When Shit Gets Sold as Soap...

Yes, it'll get you squeaky clean and make you smell good too!
.

Have you ever noticed how much of feminism could be classified as a form of projection? Collective projection, to be more accurate. Virtually every accusation that the feminist movement levels against men could easily be seen as women projecting their own behaviours onto others (men), and this is why, I believe, that women are so prone to believe that men are doing all of these evil things to them - because they can identify with such behaviour inside of themselves.

.

First, let's look at the whole false notion of the super-sized "boy's club-cabal" floating around out there, occasionally refered to as The Patriarchy.

.

.
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.
.

Men do not give other men special treatment because they are men. In fact, most men will readily attest that it's a dog eat dog world and we're all wearing Milk Bone underwear. Have a look at some of the completely ludicrous accusations that have been leveled against men - like the wild notion that men get better deals when they buy cars because they have testicles between their legs. What freakin' nonsense! As any man reading this will readily attest to, nowhere in our economic system will another man give me money, or choose to make less profit on me because I belong to the male sex.

.

I have never experienced the far reaching benefits of the Patriarchy, nor have I ever experienced any boy's club that tries to discriminate against, or exclude women from anything - well, not since I was 8 years old and tried to keep girls out of my tree fort.

.

I have never worked at a place where the men secretly conspired to give eachother advantages over female co-workers... but I have experienced working at places where myself and my male co-workers have caught several women conspiring in secrecy to make sure that women outperformed their male co-workers. It happened when I was working in a high-pressure commission sales environment. It was a fair sized staff, 12 in sales (11 men, 1 woman), 3 in management (2 men, 1 woman), and 3 receptionists (all women). Now, don't go thinking it was discriminatory that there were 11 men and only 1 woman on the sales staff. The general manager tried and tried to increase the ratio of women on his staff, and hired several women while I was there, but the women he hired just kept quitting, some in tears, because they couldn't cope with the high pressure of commission sales.

.

What was discovered by myself and my male co-workers, however, was that the three receptionists were sending double the amount of first-time customers & phone calls to the lone saleswoman, and the female manager was turning over double the amount of clients to the saleswoman as she was to the men.

.

When it was brought to the attention of the General Manager, by 11 pissed off employees, he called the only 5 females that worked at the place into a meeting and after some intense grilling, the women finally admitted that they were purposefully sending more business to the woman than the men, because they wanted to make sure that a woman was the top saleperson. And not only that, but they had discussed, in secret, how they were going to go about doing it! And let's make this clear, every single woman that worked at that outfit was in on this secret conspiracy. Gee... sounds an awful lot like that far-fetched notion of patriarchy that women keep accusing men of... except the patriarchy-boy's club is the wrong gender, because what was really going on there was a matriarchal girl's club, which designed itself to discriminate based on gender.
.

So, I maintain that women believe in so many of these far flung notions about men because women know that women themselves do these things and therefore they rationalize that if they were men, they would discriminate against women in the same way.

.

There is no secret patriarchy - but there is a secret matriarchy.

.

Now, of course, I just gave out one example, which by no means proves the existence of the secret girl's club. But here's a simple test you can do yourself which will strongly indicate that women, perhaps because of their herd mentality (as in, protect the herd first), do belong to a matriarchal conspiracy and are wilfully complicit in denying that such a thing exists. It just takes a little awareness, and a few separate conversations with the same woman.

.

First, what you have to do, is play on a woman's most favourite subject: Her own victimhood. This is the only way to get women to turn on other women. Ask her a question about how nasty her female classmates in highschool were capable of being and she will go into a tirade about how manipulative and bitchy girls can be - or ask her if she prefers to work with men or women. Women always tell you that they like working with men, because their female co-workers are constantly stabbing eachother in the back and bring so much politics into the work place. This is about the only time that a woman will turn on the herd, when you start questioning her about how mean the the herd treats her. But make note of how easily you can get her to admit that she knows women can be mean, nasty, manipulative creatures - and file that away for future conversations.

.

Sometime, in the near future, you strike up another conversation with the same woman, and try to bring up a discussion of how a woman might possibly be aggressively manipulative against men by leveling false accusations of sexual harassment against a man, or how a wife might be psychologically abusive with manipulations against her husband... and watch the very same woman who recently told you how mean and nasty she knows women can be, suddenly clam up about how women might be doing some very mean things to men - if she doesn't blow up in your face with righteous indignation for saying what she herself had recently admitted to, except applying it to men rather than her own victimization by bitchy women. She will automatically go into "protect the herd/Matriarchy mode" and deny everything about women's sometime awful behaviour.

.

But now you know she knows, and you will no longer believe that she "doesn't get it." Rather, the only conclusion left is that she gets it - and she gets it well - but that protecting the Matriarchy is far more important to her than justice or honesty. One might even refer to such behaviour as amoral.

.

There is no Patriarchy, but women readily believe that it should exist somewhere, because it is a projection of what they know about being part of the "Girl's Club - the Sisterhood!" And after decades of women (and men) searching for the Loch Ness Patriarchy, the only conclusion that the fembots can come up with to explain why they can't expose it is because it is "institutionalized." Yes indeed, the Patriarchy is civilization itself. Hmmm.

.

One can really see the lunacy of the whole "Patriarchy" argument when one looks at Social/Relational Aggression, which is stereotypically described as female aggression. Of course, one is hard pressed to find studies about this form of aggression in terms of female on male aggression, but it is ever present when one looks for women being victims, of other females. Then suddenly it is a serious issue, also known as girl bullying, which specifically uses forms of mental manipulations via secret gossiping, character assasinations and ostracizing, and mostly by convincing others to conspire against the victim along with the main aggressor.

.

http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/bet01229.htm

.

Bullying Styles

.

"Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.

. 
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)."
.

Please note: Styles of aggression more salient to girls typically involve conspiring with others to hurt someone, kind of like, um, a cabal, a girl's club, the Sisterhood... and notice how female styled aggression always revolves around plausible deniability. "Who me? I didn't do anything!"
.
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.
. 
So...
. 
How far does this collective projection go? .
. 

What about the feminist claims that because men make up the majority of politicians & judges, our legal system has been tainted to prefer men's concerns over women's. Yet of course, we all know this isn't true. Male politicians have passed an obscene amount of laws pandering specifically to women's concerns and there is no politician alive that has ever been elected to office by campaigning for issues specifically benefiting men. Yet, when one looks at the female politicians, it is easy to see that this false accusation against men is nothing more than projection of what females do when they get into office or powerful positions - the vast majority use their power to specifically benefit their own gender. The accusations that men are doing the same to women is so obviously false that it can be nothing but projection of what women know they would do if they had "men's power." And they have proved it by doing so.

.
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! 
.

.

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Related: 

Collective Projection 

Zenpriest #53 - Feminism Really is All About Projection 

Women Shrug Off The Tattoo Taboo

Ain't she purdy? Whoa, hold me back! I need to get me some 'o that... about as much as I need to stick my fingers in a blender.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep/03/women_shrug_tattoo_taboo/?city_local

“It is acceptable,” says Marta Vicente, a Kansas University assistant professor of women’s studies who researches women’s body image. “But I think it’s still risqué. If tattoos were piercing your ears as a woman, it would not be the same. But it’s like piercing your ears as a man — it’s accepted, but it’s still shocking or being different.”

.

Lol! Who woulda thunk it? Imagine, a professor of women's studies giving the green light to young, impressionable women on how to make themselves completely undesireable to men. It's not quite the same as getting your ear pierced either. Ask a guy who had his ear pierced back in the 80's & 90's why he no longer has an earing... and after you stop howling at the sight of red shame rise from beneath his collar and clear up his face to the roots of his hair, you will hear him mumble something about it being just a stupid fad - and he was a stupid kid. Then he will quickly change the subject. Just like a guy will do when some young, giggling, tattooed skank asks an older guy if he ever had a mullet - somehow thinking her "fad" is different. Lol! It is different! He went and got a hair cut! What are you gonna do, marked one?

“I think sometimes the attraction is freedom of choice,” Bishop says. “There are a lot of women who, if you ask why they wanted a tattoo, they say their boyfriend or husband told them they couldn’t have a tattoo or piercing. They’ll say, ‘I just got my divorce, and I can do what I want.’ It’s an act of freedom or independence.”

Ah yes, chick logic. Since it is pretty well known that many people choose mates in the serial "monogamy" game who have similar personalities... yes, it certainly does make sense to recognize that those who found you attractive previously in life - some enough to commit their life to you - would have found you repugnant with a tattoo, so now let's go and make ourselves repugnant to spite him! Of course, the future men who I'm attracted to (who also don't like tattoos), will just have to accept that I'm a strong woman and applaud it. I am a woman, I am strong, I am morally superior, therefore I mutilate my body to spite my ex.

Vicente, the women’s studies professor, says tattoos are the latest trend in women having control over their bodies.

“Women have always had a much closer relationship with their own bodies, as well as a problematic relationship,” she says. “Men do not have that same relationship with their own bodies.”

In modern culture, with pressures about body image everywhere, Vicente says women need to feel like they’re in control of their own bodies.

“In this world of media bombardment, the need to have control over one’s body, for women, is very important,” she says. “Tattoos are something that are maybe seen as something that women choose to have, a form of empowerment.”

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.

I call bullshit. It has nothing to do with "control" or "empowerment." It has to do with this:

"She recalls a 12-student graduate studies seminar last semester, when a student presented a paper on female empowerment as it related to tattoos. After the presentation, 11 of the 12 women revealed they had tattoos."

A picture is worth a thousand words. Need we discuss the real reason behind women getting tattoos any further? (Hint: It is not empowerment.)

"Somehow — and Vicente isn’t sure exactly how — tattoos went from being something sailors got when they were at war, to something women find as sexy. In fact, 42 percent of women in the Harris poll said having the tattoo made them feel sexy, compared with 25 percent of men."

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?

Remember, there's not a man around who finds a woman to be repulsive because she does not have a tattoo.

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

.

Also read: Bonecrker #19 – Tattoos and Piercings

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

"Other people's tattoos are like other people's children: Only you can see how bad they are." -- Comic Claudia Cogan

Feminism and Cults

Well, I have "wasted" another afternoon surfing around on the web getting an education that is far superior to anything a typical radical-leftist university could possibly hope to deliver me. In between their censorship and brownshirting, where would they find the time to educate?

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:

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q1.html#Reds

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:

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/rosedale_herbert_women_and_cults.htm

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:

http://orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q0.html

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

*********************************************************************

Belfort Bax on NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That)

It seems not much has changed in a century, but this is a beautiful reply (Notice how he only responds to male feminists? Lol!):

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.

Divide and Conquer

I often ponder that we in the MRM are guilty of not being able to see the forest for the trees. We rant and rail against feminism as if it is the only cause of Western demise. The fact is, feminism is only one face of the subversive Marxist movement to curb freedom and consolidate power. Though, in our defence, feminism is the most vocal and rabid group out there and like the Brown Shirts they emulate, they are easily despised.
.
.
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.
.

Anti-Sexism for Idiots

I came across the website Anti-Sexism for Idiots several years ago, read it completely, enjoyed it thoroughly, and then let it slip from my mind. Recently, I stumbled across it again, and have decided to read it through once more, and thought that I would throw a link up - in case some of the rest of the you haven't surfed through it and are looking for something more constructive to do with your time rather than watch Big Brother.

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?

Collective Projection

Do any of you guys out there believe there could be such a thing as collective projection?

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.

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

Further reading:

Projection – by BusterB

Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind – In Mala Fide

DGM 3.0

Lee sent me an e-mail yesterday informing me that he has been hard at work resurrecting the old Don't Get Married Board that shut down 18mos ago, which was actually already DGM 2.0., or parts of it, or something like that.

.

Check it out:

.

http://www.dontmarry.proboards.com/

.

Well, maybe this one isn't actually DGM 3.0, this one is simply called "Don't Marry." Ah, the economy of using two words instead of three! This two-word name will free up much time to play video games and remain a man-child!

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