Monday, April 17, 2006


“For a man to pretend to understand women is bad manners; for him really to understand them is bad morals.” – Henry James

Many people who read the following pages within The Philosophy of Men Going Their Own Way will reflexively be uncomfortable with what they find. "Why, it's misogynist! The author must be living in his parents' basement and has probably never been laid in his life! He must have a small penis! He must be a dead-beat dad! He's just bitter! He certainly doesn't understand women very much!"

Well, no, no, no, no, no and no. I live in a nice little one bedroom condo. I have slept with the mid-double digits of women and even lived with a few of them, so while I am no stud, I am no virgin either. My penis is average sized. I have luckily never been married and I have no children. The only thing I am bitter about is how the Truth has been hidden and manipulated to bring harm to men, women and children, and I understand women and sexuality well enough to have compiled this "book," rather than just fling about emotionally charged insults.

I started studying this subject back in 2004 and when I was diagnosed with cancer in 2005, I found myself with free time on my hands while I was going through treatments. I decided that I could either watch TV, or I could put the time to use and learn something instead. At that point I started reading and researching in earnest, often spending eight to ten hours a day on it. Originally, my doctors figured it would take around six to eight months to get through the chemo and to the other side... but it took much longer. Three and a half years, to be exact. So I got much deeper into this than I had originally intended, and afterwards, well, I just kept at it. It had become a habit, I suppose. Or perhaps it is better described as being unable to look away from a horrific train wreck. I am now about nine years into my studies on this subject. 

“It takes a man a lifetime to find out about one particular woman; but if he puts in, say ten years, industrious and curious, he can acquire the general rudiments of the sex.” – O. Henry, Heart of the West (1907)

There's a difference between how a married man knows women and how a bachelor comes to know them. The married man, through the course of spending his life with the same woman, will naturally come to know her individual quirks and personality flaws. We all have them, and so does his wife. The married man therefore believes that Not All Women Are Like That.

The bachelor starts out from the same place as the married man. He falls in love with a woman, discovers her quirks and flaws, and as the relationship spirals out of control he thinks to himself, "I must have just been unlucky and ended up with a faulty one." And so off he goes and finds another, thinking that she will be different. When the second love ends the same way as the first, he starts to doubt himself. Maybe he is the problem. After all, he is the constant factor in this equation. And so, off he goes through life until he loves yet another, and this time he focuses on changing his behaviour. Then he loves another, and another, and still, they all end up being remarkably similar experiences - often even down to the very words she says when in the same situation. Finally, he comes to the amazing conclusion that yes, something is wrong with them! All of them! And thus, with enough notes to compare from various women he has known intimately, a pattern begins to emerge, and once he begins to identify it and map it out, he starts to see it everywhere. Further, as he ages and his old friends disappear into the void of marriage, he begins to hang out with more and more bachelors, and as they compare stories, he discovers that they have had similar experiences as him throughout their lifetime too, which begins to solidify his conclusions. 

Marriage hides the nature of women while bachelorhood exposes it as life goes on. I've read before that if a man reaches the age of 38 without having married, the likelihood of him ever marrying is negligible. This is why. He's figured out "the game" in ways that not even men who have been married multiple times ever will, and he knows it is all an illusion - one that does not operate in his best interests. Marriage hides the true nature of women as a sex from men, while bachelorhood exposes it. The feminists have indeed destroyed "The Feminine Mystique" in their bid to free women from men by destroying marriage. The more men that remain bachelors, the more that women will fall from the pedestal they have traditionally been placed upon by men. It is not hatred to recognize the true nature of woman any more than recognizing grizzly bears are carnivores instead of herbivores means that I hate grizzly bears. It merely means that I recognize the Truth and will act accordingly. 

Misogyny versus Misandry

Much of feminist theory is based on the belief that misogyny is inherent in men, and thus the dreaded Patriarchy is a natural extension of this inbuilt negative attitude towards women which men possess.

But ask yourself, is this really true? Is it true that men are naturally misogynistic towards women? Is it true that most of the men you meet think negatively of women? Is it true that when in the locker-room the men conspire to hold women down? Is it true that businessmen would secretly conspire to throw away their profits by paying men 30% more wages than women, simply to keep women from reaching their true potential? Is it true that 1 in 4 women will really be raped in university, and by extension that therefore 1 in 4 men are rapists? Do you really believe that 25% of the men you know are secretly raping women? Really?

None of this rings true for me. In fact, what I see are enormous amounts of men tripping over themselves to praise women. I see men worshiping women as some sort of goddesses. I see men apologizing for the most nonsensical and trivial things simply out of fear of offending women. I see our world leaders praising women while shaming men in order to win votes. I see men trying to one up other men, proving to women that not a smidgeon of misogyny exists in their souls. I see men constantly believing that it is other men who are treating women badly, but certainly not his enlightened, sensitive and equitable self. And those other men? Well, they also believe they are more enlightened than the rest of those misogynist men out there! 

A few years back, Dr. Helen did a couple of interviews with Richard Driscoll, author of You Still Don't Understand. During the interviews, Dr. Driscoll cited a survey which illustrated that 14% of men were resentful or were almost always resentful of women. However, the same survey also illustrated that 34% of women surveyed were resentful or were almost always resentful of men. That is nearly two and a half times more women that are resentful towards men than is conversely true of men being resentful towards women. 

Misogyny, as men are routinely accused of, simply is not as rampant as society claims. In fact, the hatred of men is far more prevalent than the hatred of women. "Misandry" still gets underlined by my spell-checker because it is a concept that hardly exists, even though the evidence of it is all around us - if we only cared to look.

It is not in men's nature to be harmful towards females. Just the opposite. Men work like slaves to provide for them and often will even sacrifice their lives for women. Does that seem consistent with some inherent misogyny found within males to you?

"In fact, everywhere in nature, the male is the reproductive servant of the female. This goes down to the level of plants which have "male" and "female" parts.
The ripening of an egg, or ovum, is a time and energy intensive job, so the male is designed to be ready to fertilize that ovum when the female notifies him that she is "ready."

In the rest of the natural world, females announce their readiness to the entire world with a variety of cues - smell being the most significant, but visual cues come in a close second.

When a female chimpanzee is in estrus, her genitals swell up and become a SPECIFIC shade of bright pink. Jane Goodall observed one such female whose genitals could be seen from across a valley - nearly a mile or 2 away.

There is a species of fish in which the belly of the female turns a particular shade of red when she is gravid. A block of wood with the lower half painted that exact shade of red will drive males into a mating frenzy.

Smell is even more important. There are MANY species in which a female in heat gives off pheromones which are specific to that species which can be picked up by males as much as 5 miles away."

One of the most significant things I learned in studying this subject was about All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom. For example, there are certain species of lizards where there are females, but they have somewhere in the past stopped producing males (or have never produced males to begin with). Females "are" the species (in all living things) because they are the ones who control reproduction. If there is only one sex, it must be female or the species will die out. Further, the reason why a species either creates or stops creating males, is in relation to what the females want. They create males to do things they cannot do, or are unwilling to do, themselves. In other words, on a very basic level in nature, the entire purpose of the male is to serve "the species," which is by default female. 

And this goes even deeper yet, down to our genetic and evolutionary level. These all-female populations can only exist and thrive in ecological niches. As soon as they have to compete with a species that has both males and females, they get over-run and die out because they have little ability to adapt. It is the male that mostly evolves the species, because the male has far more variability. What happens is that mutations in the species mostly happen to the males, and when a positive mutation happens, the female breeds with him and "saves" the mutation in her genetics which get further passed on through the species. Thus the male "evolves" and the female "saves" the evolution. So even on that level, you can see that the male serves the female.       

What is really amazing is how this exists in every living thing on earth, and a biologist will confirm it is so except that the same biologist will deny it exists in humans as he or she reflexively believes that men hold all the power in humans, rather than women. Although, in their defense, it is somewhat true, because while we are of the animal kingdom, we are not animals. We are humans and we have the ability to live at a higher level than animals. What we did somewhere in the past was we re-ordered this, the only creatures on earth to have done so, and we rose up from being beasts in the field. But even so, on a very deep level of our existence, males are still serving the needs of the females. The question becomes (or was in the past), are we going to serve women as animals, including all of the harshness that comes with that brutal world, or will we do it as humans, and enjoy all the benefits that civilization bestows upon us?
Misogyny in Religion, Myth and History
A few months before I started up this blog back in 2006, I had pretty much walked away from the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) because I couldn't see anything they were saying that made sense. All they wanted was "equality" (which is not achievable) and they had dozens of little robots running around making sure that no-one generalized and most of all, making sure that no-one expressed even the slightest 'misogynist' thoughts. It was as brain-dead an experience as living your life in a kindergarten class. They certainly weren't seeking the Truth. So I left them to their political correctness and Went My Own Way. 
Soon after, I found myself reading a website about the legend of Atlantis. This was not a weird way out there site, but rather it argued that Atlantis and the Garden of Eden were one in the same. In fact, it argued that all religious paradises and many of our ancient myths & legends were essentially about the same story: that all of our human ancestors had experienced a global, cataclysmic flood at the end of the Pleistocene, some 11,600 years ago, and all of our religions and mythical stories about paradise lost and a flood (or rising waters) are a "twinkling remembrance" of what happened to the humans who lived through that time. Thus, it explored quite a bit of the similarities between various religions and beliefs that existed around the globe. It was one of those experiences that just "clicked" in my mind, and I began to see things in different ways after reading it. For example, I started thinking, "If I were the last adult alive amongst 100 children and given the responsibility of passing on 'what I know today' to them, while recognizing the human trait of wishing away inconvenient Truths, how would I go about this so it would last for them centuries into the future? Well, I would write it down in an unchangeable religion." 
Shortly after, I watched a video of a university lecture which had a fellow who had studied the ancient Hebrew language and texts, and as he was interpreting parts of them, he noted the misogyny that was found in them - and in fact, was embarrassed by it enough to offer an apology to those in the lecture hall. (See? If misogyny was innate to men, they wouldn't automatically apologize for that which someone else had said. They would just shrug it off and not care). Some of the things he pointed out were that Sodom and Gomorrah, the two most wicked cities in the Bible, are the only two cities in the entire region that are referred to in Hebrew as feminine. (As in, how French has masculine and feminine). He further mentioned that the most evil of demons were always portrayed as female. 

There is also the story of Adam's first wife, Lilith. There are two accounts of how humankind was created. In the first, man and woman were created at the same time, while in the second, Adam was created first, with Eve being created later. In the Hebrew texts, Adam and Lilith were equals, and as such she often challenged Adam's authority and always rebelled against him. She would even complain to him, during sex, that she had to lie beneath him, which she didn't think fair because they were equals. Eventually, Lilith left Adam, but from her sexual union with him she spawned many demons which went forth to plague mankind. When we get to the second story, that of Adam and Eve in the Garden, Eve was created after Adam - from his rib - and when God ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden, he told her when he cursed her that her desire will be for her husband, and he will rule over her, thus completely the opposite of the equality that Adam and Lilith had shared. 

These things were, of course, all very interesting. But what I found the most striking out of the entire lecture were the professor's profuse apologies for "misogyny." It made me step back and ask, "But why is that 'misogyny' in there? Doesn't anyone ever ask that question?" And, apparently, no-one does. We just continue writing it off to men's innate, evil, misogynist nature - even though, as I pointed out earlier, if we opened our eyes and actually looked at the world around us, we would see that men are far more prone to practice irrational and blind love of women than misogyny. And, just as the men of the modern day always think it is the other men who harbour misogynistic attitudes towards women, we also believe that our modern enlightened selves are better than those other misogynistic men who existed in the past.   

But, what do you do when Greece and then Rome arise as two of the premier civilizations in human history? And yes, you can point out their "misogyny," but you can't deny their excellence. It is said that when Alexander the Great was handing King Darius III of Persia his ass on a silver platter, Darius lamented, "My men have become women and my women have become men." (In other words, they embraced androgyny - and this is true, if you examine how their customs changed over time).

And look at what comes from Rome, but the same warning we find about Adam and Lillith's equality:

"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." -- Cato the Censor (There's a story similar to modern "slut-walks" found in that link, by the way.)
I have also read of the effects of hypergamy and Briffault's Law in Rome, as it related to a woman's dowry and how it changed over the course of history in relation to divorce laws. At first, when a divorce occurred, the husband would keep the dowry, and divorce was low. Then the laws changed and after divorce, the dowry would return to the wife's father, and divorce rose. Finally, after divorce, the wife kept possession of the dowry herself, and from there, we find that in Rome they said "women marry intending to divorce, and divorce intending to remarry." (Sound familiar? Ever heard of starter marriages?). Thus, they had to pass draconian laws trying to force men to take them on as wives, because the men wanted nothing to do with them, and their birthrates declined to a point where it was a jeopardy to the state.

We find the same tale in Aristotle's Spartan Women, except in Sparta they further undermined hypergamy and Briffault's Law through their inheritance laws: 

"And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin."
We see the same thing, over and over again. In fact, written some eight decades ago, Sex and Culture by J.D. Unwin, chronicled the rise and fall of over 80 cultures and in each case he found that "misogyny" was present at the beginning and during the rise of the culture, while equality and the feminine principle dominated the decline and the eventual collapse.   

 I believe that one of the reasons we only find this sort of "misogyny" in religion and myth is because, first of all, books like the Bible are unchangeable because they are based in Absolute Truth.  They are further found in myths and legends because men, somewhere in the past, must have figured out that women will never allow the Truth about them to be openly discussed, so they passed it on in different ways - through the "twinkling remembrance" of our ancestors.  
“Men are not troubled to hear a man dispraised, because they know, though he be naught, there's worth in others; but women are mightily troubled to hear any of them spoken against, as if the sex itself were guilty of some unworthiness.” – John Seldon (1584-1654)
After all, when looking at the concept of All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom, which we discussed further up, can't you see its relationship to the legend of the Amazonian Women?

"There has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons, who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males to whom they gave birth." -- Spinoza

And can you see it further in some of our great feminist "thinkers?"

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." -- Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future - If There Is One - Is Female

What happens throughout history is that women censor all of the negative observations about them into oblivion, and men, in their desire to serve and please them, will enable them - much like how companies like Symantec, the producer of Norton AntiVirus (who produce terrible products anyways), will try to label any website speaking of these issues as a "hate" site. The only way to get things "through" and passed the burning desire of the male to please the female, is to enshrine it in something absolute like the Bible, or hide it in myth or legend.

Is the Truth Misogynist?

The term "misogynist" is one that indicates emotion. It means a hatred or dislike of women. The academtards with subversive social agendas have been trying to rejig the English language by insinuating that misogyny means someone who doesn't believe in equality, or voting rights, or whatever other feminist jargon they tack onto it - basically insinuating that anyone who doesn't support their political and social agenda is misogynist. But this is nonsense. Just because someone doesn't believe children should have equal say as their parents does not mean they hate children.

The "misogynists" of old, such as Otto Weininger or Arthur Schopenhauer or Aristotle or the Bible don't hate women. They disagree with the feminist agenda, for sure, but there is no "hatred" in what they say. They are merely trying to reveal the Truth.

The Truth has no feelings. It does not feel love or hatred.

The Truth has no agenda - unlike the multi-billion dollar feminist industry.

The Truth does not assign blame, nor does it concern itself with hurt feelings.  

The Truth just is.

Often in the following pages you will see me refer to a "hierarchy" that goes like this: God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children.

This "hierarchy" exists on many levels and does not indicate any particular superiority, although those who believe in the religion of equality are instantly incensed by it. It also works backwards in much the same way that it works forward. For example, children are considered more valuable than adults, and women are considered more valuable than men. Further, children are at war with their parents, but parents are not at war with their children. Women are at war with men, but men are not at war with women. Men are at war with God/Truth, but God/Truth is not at war with men. And it descends from here as well. Only when man is in proper relation to the Truth, can he expect woman to be in proper relation to him. This is something hard-wired into our biology and it has been with us from the beginning.

Our civilization is a "machine" that harnesses our sex drives and life forces for the good of us all. I don't really believe that men are any more superior than women, but I don't believe we are "equal" in all things either. I believe we both have strengths and weaknesses. I believe that men and women possess different kinds of power. I believe that men make very poor women and women make very poor men. I think androgyny is the most destructive notion we've ever unleashed on our great civilization, and I don't support the feminist movement's agenda to further destroy us by brainwashing more of this androgyny into society.

If that makes me a misogynist, so be it. I feel no shame.

If the Truth is misogynist by modern definition, then I stand with the Truth proudly.
Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........
“Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women. It is notable that in Communist nations women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been men’s work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken down the ‘barricades’ between the work of the sexes. I hope they will still feel triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. I hope they will be ‘happy’ when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be ‘free’ she shouldn’t object to men being free too, should she?) I hope they will feel ‘fulfilled’ when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subways buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and elevators…. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted, embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks.” ~ Taylor Caldwell, 1970