Friday 11 April 2014

Termination of the Female Sex - Mathieu of Boulogne

"You should gather up your sheep and wander through the fields calling them, in case you find any that have gone astray, so that they can be saved by you. You must do all you can for their safety, chasing away the wolves with your dogs and staff, and your shouting. If one dies, and you see it, you should immediately try to revive it; for if a shepherd allows a ewe to die through his own fault, ignorance, or laziness, he must, according to the law, pay compensation, if he was in a position to protect it and even if Argus himself had tried to prevent this. And since the ordinary shepherd is expected to make reparation, you are expected to do so all the more, you who are all-seeing and all-powerful, and the lord of all shepherds. Thus it follows logically that, since you are capable of saving your flock and your sheep, then you must and will save them. If you are not moved by pity, you will be the cause of our deaths.

"Yet whatever one might say about us men, who are in a position to be saved, I do not believe that you can have or save the soul of a woman. For you know and have clear proof of the fact that she was the cause of our fall and the reason for your death. Therefore you should not strive at all for her salvation. And when, on judgement day, Adam is resurrected and his body becomes whole again, then the whole female sex, which, as I have said, is full of venom, will revert to nothingness and will thus disappear. For otherwise Adam could not be whole again: if his rib were not replaced in its rightful spot (from which it was taken, and with which you created woman many years ago in your earthly paradise and then forbade her entry into it), Adam would not be complete. However, once his rib has been replaced, woman will be no more. Thus she will not be saved or resurrected."

Previous Mathieu of Boulogne Index

Thursday 10 April 2014

EOTM: The Feralization of Culture - Building Better Predators

The following is taken from a correspondence with a man from another English speaking country which is being transformed by feminism.

We have already seen a number of unexpected results from the social changes of the last half of the 20th century. We know that the results will not be what was intended. But we have enough prelimiary data to begin to speculate the outcomes of current trends.

Here is one such speculation. The general topic was sexual freedom, and the context was discussion about why women keep choosing the kind of men they keep complaining about.


The thing that women find attractive in men is men's command of the unknown. THE THING THAT IS ATTRACTIVE ABOUT MEN IS WHAT THEY MIGHT BECOME.

The thing that men find attractive in women is in women as sustainers of the known, and everything that that is associated with (eg, warmth, nurturance, vulnerability, etc). THE THING THAT IS ATTRACTIVE ABOUT WOMEN IS IN WHAT THEY ARE

"Sexual freedom" absolves women from their responsibilities as filters of variety. They become the choosers of losers, the devolutionary force of humanity.

/- I ask that you consider the following possiblities

1) The purpose of a filter is two-fold. It must not only block passage of something, it must allow passage of something else. Perhaps women's responsibilities have changed to pass more variety, WHAT MEN MIGHT BE, and block more predictability.

2) Perhaps right now what the human race needs IS MORE variety rather than less.

3) Industrialization has proven to be an absolute nightmare for the human race, and it has hastened and intensified a long standing trend for the accumulation of ever increasing amounts of durable wealth in the hands of an ever smaller percentage of the population.

4) The consumption curve is expanding geometrically not only with regard to the food supply, but also with respect to energy consumption and depletion of natural resources. At our CURRENT levels of consumption, we are destroying 17,000 species per year. In 100 more years, half of all the species alive on earth today will be extinct.

5) Industrialization is an abrupt discontinuity in "human progress". It has totally changed our "ecosystem" in the broadest sense of that term. Today the "ecosystem" that the majority of the citizens of western industrialized technology driven countries inhabit is entirely artificial. What was adaptive in the history environment may be maladaptive in the one we inhabit today.

6) Nothing that we face today can be categorized as "known", therefor attempting to sustain the "known" is not only futile, but may be dangerous.

7) I made the comment before about the slow rate of technological change keeping all cultures "synchronized" and how the advent of technology de-synchronized everything. Perhaps we suffer now from too much stability rather than too little.

8) I have stressed the point many times that the social values which included the disregard of sluts and sluttishness was also one which operated in a relatively high degree of survival stress from mortality. We have an omnivorous scavenger here in the US called a raccoon. Having killed most of the normal predators of these creatures, we have seen a burgeoning population of them around cities where garbage is plentiful. However, they now go through cycles of mass die-off from disease because the gene pool is not constantly being culled, and periodic disruptions to their fertility cycles. Live births will suddenly begin to WAY disproportionately favor one sex over the other - either a very high percentage of females, or mostly males.

I would be seriously skeptical of the idea that the sex in abundance is due to any sort of random chance. A decrease in the female population will favor increased aggression among males. An increase will favor the more passive males.

9) Right now we have the first population of a generation of young males ( in the US ) to hit the breeding years without a major war to weed out the most aggressive. The net effect is to decrease the number of potentially available females per male. The effect is small, but there. The Vietnam war took out nearly half a million men of one age cohort, 90% of them with post-war effects. The current generation has lost none. A decrease in the relative number of females increases competition among the males, favoring the most aggressive.

10) During the 3 generations which spanned the two world wars and Vietnam, the increase in the available female ratio favored the more passive males. In the 1960s, Mailer noted that we had a "crisis of masculinity" in this country. We had been breeding the docile type males required by the factory floor.

11) With the fall of industrialization, which began as long ago as the late 1950s, this passive type male suddenly became maladaptive.

12) The transition from a manufacturing ( goods based ) economy to a "service or information" economy completely altered the "ecosystem" without people realizing it. Before the transition to being a nation of "handlers", there was about one "promotion" available for every 10 workers. Climbing the "corporate ladder" of incomes involved following the rules, keeping your mouth shut, and having social connections. Anybody who did these 3 things could assume steady upward progress ( mobility ).

13) By the early 90s, the expansion of the workforce and elevated income expectations had reduced the promotion/worker ratio to 1/30. It was projected to be 1/50 by the end of the decade. This was before GATT and we began exporting our manufacturing base overseas.

14) "Downsizing" and exporting jobs has reached frenzy proportions. There simply are no more companies to create the high-paying jobs to absorb the number of college graduates. If I had a son contemplating college today, I would do everything I could to discourage him. He would face 5x the competition for lower real wages than when this whole paradigm got established.

15) I think the boys who are skipping college are smarter than we are. They don't have any "history" to revere and are making far smarter choices than we are trying to foist on them. Their favorite "toys" are video games which utilize their historic spatial-kinesthetic advantage over women.

16) The entire industrial economy is headed for collapse. These boys are ahead of the curve.

17) Men our age can't see it because of the blind spots created by the sacred cows of our value system.

18) The falsity of the feminist paradigm will come crashing down around their ears when the velocity economy collapses due to the fact that it simply isn't producing anything worth having any more, and no one can afford it anyway.

19) At that point, the most aggressive, hardest males with the lowest income expectations will have the reproductive advantage.

20) Industrialization is the force causing "society" to de-evolve. Actually, it is only DE-evolving from our value system and a set of social values which do not apply in today’s environment.

21) Men like you and I have been royally fucked by this. The men that most embody the traditional values which made the system work are now not getting the rewards from it.

22) Life's a bitch some days.

23) We need to be cautious about turning DEscription into PREscription. Women's role in modulating stability may not always mean that they always drive to maximize stability.

Whether that is their "responsibility" or simply a function of the effect of their choice making, DEscribed after-the-fact, saying that women are "falling down on the job" assumes that we know what "should" be and that is somehow different from what is. Women, with their choices of mates, are creating the males of the future. I think the would-be social architects know a great deal less about the real result of their interventions than anyone imagines.


Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love

Wednesday 9 April 2014

Monstrous Woman - Mathieu of Boulogne

Now you can see how foolhardy it is to take a wife. What will your response be? What is the point of your studying the matter? Don't get married, have mistresses. If you are weak by nature, it will be safer for you to have a hundred of them rather than devote yourself to one; treat them as if they were no more important than a straw. And if you are strong, take my advice, don't plunge yourself in the mire or frequent either one woman or many - I forbid you to have anything to do with them, for in the garden lurks a snake; and no one approaches it without regretting it afterwards.

Now I should like to rest for a while. for whoever sets out to expose the evils of the female sex, finds her poisonous acts too numerous to relate. Nature shows and teaches us that every woman is a real monster and that she is quite happy to put up with her own faults. There is no shortage of proof of this, or demonstration of how monstrous she is. It is said that woman was conceived without nature's consent. A philosopher testifies to this quite clearly in his works, saying that nature, having embarked on creation, was shocked when she contemplated her mistake and blushed as she became aware of it. Woman is a monstrous hermaphrodite, proving to be a chimaera with horns and a tail bigger than a peacock's or pheasant's. Thus she bears the marks of a monster, as this treatise informs you.

And if anyone were to say that women in general are slandered without taking account what each individual woman might do, and that some, who are specially favoured, deserve our respect and praise, I would venture to say that this would be an unnatural thing and that there has never been such a great miracle. For their sex in no way prepares them to be virtuous or to do good, indeed they are predisposed to do the very opposite.

In a vision the narrator remonstrates with God about the creation of woman and the institution of marriage. Moreover, he objects to the injustice of the punishment for the Fall, and argues that God, as good shepherd, must save people, whatever their sin.

Previous Mathieu of Boulogne Index Next

Tuesday 8 April 2014

EOTM: Radical Notions

"In the beginning, there was the "Battle of the sexes", and it was bad enough. Then, on the end of the 2nd millenium, man and woman made "Gender War", and they looked at it, and it was worse. "


The following is a brief, rapid fire, summary of a variety of biological and social perspectives on the gender war. The social structures related to mating are undergoing a profound and radical shift. We need to set aside the issues of value judgements for a moment to see exactly what the trends are and speculate where they might lead if they continue in the present direction. Then we need to reapply the notion of values and decide whether that is truly the way we want things to go. We can shape the future by our choices.

Consider the following a "work in progress." It is an attempt to introduce certain radical notions in a way that will show how they all fit together. I will probably show disrespect to at least one of everyone's sacred cows. I mean these ideas to be provocative, and hope that they can help spark a new dialogue in which more of the basic assumptions regarding human behavior, and certainly the stereotypes, will come under deeply skeptical scrutiny.


One - If you are a dedicated creationist, read no further. Determinism and external causation are so central to feminidiocy that if you accept those basic premises then any battle with feminist theory will boil down to nothing more than Catholics fighting Protestants. Most of what I say is based on Darwin and Malthus and if you reject the work of those two then you will not see that my formulations have any power at all. However, if you can step back a bit you will see that the entire notion of "Patriarchy" is nothing more than a variation on Jehovah or Allah. The claims that wimminists make for the power THEIR male god, Patriarchy, even exceed the claims made by Judeo-Christians and Muslims. J & A at least give their followers enough free will to screw up and fail the entrance requirement to heaven. "Patriarchy" moves everyone like puppets.

Two - there will never be a mass men's movement in the same way that there has been a mass women's movement. Men simply are not joiners in the same way. Men "join" something for the status or other benefit it gives them - all the men's movements so far have been so silly that joining a men's movement is a step below seeking psychological counseling on men's list of things to do.

Three - Whether by genetics or socialization, and I really suspect a combination of both in which natural tendencies are maximized, men are more likely to deny their pain and tough things out. Back in the 1930s, Alfred Adler (an influential writer on the education of children) wrote about the drive to excell or be "superior" which was innate to children, boys in particular. Competition and "winning" are important enough that minor issues of pain are secondary for men.

Four - Feminism is a strawman, a red herring, distracting people's attention from a much larger philosophical war. A woman back in 1957 wrote a book in which all the words, arguments, and claims which the wimminists spout came out of the mouths of both men and women. Marxism is only part of it, but it is a central part - "from each according to ability, to each according to need." If you haven't already, you need to dig into some of the foundations of contemporary feminist theory, particularly the so-called "post- structuralist" notions of (Michael, I believe) Foucault. I have some links if you are interested. What these nutcases have done is to take socialism from an essentially economic theory and made it into a theory of cognition. He literally claims that reality is whatever we decide to perceive it to be. His work is what has given feminidiocy the "woman so oppressed that she doesn't know she is oppressed" notion. His discussion of "internalized social controls" puts the oppression and victim spin on what someone else would call conscience or a sense of ethics. Too bad Freud has taken such a beating by the feminidiots, because Foucault's "internalized controls" map perfectly onto Freud's "superego". Thus sociopathology, the ability to act any damn way they please any damn time they please, and have no concern for the consequences to other people, is the heart and soul of feminist theory.

Five - Thus certain aspects of feminst theory ARE true. Women have been restricted because their selfish nature unconstrained by social controls will be inevitably destructive. The entire foundation of civilization depends on containing individual behaviors within certain boundaries so that the rights of others are not violated. Feminism demands the right for any woman to be free to violate the rights of anyone at any time and suffer no consequences for it. The extreme of this is the right to murder unborn children, born children, and men and get away with consequences less severe than a man suffers for insulting a woman.

Six - Western Civilization is in decline. This gets real tricky because the points I make inevitably trigger knee-jerk reactions in both liberals and conservatives. I make and remark on observations without adding the baggage of judgement. The only way to understand a lot of this is to take an objectivist viewpoint. Western civilization is based on Imperialism, Judeo-Christianity, and urbanization. The American Empire was the successor to the British Empire, which learned everything from the Roman Empire. It is inherently expansionistic which brings us to the Malthus limit. Since Malthus was writing in essentially pre-technological times, he only talked about food supply. Since population increases geometrically while food supply can only increase arithmetically, there will inevitably come a point where the two curves intersect and population will over-run the food supply and mass starvation will set in. War and competition for territory have always been time-tested historic methods for disposing of excess population. About 110 years ago we (European Imperialists) ran out of continents that we could steal from the original inhabitants using our superior weapons technology. While military domination has remained an important tool of "foreign policy" right up to Kosovo today, there has been a switch to economic and industrial domination. The "bad news" side of this is that as other countries industrialize and the "standard of living" rises to match "the American Dream", the consumption of resources, both raw materials and energy, begins to follow the same geometric expansion as the pressure on the food supply. Thus, we must either continue to confiscate the resources and food of other countries at the point of our Armed Forces' guns, or find a way to live within the limits of our resources. That is most certainly NOT the "American" way, so what we have is increased competition for resources which is expressed as agression. While this aggression is temporarily hidden behind the smokescreen of the courts, and the thugs and hiwaymen of today are called "lawyers" and "international bankers", the function is the same: theft from the owners and producers (ability) to serve the self-defined "needs" of the non-producers and non-owners.

Seven - The most destructive notion in Western Civilization today is that of "entitlement". As a naturalist, I point out that no rabbit in the wild is "entitled" to live 10 more minutes. He earns that "privilege" each time he escapes the coyote and forfeits it the moment he fails.

Eight - About 40 years ago the US made a major transition in its economic structure which has gone largely unnoticed and its significance seldom understood and even more seldom remarked upon. In the late 1950s, at the peak of the US industrial success, domination of the world, and consumption of the world's industrial output, the percentage of the population which managed or sold something exceeded the percentage of the population PRODUCING ANYTHING. We made the transition from being a nation mostly of producers to being a nation of "handlers". I can't remember the name of the guy who postulated that a "service economy" (and by implication an "information" economy) was possible, but I contend that history will prove him completely, perversely, wrong. There's a guy in Canada who could be my clone who has done a GREAT job of laying this out, so I'll just refer you to his page and save myself the effort. ( Trying to sum up my thesis as succinctly as possible - we have moved from an economy of value-ADDITION to an economy of value-DIVISION. We see this manifested everywhere, but most of all in the feminist demands for "wage-parity" and prating about "glass-ceilings" which absolutely deny and try to refute the principle of value-addition. Women (and minorities as well) are to be compensated NOT on how much value they add to a product or company, but on what they are ENTITLED to because the group to which they belong has never added enough value to have been worth compensating for it. It is no accident that one of the favored professions for these newly "liberated" women has been lawyer. The law gives them the structure to rob people at the point of a gavel rather than a gun.

Nine - At some point in time we will run out of pie to keep cutting up into smaller and smaller pieces while the legal system loots out the biggest pieces for itself. The notion of "capital" is dead in an information economy. We had this lesson presented to us once back in 1929, when capital still really existed, but we weren't paying attention. Keynes's method of counting the $$$ which a lawyer loots out of a productive company as part of the GNP, in effect counting it twice, is the worst case of cooking the books which has ever been perpetrated. A velocity economy MUST accelerate in response to an increasing population. Most of the acceleration since 1967 has been achieved by inflation and the creation of debt. I believe that there is a terminal velocity which will result in a dramatic restructuring of the economy, most likely nearly complete collapse.

Ten - The "glass cellar" will be the safe refuge for the majority of men. The less they earn and expect to earn, and the more directly their work adds real value, the better they will weather the collapse. I discourage every young man I can from going to college and joining "the professions". Attorneys are so common that they are being used instead of lab rats in medical experiments. People don't get nearly so attached to them. HMOs have turned the practice of medicine into piece-work, or worse into a turn-of-the-century sweatshop. MDs are now forming "Doctors UNIONS"! ( now how is THAT for surreal )

Eleven - The education system is not "failing boys", it is failing itself and the culture which supports it. It destroys motivation, rewards conformity and passivity, punishes merit, and totally inverts the contribution/reward system which made this country so phenomenally successful for nearly 3 centuries. The legal looters have turned achievement into a target and accomplishment into a crime to be punished. Boys are bright, they have caught on.

Twelve - The rise of feminism concurrent with the decline of compensation for value-additon is no accident. Feminidiots can NOT add value, so they will always perish in a free market based on value. Only in a government driven oligarchy can they demand high salaries and tenured positions for teaching that there is no reason, no mind, and that there should be no constraints on the behavior of women - including their right to commit murder.

Thirteen - (appropriately) Any bad idea is self-limiting. Even the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its stupid economic ideology. The US will do the same. It is inevitable. There are too many idiots in charge and giving the looters free license to loot.

Fourteen - ( and this one you may find one of the most controversial ) If you have been able to swallow what I said about Malthus, resource and energy consumption, and the notion of hitting a wall that cannot be moved or gone around, this next statement may not seem so hallucinatory: feminism, AIDS, Ebola, and a host of other "new" diseases are related. If you don't hold to the notion that some male all-powerful supernatural entity built the world in his garage with power tools about 6,000 years ago, and accept the archeological record, human beings as they are today have been around for about 60,000 years. Population estimates at the end of the last ice age, about 25,000-30,000 years ago, put the human population of the world at about 250 million. In 1850, the population was about 1.5 billion. It took roughly 30,000 years for the population to increase 6x. In the next 150 years, it increased 4x to approx 6 billion. There were a whole lot of factors which went into this, but Pasteur's germ theory and what I call "death control" is what I consider to be the primary factor. Population levels are the result of two vector forces. The fertility force pushes population levels upward. The mortality force pushes them down. Significantly reduce the mortality force and population levels will surge upward, geometrically, as they did after 1850. The world is one hell of a lot bigger and more complex than most people realize, and the "scientists" understand one hell of lot less than they claim to. Ever heard of lemmings? When their population reaches excessive levels they commit mass suicide. When other animal populations reach excessive levels and the gene pool begins to be compromised, suddenly live births will switch from a 50/50 ratio of male to female and will begin to produce a preponderance of one sex over the other. There are control mechanisms in nature that we haven't even begin to understand yet which reduce excess populations by either increasing mortality or decreasing fertility or both. Since humans are the most successful predator ever, and have killed into extinction all the larger predators who preyed on us about 11,000 years ago, the "new" predators on the human species are now the smallest: the microbes. And to end run the effect of antibiotics, they are the borg of the microbe world: viruses instead of bacteria. "Your T-cells WILL be assimilated. Resistance is futile." The rise of feminism and gay rights and the destruction of the traditional family are social adaptations requiring and causing a FUNDAMENTAL shift in the fertility-maxmizing social structures which have been so successful that humans have bred themselves to the brink of starvation.

Fifteen - So what does all this have to do with men, men's rights, and a men's movement? A couple of significant things. First, we have to look at the criminalization of fatherhood (divorce, child support, and false DV claims), sexual intercourse with women (expanded definitions of rape and statutory rape), and even finding women attractive (sexual harassment) as evidence that this culture has criminalized the male contribution and role in fertility. What women want be damned, what the culture wants is made clear by what it criminalizes: the male contribution to fertilty. C4m, or "non-fathers" rights will need to be an essential part of any coherent men's movement. An effective means of male birth control would go a long way but, for the time being, celibacy (remaining unmarried) and chastity (sexual abstinence) will have to do. By law, the government can confiscate any or all of a man's wages to support A) any children born by a woman married to him, or B) any child conceived by an unmarried woman using his sperm. To show you how radical I am, as a dedicatedly heterosexual male, I consider gay rights to be the only coherent "men's movement" to surface so far. They have found an end run for the wage-slave, specialized beast of burden to haul around a financially and emotionally dependent wife and family, role.

The social roles have been flipped. Where women used to be the gatekeepers (restrainers) of sexual activity, they are now the most ardent pursuers under the dishonest guise of seeking "love." (Not to go into here just how little real "love" there is to a High Maintenance woman who uses marriage to legally loot half or more of her husband's lifetime earnings.) Once large numbers of men figure out how well sexual withholding works, as it has for women for millennia, I expect lots more men to adopt it. This is where time is particularly on the side of boomer males. Just at the time that our hormonal drives are cooling off and the sexual attentions of women becoming almost more of an annoyance than a pleasure, is when we encounter the largest number of single women who have their precious fucking careers, no husband, and aren't attractive enough to deal with unless they COURT US. Revenge is a dish which tastes best eaten cold.

Second, since the "internal controls" of essential civility have been discredited by feminism, we don't even have to be civil to these women. In fact, I learned that when I stopped doing so that my life became many times more managable.

One of the grand old men of Macho, Norman Mailer, said one of my favorite quotes back in the 60s: "There is nothing in the world more over-rated than a good lay, and nothing more under-rated than a good shit." Thoreau said "At my age my time is too valuable to waste listening to some empty headed twit run her mouth simply because she has regular features."

What none of these idiots have figured out yet is that the men involved in today's "mommy and daddy wars" were socialized and developed their value system pre-feminism. Divorce has broken the transmission of viable culture by preventing these men from socializing their sons in the same value system which was based in fertility maximizing social structures. No matter how much the conservatives try to hold on to the old ways, they are dead - gone the way of the dodo bird.

I hope I'm still around to laugh my ass off when these idiots figure out that feminism actually freed men from their wage slavery and protector/provider roles while women pushed them out of the cages they were in because women wanted to take their place in those cages. And I will really split a gut when the post-feminist boys and girls default on the massive debt which the boomers piled up by borrowing their kids future.

Men built civilization for women, now women have tried to push men out and taken the civility out of it. Its gonna be fun to watch them shit razor blades while it crumbles around them. So-called "normal" women deserve what they are going to get because they have sat by in their smug moral superiority and watched the whole thing happen and enjoyed watching men squirm. Our time is coming soon.

I believe that the most important role for middle-aged men is to assassinate women's characters and destroy the mythology of innocence and female moral superiority in the minds of young men. Plus provide a countervoice to the relentless marketing of sex which is designed to make young men slaves and addicts to their sexual appetites. What we need most is a male Shere Hite who blows the lid off this whole best-kept secret of what bum fucks most women are and how obnoxious sex can be when it is nothing but a treat handed out by women in reward for jumping through hoops.

There has been a "men's movement" going on for years that no one has recognized because it looks like millions of wildcat strikes of one. Men are abandoning the culture which is out to kill them. But, in typical male way, they are coming to the decision individually and implementing it in their own unique way. Almost 1/3 of the men of marriage age in this country have never been married. This despite the two decades of whining about "men can't make a committment." Men are abandoning mass media and giving up the yuppie lifestyle. This is why advertising panders so much to women. Boys are jumping off the achievement track and the work-earn-spend treadmill because they know that even if they develop the skills that they will never be able to compete on merit alone and will always have to swim upstream against unfair advantages of women. It IS still "every man for himself" and I don't think it will ever change until this artificially created period of plenty is over.

Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love

Monday 7 April 2014

Mother of Calamity - Mathieu of Boulogne

It's true that women are lazy, but they are always ready to do harm. An evil woman just gets worse, becoming even more evil and wicked. It would take far too long for me to tell you everything about them, so for brevity's sake I shan't. Woman is not wise in this respect, for in her eagerness to do harm she only brings about her own ruin. According to the law, as I understand it, woman is not rational, nor does her love reside deep in her heart, but is there on her gaze for everyone to see. She entrusts her honour openly to her eyes, yet they can't help but fail to protect it, since folly animates her gaze. With all her words, her chatter, and her talk, she could break a heart of glass; all her actions are stupid and foolish. Woman can do no good, indeed, goodness is destroyed and obliterated by her. Many a war is begun by women and many a murder committed throughout the world; castles are burned and ransacked and the poor made destitute. As every man and woman knows, there isn't one war in a thousand that isn't started by a woman and by her sowing of discord. She is the mother of all calamities; all evil and all madness stem from her. Her sting is more venomous than a snake's; there isn't anyone who has anything to do with her who doesn't live to regret it.

Previous Mathieu of Boulogne Index Next

Sunday 6 April 2014

EOTM: Man Hating and Man Bashing

Robert Heinlein, in his 1982 novel "Friday" makes the following statement:

"Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms... ( such as when the people of a country stop identifying themselves with the country and start identifying with a group. A racial group. Or a religion. Or a language. Anything as long as it isn't the country as a whole. A very bad sign, Particularism. And, before a revolution can take place, the population must lose faith in both the police and the courts.)...but a *dying* culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A general loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than a riot. This symptom is especially serious in that an individual showing it never thinks of it as ill health but as proof of his/her strength." ( he wrote this in 1982 )

Another wise person with whom I share much of my value system wrote in 1998: "That there is a war between men and women is surely indicative of a society in its death throes."

I have reached the point where the banal cliches about men; how they never ask for directions, what slobs they are; how they think with their "little" heads instead of their big one; are so annoying to me that I refuse to watch television or listen to the radio since they pour out of these public broadcast media in unrelenting streams. A week never goes by without receiving something via email like this list entitled ”More man bashing”.

Like the african-american fed up with "all black people got rhythm" jokes, I never let this sort of mindless hate-mongering go unchallenged. Most people who know me know better than to engage in this sort of infantile self-aggrandizement - elevating themselves by trying to show how far below them some other group is.

The saddest part of this list is how little creativity or real thought it actually shows. A statement such as: "What do you call a man with half a brain?...............Gifted" is completely devoid of the satire, irony, or absurdity which marks most humor and any laughter it provokes comes from nothing more than a sense of loathing. The fact that men themselves will appear to laugh at such jokes comes in part from self-loathing, but more from the fact that many men simply do not know how to fight them.

But the most insidious symptom of the cultural dry rot which allows this was illustrated by the comment of a woman with whom I have no more than a speaking acqaintance. I listened to this woman relate an incident regarding her male (platonic) roommate. He has many medical problems, including hepatitis ‘C’, and has been very sick for the past couple of years. She had purchased one of those pieces of mass market furniture of veneer over particle board which are incredibly dense and heavy. She and a couple of friends were attempting to wrestle this incredibly heavy object up a couple of flights of stairs. He got up off the couch to open the door and placed a hand on an unsupported corner to help steady it.

I was totally taken aback when she concluded her story with a disdainful sneer and said "Being a MA-YAN, he couldn’t just lie there and watch someone else work. He HAD to get up and help". The contempt she showed was so thick you could have cut it with a knife. I have long battled this tendency among women to bash men, often habitually and without thinking as many friends of mine have done until I repeatedly confront them and tell them I will not tolerate it in my presence. What took me by surprise about this particular incident was that, while the bashing is usually about some quality of men which is stereotyped and overstated but still has some basis in the reality of some men’s behavior, in this instance she was bashing him for a trait that I consider admirable.

It was then that I began to understand the true values conflict underlying the gender war, and realize how deep it runs. MEN have become contemptible for their generosity and willingness to help people out, even when it means getting off their asses and forgoing a bit of momentary comfort. John Gray was right, we are from 2 different planets. Like so many men are, I was too stunned to react immediately but later got a severe case of the "I shoulda saids".

I finally got hold of the elusive thing which I had seen at work for years but which had been too slippery to grasp. I understood that there is a certain subgroup of women who WANT to hate us and who LOVE hating us more than they love anything else. If they cannot find anything despicable about us to hate, if we manage to resist being categorized as homogeneous rapists, seducers, abandoners, molesters, incompetents, and so on ad nauseum, then they will find a way to hate us for the very qualities we value most in ourselves and in others: such as generosity and self-sacrifice. And they eschew such values for themselves, without realizing that it is precisely those values on which society is built because they are necessary to allow people to exist in close proximity and high concentrations without going to war over whose needs get met at the expense of the other. Without those values, people turn on each other rather than to each other and the measure of strength becomes not how much one can build, but rather how much one can tear down.

The inevitable outcome of this trend in social values is that when enough people become "strong" enough they will manifest that strength by ripping the culture to shreds.

Saturday 5 April 2014

In Defence of Anti-feminism - Mathieu of Boulogne

Yet one might disagree with me, criticize my conclusion. and, putting forward the opposite point of view, suggest that my words are completely untrue. For, if some women are evil and perverse and abnormal, it does not necessarily follow that all of them are so cruel and wicked; nor should all of them be lumped together in this general reproach. A speech is badly composed if one's general conclusion is only partly valid. Logic hates this type of argumentation. Nevertheless, this present work, which expresses the pain in my heart, wishes me to exclude nothing, but commands me to push my argument to its logical, if extreme, conclusion, which is that no good woman exists. Solomon, in his works, makes an amazing comment, which supports my case, for he exclaims, "Who could find a virtuous woman?" The implication here is, of course, that this would be impossible. Since he says this, who am I to disagree? Why should I be shocked? What's more, he says that a base and broken man is worth more than a woman when she's doing good. Thus there is no woman worth anything at all; I don't need to look for further proof. That's enough logical demonstration.

My exposition is clearly valid, for woman has - and there is ample evidence of this - deceived all the greatest men in the world; I shall be basing myself on rational argument. If the greatest are deceived, then the lesser naturally fall. In the street where I live they say that what applies to the greatest amongst us applies even more to lesser mortals. Who were the greatest lords? Who has ever heard of greater men than Solomon or Aristotle? Yet good sense, riches and reason were not worth a dung-beetle to them; all were made to look as if they had gone out of fashion; these men were both outmanoeuvred by women, deceived, vanquished, and tamed.

Previous Mathieu of Boulogne Index Next

Friday 4 April 2014

Philalethes #9 - Immaculate Conception

Sea horses are vertebrates Indeed they are; my error. I’m not good at thinking/writing in the haste required by these forums. Nor am I expert in biology; that’s not my point.

Unfortunately for the sake of your argument, females, or any other individual, cannot change their biology. There are many species, including birds, fish and most amphibians, which the females lay eggs regardless of the presence of males. The problem? The eggs are infertile. Every time. The male is NECESSARY for reproduction. In humans? Well, the Mother Mary excepting, there are no cases of Immaculate Conception documented. Why? Because it takes a male to create life.

Well, this particular thread started with my mention of a number of known species (at least dozens, probably hundreds, maybe more) in which it does not take a male to create life. These species are assumed to have consisted of females and males at some point, but now consist only of females. I don’t know how evolutionary biologists think that happened; given the example of the geckos, in which male+female species always overcome female-only species in head-to-head competition, it’s difficult to construct a simple Darwinian model in which an individual female who reproduced without benefit of fertilization would have an immediate advantage over her “heterosexual” sisters in the same environment. Nevertheless, somehow it happened.

The New Mexican Whiptail lizard ( Cnemidophorus neomexicanus ), for instance, is a female-only species; no males of this species have ever been found. She reproduces by laying eggs, which, though unfertilized and presumably haploid, nevertheless hatch as baby female New Mexican Whiptail lizards, essentially clones of their mother. Some such female-only lizard species engage in a kind of lesbian sex, in which one female mounts another, presumably to stimulate egg production; of course no fertilization occurs, but the eggs do hatch and produce the next generation of lizards.

("The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." –National NOW Times, Jan.1988)

There are, I gather, examples of such female-only (not asexual, as in amoebas) reproduction in all the major life groups (reptiles, amphibians, fishes, invertebrates, plants) except the warm-blooded birds and mammals — I presume because the pace of life, evolution and competition simply don’t allow for it among the latter. As illustrated by the example of the geckos, it appears (and makes sense) that the primary requirement for this evolutionary development (or devolution) is a comfortable, secure ecological niche without any significant competitive pressure. As we all know, males are incurably competitive; they can be dispensed with only when species don’t need such abilities. But so they will when possible, as males are also expensive (as snidely remarked in the title of a recent feminist screed).

BTW, an American Indian (Iroquois/Mohawk) shamaness I once discussed this with told me that her teachers had told her that female-only reproduction was possible in humans, but the resultant offspring would be only female — as in other species known to do so. So perhaps the logical end of feminism is theoretically possible; though it’s worth noting that this shamaness’s wise women teachers apparently didn’t think the idea worth promoting. She herself is married, by the way.

Anyway, my point is simply this: that clearly the male is not “NECESSARY for reproduction.” The eggs are not “infertile. Every time.” Or maybe they are, strictly speaking, since they possess only a half-set of genes, but nevertheless they do hatch, and produce individuals of the species capable of surviving, living full lizard (and other species’) lives, and reproducing.

True, it appears that “females, or any other individual, cannot change their biology”; but nevertheless it happened, somehow. My picture of how (“she … could dispense with the male and redefine her species as female-only”) was of course a metaphor. Maybe God did it; maybe it happened through some kind of mindless evolutionary process. In any case, if there was some sort of consciousness involved at some level of being, it makes more sense to me to say that it was the survivor of this event (the female) who made the “decision” rather than the one dispensed with (the male).

My point was that the discovery of this fact, unknown to me before ca. 1987, and still unknown to the vast majority of people, was, like the discovery that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than vice-versa, a life-changing event that put everything into a very different perspective, and gave me the necessary key to understanding what had theretofore been a frustrating mystery, i.e. the entire vexed question of “gender relations.” Clearly, Simone de Beauvoir had it exactly, 180 degrees wrong in the title of her feminist Bible, The Second Sex (assuming that she was referring to woman; I haven’t read the book).

Before I learned about this, I was caught in the “he said – she said” trap when trying to unravel gender issues. Feminists claim that they are tired of being the “second sex” and want to be “equal” now. But if the sexes are “equal,” then there’s no basis for differentiating between them; everything goes around in an endless circle; there’s nowhere to start. Are there real, irreducible differences between the sexes? Exceptions have been found, it seems, to every one that has been proposed. Can we define anything, and begin from there? I can now say: Yes. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, “equality” is a myth, nowhere more so than in the relationship between the sexes. And if we try to live by a myth, rather than the truth, we will come to grief. The apparent relation between the sexes, like the appearance that the Sun revolves around the Earth, may be very compelling to our senses of observation, but it is not the truth.

When I was a teenager, my father sat me down one day and explained something to me: that freedom and responsibility are indissolubly linked, indeed, two parts of the same thing, like two sides of a coin. At the time, he was simply setting out ground rules for my teenage activity (that I could have as much freedom as I was willing to be responsible for); but it was not long before I realized that this was a Fundamental Principle of Life, and in the 40+ years since I have found its application to be unlimited, and unfailingly productive of understanding, sanity, and peace of mind. I’ve had a similar experience in application of this understanding of the true relation between the sexes; it has clarified every situation I’ve observed, including those previously most confusing.

Thus I believe that no real, fundamental understanding of any of the issues discussed here can be gained without beginning from the foundation of this fact: males are the “second sex,” and are optional in terms of fundamental biology. Of course, that’s not all there is to it, by far — it seems clear to me that males are absolutely necessary if we have any hope of developing our consciousness and existence beyond the level of mere biology, i.e. the animal level, with all its attendant suffering — but this fact is where we must start, if we wish to understand how this world works.

Think of a man as a stick in a woman’s hand, a tool which she has created for her use. Clearly, the woman with the biggest stick will prevail in any contest with other women and their sticks — or against any woman who doesn’t have a stick (which covers the example of the geckos). (And the idea that females are not competitive is another of the Big Lies of feminism.) Fundamentally, that’s what males are: tools created by females to use for tasks which they cannot or would rather not do for themselves. (Including, for instance, taking the rap for human competitiveness: "It's those awfule men who cause all the wars; we're just here being sweet and gentle all the time.") Front men, fall guys, whipping boys. Garbage men, soldiers (the ones who actually do the fighting) … all the jobs that all those “equal” women somehow still don’t seem to want.

With the advent of test tube reproduction, we have seen that neither parent need be present to create life. Give it another few years and the artificial womb, or male womb transplants (for the gay community) will make the woman as unnecessary to the whole process as you claim men to be.

God help us. Of all the insanities thought up in the ever-busy human mind, these must be among the most grotesque. Nevertheless, none of these clever, hubristic expedients amount to creating life; like the male sea horse’s incubation of eggs from the female, they are after the fact. “Test-tube reproduction” combines gametes from two human parents in an artificial environment; it does not create the gametes. The two parents may not be in the room, but they are absolutely necessary. The same goes for an “artificial” or “transplanted” womb; they are but containers, useless until they contain something, and that something comes from (at least) a female of the species. Only the Creator creates life; human hubris creates only misery.

Women have not always been in charge of every species. I find it interesting that you claim my example of the sea horse feminist (more national geographic than feminist in origin), when your argument for females being in charge is exactly what “proof” feminists themselves use to justify their position.

Depends what you mean by “in charge”; but it seems to me clear that if, in a general, absolute sense, females can exist without males but males cannot exist without females, and females can decide whether males exist or not, while males cannot decide whether females exist or not, nor even, apparently, have any control over what decision females make regarding males’ existence, then one of the two is in fundamental control of the situation, while the other is not. This is not a species-by-species matter; it is a universal truth. Thus I would say that females have been “in charge” of every species. The female is the species; the male is an optional variation on the theme. Once I was talking with a woman about this subject, and she said, “But aren’t there any species that consist only of males?” And a minute later she said, “No, I guess that’s impossible, isn’t it?” Exactly my point. “Girls rule!”

The sea horse example I believe I’ve heard/read before from feminists trying to “prove” that males are as suited as females for childrearing tasks. (And who says there’re no feminists at National Geographic? These days, feminist rhetoric comes from everywhere, including many male scientists who are, apparently, doing their best at what has always been required from males: to please the female.) Such one-off examples are always cited to “disprove” general rules, and always remind me of Samuel Johnson’s famous quip: 'Sir, a woman's preaching [in church] is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

Not clear to me what you mean by the feminist “position” that is justified by the argument I present. Let me make clear that, as with the subject of “blame” addressed elsewhere, I am not seeking to “justify” anything. Justification involves moral argument, and requires first defining moral principles, etc.; it’s a completely different discussion. I am presenting only (what I believe to be) facts, because I believe that we must get our facts straight before we can begin to discuss moral or similar issues.

It’s not that I do not care about moral issues, only that their discussion will be fruitless if we are not first agreed on the ground. For instance, it’s pointless to discuss questions of power and its proper use unless we first understand what power is and who has it. Feminists are constantly complaining about being powerless, and in fact “everyone knows” that women are helpless victims of male power — and, as exhaustively documented on this site, our entire moral/legal system is constructed on the basis of this assumption.

500 years ago, “everyone knew” that the Sun revolved around the Earth; after all, you could see it come up in the east every morning and travel across the sky. Until someone really looked, and found the truth was just the opposite. If NASA were running its space program on the basis of the pre-Copernican world view, it wouldn’t get very far. And so long as we try to address the deep, painful grievances of both genders in the “battle of the sexes” based on untrue assumptions, we’ll only go around in circles, and everyone will hurt more and get more angry, until perhaps we reach some sort of sexual Armageddon.

It’s true that in a way I may seem to be agreeing with some part of the feminist view. Because it’s true. Girls do rule. Tactically, I suppose, my approach is something like the “gentle” martial arts of judo and taiji (I’ve practiced the latter): yield to the opponent, and use her force to accomplish ones own goals. But it’s not a game I’m playing; I wouldn’t “agree” with any feminist position because it’s a feminist position, I merely present the truth, and if a feminist position agrees therewith, well that’s a place to start. And then hold them to it. Yes, girls do rule: so why not quit whining and rule responsibly? As a Zen master once said, if your horse-cart isn’t moving, do you hit the cart or the horse?

In the encounter between the sexes, it is women who make The Rules. Men may hold some of the cards, but women own the deck. All that’s really necessary to find solutions to the problems between the sexes is for women to recognize and acknowledge the power they already have, and that what we have has resulted from their use of that power, and to begin using that power consciously and constructively rather than, as in the past, unconsciously and (all too often) destructively. Will this ever happen? I don’t know.

Disciple: Why is there evil in the world?
Ramakrishna: To thicken the plot.

But it does seem clear that we can’t go on much longer as we have, for we are truly accelerating toward a precipice of a magnitude that few of us can even begin to imagine.

I’ve gone on far too long again. Don’t know if anyone really reads all this; but at least it’s helpful to me to think it through while writing it. Hope you get something out of it, anyone who reads this far.

Previous Philalethes Index Next

Further Reading:

Philalethes #7 – All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom

Thursday 3 April 2014

Women and Lechery - Mathieu of Boulogne

People say that women are lecherous. On the surface, these words sound insulting. However, with due respect to all ladies, it is necessary to speak as one finds. . . .
If there is anyone who says that women with their tits and boobs are colder than the male, let him lose his purse and its contents. If anyone has come to this conclusion, he hasn't looked at the evidence carefully enough. For, by Saint Acaire of Haspre, their lust is much stronger than ours and turns into greater ardour. A woman underneath a man gets very excited. But let's say no more about it at present. . . Women are by nature very weak and frail and more fragile than glass. Ovid says that woman is only chaste when no man courts or chases her. Given their lust, the pope has granted them permission to marry without delay in order to pay the tribute their flesh demands. For otherwise they would hardly manage to wait and would offer or sell themselves to all comers.

Previous Mathieu of Boulogne Index Next

Wednesday 2 April 2014


Women today have fallen in love with THE BITCH. Desperately in search of a model of female power after having it drilled into their heads for so long that they have none, women have seized upon THE BITCH as their savior, their salvation, and the answer to all which troubles them. And THE BITCH is indeed powerful. Few men are centered enough, secure enough in their own power, and calm enough to not cringe in fear when THE BITCH strikes.

The problem lies in the fact that women have become so addicted to the power of THE BITCH that they have lost the ability to tell the difference between her and THE CRAZY BITCH or THE VICIOUS BITCH or THE LYING BITCH. These faces of the dark feminine give women license to vent their most destructive tendencies and become as emotionally violent as they wish and still have the refuge of an excuse for their destructiveness.

There is a popular T-shirt, poster, coffee-mug theme that is often seen these days: "Caution! I go from 0 to BITCH in 2.0 seconds. AND the bitch switch sticks". 
This is both a threat of, and an invitation to, violence. An attack is an attack whether it it verbal or physical. What makes THE BITCH so reprehensible is that the violence is only effective when it exploits an emotional bond and thus is a violation of the most basic requirement for a relationship: trust. THE BITCH'S power is greatest against those who care about her and care what she thinks of them. Everyone else can simply shrug it off and go - "CRAZY BITCH". Only those who she betrays are really affected.

Imagine the reaction of women to that same saying changed only slightly, retaining the full meaning and violent intent:"Caution! I go from 0 to FIST in 2.0 seconds. AND the fist is a repeater."

My advice to men: When you see that a woman is in love with THE BITCH, realize that you are late for the door and put as much distance between you and THE CRAZY BITCH as possible.

My advice to women: Before you reach for the emotional meat cleaver, give a moment of thought to how you would like to be treated by someone who may have a legitimate reason to be angry with you. Wield THE BITCH with exactly the same fervor or restraint that you would expect a man to wield THE FIST.


Back to “Gender War, Sexuality, and Love”

Tuesday 1 April 2014

Bedroom Politics - Mathieu of Boulogne

Whenever there is a secret, woman from here to the island of Crete insists on discovering it. She seizes her husband, drags him off and takes him to bed, pretending that she wants to make love; then she kisses and embraces her husband and deceiving him with her words says, "I don't know what a man has to fear, for in the words of God, a man leaves his father and mother for his wife, they become one, hopefully one flesh, it really is possible. For God has united and joined them with one indivisible bond, tying them tightly so that they will stay together. Therefore every man should do whatever pleases his wife."

Then she strokes his head and resumes the kissing and lies down under him and, arching her back and spine, offers to him her carnal vessel, saying "I'm ready to do your will and shall prove this to you whenever you wish. I beg you to be mine, for we are one and in my case as God says, whether you like it or not, you are mine however reluctantly, and to my mind, rightly so." And as they draw together and she recognizes in his excitement that he is getting ready to copulate, she presses her breast against his, despite the silk of the bedclothes and blankets, saying to him; "Here you are, I'm giving you all I have, offering up to you my heart, body and all my limbs, but please do not forget that you are my husband and lord. Now tell me what I ask of you, you can tell me confidently, for indeed God will know if I am lying. I'd prefer to suffer a terrible and sudden death than to reveal your secrets to others. Oh wretch that I am. I would never do it. You know how I am, you've put me to the test many a time, fair friend, wise husband, now tell me why I am not party to this information. Everything you know I ought to know too. No other person will ever get to hear of it."

Then she kisses and embraces him again, caressing and soothing him. With blandishments and flattery she presses herself right up against him saying, "How foolish and wretched I am since you scorn and ignore my words. Alas, I am truly dishonoured by my misguided love for you. If my neighbours knew of this, I would right1y be criticized, if the situation between us were common knowledge. I love you more than I love myself, I am far superior to other women, yet you deny me knowledge of your secrets - and I tell you all I know, never omitting anything. Other women cover themselves better, for they do not reveal their secrets, they are wise to do this. Yet I am foolish and generous, since I behave in this way towards you. And love alone makes me do this." What more effective and touching proof is there than the gift of one's heart and one's mouth? If the man tries to draw closer, she forbids him to touch her, pulls away, turns her back on him and weeps as if sad and upset. She pretends to be very distressed. Then there's double trouble. She is silent for a while, then sighs and in a grumbling tone says, after a few moments' silence, "Alas, how I am deceived. I can't help but lament; whatever this man wants, I want it too. God knows his every wish would be mine, yet he would do nothing for me. I know that what he keeps hidden from me he discloses to all other women. He who says that man is deceived by woman is misguided and wrong. In this respect too I have been misled. I love you yet you don't love me at all. You aren't mine yet I am yours. And because I love you I'm telling you that you would please me greatly if you were to tell me what I ask. for I would then reveal to you all that I know, and I wouldn't lie on pain of death. Alas, I am your chambermaid. I'd rather be far away and be lying dead in a pit. The matter would have to be very important indeed for me to be able to hide it from you, yet you do not wish to reveal anything to me. I serve you as my lord, as a very important and superior person, yet you turn a deaf ear to my words Our love is hardly mutual."

The man is dismayed and ponders awhile but can find no defence against this attack; he does not notice the malice in her words and replies, "What's the matter, my love? Please turn round. I have never been so upset as I am now over your complaint. I love you truly and there is nothing else so dear to me." She then turns to face her husband, offering him her mouth and breast. He is completely taken in by her lecture. In response to a barrage of request and supplications, he reveals everything to her, thus committing great folly, for from then on, she is the lady and mistress, while he lives the wretched life of a serf. Perrette wants me to tell her everything, concentrating all her efforts on making me angry. If I don't resist, believe me, I shall be treated just as you have heard.

Previous Mathieu of Boulogne Index Next



Man Superior to Woman – Chapter Four

Monday 31 March 2014

EOTM: !!!!!!!!!!RAPE!!!!!!!!!!...

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape"


"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent," -- Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129.


"The fact is that the process of killing - both rape and battery are steps in that process- is the prime sexual act for men in reality and/or in imagination," -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone


"Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire, and the first crude stone axe," -- Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, p. 5.


"All men benefit from rape, because all men benefit from the fact that women are not free in this society; that women cower; that women are afraid; that women cannot assert the rights that we have, limited as those rights are, because of the ubiquitous presence of rape," -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone


Nothing could be farther from the reality of most men's experiences with sex than the characterizations of the radical rape theorists. Sexual freedom for women was once one of the foundations of the so-called "women's liberation" movement, but that has been replaced by a rigid political orthodoxy that is far more restrictive for women than the conditions which were the justification of their need for liberation. As the political has bulldozed its way into the personal, the delicate balance which existed in relationships and made them possible has completely broken down.

Today, nearing the crossover point between the 20th and 21st centuries, it is impossible to approach even the most superficial examination of female/male relationships without having to deal with a bottomless chasm between men and women called rape. The word itself has long since ceased to have any specific meaning because the concept has been so broadened that sex itself, any and all sex, between men and women is now called rape by some. This broadening of the aspect of criminality, violence, within sexual relationships blurs the distinctions between the normal frictions inherent in such an emotionally intense experience and true malicious intent. Indeed, malice on the part of men toward women is assumed and has become impossible for a man to disprove.

Rape has become the metaphor for all the conflicts of power between the sexes, and institutionalizes the underdog position of women. Dissident feminist Camille Paglia characterizes rape as "male power fighting female power". Another dissident feminist group, The Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force (FACT), in "Caught Looking", names and describes the female aspect of power in sexual relationships. "It (denial of the possibility of mutuality) puts the woman in the position that the mother has to the infant: she has the power to give or withold." A few paragraphs later they recognize that "subduing the male through sex, a tradtional female stance, did not give women freedom to become sexual persons in their own right." Journalist Nora Fox, writing for "Squire", magazine suggests "Being the superior sex, women long ago learned the surefire way to get our way is to withhold sex. It's the same way we train dogs. Good behavior merits you a treat; bad behavior puts you in the conjugal dog house for the night. Men never seem to catch on." "It's a sad commentary on social Darwinism that sexual withholding works after all these millennia."

It is an even sadder commentary on the female view of relationships to see a woman advocating that women reduce their sexual nature to commodity status, then use it to play a mean and exploitive version of the futures market: artificially manipulating the commodity to create an artificial scarcity which drives up the price. By equating female sexuality with a dog biscuit, this so-called feminist dehumanizes women and demeans their sexuality far more than men ever could. Implicit in her view, as well as the views of radical rape theory, is a dissociation of women from their sexuality. It is not part of them: it is a THING to be passed around, used to manipulate with, but never something to be valued in its own right. If women, as the superior sex, take that view of their own sexuality, why is it a criminal act for men to believe them?

Extending Ms Fox's analogy of treating men like dogs, anyone who has trained a dog knows that effective training requires iron discipline. When using a treat to coerce desired behavior from a dog, any departure from the conditional withholding and giving a treat when the behavior isn't present will create a game where the beloved pet will try to get the treat without the required behavior. There is no malice on the pet's part, he really thinks it is a game - just like tug-of-war or chase-the-ball.

In sexual relationships, men often have to contend with women who constantly flip-flop in their postions. Sometimes it seems like women want to play: other times it seems like the purpose of the same activity has changed to control. When women attempt to grab the maternal power position described by FACT, and place the man in the position of the infant, by using their power to grant or withhold as a manipulative device, as Ms Fox suggests, men react in a variety of ways ranging from hurt to rage. All of these reactions damage the foundation of a relationship and undermine its mutuality. Depending on his socialization and past experiences with women, he may chose to continue it as a game and try to snatch the biscuit from his would-be mistress's hand, knock her down and take it by force, or simply quit the game and go away.

Prior to the extreme expansion of the concepts of rape, continuing the game was considered to be "romance". Above cited Camille Paglia has also made the statement that "what used to be considered unbridled passion is now called 'date rape'". According to feminist theory, rape definitions were previously biased completely toward the male point of view. Reflecting a cultural and social understanding of the "traditional female stance" of "subduing the male through sex", behavior antecedent to the alleged sex act purported to be criminal in nature was considered in determining whether the woman had been engaging in a power play of bait-and-switch or was truly innocent of any action or intent to provoke interest and desire in a man as a method of gaining power over him. This was a form of protection for men from women who understood the nature of their sexual power and were quite willing to abuse it and use it in a manipulative and exploitive way, just as rape laws were a form of protection from men who were willing to abuse their power to violate a woman sexually.

Nothing is so central to feminist theory as the denial of this as a true form of power. Balancing the so-called "patriarchy" has always been the emotional "matriarchy" of intimate relationships. In its current incarnation, the widely accepted fact that women are "relationship and intimacy experts", women retain exclusive power to define the terms and conditions of intimacy. The male point of view is not just denied and negated: it is demanded of men that they not only accede to, but adopt, the female point of view. Females "know" in their special "women's way of knowing" how relationships "should" be conducted, and they grant or withhold the treat of sex as a means of training men to give them what they want.

This point of view has become entrenched in current legal theory and practice. The determination of criminality has shifted completely away from objective interpretation of events to subjective determination based entirely on the perceptions of the female. Behavior on the part of the female which could have been interpreted in the subjective experience of the male as an invitation or enticement to pursue her, the proverbial and inflammatory "she asked for it", and which can turn really ugly if the woman changes the rules at the last moment and grabs for the maternal power postion of withholding what she has previously implied she was quite willing to give away freely, is now ruled inadmissable in determining guilt. However she says it was, is the law now. The ratios of criminal to non-criminal sexual behavior have been entirely reversed. Rape used to exclude anything which was ambiguous or where the woman's intent was unclear: now it includes all these formerly gray areas and only excludes the rare occasions where the woman is clear and unconflicted in her desires and intent; as Robin Morgan stipulates.

Given the realities of dating relationships, and the complex dance of advance/retreat which is characteristic of them, situations without ambiguity seldom exist. In part, it is the very riskiness of the ambiguous situation which provides much of the excitement of sexuality. Several years ago, Antioch College (always at the forefront of "political correctness") formulated a set of rules for the conduct of sexual relationships which required the male to secure explicit verbal consent prior to each escalation of physical intimacy leading to sex. "Can I touch your breast now?" "Can I put my hand inside your panties now?" "Can I put my finger inside you now?" It's hard to imagine that the people who wrote these rules had ever had sex. The cold and unemotional negotiation of sex like a labor contract is a more effective means of killing a rising bout of libido than a cold shower could ever be. The formal distance and restraint required a separation of intellect from experience and a detachment and dissociation from the event which no amount of lust could survive. What little sexual expression survived this over-intellectualization was necessarily contrived and devoid of emotional content. What started out to be about passion became about nothing more than friction.

In most cases, male ardor could not survive the stilted script and wilted like a cut flower under a hot light. In the current formulation of the sexual script, this was exactly the desired result. Men now assumed the role of the gatekeeper formerly filled by women and rather than rely on her to tell him that he was about to go, or had gone too far, he had to take responsibility for making sure he never stepped over the line: if he did, it was "date rape". Rebalancing the stereotypic division of responsibility implicit in the old tradtional roles would have required women to then take on the role of the initiator, which would also require that they take responsibility for their own sexuality and the fact that they are sexual beings. This, of course, is not allowed under the precepts of either the traditional cultural view of female sexuality or the contemporary position of the rape theorists, which are actually identical in their underlying assumptions despite the cosmetic differences used to hide their true intent. "Women do not want sex, they want love and commitment. A woman who willingly engages in sex is participating in her own oppression. A woman who believes that she has had willing sex is weak minded fool who has internalized her own oppression because she is unable to know any better and patriarchy controls her every move." It would also totally compromise her power postion to grant or withhold sex as a means of getting her way: transferring it to the male.

Given the fact that, historically, a woman's sexuality WAS her primary economic asset; and that the cultural institution of marriage was essentially a socially enforced contract in which the male was held responsible and accountable for providing financially for that woman and any products of his access to her sexuality in return for that access; marital law exempted husbands from rape charges. Rape was considered a form of theft, taking a woman's asset without paying for it. Implicit in this structure was the assumption that, by marrying her, the man had entered into a contract of continued payment for continued access. Cultural stereotyping demanded that women dissociate themselves from any enjoyment of their own sexuality lest men "stop buying cows, because they could get the milk for free". The sexual repression of the first Victorian age was so complete that it was considered somehow shameful and perverse if a woman actually enjoyed sex instead of "lying back and thinking of England" so she could somehow endure the shame and degradation of it all. Sex was primarily for the production of children, and the satisfaction of men's "bestial" urges, and the ideal was to get it over with as quickly as possible in order to minimize the shame and degradation of it all.

The quotes at the beginning of this essay reflect a return to values and cultural attitudes which were far more characteristic of the 1880s than the 1980s. Rene Denfeld has referred to this branch of radical feminism as "The New Victorians" in her book of the same name. The radical rape theorists have somehow managed to pull off a hoax of incredible propotions as they push for reinstatement of total repression and denial of female sexuality while justifying it by claiming it is necessary as a tool to fight the very conditions that it creates as an inevitable result.

The modern day mechanism for this is also identical to the ones historically used: destruction of women's sexuality through a variety of mechanisms and making women fear men because of their bestial and violent inherent natures.

Cultures in Africa and the Middle East take a very straightforward approach to the destruction of female sexuality: they simply chop the genitals off little girls somewhere between the ages of 4 and puberty. Commonly known to western cultures as Female Genital Mutilation, or FGM, these grisly practices are known within the cultures which practice them by the more polite and obscure euphemisms of female circumcision, excision, and infibulation. Western cultures, being on the whole more "civilized", use the more "humane" means of leaving the genitals attached but severing the emotional attachment and ownership, as well as all feeling in them, by the mechanism of shame. The western culture version of FGM is "Female Genital Mindfuck" which confuses and sublimates a woman's real feelings and desires into a form reflecting a prevailing cultural value which serves a social purpose. Women are only allowed to experience pleasure within a highly prescribed and proscribed context. She must be "in love": if she is all things are allowed, up to and including murder, if she isn't nothing is allowed.

This highly scripted social context is just as anti-reality when it comes to the behavior of most women as the characterizations of all sex as a form of violence is regarding the real behavior of men. The cultural mechanism which used to allow women to maintain this fiction and still experience their sexuality was men's fulfillment of their part of the sexual script regarding aggression and initiation. Women could put up "token" resistance secure in the knowledge that men would persist through the 150 rejections required to move the relationship from first eye-contact to sexual intimacy, because that was their role - their "JOB". The inevitable misunderstandings and ambiguities would be excused based on a understanding that the deception involved in the artificial roles made real understanding next to impossible. Women could be sexual without the shame by being "in love", "overcome by passion", "carried away in the heat of the moment", or any one of many other euphemisms for the woman letting the man have her way. Once in a while it got out of hand, and a truly dangerous man would ignore the gatekeeping signals which meant "too far", in which case the man would be convicted of rape. The old code of "chivalry" was sufficient to keep most socialized men in check.

When the public code of chivalry was changed from a woman's privilege to a woman's oppression, the entire system began to break down. Eliminating the distinctions between loving consensual sex and violence, and in fact denying that any such distinctions exist, made it impossible for a woman who was not completely clear on her sexuality (and given the contradictions in the culture on the subject of sex, what woman, or man for that matter, COULD be) to understand the gray areas between her own desires and being exploited by men in purely selfish and self-serving manners. Thus any behavior which fell outside the bounds of "politically correct" orthodoxy came to be criminalized. And since that range was narrow indeed, not to mention anti-reality, almost all sexual actions by men toward women came to be regarded as criminal, or "potentially" criminal (as exemplified by characterizing all men as "potential" rapists). Thus the meaning of the term "rape" has been broadened in its usage to include a vast number of acts that have nothing to do with sexuality, but relate only to the aspect of sex now called by the term "gender". Any time men oppose the desires or actions of a woman; whether it be to grab the moral high ground and maternal power to grant or withhold sex (even after an implicit suggestion that it is to be expected) or simply to impose on men something they have every reason and right to resist; it is now called by some variation of "(modifier) rape".

A female sportswriter, in a often quoted incident which occurred in the locker room of a professional football team several years ago, characterized the male players hostility toward her presence in their locker room, while they were running around in various stages of undress, as "mind rape." No male sportscaster would dream of expecting to be able to hang out in a female athletes' locker room indulging his voyeuristic appetites; but when a woman does and men object - the woman, as always, becomes the victim by screaming RAPE!!!! The very term "mind-rape" should be seen as an oxymoron; and probably would except for the rejection of reason, logic, mind, and intelligence itself as "andro-centric" which radical feminsm has made possible. Rape is being used today in the broadest possible sense to cast the subtle pall of criminal violence on any action of men to assert their own power and right to it. The concept of "equal rights" has been totally lost in the grab for power which feminism has become. Any person in a free society should have the right to deny a person of the opposite sex from leering at them in a semi-private environment. Isn't that the entire foundation under the concept of "sexual harassment". The use of the term "rape" to describe such actions by men illustrates how the meaning has been perverted to the point where the term has no meaning at all any more except to make criminals of men who oppose any action or exercise of power by a woman.

This is not to say that forced criminal sex does not exist, it certainly does and should remain a crime subject to the most severe of punishments. But the destruction and criminalization of the gray areas is most decidedly not to the benefit of either women or men. Kate Fillion, in "Lip Service" describes the experience of a young woman whose interpretation of a sexual encounter changes from the beginnings of a wonderful romance and life together to rape as a result of seeing her lover of the previous night sitting with another girl in the college cafeteria. Many writers, female and male alike, have commented on how this trivialization of the term is incredibly insulting and destructive to those who really have been violated.

The much trumpeted statistic that 1/4 of all women will be rape victims relies on a definition of rape that requires denial of 75% of the women's own interpretations of the experience. Fully 3/4 of the women included in the numbers of "rape victims" themselves characterized the experience as a misunderstanding. Almost half of them went on to sleep with the so-called "perpetrators" again. Under the expanded definition of rape used to create the 1/4 statistic: a man who takes a woman out on that "holy grail" of single womanhood, the "Saturday Night Date", drops a couple of hundred bucks on dinner that includes a bottle or 2 of wine, then they end up doing the horizontal boogie, if she has 2nd thoughts about it later - HE HAS RAPED HER.

The complexity of the conditions for "politically correct sex" have become so prohibitive that failure is inevitable. Perhaps the first area where true equality between the sexes is going to be achieved is by making men as inhibited and ambivalent about sex as the popular stereotype of women portrays women to be. Nothing is so ironic as listening to a woman, who never even took high school psychology, make bitter and scathing authoritative pronouncements about men, their nature, their motivations, and particularly their sexuality; then wonder morosely why none of these exploitive creatures approach her in order to force their unwanted attentions upon her.

Historically, men have shouldered a disproportionate share of the burdens and risks associated with the initiation of potential sexual relationships. They did so both in anticipation of certain rewards, and based upon a certain sense of safety that he would be cut a bit of slack if he failed to do it perfectly elegantly. Assigning the role of the initiator to men and the gatekeeper to women, worked to the general benefit of all. Studies have found that the frequency of sex in lesbian relationships is significantly below that in heterosexual relationships, which is again below that in relationships between gay men. Men initiate, women wait. Theres an old workplace poster that talks about a job that "anybody could have done, but it was really nobody's job, so nobody did it, if somebody had done it, things would have been so much better". Men have been very clearly socialized to understand that the shit work of sexual initiation is "their job." However, when the situation is created where an act is both required AND prohibited, almost everyone will make the choice which carries the lesser sanction. In todays culture that means waiting for the woman to "intiate sex out of her own sincere affection and desire" as Robin Morgan demands to avoid a rape charge. No man goes to prison for the crime of waiting. Men and women alike are waiting for Godot, who never shows up.

The ”dull assumption” to which Norman Mailer refers in “Prisoner of Sex”, ie. that the male sex drive is entirely due to an accident of birth, is more repellant to men today than when Mailer wrote about it in 1971. The fact that it has become so deeply entrenched in the public mind, becoming the 21st century equivalent of the "flat earth" view of the 15th century, has driven all eroticism and joy out of sexual relationships. Erin Pizzey, founder of the first women's shelter in the UK, speaks of the "terrible loss of tenderness and romance which has been leached out of the lives of women." In the gender war, the shared bed has become one of the primary battlegrounds.

The persistence, urgency, and ubiquity of the male sex drive and its power ascribed by the radical rape theorists to all men is a complete fallacy. While the cultural perception remains that men want sex more than women; doctors, counselors, and other helping professionals are increasingly called upon to deal with women trying to adjust to the fact that their chosen partners do not have much, if any, interest in sleeping with them. The sexless marriage is becoming far more common than most people realize. Relying entirely on men's sexual desire to compel them to pursue women and place themselves under the power of women to grant or withhold sex is a strategy that fails somewhere around age 40. Women tend to respond to this loss of power to use their sexuality in a manipulative and exploitive manner in the same ugly fashion as women who never had it in the first place: they bash men for it.

Above quoted journalist Nora Fox says, in the same article "... by the time we (women) reach our sexual peak, men are running on fumes". She goes on to suggest using a man's fear of his loss of sexual potency: "Another useful strategy is the withering glance. Begin with eye contact; move down to the zipper. After making sure no camcorders are present, I often combo this move with a disgusted snort followed by a teeth-clenched snarl."

What this woman is advocating is violence: emotional violence. Violence breeds violence and many a man will react to the long term use of such tactics by becoming emotionally or physically violent themselves. This article perfectly illustrates just about every reason why relationships between men and women are breaking down. How could anyone look at the viciousness inherent in this woman's writing and not realize how it destroys the most fundamental quality necessary for a relationship, i.e. trust?

It also illustrates in elgant shorthand fashion the anwer to Wendy Dennis's question: Why are men not out seeking and loving women? Because they are getting no messages whatsoever that women have any wish for them to. Because doing so is now defined as a criminal act. And because, even if their desire to love a woman is strong enough to overcome these first two hurdles, what they find in the majority of cases is not the loving support and appreciation of their love that they expected; but abuse, hatred, and betrayal of trust.

Simplistic formulations of the complexities of emotions, politics and power, which dominate the sexual exchange, deny the reality of the experiences of most people. Sex is nothing but ambiguities, uncertainties, ambivalences. Today's politicized rape climate reverses the proportions of normal and pathological: making the majority experience pathological and holding up an as-yet unachieved ideal as the prototype of "normality". Demanding that sex be female-initiated in order to avoid criminality, as Robin Morgan does, hardly seems to fit with the observed behaviors of most women.

Still, even this extreme position would be more palatable to men than the current situation. Men are still expected, and under great social pressures, to initiate, but are demanded to do so entirely in accordance with women's specifications, desires, and needs. Failure to meet any of these is punishable by imprisonment. Men as human beings have been completely dropped out of the picture: and the expectation now is that they will function either like flesh and blood vibrators or the hero of some romance novel or chick flick embodying a totally dysfunctional blend of contradictory and mutually exclusive characteristics. Needless to say, not many men are passing romantic muster these days.

The extreme negative stereotyping, combined with the impossibly conflicting demands and expectations, enforced by the power of law enforcement and an increasing body of aggressively punitive laws, have led an ever growing number of men to simply "drop out". Feminst author Wendy Dennis observed several years ago "men had backed off from women in response to the feminst agenda". She also remarked in her book that many men simply avoided romantic relationships except when prompted by a bout of loneliness to make a foray into the singles bars. At one point she wonders why these men are not out seeking, dating, and loving women. While she does an adequate job of acknowledging the beating over the head with feminist demands that they remodel themselves which men have endured for the past 3 decades, she never quite got around to fessing up to the fact that men had been told so many times that doing so was tantamount to rape that they decided it was better to be asexual than a criminal.

Countering the stereotypes on which the radical rape theorists rely to justify their push for lesbianism and elimination of men, are the realities of men who have opted out of the whole game as a means of beating the game of sexual politics. One man I spoke with, now in his mid-40s, gave up sex before the age of 30. He says he barely remembers it, and what he does remember of it was more obnoxious than pleasant or rewarding. In speaking of the reasons for his choice, he refers to the fact that things he shared in an atmosphere of trust were invariably used against him with incredibly malicious intent when the nature of the relationship changed. In his descriptions as well as many other conversations with men on this topic, the word "betrayal" comes up again and again.

Joshua Harris, at age 22 when most young people are almost obsessed with romantic relationships, has written a book called "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" and tours the country speaking to young people encouraging them not to date. In his book, he outlines 7 reasons for not dating. Four of the seven have to do with the misunderstandings that are inevitable given the differing expectations, agendas, and perceptions with which men and women tend to enter potentially sexual relationships.

Men now accept "No" as meaning "no". "Maybe" is also regarded as "no." Since "yes" can never mean really mean yes, any "yes" which is not delivered in writing and notarized is interpreted as a "conditional yes": yes (if there is a commitment forthcoming). The hostility that this breeds in men is illustrated by the man who got the "no, maybe, yes, no, no I mean yes" treatment then pulled away from his "date" and began masturbating. While it is easy to see how this was obviously quite hostile and probably hurt the woman's "delicate" feelings, any empathy for her point of view is tempered by the fact that the political climate makes her ambivalence quite safe while ignoring it has assumed life-changing risks for the man.

The runaway abuse of rape, rape shield, and sexual harassment laws has totally remodeled the landscape of romantic relationships. The mechanisms of attraction buried so deeply in our biology and social customs are not easily redefined. The resulting confusion and misunderstandings has attempted to throw away the old without replacing it with anything new. What is left is a caricature. Women and men fear and distrust each other. If anyone had intentionally chosen an issue which is as cloudy and vague as it is powerful as a means to set one group of people against another, they could not possibly have chosen one more powerful or more vague than sex. Sex is the broadest possible criteria to divide the human race into competing groups in hostile camps, and is so central to survival of the species itself that there has been no alternative to men and women crashing into each other trying to sort it out as they were searching for love.

Individual women and individual women have been defined out of existence by the radical and extreme characterizations of sex and rape. People have been awash in a sea of political orthodoxy as the most outspoken of the architects of the "new world order" have invaded their bedrooms and their very minds with more vigor and contempt than anyone ever thought possible. Before women had any more than a decade to savor their newfound sexual freedom which the pill provided, the very people who most loudly claimed to fighting for their liberation and their rights sought to define away those rights and institute an era of sexual repression which would make the Victorian era look like an orgy of unrestrained libido. In the process they sacrificed an entire generation, and broke the fragile thread of the transmission of cultural and social values from parents to children. In the place of parents we now have the falsely benevolent ulitmate parent of government.

By defining this most basic and potentially tender and passionate, but also incredibly powerful and conflicted, experience purely in terms of preferences versus criminality; the stage is set for everyone to lose. Sexuality is clearly one of the most universal and intense of human interactions. There are only about 6 things that we can be relatively certain every human being does or has the desire to do: eat, drink, excrete, sleep, breathe, and have sex. This is why we are so fascinated with it. Public media inundates us with sexual signals: glorifying sex while at the same time waving the pinched-face moralistic finger of shame at any who respond to the signals. Sex, like Christina Hoff-Sommers characterizes feminism in her book "Who Stole Feminism: how women have betrayed women", has been stolen from men and women alike. It has been stolen by fanatics who sold women out by claiming to act in their interests while their true agenda was to shove a new form of political orthodoxy down their throats and into their personal lives. It has been stolen by making women afraid of and hate men.

If women ever decide to reclaim sex from their would-be saviors; if they ever decide to demand the right to say "yes" that Ms Kitty MacKinnon denies them "as a group, because they aren't strong enough to give meaningful consent"; if they ever decide to stop exploiting their sexual powers of withholding and motherhood; they will find lots of loving men ready to join with them.

But women will have to be the ones who reclaim it. For as we all have heard many times: "All men are rapists and that's all they are," -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room"


Back to “Gender War, Sexuality, and Love”