticed a consistent psychological pattern which I consider significant: infant-circumcised men are subconsciously* terrified of women, while intact men are not. I can’t “prove” this, no. But I think it’s interesting to note that it was precisely when the first universally-circumcised generation (mine, born during WWII) came of age, that feminism took over the culture. There are few men in America today who know how, or why, or when, to gently but firmly say “No” to a woman. We just can’t do it. And the consequences have been and will be disastrous for women as well as for men. Because–feminist dogma notwithstanding–even women are not perfect, and we all need someone in our lives to tell us “No” now and then. When our most infantile impulses are given free reign, we suffer.

(*Note: “Subconsciously” means we aren’t aware of it, but it profoundly affects our behaviour. We can become aware of such subconscious influences, however, and try to compensate; as I have been doing since I became aware of this.)

What I was pointing out was that the radio segment made a big point of comparing the rates of “male violence” (a term I don’t generally use, since it’s a code-word for misandry) in America with those in other countries, but somehow neglected to note what, as I said, I consider the decisive difference between those countries (Britain, France) and ours in the rearing of male children. And I have observed an identical neglect in every other commentator on the question of “what’s wrong with [American] boys?” who has received any media coverage.

And no, I don’t think it’s exactly a “conspiracy.” It’s a lot deeper, a lot bigger than that. It’s a symptom of a deeply rooted, pervasive cultural psychosis. “Denial is not a river in Egypt.”

Quote: "What is [interesting] in this comparison is … the way male circumcision is treated in comparison with female circumcision."

Precisely. When in the mid-1990s immigrants from East Africa and neighbouring regions began bringing their daughters to American hospitals for this traditional procedure, American feminists rose up and had female circumcision outlawed, in probably the swiftest Congressional action since December 8, 1941. Nevertheless, these same feminists continue to actively support the American “tradition” of infant male circumcision. A doctor in Cairo will give exactly the same reasons of “health” and “hygiene” for female circumcision that you’ll hear in this country for male circumcision. So why is it bad to do this to girls, if it’s good to do it to boys? This, I gather, is what feminism calls “equal treatment.”

On the other hand, I’ve never yet come across a man involved in the effort to stop male circumcision in America who is not also appalled and horrified by the genital mutilation practiced on girls elsewhere in the world, who does not want to see both practices stopped. I can only guess that this apparent discrepancy must be related to the male inability (which I’ve been hearing about all my life, ad nauseam) to experience the finer, more superior form of compassion naturally demonstrated by females.

Quote: "Men are expected to take abuse with a stoic resolve."

A remark from a feminist quoted in Say No to Circumcision summed it up pretty well, I thought: “Well, if he can’t take that, what can he take?” (I remember reading this in the book, but haven’t been able to find it again; if someone can tell me the page it’s on, I’d appreciate it.)

However, I don’t think this is entirely “wrong,” or that the “solution” is for men to become more like women in this regard (or any other). From the beginning of time it has been men’s task to protect and defend women and children. It’s the natural order, also seen in many other species. To this end, males must learn to, in ‘Enry ‘Iggins immortal words, “take a position and staunchly never budge.” Which means being able to endure suffering without complaint, to die if necessary. As millions of men have, in various ways, to give us the world we have now. What’s changed is that we used to get, as Otis Redding said, “a little respect” for our sacrifices.

In a difficult and dangerous world, the freedom to “be in touch with ones feelings” is a luxury, which men have forgone so that women may enjoy it. There’s just no time or energy to waste on “having a good cry” when home and family must be defended, right now, against a savage attack.

This is where I–regretfully–must disagree with Warren Farrell, much though I respect his work. Farrell thinks the solution is for the sexes to become more alike–which only shows he has not yet completely recovered from his former lapdog role. The solution is for men to be men again, and for the two sexes to respect each other. Which begins with mothers respecting their sons. The relationship between the sexes is not circular; it’s a spiral, which begins with Mother, as do all things.

In the larger context, it seems like this sort of thing happens in every decaying empire. Life becomes comfortable, people forget about hard the world is outside their limited, temporary prosperity, and women start to think that the security they have is just naturally theirs, that they don’t “need” men anymore. “Fathers are redundant.” Since the necessities of life have resulted in women having an exclusive copyright on all the “virtues” (it’s ironic that this word itself comes from the Latin word for “man”: vir)–gentleness, compassion, caring, etc.–for the protection of which men have made themselves hard and “unfeeling”–women begin cultivating contempt for the men they see around them–the men they themselves have made.

And eventually, of course, the empire rots from within and is invaded and conquered by another culture whose women have kept their men strong. There may be no help for it, really.

Quote: "The person who submitted this apparently has some issues with women…and I think the credibility of this web site has just gone down a notch."

Yes indeed, I do have some issues with women–American women especially. There will always be “issues” between the sexes, as between any pair of complementary opposites. I see the relation between the sexes as like that between sparring partners: we help each other by being difficult for each other, giving each other opportunities to learn and grow. But that can only work if there is some parity between us, if we are “worthy opponents.” Since in fact there is no such thing as “equality” between the sexes–the creature (the male) cannot be “equal” to his Creator (the female)–then the entire relationship rests on how mothers bring up their sons: whether to be strong, independent, adult men who are secure in themselves and can hold their own with the women they will encounter later in life, or to be weak, dependent Mama’s boys whose assigned role is to gratify women’s infantile greed for power.

In the last century, American women seem to have decided on the latter. To that end they have embraced the Tonya Harding strategy: since the point, as they see it, of the relationship is to win–by whatever means necessary–it makes sense to cripple the “enemy” before the contest even begins. So Tonya hired a couple of hit men to kneecap her rival in women’s skating competition–and American mothers hire doctors to torture and cripple (physically, yes, but even more important, psychologically) their newborn, defenceless sons. It’s sick, that’s what it is. And it was done to me, and damned right I have “issues” about it.

I am what’s fashionable these days to call a “survivor” of severe childhood abuse–all, the overt part anyway, from my father. Trained to seek refuge with my mother, I was brought up to believe all the feminist dogma about how men are “bad” and women are “good” (a gross oversimplification, but that’s what it comes down to). Only at age 50 did I begin to understand what my mother had done to me–unconsciously and thus in “innocence,” but nevertheless the consequences for me are very real–and that the beginning of it, my circumcision at birth, unlike everything my father did, is permanent and irreparable.

So yes, I have “issues.” And no, I’m not mad at my mother about it–she didn’t know what she was doing. But I have no patience with lies, or those who prefer lies to the truth, or offer lies in response to truth. Like the Man said, the truth–and only the truth–will set us free.

“Let us speak the truth.” – George W. Bush, Berlin, Germany, 23 May 2002 (Scuse me, I couldn’t resist. He really said it; I heard him on the radio.)

And I will say this: if you are a circumcised American man and you don’t have “issues,” you’re in serious denial. Ironically, I get more ridicule from men on this than from women. But I understand why.

Quote: "I don’t think it’s the definitive aspect of American culture, or that it profoundly affects most men’s psychology."

Well, of course you don’t. But refusing to see something doesn’t mean it’s not there. The fact is this: only two cultures on the planet practice infant male circumcision: the Jews (whose psychology in this regard–and its wider implications–deserves a whole essay in itself) and the White Anglo Protestant Americans–who got the idea from the Jews. (And formerly the other English-speaking countries, though Britain itself has almost entirely abandoned the idea since 1950.) It’s also become popular in South Korea, due to overwhelming American cultural influence. Given this fact, and what a horrendous thing it is to do to a newborn baby (those who aren’t permanently scarred bleed to death), I think it’s a pretty “definitive aspect” of a culture. Why do they do this? Women in other countries–continental Europe, for example–find the idea ridiculous/horrifying. But American women not only consider it perfectly “normal” but actually become hysterical (look that word up in the dictionary) when it is questioned. This is not like a difference in how various cultures clip their nails or comb their hair. And how do you know it doesn’t “profoundly affect” men’s psychology? Have you even thought about it?

Again, the plain facts are these: (1) There’s no end of wringing of hands (and lucrative book contracts) these days over the question of “what’s wrong with American men?” and (2) The fact that only American men, relative to all other major nations on the planet, are subjected to this treatment is never mentioned in any of this voluminous “what’s wrong” literature. If this doesn’t look funny to you, you definitely need to see an optometrist. Or some kind of healer.

“Inside every boy there is a nice, loving, little girl waiting to come out if only we have the eyes to see it.”

Excellent! What frustrates me most is men like this, who’ve bought the feminist line and are doing their best to “justify” men within a system where ultimately it cannot be done. Either men are men, or they are poor imitations of women. There is no middle ground on this. Because, while women can, to some extent, do anything men can do, men cannot do what women do. Nothing will change this truth. The real question is, do women want men, or not. Because, while women can live without men, men cannot exist without women. If women do not want men, the best solution would be to get rid of them entirely, and turn to cloning, as some other species have done (See why males exist). That is a legitimate solution, because it is women’s decision. But if they do want men, they are only harming themselves by crippling the men they make. It’s insane.

The real insanity is feminism itself, whose bedrock foundation is the “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” fallacy. The truth is, women are from Earth, and men are from women. We are two parts of the same being. As Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” But this is even closer to home: Feminism is one hand cutting off the other and calling it “equality,” or “justice” or “progress” or any of a million other senseless buzzwords. It’s truly insane.

Well, enough for the moment. My thanks to anyone who’s taken the trouble to read this, and to all who made this a fruitful discussion.
.
Previous Philalethes Index Next
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Q: Why do you think male circumcision exists?
A: To reduce male libido, or as Rambam (the most famous Jewish Rabbi) wrote:
.
"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.
.
It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member?
.
In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.
.
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished.
.
The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable.
.
For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."
.

Philalethes #20 - Chivalry

Quote: There is no longer anything noble about chivalry. It is just a forum for the devaluation of males.

Sorry, I don’t agree. The problem is not the courtesies men show to women, the problem is that many women have dropped their side of the ancient bargain. A culture in which all relationships are based on total egotism and savage competition cannot last.

“How do porcupines make love? Very carefully.” But at least they do it; otherwise there’d be no little porcupines.

The ancient bargain is, in essence, this: mothers care for and protect their sons, who grow up to care for and protect their wives, and the cycle repeats. Both must do their part for it to work, and for human society to survive. But mothers have the ultimate power to define, or redefine, the arrangement; however, even they cannot contravene natural law. Natural law is, in essence, the Golden Rule: you get what you give. And, your creation cannot be other than what you create it to be. And, your creation’s character will be a reflection of your character. This is what women need to get straight.
.
Previous Philalethes Index Next

Philalethes #19 - Not Much Happens That Women Don't Approve Of

BTW, I hear Bob Dylan said something like “Not much happens that women don’t approve of”

You might have heard this from a previous post by me; somewhere in many boxes of papers I have a Rolling Stone interview with Dylan ca. 1988 in which he said (approximately, according to my memory): “Women rule the world. No man ever did anything unless a woman allowed or encouraged him to do it.” (And I have quoted this in numerous posts here.) It was this remark, and the book Why Males Exist (out of print, check your library), which I discovered about the same time, that finally gave me the necessary keys to understanding the whole “gender” question.

From the beginning of sex, ca. 1.5 billion years ago, the male is the creation of the female, and always will be. She creates/produces males to take care of chores which she cannot or would rather not deal with herself.

“Cannot”: provide genetic diversity to enable swift evolutionary change; single-sex species of any complexity cannot adapt quickly to new conditions. This includes particularly those species which used to have males but no longer do — about which I learned in Why Males Exist. It is worth noting that while there is a substantial number of female-only species among plants, invertebrate animals, fish, amphibians and reptiles, I know of none among the warm-blooded, fast-moving birds and mammals. Certainly this is not an accident. Like the modern fad of lesbianism, female-only species can survive only in thoroughly-protected, unchanging ecological niches.

A woman once told me she used to be a lesbian, but gave it up because lesbian culture/society was terminally boring. I was not surprised. I was also not interested in her rather pathetic attempts to engage my male interest — which included her proud story of how her little boy (a product of anonymous artificial insemination) stood up in school for the idea that fathers are unnecessary. Why she thought I would be charmed by this story I don’t know. This woman came from Berkeley; maybe she should have stayed there.

“Would rather not”: any dangerous task, since the female’s first priority is the security necessary to reproduce successfully. This is why men have always fought the wars, not because women can’t fight, but because men are expendable. And, of course, why men provide 95% of on-the-job deaths, etc. etc. She can always make more, after all.

The male is the front man, fall guy, and whipping boy in her melodrama. The male “rulers” and warriors feminists complain about are simply front men for the females who run them — mothers, “lovers,” wives, daughters — and benefit from their amassing of power, territory and material goods — or their defending of power, territory and material goods from the front men sent by the women across the river. “Fall guy” and “whipping boy”: well, you can figure it out.

Yeah, this article is a joke, but it is a sick joke. The truth is, Bob Dylan was right: women do rule the world, and the world we have is what women want — or at least what they have used their power to create. Including the pathetic politically-correct feminist males like the editor of this paper. I no longer see much point in complaining about it. They’ll do what they want, as they always have. If ever any substantial number of women begin to wonder why they’re suffering, and really want to know, the information is available. The Buddha explained it all quite clearly 2500 years ago, and he was surely not the first, nor the last. And then he simply walked away from the melodrama.
.
Previous Philalethes Index Next
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"Women invent rules, manipulate men to obey them, and in this way dominate men - but in no way apply the rules to themselves." -- Esther Vilar in her 1972 book The Manipulated Man
.
“It is an amazing thing to see in our city the wife of a shoemaker, or a butcher, or a porter dressed in silk with chains of gold at the throat, with pearls and a ring of good value… and then in contrast to see her husband cutting the meat, all smeared with cow’s blood, poorly dressed, or burdened like an ass, clothed with the stuff from which sacks are made… but whoever considers this carefully will find it reasonable, because it is necessary that the lady, even if low born and humble, be draped with such clothes for her natural excellence and dignity, and that the man [be] less adorned as if a slave, or a little ass, born to her service.” – Lucrezia Marinella of Venice, Italy, 1600, The Nobility and Excellence of Women Together With the Defects and Deficiencies of Men


Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly

Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?

Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.

-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989