tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022360601891875262024-03-05T16:01:55.024-08:00Polk HighPolk Highhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10542161068814524250noreply@blogger.comBlogger273125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-77398342563912924482014-04-11T06:00:00.000-07:002014-04-11T06:00:10.043-07:00Termination 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.<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/monstrous-woman.html">Previous</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-79179561520096728592014-04-10T06:00:00.000-07:002014-04-10T06:00:02.675-07:00EOTM: The Feralization of Culture - Building Better PredatorsThe following is taken from a correspondence with a man from another English speaking country which is being transformed by feminism.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<i>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.</i><br />
<br />
<i>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 </i><br />
<br />
<i>"Sexual freedom" absolves women from their responsibilities as filters of variety. They become the choosers of losers, the devolutionary force of humanity.</i><br />
<br />
/- I ask that you consider the following possiblities<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
2) Perhaps right now what the human race needs IS MORE variety rather than less.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
11) With the fall of industrialization, which began as long ago as the late 1950s, this passive type male suddenly became maladaptive.<br />
<br />
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 ).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
16) The entire industrial economy is headed for collapse. These boys are ahead of the curve.<br />
<br />
17) Men our age can't see it because of the blind spots created by the sacred cows of our value system.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
19) At that point, the most aggressive, hardest males with the lowest income expectations will have the reproductive advantage.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
22) Life's a bitch some days.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-gender-war-sexuality-and-love.html">Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-27347056207882089132014-04-09T06:00:00.000-07:002014-04-09T06:00:00.961-07:00Monstrous Woman - Mathieu of BoulogneNow 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<i>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.</i><br />
<i></i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/mother-of-calamity.html">Previous</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/termination-of-female-sex.html">Next</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-11718645102705771222014-04-08T06:00:00.000-07:002014-04-08T06:00:04.938-07:00EOTM: Radical Notions<b><i>"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. "</i></b><br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. (<a href="http://webhome.idirect.com/%7Eandyt/">http://webhome.idirect.com/~andyt/</a>) 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 )<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-gender-war-sexuality-and-love.html">Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-57796271080801078802014-04-07T06:00:00.000-07:002014-04-07T06:00:11.652-07:00Mother of Calamity - Mathieu of BoulogneIt'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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/in-defence-of-anti-feminism.html">Previous</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/monstrous-woman.html">Next</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-41925489229784743882014-04-06T06:00:00.000-07:002014-04-06T06:00:03.058-07:00EOTM: Man Hating and Man Bashing<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj01WB4jEw1p0MbZMpBUWmoaqz4GTuXFUOOwGQrr9oAkj5x8ToMngFegpE-gD_md7VztPHrZiznTi-nvuSyc1V60OQhJ7Uur3CqxSrd__jFrVO7O_v-7fScGSvAHUdjj2y9BzM6mm3CZuCp/s400/Man+Bashing.jpg" height="251px" width="400px" /></div>
<br />
<div>
Robert Heinlein, in his 1982 novel "Friday" makes the following statement:<br />
<br />
"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 <i>especially serious in that an individual showing it never thinks of it as ill health but as proof of his/her strength."</i> ( he wrote this in 1982 )<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-fw-more-men-bashing.html">”More man bashing”.</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The saddest part of this list is how little creativity or real thought it actually shows. A statement such as: <i>"What do you call a man with half a brain?...............Gifted"</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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".<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.</div>
<div>
.</div>
<div>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div>
.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-gender-war-sexuality-and-love.html">Back to “Gender War, Sexuality, and Love”</a> </div>
.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-26007173066599772472014-04-05T06:00:00.000-07:002014-04-05T06:00:04.367-07:00In Defence of Anti-feminism - Mathieu of BoulogneYet 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/11/women-and-lechery.html">Previous</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/mother-of-calamity.html">Next</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-62681349375150626012014-04-04T06:00:00.000-07:002014-04-04T06:00:00.450-07:00Philalethes #9 - Immaculate ConceptionSea 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<i>("The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." </i>–National NOW Times, Jan.1988)<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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, <i>The Second Sex </i>(assuming that she was referring to woman; I haven’t read the book).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
When I was a teenager, my father sat me down one day and explained something to me: <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.ca/2010/08/philalethes-25-you-can-have-as-much.html" target="_blank">that freedom and responsibility are indissolubly linked</a>, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Think of a man as <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.ca/2012/05/youre-such-tool.html" target="_blank">a stick in a woman’s hand</a>, 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: <i>"It's those awfule men who cause all the wars; we're just here being sweet and gentle all the time.") </i>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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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!”<br />
<br />
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: <i>'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." </i><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Disciple: Why is there evil in the world?<br />
Ramakrishna: To thicken the plot.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/07/philalethes-8-when-cow-rides-bull.html">Previous</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/philalethes-essay-list.html">Philalethes Index</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/07/philalethes-10-male-vs-female-thinking.html">Next</a> <br />
.<br />
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Further Reading:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/07/philalethes-7-all-female-populations-in.html">Philalethes #7 – All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-90105947246112708432014-04-03T06:00:00.000-07:002014-04-03T06:00:01.160-07:00Women and Lechery - Mathieu of BoulognePeople 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. . . .<br />
.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/bedroom-politics.html">Previous</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/in-defence-of-anti-feminism.html">Next</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-2419677374817743052014-04-02T06:00:00.000-07:002014-04-02T06:00:04.279-07:00EOTM: THE BITCH<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6gMP9MXW2Oypf_uMhjvTTuNiDMmTEj85md9-Fg1iaQUsSZWpQLKBoZf_VznMP5dyyg1JARGbbXHbztI3Z00wR8rQsOkXhn10EpEq5cS-vBe33uGGgzi8v0qtWV0aXfWyp6Diw7ATN8JXa/s400/bitch_goal.jpg" height="387" width="400" /></div>
.<br />
<div>
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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". </div>
<div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiluhDQK9idYWTEL_M2IojTAiVJfUasbtEvEv1c-DdBCMYH8DEccPBTala07qu1O_98M0oVYK5D2DgmEpMtYnV-PEwrcbbhsQh-5Su3bftIkhlakPlB3jRyJDzqGD8V96UlP6J6jR7jyXbz/s400/untitled.jpg" height="400" width="400" /></div>
<div>
.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-gender-war-sexuality-and-love.html">Back to “Gender War, Sexuality, and Love”</a></div>
.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-28298305779625921412014-04-01T06:00:00.000-07:002014-04-01T06:00:05.606-07:00Bedroom Politics - Mathieu of BoulogneWhenever 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."<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/free-wheeling-widow.html">Previous</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/11/women-and-lechery.html">Next</a> <br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Related:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/man-superior-to-woman-chapter-four.html">Man Superior to Woman – Chapter Four</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-52556449123901609392014-03-31T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-31T06:00:03.124-07:00EOTM: !!!!!!!!!!RAPE!!!!!!!!!!...<b>"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."</b> -- Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape"<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<b>"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent,"</b> -- Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<b>"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,"</b> -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<b>"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,"</b> -- Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, p. 5.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<b>"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,"</b> -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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".<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/male-sexuality.html">”dull assumption” to which Norman Mailer refers in “Prisoner of Sex”,</a> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
But women will have to be the ones who reclaim it. For as we all have heard many times: <b>"All men are rapists and that's all they are,"</b> -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room"<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-gender-war-sexuality-and-love.html">Back to “Gender War, Sexuality, and Love”</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-20576552147051007782014-03-30T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-30T06:00:00.886-07:00The Free Wheeling Widow - Mathieu of BoulogneAs soon as her husband is in his coffin, a wife's only thought day and night is to catch another husband. She observes convention by weeping, but after three days can't wait to be remarried. If her children wish to claim their share of the goods and money they have inherited from their father, there's not one of them who doesn't pay dearly for it. She disagrees with everything they say, argues, and is good at reproaching them, saying "I would already be married if it were not for your objections, for this has already happened to me three or four times. Now I'm having to dispute with you; what wretched progeny I have borne." Then she curses the fruits of her womb and tells them that despite their objections, without delay or further procrastination, she will marry one of her suitors, who will protect her rights for her. And she is so eager to marry that she takes a husband who brings about her ruin: who spends and squanders her money, an unbridled spendthrift, who will not be restrained as long as she still has something in the loft. He leaves her with neither a penny nor halfpenny, neither land, vineyard, nor house which he hasn't sold; everything has been spent. Then, when she sees how she has been used, she complains to her children and weeps for her first husband. Such tears, may God help me, with which women reproach their most recent husbands are an indictment against the heat of their loins. Their frivolity does not excuse them.<br />
<br />
I don't think there is a more foolish woman than a widow all dolled up; she doesn't think of herself as past it, she often transforms and changes her appearance, adopting different hairstyles. She paints her face, rearranges her hair, wears make-up, adorns herself. One moment she is willing, the next she isn't; now she's friendly, now hostile; first she quarrels with one person then with another, praising one to the skies and piling scorn on another. And if ever out of habit many men waste their time with her, she is still too dissolute, abandoning the flower for the flames. In this way she proves to be naive and foolish, resembling the dung-beetle, which leaves the perfume of the flowers to follow in the wake of carts, wallowing in horse shit. And just like the she-wolf on heat, that always takes the worst male as her mate, so the widow always chooses badly.<br />
<br />
Alas, things used to be different. A wife used to lament her husband's death and remain in mourning for a full year. Now she waits no more than three days; you'd be hard pressed to find anyone waiting longer! For as soon as her first husband slips into everlasting sleep and has been disposed of in the ground, his wife begins to wage war, refusing to give up until she has found another man to stuff her tights again, for she is incapable of remaining alone. And I don't believe for a moment that she will wear black clothes to encourage mourning. Instead she will don a silk dress to indicate her joy. This is no more nor less than a disgrace. There is no bridle nor halter that could ever restrain her. She is forever coming and going; no man would ever be able to confine her to her room or to her house. She wants to be seen everywhere, so driven is she by her ardour. The burning lust of widows is an affront to decency; they creep and climb on to rooftops just like the frogs of Egypt; they are not interested in beds or couches unless there is a man with them. Who would have thought they would be like this? Saint Acaire preferred to be the protector of madmen and the insane rather than to be responsible for widows. Anyone who looks into the matter knows that he was right, for these women are mad and know no bounds and so he didn't wish to be their patron. Widows are a base and immoral lot, while a madman in chains can do no harm.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/jangling-woman.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Previous</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/bedroom-politics.html"><span style="color: #445566;">Next</span></a>Polk Highhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10542161068814524250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-72616529864320331952014-03-29T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-29T06:00:05.472-07:00EOTM: Presenting Feminism! A Coming OUT<b>Feminism:</b> An ideology that advocates political, social and economic equality, empowerment and freedom for women, with full rights, opportunities and responsibilities equal to and non-distinguishable from those of all other members of society. (Or 'men' if you will.)<br />
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>What's wrong with this?</b> </div>
<br />
From all ostensible indications, feminism is wonderful thing. An ideology whose very presence indicates the advancement of the human species and equality for all.<br />
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>I'm all for this 'feminism'.</b> </div>
<br />
My mother is a top class pharmacist and most of my aunts are Managers and Directors in the Banking Industry. None of them would be where they are, using their brains to support themselves and their families without the ground breaking work of Mary Woolstonecraft, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott and the ever radical Susan Brownell Anthony, etc. Add to that distinguished list the Marquis de Condorcet, Mr Mott (Lucretia Mott's husband), John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and so on. These men were feminists too.<br />
<br />
I grew up in an environment in the advent of feminism. It was a fact that I got the most competition in academics from a girl, and the women in my family are all assertive and intelligent women. All these women and all the confident and strong women out there in the world are feminists, so defined because they do not fear going out to face the world and carving a place for themselves in it.<br />
<br />
But amazingly only a few American women in the 1990s classify themselves as feminists.<br />
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>Has the movement fallen into disrepute?</b> </div>
<br />
No, because almost a 100% of people, male and female, think that women 'must' and should have rights equal to that of men.<br />
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>Then why is the term 'feminist' so repulsive?</b> </div>
<div align="left">
.</div>
<div align="left">
It is said that at the heart of every movement there is always a vanguard party or philosophy that by it's prominence, is representative of its views, and it is that vanguard party that society looks to, to see what the movement represents and stands for. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The vanguard party thus has to be the loudest, most attention grabbing section of the movement. It does not by default mean the most popular or largest section of the movement. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The vanguard party is thus not selected by the movement, it selects itself. The vanguard party, in the public eye, then becomes the movement, its ideals become the movement's ideals, it therefore represents the movement in whatever it does.The movement's image changes only when the vanguard party changes or when there is a change of vanguard parties within the movement. </div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>What is feminism's 'vanguard party'?</b> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
In my studies of this, it seems that there are three major ideologies within feminism: </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Liberal Feminism,</b> which simply means equal rights and responsibilities for all persons, irregardless of sex/gender as supported by Stanton, Mott and Anthony. Most American women, while most say they are not feminists, strongly advocate this. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Socialist Feminism</b> was popular in the sixties but it has declined since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is basically the same as Liberal Feminism except it is closely tied politically and culturally with Marxism. Lastly comes </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Radical Feminism,</b> which as of now is the vanguard party of Feminism. It has the least support and the most opposition among all of them, but it is the loudest and most active. It and its ideologies, varied though they may be, stand virtually unchallenged by the other two (for shame) and thus it is assumed to represent the feminist movement's attitudes, to define the movement and all it stands for. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
My interpretation of Radical Feminists has led me to believe that Radical Feminism is a psychological disorder where the female of the human species believes the species evolved incorrectly and that the inherent weakness of her gender is a fluke of nature. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
I see merit in Donna Laframboise's self-description of "dissident feminists", which makes it clear which movement currently has the political, economic and social power. However, even this is unsatisfactory in defining RadFem philosophy and dogma, since feminism has built into its name the notion that it is concerned with women's issues. The RadFem is truly less interested in women's issues than she is in vilifying males. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The RadFem blames her GENDERS shortcomings and unhappiness on this deviant evolution and tries to manipulate the natural order of things to suit her - to the direct detriment of all others. RadFems are so narcissistic that they cannot see anything but their immediate actions. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The destructive consequences of their actions are not even remotely contemplated or anticipated - even when it effects them directly. The recent execution by lethal injection of Karla Faye Tucker in the state of Texas is such an example, the RadFems have made such a stink about gender equality that the governor of the state of Texas was left with no alternative but to break a 150 year old tradition. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Another recent example is that of Mary Kay LeTourneau, a former grade-school teacher who was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old male former student. She was recently arrested for violating the orders of the court by again seeing the child and was subsequently ordered to serve out the remainder of her sentence of 8 years for rape. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The RadFems did not see this, but in this case alone, they FORCED the courts to deal with the issue of RAPE BY A WOMAN. While it is now true that these sorts of cases are few and far between, the fact is that the RadFem agenda has opened the door for other women to be sentenced and treated in the traditional MALE punishment model. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Even scarier, these Radical feminists are winning their propaganda war. Like all propaganda wars, the core of their appeal is based on a thinly veiled pack of lies and semantical manipulations. That and lies, damned lies, and statistics too.</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Now to make a clear distinction between these 'vanguard feminists' and true feminists, I would refer to them as RadFems. Because of their powerful position in the movement, any and all feminists are taken to be RadFems. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The RadFems define Modern feminism as "that social movement which has as its goal rights without responsibilities for women, and responsibilities without rights for men, all under the guise of gender equality." </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
They run the Domestic Violence Programs, make up a large percentage of national women's organizations and run the Women's Studies departments in Universities. Thus the public perception of a feminist is really the public perception of a RadFem. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
A <b>feminist</b> is assumed to be: </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
"a woman who hates men, the patriarchy, and all things male </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
(and/or) </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
who prefers her career to her children or for that matter ANY children (abortion by any other name is the destruction of children) </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
(and/or) </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
who is anti-family, anti-male, anti-traditional morality </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
(and/or) </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
who is a lesbian </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
(and/or) </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
who is an atheist or who practices wicca witchcraft </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
(and/or) </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
who consistently confuse "assertiveness" with "aggression" (the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference, but the RadFem does not understand this - they only know how to hate)". </div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>What causes these perceptions?</b> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The RadFems themselves, by their (loud) words and deeds. RadFems have reduced feminism in the public eye from a progressive social movement to something resembling a whining hate camp filled with ugly, fat, over educated, boorish and boring, humorless, androids. Their gender confusion alone relegates them to the near psychotics of history. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Their main figures, Marilyn French, Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Robin Morgan, Kate Millett, Susan Faludi, Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland and N.O.W., etc are well known for their hate filled diatribes against men. They are misandrists in every sense of the word. Most of them are lesbians as well, which, due to the reverence in which they are held by RadFems confirms but does not necessarily imply the above stereotype. They are also almost universally atheist or devotees of religious philosophies that support witch craft of satanistic theology. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
And since they are the representatives of feminism, such an obviously good and progressive social movement, it is not possible to attack their views without being accused of being against women's rights, whether you be male or female, even if you are well known within the movement. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
This has frighteningly put them in the very powerful position of being able to dictate their agendas without allowing the opposition to present their views. If indeed opposition dared speak out, they are vilified by the RadFems, who because they exist in the name of feminism can claim a higher moral ground (political correctness). </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The targets or the chosen 'bogey man' of the RadFems are men as a whole, and heterosexual men in particular. This same 'them and us' tactic is reminiscent of Nazi Germany, 'them' being the Jews and 'us' being the Germans. As one writer said after reading Susan Brownmiller's <i>'Against Our Will':</i> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b><i>"I've read Mein Kampf and in my mind it's a toss up between them." All you need do to 'Against Our Will' is to substitute the word woman for German and man for Jew and the two books will basically say the same thing, broadcasting their hate to one and all.</i></b> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The most dangerous aspect of this new feminism is how it continues to demonize men in every way one can possibly think of and the fact that they do it without concern for the people they are defaming as individuals and the effect of their hate filled propaganda on society. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
RadFems continuously and religiously spout facts about how men as a whole oppress women. In the work place, in the home, in everything under the sun.The fact is that this is simply not true. Consider these facts: </div>
<ul>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Women control 86% of all personal wealth in America.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>55% of all University graduates are women.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Women cast the majority of the votes in America (54%).</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>They win over 90% of custody disputes.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>94% of work-related deaths are suffered by men.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Women are the victims of 35% of violent crimes.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>The remaining 65% are men.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>75% of murder victims are men.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>85% of suicide victims are men.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>24 out of the 25 worst jobs are exclusively male.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>66% of health care is spent on women, discounting pregnancy related care. </b></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div align="left">
<br />
If men are supposed to be ruling the world in some system of misogynous patriarchy then how come we let the 'terrible tragedy' of above happen? </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Why did the all male government of years back give women the right to vote? </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Why did the men of those times allow women the choice to go out and work if they so wished? </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Why did we extend rights once only reserved for men to women? </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Is it all part of some cunning plan? </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
RadFems like Susan Faludi would have you think it is. A thorough examination of the facts would show that the foundations of the RadFems agenda are lies. The RadFems think that the whole world - including the majority of women - are fools. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Here are a few historical dates that in their entirety make the existence of a patriarchal oppressive state a complete fallacy: </div>
<ul>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Mary Lyon founded the 1st woman's college in US - Mt. Holyoke College in 1837.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Antoinette Brown Blackwell was the 1st formally educated woman minister of the Congregationalist Church in 1853. </b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b></b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Mary Walker was the 1st (and only) woman to receive the US Medal of Honor in 1866. She was a Civil War surgeon.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Victoria Woodhall was the 1st woman to run for President of the US in 1872.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Susan Salter was elected the 1st woman US mayor of Argonia, KS in 1887.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Alice Wells was the 1st policewoman in the US in 1910.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Jeannette Rankin was the 1st woman elected to US congress in 1916 from Montana. Only legislator to vote against both WW I and WW II.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Ever hear of prohibition? The 18th Amendment? THE FEMINISTS DID THAT ONE in 1919 to protect "women and children" from drunken men.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Nellie Taylor Ross was the 1st elected female state governor (of Wyoming) - 1925.</b></div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
<b>Ever hear of "illegal" drugs and "controlled" substances? THE FEMINISTS DID THAT ONE in 1937. The entire war on drugs which is crippling our nation TODAY can be traced to racist and sexist ideals fostered by early feminists to protect "women and children" from stoned men. The movie "Reefer Madness" was all about the loosening of female moral virtue with a weed. </b></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div align="left">
<br />
The fact is that we, as a society evolved. We took a major leap forward the day men realized that women were our partners, different yet equal, despite our deep seated and well-meaning cultural dogmas. The truth is that men 'and women' in the past honestly believed women were not suited for life outside the domestic sphere. Of course, these same beliefs also condoned slavery. Tradition and everything else dictated what they did. And tradition would have been incomplete without the role of everyone within the society being specified. This didn't mean that the men hated the women, or consciously sat down and said or though,</div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>"Who shall we oppress now? </b></div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>How about women?"</b> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
They simply didn't know any better. And to be perfectly honest, women also took part in the creations of those traditions. In many ancient Western societies, women, despite their limited role in the external domains of the community were held in elevated positions in society, thus the codes of chivalry and gallantry that governed men's behavior towards women. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
In Victorian England, woman were considered the moral guardians of society. A protective paternalistic attitude towards women was the norm, from which came the famous "Women and children first!" call. The resistance the first feminists encountered was typical of how members of a society (men and women in this case) would resist change, should it seem threatening to the way of life they were used to. Consider the Luddites, for example. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
To look at it objectively, one would see that pre-feminist traditions were based on the simple logical division of labor, severely limited though they were, not oppression. To actually have some RadFem coming up to tell me that I should feel guilty because a few centuries or even decades ago a man was politically and culturally superior to a woman in society is ludicrous. No doubt it was wrong, and there are still problems that women face today (not necessarily caused by men), but we have progressed since then and it's time we solved these problems (and men's problems) together, as partners and equals, just like the founding mothers and fathers of feminism wished. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
But RadFems don't like that idea. RadFems insist that man's oppression of women is the governing principle of human societal life. Men are intrinsically bad, women are good. Men are oppressors and the cause of all evil, women are only their helpless victims. They see everything through this simple convoluted lens. This misandrous attitude pervades their thinking, their writings, their speeches and their demands. These notions are seen throughout RadFem 'scholarship'. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=502236060189187526" name="quotes"></a>The following obviously misandrous quotes are from the leading icons of RadFems, from their mouths and their writings. And every RadFem believes these statements as if they were the gospel. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible,"</b> -- Andrea Dworkin, <i>Letters from a War Zone</i>, p. 21. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"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,"</b> -- Andrea Dworkin, <i>Letters from a War Zone</i>, p. 22. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape,"</b> -- Andrea Dworkin, <i>Letters from a War Zone</i>, p. 114. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"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,"</b> -- Andrea Dworkin, <i>Letters from a War Zone</i>, p. 142. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"One of the reasons that women are kept in a state of economic degradation- because that's what it is for most women- is because that is the best way to keep women sexually available,"</b> --Andrea Dworkin, <i>Letters from a War Zone</i>, p. 145. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"In everything men make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, still their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives,"</b> -- Andrea Dworkin, <i>Letters from a War Zone</i>, p. 214. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Sex as desired by the class that dominates women is held by that class to be elemental, urgent, necessary, even if or even though it appears to require the repudiation of any claim women might have to full human standing. In the subordination of women, inequality itself is sexualized made into the experience of sexual pleasure, essential to sexual desire,"</b> -- Andrea Dworkin, <i>Letters from a War Zone</i>, p. 265. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>In fucking, as in reproduction, sex and economics are inextricably joined. In male-supremacist cultures, women are believed to embody carnality; women are sex. A man wants what a woman has--sex. He can steal it [prostitution], lease it over the long term marriage [marriage in the United States], or own it outright [marriage in most societies]. A man can do some or all of the above, over and over again.</b> -- Andrea Dworkin, <i>Letters from a War Zone </i></div>
<div align="left">
<i>.</i></div>
<div align="left">
<i></i></div>
<div align="left">
<b>"Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman,"</b> -- Andrea Dworkin, <i>Liberty</i>, p. 58. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks,"</b> -- Andrea Dworkin in the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 21, 1995. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." "Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating. Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love. Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men....Rape, then, is the logical consequence of a system of definitions of what is normative. Rape is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake--it embodies sexuality as the culture defines it.</b> -- Andrea Dworkin - <i>The Rape Atrocity and the Boy Next Door </i></div>
<div align="left">
<i>.</i></div>
<div align="left">
<i></i></div>
<div align="left">
<b>Rape, then, is the logical consequence of a system of definitions of what is normative. Rape is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake--it embodies sexuality as the culture defines it."</b> -- Andrea Dworkin - <i>The Rape Atrocity and the Boy Next Door</i></div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating. Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love. Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men.</b> -- Andrea Dworkin</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership."</b> -- Andrea Dworkin </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"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,"</b> -- Susan Brownmiller, <i>Against Our Will: Men, Women</i>, <i>and Rape,</i> p. 5. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear"</b> -- Susan Brownmiller, <i>Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape,</i> P.6 </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Our culture is depicting sex as rape so that men and women will become interested in it,"</b> -- Naomi Wolf, <i>The Beauty Myth</i>, p. 138. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Cosmetic surgery and the ideology of self-improvement may have made women's hope for legal recourse to justice obsolete,"</b> -- Naomi Wolf, <i>The Beauty Myth</i>, p. 55. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"AIDS education will not get very far until young men are taught how not to rape young women and how to eroticize trust and consent; and until young women are supported in the way they need to be redefining their desires,"</b> -- Naomi Wolf, <i>The Beauty Myth</i>, p. 168. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"The dating system is a mutually exploitative arrangement of sex-role expectations, which limit and direct behavior of both parties and determine the character of the relationship. Built into the concept of dating is the notion that the woman is an object which may be purchased,"</b> -- Kurt Weis and Sandra S. Borges, <i>Rape Victimology</i>, p. 112. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself... The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their home,"</b> -- Gloria Steinem in <i>Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem</i>, pp. 259-61. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"I call it the Noah Ark Syndrome. The perception lingers that human beings should go two by two. Someone who is not married-either by choice or by chance- is somehow regarded as abnormal,"</b> -- Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in Glamour, February 1997. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"All men are rapists and that's all they are,"</b> -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room" in People, February 20, 1983. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter."</b> -- Marilyn French, in "<i>The Women's Room</i>"<br />
<br />
<b>"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience,"</b> -- Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"We have long known that rape has been a way of terrorizing us and keeping us in subjection. Now we also know that we have participated, although unwittingly, in the rape of our minds,"</b> -- Gerda Lerner in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women, p. 55. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal- a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students say, with few feminist students- I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed,"</b> -- Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women, p. 92. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."</b> -- Robin Morgan, (current editor of MS magazine) </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers."</b> -- Robin Morgan, (current editor of MS magazine) </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"The phallic malady is epidemic and systemic... each individual male in the patriarchy is aware of his relative power in the scheme of things.... He knows that his actions are supported by the twin pillars of the State of man - the brotherhood ritual of political exigency and the brotherhood ritual of a sexual thrill in dominance. As a devotee of Thanatos, he is one with the practitioner of sado-masochistic "play" between "consenting adults," as he is one with the rapist."</b> -- Robin Morgan (current editor of MS magazine) "<i>The Demon Lover</i>" p. 138-9</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony."</b> -- Robin Morgan (current editor of MS magazine) "<i>The Demon Lover</i>" p. 224 </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Sex to this point in my life has been trivial, at best a gesture of tenderness, at worst a chore. I couldn't understand the furor about it."</b> -- Robin Morgan (current editor of MS magazine) "<i>The Demon Lover</i>" p. 229 </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Did she die of the disease called "family" or the disease called "rehabilitation", of poverty or drugs or pornography, of economics or sexual slavery or a broken body?"</b> -- Robin Morgan (current editor of MS magazine) "<i>The Demon Lover</i>" p. 316 </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"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."</b> -- Robin Morgan, in 1974 </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"...rape is the perfected act of male sexuality in a patriarchal culture-- it is the ultimate metaphor for domination, violence, subjugation, and possession."</b> -- Robin Morgan </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do."</b> -- Robin Morgan</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin color or sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters (racism hurts whites, sexual stereotypes are harmful to men) but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power--but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to COST men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers."</b> -- Robin Morgan</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"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."</b> -- Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going to Far," 1974. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"And in the spectrum of male bahavior, rape, the perfect combination of sex and violence, is the penultimate (sic) act. Erotic pleasure cannot be separated from culture, and in our culture male eroticism is wedded to power."</b> -- Susan Griffin Rape: The Politics of Consciousness </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference."</b> -- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"</div>
<div align="left">
.</div>
<div align="left">
---</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>When asked: "You [Greer] were once quoted as saying your idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick. Are you still that way inclined?" </b></div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Dr Greer (denying that she said it): "I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damanged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop. </b></div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for each ejaculation, most of which don't take place anywhere near an ovum. I don't know that the ecosphere can tolerate it."</b> -- Germaine Greer, at a Hilton Hotel literary lunch, promoting her book "The Change-- Women, Aging and the Menopause". From a newsreport dated 14/11/91.</div>
<div align="left">
. </div>
<div align="left">
---</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist"</b> -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86) </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..."</b> -- Sheila Jeffrys </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Number 10: Regularly beat him on the head with your shoe."<br />
"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." -- </b>Sharon Stone On David Letterman presenting a top ten list of ways to keep your man.</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive...women didn't go to Vietnam and blow up things up. They are not Rambo,"</b> -- Jodie Foster in The New York Times Magazine, January 6, 1991, p. 19. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent,"</b> -- Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. You might think thats too broad. I'm not talking about sending all of you men to jail for that."</b> -- Catherine MacKinnon "A Rally Against Rape" Feminism Unmodified</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."</b> -- Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan</div>
<div align="left">
.</div>
<div align="left">
---</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. 'The first males were mutants... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.' </b></div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>MAN: ... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man ... </b></div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning."'</b> -- from A Feminist Dictionary", ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985 </div>
<div align="left">
.</div>
<div align="left">
---</div>
<div align="left">
.</div>
<div align="left">
<b>Letter to the Editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate" </b></div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"To Proud Feminist, (Herald-Sun, 7 February). Your last paragraph is shocking language from a feminist. You use the entrenched, revolting male stereotypes of women and rationalise your existence by saying you are neither "ugly" nor "manless", as though either of these male-oriented judgments matter. </b></div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. </b></div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down."</b> -- Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia - Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996 </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
---</div>
<div align="left">
.</div>
<div align="left">
Some feminists object to the nuclear family. Some examples </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>The belief that married-couple families are superior is probably the most pervasive prejudice in the Western world</b>. -- Judith Stacey<br />
<br />
<b>The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn't work. "Only with the occasional celebrity crime do we allow ourselves to think the nearly unthinkable: that the family may not be the ideal and perfect living arrangement after all -- that it can be a nest of pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence," she writes. "Even in the ostensibly 'functional,' nonviolent family, where no one is killed or maimed, feelings are routinely bruised and often twisted out of shape. There is the slap or the put-down that violates a child's shaky sense of self, the cold, distracted stare that drives a spouse to tears, the little digs and rivalries."</b> -- Barbara Ehrenreich, as quoted by Stephen Chapman, from Time </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"long and honorable tradition of 'anti-family' thought," waxing nostalgic for those early feminists who regarded marriage as just another version of prostitution. This deeply defective institution "can hardly be the moral foundation of everything else," she argues, pining for the day when "someone invents a sustainable alternative."</b> -- Barbara Ehrenreich, as quoted by Stephen Chapman, from Time </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"The nuclear family is a hotbed of violence and depravity."</b> -- Gordon Fitch</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."</b> -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women."</b> -- From article, "Is Marriage the Answer?" by Barbara Findlen, Ms magazine, May-June, 1995 </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"The Feminists -v- The Marriage License Bureau of the State of New York...All the discriminatory practices against women are patterned and rationalized by this slavery-like practice. We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."</b> -- From <i>Sisterhood Is Powerful</i>, Morgan (ed), 1970 p. 537. </div>
<div align="left">
.</div>
<div align="left">
<b>"most mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children."</b> -- From Phyllis Chesler, <i>Women and Madness,</i> p. 294 </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"...I submit that any sexual intercourse between a free man and a human being he owns or controls is rape."</b> -- Alice Walker in "Embracing the Dark and the Light," Essence, July 1982. As cited in Andrea Dworkin's "Right-Wing Women" </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The context of the quote in RWW makes it clear that marriage is such a form of control. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Our research and most other studies show that wife-battering occurs in 50 percent of families throughout the nation."</b> -- Lenore Walker, speaking at a Laguna Beach conference, as reported in the SF Chronicle </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The SF Chronicle comments, "Only the most crazed man-hater could believe that." </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Lenore Walker, after visiting one of the early shelters for battered women, wrote <b>"I was struck by what a beneficial alternative to the nuclear family this arrangement [communal housing and child raising] was for these women and children."</b> -- Lenore Walker. The Battered Woman , p.195 </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ...</b> -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their 'true' role. ... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her speical responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all."</b> -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>"And in the spectrum of male behavior, rape, the perfect combination of sex and violence, is the penultimate (sic) act. Erotic pleasure cannot be separated from culture, and in our culture male eroticism is wedded to power."</b> -- Rape: The Politics of Consciousness </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
These and many other such like statements are what have given the term feminist its present reputation. RadFems would go to any length to protect these 'holy' doctrines, shunning any woman that refuses to to etheir party line. And together with the current 'Politically Correct' movement with its emphasis on group rights and group offences which conveniently gives 'victims' adequate reasons to attack their 'oppressors' without letting the so called oppressors defend themselves, the RadFem's can spread their misandrous beliefs without the inconvenience of their claims being subjected to scrutiny, in spite of the fact that today's argument is may be inconsistent with tomorrow's. In fact, any man who objects is called a 'typical male' misogynist (for opposing misandry, no less) and any woman who does is either 'too oppressed to see' or a 'traitor'. A proper 'feminist' (RadFem definition) would never criticize or disagree with another sister 'feminist'. No, she would just listen to it and agree, no matter how wrong she knows her 'sister' is. Luckily, very few women accept this. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The anti-male venom inherent in all RadFem writings and speeches are supported by half truths and outright lies presented as evidence to prove that there is a 'war against women' being waged by men everyday of a woman's life. The men include your father, brother, husband, lover, son, friend or even just the man walking across the street. Not some men, ALL men. These are some of their 'facts' that support their beliefs that ALL men are in some conspiracy to subjugate and oppress women: </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> 4,000 women are killed by their husbands and boyfriends each year. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> The actual number of people killed by lovers is around 1,200-1,500 each year. These types of murders accounted for only 4.9% of all murders in 1992 while 53% of murder victims were killed by strangers. The number of people killed by strangers has reached a historical high. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Men commit 90% of all spousal murders. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> Women represent 41% of spousal murderers. Among black married couples, wives were 47% of the spousal murderers. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Fathers are more likely to kill their children. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> When a child is killed by a parent, 55% of the time the mother murdered the child. This does not include the 35 million abortions in the United States in the last 25 years. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Female children are being killed at a rate more than male children, which proves that there is a war against women. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> Males account for 54% of murder victims aged 12 and younger. Every year more baby boys are born than baby girls, by age 10-12 (racial differences eixist) girls outnumber girls. They never look back. 67% of all citizens over the age of 65 are female. 85% of all citizens over age 85 are female. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Fathers generally abuse their children. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> According to the Child Protective Service's 1994 survey, physical abuse represented 21% of confirmed cases, sexual abuse 11%, neglect 49%, emotional maltreatment 3% and other forms of maltreatment 16%. Women/mothers account for substantially more than half of all the above categories except for sexual abuse. And here, only about 2% of molesters are the biological fathers. For girls, the greatest risks are live-in boyfriends, stepfathers, and the corresponding absence of the biological father. The biological father is 5 times less likely to sexually abuse their own progeny than ALL other males. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Domestic violence against women is rising. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> Wife abuse declined 21.8% from 1975 to 1985 and has been on the decrease since then. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Nationally, 50% of all homeless women and children are on the streets because of violence in the home. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> The source of this myth is Senator Biden, who has shown no study that proves this as fact. Further, 85% of the homeless are men and a significant percentage are military veterans. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Women who kill their batterers receive longer prison sentences than men who kill their partners. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Between Intimates (November 1994), the average prison sentence for men who killed their wives is 17.5 years; the average sentence for women convicted of killing their husband was 6.2 years. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Family violence has killed more women in the last five years than the total number of Americans who were killed in the Vietnam War. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> This "fact" is often said by Dr. Robert McAfee, past president of the American Medical Association. There were about 58,000 American casualties in the Vietnam War. According to the FBI, Uniform Crime Statistics, about 1,500 women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends each year. The total number of women homicide victims each year is 5,000. Thus, in 5 years, even if every woman who was killed was killed by a family member, the total would still be one-half the number of American casualties in Vietnam. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15-44 in the US- more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> The original source of this statement goes back to two papers by Evan Stark and Ann Flitcraft. First, the actual research the 'fact' is based on is a rather small survey of one emergency room. Second, in the original articles, they said that domestic violence may be a more common cause of emergency room visits than car accidents, muggings, and rape combined. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> 85% of women will be the victims of sexual harassment. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> (This will be explained below.) </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Four million women are beaten and abused by their husbands and lovers each year. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> The latest US National surveys put the number of abused women at around 1.8 to 2 million. And abused men at 2.1 million. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> 25% i.e. 1 in 4 of all women will be the victims of rape, or attempted rape in their lifetimes. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> This came from RadFem Mary Koss, who took it upon herself to decide for the 'victims' that they had been raped. Nationally, 72 out of 100,000 (0.00072%) women are raped every year. It is extremely sad even if it was only 1 in a million but exaggerating so as to defame men is criminal. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Women receive lower wages than men for equal work; 59 or 72 (take your pick) cents for each male dollar. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> Experience and average hours per week working also play a crucial role in explaining the gap. Over their lifetimes, women tend to work total fewer hours than men do. This is because women are more likely to take time off for family matters and interrupt their careers than men are. Women who are single and without children tend to equal what their male counterparts make, but women who are married and/or have children tend to take more time off for family matters which hurts their experience and shows up in significantly lower earnings. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>RadFem fact:</b> Girls in junior high suffer a dramatic and unique loss in self-esteem due to the 'fact' that the school system is designed by the patriarchy to promote male success and discourage female children. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> When 55% of all university graduates are women, how can this be true? </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
All of the above RadFem facts are either hugely exaggerated or just outright lies. However, any attempt to challenge these statements result in a severe reprisal from the politically correct movement and whoever it was that challenged the above 'facts' is branded a 'pro-rape' misogynist. </div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>Why would a man get upset about RadFem propaganda statistics? </b></div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>What's so very wrong with these lies, and their perpetuation? </b></div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>If they incite people to action, so much the better, right? </b></div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>Wrong!</b> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Apart from the RadFem intent of demonizing men, the true horrors of domestic violence, rape, and all other such crimes stand, unfortunately, on their own merit, without the need for false statistics. Because the more the validity of something is found wanting, the less it is taken notice of. It is an insult to actual victims of these evils because it trivializes them. </div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<b>So what are the RadFem's solutions to these problems?</b> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
These 'solutions', would of course have to be consistent with their agendas. Which show the true nature of the new face of Feminism. Take note of the very discriminatory 'Take Our Daughters To Work' day. Why not 'Take Our CHILDREN To Work' day? Do boys need less encouragement than girls? </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<a href="http://www.ecn.net.au/%7Emra/page24b.htm">This link leads to an essay is from an Australian woman, Babette Francis, who presents some of their 'solutions' in a critical light</a> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
(Link now defunct) <a href="http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Goldberg/science.html">Speaking of logic, the recent attempts by the RadFems to revamp the entire educational system and the knowledge taught therein itself, by defaming the 'male constructs of knowledge' which they define as based on logic, reason and rationality, (which are 'male' biased), would be laughable if they didn't actually seem to be attracting followers. According to RadFems, knowledge should be based on 'women's ways of knowing'; in one fell swoop eliminating everything so far known to man and womankind as 'patriarchal male knowledge'. The following essay is from the web e-zine, Upstream, by Steve Goldberg. It presents a criticism of the latest RadFem misadventure into the world of Academia.</a> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
(Link now defunct) <a href="http://www.vix.com/men/articles/siege.html">Another Australian woman, Bettina Arndt protests this RadFem ideological fixation on defaming anything male and their effects on men in this classic essay:</a> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
As the essay above states, men have found themselves under attack, on the personal and political level, and any protest would result in a massive backlash. </div>
<div align="left">
.</div>
<div align="left">
Most men simply shut up, some protest, but the truly scary thing is that there are others who actually feel guilty for things they are not even responsible for. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
They call themselves 'male feminists' and echo everything the RadFems tell them. Whenever you read some of their literature, you get a feeling that these men have so much self-hatred, so deeply ingrained into them that they will actually one day cut their penises off. </div>
<div align="left">
.</div>
<div align="left">
"I feel so guilty every time I hear of a woman being raped...because I know that I exalt in it as a man, even though I didn't do it...but in a way, I did..." I once read. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
A man, I think he's a professor, is on the net putting up refutations of the RadFem rape statistics on his website. A 'male feminist' sent this priceless gem protesting that discrediting RadFem statistics is 'insensitive' and amounts to 'supporting rape' and 'blaming the victim'. He ended it with this... </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<i><b>"Why is it that we men consistently hurt ourselves, each other, women, and the environment so friggin much? What is at the core of all this anger and frustration we feel? Why do I compulsively reach for more and more power over other people, even my friends and "lovers"? Why is it that even after fucking my girlfriend I'm still so fucking alone? Go to the men's and women's studies section of your library or bookstore, and read about yourselves. Then go out and BE a just person."</b></i> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
The self-hatred here is so apparent it's alarming. I took particular note of his advice that men should go to the 'women studies' sections and read about themselves. </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Whose writings are in these 'women's studies' sections? </div>
<ul>
<li><div align="left">
Andrea Dworkin,</div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
Robin Morgan,</div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
Marilyn French,</div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">
Susan Brownmiller etc.</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div align="left">
One of the most glaring things about all these writings is the fact that all of them strenuously repeat that men do not and cannot comprehend the true nature of women, but they, the 'enlightened' ones, of course, understand that 'all' men want to rape/hurt/kill/subjugate/dominate everything i.e. women, children, other men, animals, the environment etc. around them. </div>
<div align="center">
<b>How do they know?</b></div>
<div align="center">
<b> </b> </div>
<div align="left">
These attacks on men by the RadFems and the Politically Correct movement as the Bettina Arndt's essay states, have gone far in undermining men's most exclusive, important and beneficial roles in society. Particularly as husband and father. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
RadFem attacks on the family are based primarily on the fact that men have a traditional leadership role in it. Now tradition has changed, and women are considered co-heads of the family. But for RadFems, that's not enough, because the MAN is still in it. A husband is by definition a rapist, and a father, according to RadFems is the man who wants to, or is, presently abusing his children. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
Here is where I begin to understand why so many people assume that 'feminists' are militant lesbians/virulently anti-heterosexual and anti-family. Inserted into everyone of their misandrous writings is their total disdain for the roles of men in the family and in the lives of women. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
Indeed, N.O.W. once released a statement in a memorandum saying... </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="center">
<b>"Every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist...."</b></div>
<div align="center">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
For instance, in the RadFem acclaimed book 'The Courage To Heal' by Ellen Bass and Laura Davis, men in the family, particularly fathers, are portrayed as sadists and rapists. The concept of the book is about highly dubious recovered 'repressed memories' of sexual abuse. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
The two authors claim that they were both abused by a man in their family when they were children. The whole book is filled with stories from other women who also claim to have been abused , sometimes for many years, by men in their families. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
The strange thing about everyone of the cases illustrated in the book is the fact that all the women 'forgot' or 'suppressed' these memories of abuse and suffered unexplained dilemmas in their lives until suddenly the memories were recovered, mostly with the aid of 'abuse' therapists. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
The book sold in its thousands, and thousands of women and some few men, given new 'insight' by the book, 'recovered' memories of abuse suffered at the hands of their elder male relatives that they had suppressed. </div>
<div align="left">
Other women, who have not even been 'abused' have seen the 'light' and have seen the 'danger' of allowing men, particularly fathers, into their children's lives. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
One woman was quoted on an LA newspaper as saying "I chose to be a single mother because I want to raise my son without the negative influence of a man in his life". The article was about single motherhood, which despite claims by RadFems to be 'liberating' is actually becoming a massive social problem. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
Amazingly, the two authors who wrote the 'Courage to Heal' have not the credentials needed to write such an authoritative book on the subject. But since the book is under the banner of Women's Studies, such criticism would be dangerous to the reputation and/or career of the critic, as he or she would automatically be 'politically incorrect', which is close to being a heretic in the middle ages. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
Apart from the fact that the typical attitude toward fathers in the book is accurately represented by this quote </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="center">
<b>"I'd watch Perry Mason to get ideas about how to kill my father. It was really the best of times. Every day I would get a new method",</b></div>
<div align="center">
<b> </b> </div>
<div align="left">
Another scary aspect is the emphasis on distancing one's self from one's family, particularly if the family would challenge the 'victim's' recovered 'memory'. The victim, the woman, is encouraged to think of the all-female 'incest survivor's movement' as her new family. All cults use similar logic to remove the logic that keeps most people sane.</div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
Now, it's been well documented that many of the women who go into these new 'families' come under a great deal of pressure to change their sexual orientation to homosexual, with the obvious reasoning that if a man you're supposed to trust above all else i.e. your father, can molest you, how can you trust or be in a relationship with any man? </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
This is further accentuated by the fact that on closer inspection almost all the women whose stories are told in the 'Courage To Heal', including the authors, are lesbians. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
Even more telling are the recommendations by Bass and Davis for the 'recovering' women, no matter their sexuality, to read 'Lesbian Sex' and it's sequel 'Lesbian Passion: Loving Ourselves and Each Other', which includes chapters for 'incest survivors and their partners', to 'help' them in their 'healing'. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
One lesbian therapist took this a step further by sleeping with her female patients, rationalizing this taking advantage of a patients trust as not unethical, because she's a woman. (And of course, she did it for their own good.) </div>
<div align="left">
Another avenue, other than the usual demonizing i.e. all men batter, rape etc., that RadFems normally use to convince women about the inadequacy of having men as intimate partners in their lives is the continuously repeated assertion that a man does not have the emotional, sexual or intellectual capacity to be a woman's soul mate that a woman has. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
This of course overlooks the fact that lesbians have a break up rate far exceeding that of heterosexual couples. </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
Another study states that "lesbian couples are less 'sexual' as couples and as individuals than anyone else ... </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
<b>47% of lesbians in long- term relationships "had sex" once a month or less, while among heterosexual married couples only 15% had sex once a month or less".</b></div>
<div align="left">
<b> </b> </div>
<div align="left">
And even more disturbing: scientific studies of domestic violence in lesbian couples show violence in the range of 25% to 60% of all lesbian households. The most recent percentage is 33%, taking note of the fact that a lot of states in the US do not term same-sex violence as 'domestic', even if the violence is between intimates. In fact, even the victims sometimes don't term their abuse as domestic violence. Take this woman's words </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
<b>"I didn't know what it was. I thought it was a real bad relationship."</b></div>
<div align="left">
<b> </b> </div>
<div align="left">
Her female partner had smashed her head against the dashboard of her car. And another woman, who had a tooth knocked out twice by a female intimate said </div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
<b>"I have an inherent something in me that wants to make it work. There was always the promise that she would change. It was one of those things I thought would never happen to me."</b></div>
<div align="left">
<b> </b> </div>
<div align="left">
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left">
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-gender-war-sexuality-and-love.html">Back to “Gender War, Sexuality, and Love”</a> </div>
.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-50228152995151213542014-03-28T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-28T06:00:07.254-07:00Jangling" Woman - Mathieu of BoulogneIndeed, the birds will stop singing and the crickets in summer too before woman finds the strength to hold her tongue, whatever harm comes of her words. For Calphurnia, more gossipy than a magpie, this was indeed her undoing, since she did not plead her case wisely. Her verdict was to bare her bum. Her punishment for her crime, which she fully deserved, was to reduce all women to the status of second-class citizens. Each is deprived of and barred from practising advocacy. With her tongue and outrageous behaviour she banned all women. They have inherited her tongue and share in her guilt, according to the laws of heredity. Condemned in this way, rightly as far as I can tell, they are forbidden for all time to question witnesses and to defend cases. . . .<br />
<br />
Why is the raven black? Some writers lead us to believe that it was once white. She has changed her appearance as a sign of her fault, because she was a gossip, a slanderer, and a nag. If only our wives were now similarly metamorphosed by divine miracle and shed their nasty habits. If I had my way, no man would have to suffer this. Indeed, the devil was told concerning woman that God, in whom all good abounds, would have made the world a peaceful place if he had removed the cursed tongues of women, so ill-pained in the art of speaking. In many a land and many a country, wars begin and are caused because of women. It seems therefore that whoever gave them the gift of speech was out of his mind. If one were to dare to accuse God, He would not be able to defend Himself against the charge of giving perverse women deadly weapons when He gave them many tongues. He saw the evil that would come of it, and yet did not wish to come to our aid. It's my belief that it would be a miracle to make a mute woman speak. But truly, it would be a much greater marvel if one were able to shut up a woman once she is in full flow. The two are barely comparable. Why are women more argumentative, so full of idle gossip and more talkative than men? Because they are made of bone, while our bodies are fashioned of clay: bone makes more noise than clay. Note therefore my conclusion, which does not offer us much solace: it is their nature which makes them all foolish and proud.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/living-with-basilisk.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Previous</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/free-wheeling-widow.html"><span style="color: #445566;">Next</span></a>Polk Highhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10542161068814524250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-1087843313727239712014-03-27T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-27T06:00:02.325-07:00Philalethes #8 - When the Cow Rides the Bull - Priest, Watch Your SkullAs for the sea horse example: I’m sorry, but you’re off the mark; I’ll chalk this up to a leftover from your feminist past. (1) The male sea horse does not “give birth”; he merely incubates the eggs produced by the female, just as do many male birds. Neither male nor female sea horse has a womb as do mammals; in the case of oviparous species the egg leaving the female body is the equivalent of mammalian females giving birth. Certainly the eggs may not survive without male sea horse’s care, but that’s true of bird eggs as well; what’s unusual is that an invertebrate’s eggs need such care, from either parent.<br />
<br />
That the male sea horse does more child-rearing work than most males is certainly true; but it’s still the female who creates the new life. And at some point in sea horse evolution it was she who decided (on whatever level such decisions are made) that any male who wanted to mate with her would have to provide postnatal day-care as well. Females make The Rules. Presumably she, like the females of other species mentioned, could dispense with the male and redefine her species as female-only. If that were to her evolutionary advantage. Males are expensive (as a recent feminist book snidely remarked in its title); they must confer some advantage to be economically justified. As they do in most sexual species. But not all.<br />
<br />
And (2) it is just such responses — citing a single, artfully mischaracterized example to “refute” a carefully made argument — that long ago led to the bit of male traditional wisdom that advises, “Never argue with a woman.” Because women don’t ordinarily engage in discourse to discover the truth — as men do, not always, but men can be held to it if confronted, while women will dodge (a.k.a. “change the subject”) — but merely to “win.” And “all’s fair in war and love.” “Love” here defined as any encounter between the sexes, and “all’s fair” because that’s how women fight.<br />
<br />
But as I said, I’ll chalk it up to your past as a former “feminist.” You probably read this example of how the sea horse single-handedly disproves the entire idea of meaningful differences between the sexes in some feminist polemic. Well, it doesn’t. Like all feminist “natural herstory,” it’s entirely specious.<br />
<br />
Quote: <i>"I have done some studying of the bible, and I feel that the reason for the "wife is to submit to her husband" passage is just that. Women are not capable, as a whole, to be completely equal yet not try to take over. It is in our genes, as mothers, to control and dominated over others, as we do to our children. It is our jobs. We must be reminded, however, that this does not extend to others around us, i.e. our husbands. </i><br />
<br />
Some good thinking here. But I would say that in Reality, there is actually no such thing as “equality.” All relationships are hierarchical, in one way or another. Many change, from time to time. “Equality” only has meaning in relation to the limited sphere of human law i.e. that, for instance, all people should be “equal” before the law in regard to their rights. And here “rights” means only what the Founders (Jefferson et al.) understood it to mean: self-ownership, the rights to life, liberty and property. Not any “right” to a job, health-care, or chocolate before breakfast (if it’s someone else’s chocolate). Otherwise, no body can have two heads, and neither can a family, nor any human relationship. Someone always leads, the other always follows. On the surface; below the surface, the reverse is often true. But that’s as it should be; however, turn the relationship over and everything’s upside-down.<br />
<br />
An old English saying I read once: <i>"When the cow rides the bull - priest, watch your skull." </i>Meaning that when natural relationships are turned upside-down, the truth (represented by God’s deputy in this world, the priest) is in danger.<br />
<br />
What is often forgotten about the Biblical idea is that the corollary to the wife submitting to her husband is that her husband must also submit to God. Only if a man is in proper relation to the Absolute (however you may characterize this — as a Buddhist I don’t call it God, but recognize that I must live according to the truth if I want my life to work) can he expect a woman to be in proper relation to him. And, as Christ pointed out, to “rule” truly is to serve. A husband’s job is to “husband” his family’s resources, meaning the energy created by his wife’s devotion. A real marriage is a relationship of mutual devotion — to each other and to the Truth, in which each member does the tasks he or she is most suited to do. And neither “lords it over” the other, in public or private.<br />
<br />
Yes, it is true that woman is naturally suited to watch over and care for her children. And that her authority to do so is natural and right. But when her relationship to her husband is as to a child, things are not right. Because it means he never grew up. Of course, this arrangement can be very gratifying to her ego, but in the end a child-husband will fail to satisfy her real needs. But she won’t know why, only that she’s dissatisfied. This, I believe, is the real root of feminists’ tremendous anger. They’re not getting what they need from men: not only husbands but fathers. In great part it goes back to the Industrial Revolution, which famously separated men from their families. Absent fathers are not good for either boys or girls. Mothers can raise children up to the “age of reason” (6-7 years), and partially to puberty (11-2 years), but beyond that boys need fathering to become men, and girls need fathering to become women.<br />
(But don’t forget that the purpose of the Industrial Revolution was to make refrigerators, and other labour-saving devices. As Camille Paglia points out, civilization has been created by men, but, as always, in the service of women.)<br />
<br />
Quote: <i>"I feel that passage is written to make sure we each work on what is most difficult. For women, it is letting go of control, for men it is putting their family first." </i><br />
<br />
Indeed. My thanks for an insightful observation.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/07/philalethes-7-all-female-populations-in.html">Previous</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/philalethes-essay-list.html">Philalethes Index</a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/07/philalethes-9-immaculate-conception.html">Next</a> <br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<b>"There has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons, who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males to whom they gave birth."</b> -- Spinoza<br />
.<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
.<br />
Further Reading:<br />
.<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/woman-over-wisdom.html">Woman over Wisdom</a> -- by Mathieu of Boulogne, 1295 A.D.<br />
.<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/11/bonecrker-51-dont-argue-with-women.html">Bonecrker #51 – Don’t Argue with Women</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-62663310058546758822014-03-26T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-26T06:00:04.665-07:00Living with a Basilisk - Mathieu of BoulogneI, who once used to compose and polish off fine poems while my studies flourished and gave me great pleasure, have now fallen on hard times, not because of advancing age, but because of the constant nagging which upsets me. It's making me old before my time, allowing me no truce or respite. While asleep I dream of battles which end worse than they begin; I feel as if I am constantly at war whether awake or asleep. It's not surprising if I'm fed up with suffering such a cruel life, a life worse than death; for death stops once it has killed you, whereas this torture goes on and on and yet I must endure it. Since I am dying a terrible death, I should serve as a warning to all other men not to get married and to learn from my mistakes, thereby escaping woman and her wiles. If one's neighbour's house is on fire and one sees the flames leaping higher, one ought to fear for one's own house.<br />
<br />
If there is anyone who is so naive that he is untutored in woman's art, let him read this very work and select from it the most pleasing formulations himself. He will learn a lot from it provided that he uses it wisely. Dear reader, make sure that you rid yourself of women. Once you are acquainted with their opinions, behaviour and character (which I shall describe if I have the chance) then I believe that justice will prevail, that you will side with me and will rightly condemn them. Woman is always quarrelsome, a nag, cruel and shrewish. Peace and quiet are foreign to her. She recites her own litany of grievances, her own version of scriptures and the liturgy, just to annoy me. She often breaks her promises. My nagging wife sings her own Tenebrae [spiritual songs]; "Damn you," she says, and haunts my lamentations. She curses all the time or nags or weeps. Every wife intones and plays the same quarrelsome tune to her husband; she sings and chimes in every hour on the hour and is a terribly perverse creature. She is in the habit of shouting out and bawling during Responses, providing her own contrafacture of the Tenebrae. She begins the antiphon with "Damn you," causing her husband much grief and pain. She goes on like this all the time. Whether she is weeping or nagging, her husband hears everything, whether he wants to or not. Yet he dares not complain about it for in return for one word of complaint he would get a thousand. Instead he has to leave home and escape from his house. This treacherous cow treats him so badly that the man has to flee. It's true that smoke, rain, and a wife's unjustified nagging drive a man away from his home. When a woman argues and disputes she is often the one to start the quarrel. The water becomes undrinkable, the smoke from the hearth clouds his sight, making his eyes weep and he is unable to stay any longer in those conditions. In order to start a fight the wife pretends that she has caught her husband in the act of adultery. She attacks or turns on him, or strikes their child so that it screams and she couldn't be bothered to calm it down, she is such a cruel viper.<br />
<br />
Just as it is impossible for a fish to live out of water, so a wife can't live without abusing her husband and fighting. So I tell you truly, take in carefully what you read, for she is like a basilisk and may God protect you from this snake that kills people with its gaze. Above all retain this piece of advice: the only antidote is to flee it. Man is much safer with a snake or a lion than with a woman in fighting mood. I can demonstrate this with indisputable proof. You can tame all wild beasts by using chains or cages, ingenuity and cunning, and break their proud spirits, but you can't do this with your wife, for you can't get rid of an old crease in a boot. Even if you could conquer a whole empire by feats of arms, you would not be able to subjugate a woman. You can see this illustrated in paintings and Holy Scripture bears witness to this too. No man exists who has nothing to fear from her. If you are willing to acknowledge the truth, there is no man, however powerful. who isn't ultimately defeated by woman and her shield.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/woman-over-wisdom.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Previous</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/jangling-woman.html"><span style="color: #445566;">Next</span></a>Polk Highhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10542161068814524250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-48658200454985473792014-03-25T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-25T06:00:13.698-07:00EOTM: Masculism, Not Me-Too-ismI have noticed a distressing tendency in writings by men circulating in the border clashes of the gender war to engage in arguments over who has it worse: men, or women. I have resisted for years the notion of a men's movement which is mostly reactive to, and in imitation of, the feminist movement. The movements must necessarily reflect the nature of the participants, and as feminism reflects the whiny and victim focused nature of women, masculism needs to reflect the action orientation of men.<br />
<br />
Men will never be able to be better women than women can be. They will always be able to out-whine us. It is indicative of the permeation of feminine values that as the men's movement seeks a voice, it first speaks in the plaintive tones of the victim.<br />
<br />
I thought that it was the 60s again, or that I had stumbled on my long-lost stash of Purple Haze, when I read the argument about whether men or women suffered worse from the Holocaust. How dead can dead be? How high is up? How painful can death be, and is there a yardstick that can have any meaning at all? Of course death is more painful for women than for men: after all women feeee-yul more than men. They are more in touch with those precious feeeeee-lings.<br />
<br />
The argument over who lives longer is meant as an argument over power, with lifespan being a measure, but it misses one important point. Everyone actually lives exactly the same amount of time: one life. If you understand Einstein's theory of relativity, you can see that men actually live *longer* than women because the fewer years really *seems* longer because men have to listen to women running their yaps the entire time. If you only had 6 months to live; you should divorce your wife, marry your mother-in-law, and move to Wichita KS. That six months would seem like 100 years.<br />
<br />
If we think things are bad being a men today, we would do well to reflect on an old account of a battle about 3000 years ago. All the losers had their penises cut off. The accounting of foot soldiers, officers, etc. who suffered the unkindest cut numbered about 14,000. And we sit around and cringe when women make Lorena Bobbit jokes. It is offensive, crude, and stupid yes, but instead of sitting there with panicked grins on our faces we should be telling them so and walking the hell out.<br />
<br />
Life has never come with a guarantee to be easy, unless one was born female. All men's power has come from the fact that they didn't expect it to be, and didn't wait around for someone else to make it so. If we sit around whining waiting for someone to make it better for us, who is going to? Women?<br />
<br />
The dialogue of power has made many men embarrassed to have power, and they have tried to escape the blame by abdicating their own power. What we have today is a result. We have become a nation of victims. And men are losing that competition because we are rank amateurs at it.<br />
<br />
Time to get back to what we do best: something. Anything. But arguments over who has the worse deal, or who suffers more, will just lead us into the ground. Ok, women told us we had to get in touch with our feelings and learn to express them. We have.<br />
<br />
Do they like us any better for it? No.<br />
<br />
Do *we* like us any better for it? *HELL* no!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-gender-war-sexuality-and-love.html">Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-41876421679687695212014-03-24T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-24T06:00:08.578-07:00Woman Over Wisdom - Mathieu of BoulogneWomen can sing to more than one tune. What good were the Perihermeneias, the Elenchi, divided into several branches, the Prior and Posterior Analytics, logic, or the mathematical sciences to Aristotle? For a woman surmounted all of these in mounting him and conquered the master of logic. She placed a bit and headstall on his head and he was dragged into solecism, barbastoma, and barbarism. The hussy used him as a horse and spurred him on like a female ass. She lifted her crotch far too high when she rode the male. The governor was governed and the roles of the sexes reversed, for she was active and he passive, willing to neigh under her. . . .<br />
<br />
In my opinion, he had the status of a horse, and yet he was well acquainted with the power of nature, reason, and justice. Yet why did they not gallop to his aid, bringing succour to their greatest proponent and master? I don't know how this could be. What will the logicians say about the ancient art of sophistry if their celebrated teacher and master was thrown into greater confusion than any madman with a shaven head? He could not have been more confounded. Alas, what will philosophy say, given that the great master was tricked by the figure of amphiboly? Never had such a thing been seen before: the woman was the mounted knight and the man, with a halter under his hoary beard, was the horse that carried the burden. Because of this unnatural act, practitioners of the liberal arts are in constant and perpetual confusion. May they be eaten by evil wolves, if they have not yet taken revenge for this act. This book shows in what way, in what circumstances, and by what means I have reached this sorry pass. There is no one who can offer me a cure for it, for my wife's evil charms are too potent. She is always armed with arguments which torture me terribly. I sigh, weep, and lament, and suffer more than if I had chronic fever. How am I going to write this work? I can hardly begin to compose it without bursting into tears and lamenting.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/winning-sophistry-of-wives.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Previous</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/living-with-basilisk.html"><span style="color: #445566;">Next</span></a>Polk Highhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10542161068814524250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-60655854160741567462014-03-23T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-23T06:00:01.845-07:00EOTM: Fair Fighting<span style="font-size: 180%;">Fair Fighting</span><br />
<br />
It is impossible to overstate the significance of this issue. Men generally have a deep, intense, and abiding sense of fairness and honor. Women, in general, seem to have no such unwanted restrictions on their behavior. ( I know there are exceptions, but like the "Mars & Venus" cliches, there is enough truth to justify the stereotypes. Simply note the gender of the person quoted below. I've never seen a man say such things.)<br />
<br />
Trust is a lot like virginity, all it takes is one penetration and it is gone forever. The first time a woman hits below the belt she removes herself forever from the category of someone who will get unreserved cooperation, and instantly transforms herself into a creature of far less status and significance.<br />
<br />
Here is one of those articles that the media is using to keep pouring gasoline on the flames of the gender war. This woman's attitude is inconceivably vicious. She basically says draw as much blood as possible by any means possible. If I ruled the world, this woman would be hanged for writing this article, because there is nothing that will destroy any possibility of a relationship *ever* working more completely than even a single incident of the type she suggests.<br />
<br />
I like to hope that someday more women will understand how they destroy their own relationships and happiness. It would be worth the time for any woman to do some deep and honest soul searching to answer the question whether she has fights the way this woman suggests. If she has, then the man has every right to get back at her with any means at his disposal.<br />
<br />
This is how women turn themselves into the moral equivalent of pond scum in men's eyes.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 180%;">Nora Fox on Fair Fighting</span><br />
<br />
Verbal fights are inevitable. Show me a woman with a saccharin smile who insists, "We never fight," and I'll show you the next bitter divorcee who will end her days working the phones at Century 21.<br />
<br />
Women don't fight fair. Why should we? Faced with opponents who outweigh us, out earn us and whose community standing is undiminished with age, my sisters and I are forced to turn to underhanded tactics.<br />
<br />
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 a treat; bad behavior puts you in the conjugal doghouse for the night. Men never seem to catch on. After all, by the time we reach our sexual peak, men are running on fumes. How many times does one have to watch The Three Stooges to predict the outcome? Screw with Moe and get a poke in the eye, right? It's a sad commentary on Darwinism that sexual withholding still works after all these millennia. While it does though, we'll keep turning our backs, thank you. It's the war-between-the-sexes equivalent of Biblically turning the other cheek.<br />
<br />
Another useful strategy is the withering glance. Begin with eye contact; move own to the zipper. After making sure no camcorders are present. I often combo this with move with a disgusted snort followed by a teeth-clenched snarl. (Mirror work is helpful when perfecting this. There's one in your car. Go drive around the block and practice.)<br />
<br />
I resist yelling. It causes fever blisters and gives the neighbors too much conversational material. Other tactics worth noting include; Crying. How lame. Come on, we can all be more creative than this. Stick to what we do best. Mix & match logic. IF what you are doing isn't working, change the subject. Leave em' in the dust; not holding Kleenex.<br />
<br />
Hold your partner financial hostage. Information is the gold of the 90s. Threaten to rat to the IRS. It's good insurance ‘til you decide to move on.<br />
<br />
Remember fight or flight. Flight works. It's that distance/pursuit thing. My friend Victoria specializes in hanging up and jetting off to Hawaii. Her opponent was so mesmerized, he tracked her down and married her. 'They' re currently separated and living 500 miles apart...and still hanging up and building those frequent flier miles. Finally, taboos. If you ever want to see this person again, do not attack immutable parts of his anatomy And never, EVER, admit that you were faking it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-gender-war-sexuality-and-love.html">Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-51071150928841292882014-03-22T21:12:00.000-07:002014-03-22T21:12:00.093-07:00The Winning Sophistry of Wives - Mathieu of BoulogneIn addition to using arguments and disputes, a woman can lead her man to false conclusions by means of five different types of sophism. It's only right that I should give you some examples of their deception. Their linguistic sophistry is easily demonstrated.<br />
<br />
Guy found his wife in her bedroom underneath Simon, who was bonking her on the edge of the bed. Once the act was over, Guy got angry, scolded and reproached his wife, saying, "Get out, wicked woman, may God destroy you, body and soul, for your wickedness is now only too clear." But the woman was very quick to contradict her husband, replying, "Are you trying to kill me? Tell me what's the matter?". And the martyr to marriage said to her, "I want a divorce." "Alas," she said "why do you dare to speak such evil words to me? My father was once deluded into thinking that what you are now accusing me of had happened to him, for he imagined that he had seen my mother behaving in a wifely manner underneath another man, but his eyesight was defective. I know that my mother died as a result of such an incident, and my other female ancestors in just the same way. Dear husband, tell me how you arrived at such a crazy idea. Where has this melancholy come from? Dear friend, do you wish to be the death of me? Do you want me to live, or to die needlessly having done no wrong? You would be a wicked man indeed. Tell me what you want me to do." The poor wretch wept as he embraced her and said to her, "Sweet sister, I want you to live, for if you were ever to depart prematurely from this life as your mother did, your death would be too bitter a blow to me." She replied. "Then you must acknowledge publicly that I was never guilty of such a crime or, I promise you, I shall die. Now go quickly and say that it was a lie and that you dreamt it, for it was in this way that my female ancestors met their untimely ends." Against this argument the husband could find no defence, and without further ado, retracted his accusations under oath in the presence of their female neighbours, gossips, and cousins and swore that he had lied and had wrongly accused her. Thus his wife was exculpated, while he allowing himself to be contradicted in this way, suffered public humiliation.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/dominating-clock.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Previous</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/woman-over-wisdom.html"><span style="color: #445566;">Next</span></a> <br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Related:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/1-how-great-general-belisarius-was.html"><span style="color: #223344;">The Secret History: 1 – How the Great General Belisarius was Hoodwinked by His Wife</span></a>Polk Highhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10542161068814524250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-44894645983015816322014-03-21T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-21T06:00:03.832-07:00EOTM: The Pearl Harbor of the Gender War: Rape and Sexual HarassmentWhen the history of gender war gets written, the attack on normal heterosexuality will be viewed in retrospect as the event which signaled the start of the war and divided people into mutually hostile camps for which there would be no easy form of settlement. When Susan Brownmiller declared all men to be enemies of all women with her damning and unproven accusations in "Against Our Wills", she established the notions of structural power and power relationships which would eventually drag the political into the most personal aspects of everyone's lives. The declaration "all men are in collusion with rapists" soon became "all men ARE rapists" (or harassers) and "all sex is rape." I can't imagine women not getting enraged over being told that they were such simpletons that they didn't know that they were being oppressed and that their desire for men was proof of their oppression, but they didn't.<br />
<br />
It is mind-boggling to think that something so basic as the attraction mechanisms between men and women, which are the foundation processes of the continuation of our species and which have persisted for thousands of years, could have been completely re-defined in the space of only one generation. Yet, this is exactly what has happened. Somewhere in there is a chilling disregard for life based on a lack of awareness of what life is and how it is perpetuated.<br />
<br />
Erasing any distinction between normal male-female sexuality and criminal behavior has devastated the ability to have and sustain stable mated relationships. The simple existence of the ambiguous laws and lack of legal standards put women as well as men into completely undefined territory filled with landmines. There are so many ways that a woman can use the legal system to clobber a man these days that men are more and more lapsing into wary silence and distance. Of course, this feeds right into women's complaints about male emotional withdrawal.<br />
<br />
Never before in history has it been so hard for men and women who want to get together to do so. And never before has the incentive for persistence through an occasional hard time been so low.<br />
<br />
The war which began with Pearl Harbor ended with the Atomic bomb.<br />
<br />
The only possible outcome when neither side will back off their commitment to war is total defeat of one side or the other. When the battle is between men and women, total defeat of one side is not possible without the destroying the victorious side as well. All wars are insane to some degree, but a gender war is the most insane anything could possibly be. No one can tell their enemies from their allies any more, and often spend more time and energy supporting their enemies rather than their allies.<br />
<br />
The frontline battle for men's rights to be attracted to women, and let women know that, will have to be fought by women. They have been the ones whose behavior the extremists have been out to change anyway. It's just that men make easier targets and if you change the behavior of the men then the women will be forced to change their behavior.<br />
<br />
The drive to stamp out heterosexuality and marriage waged by the extremists, capitalizing on the "victory" of Brownmiller's surprise attack, is directly a war against women who would like those options. Both men and women have come to fear marriage and fear members of the other sex. There have always been forces in the culture which hated sex and were constantly obsessing over the possibility that some of their fellow citizens could be having too much or the wrong kind of sex. Most states have had laws on the books prohibiting certain kinds of sex. It has long been widely accepted that men in general liked sex more than women in general, many of whom did not like it at all. The famous Ann Landers' survey, which showed that 70% of women would be perfectly happy never to have sex again, made it clear to men what women think of us as lovers. And where Landers was dismissive, Shere Hite was absolutely brutal toward men.<br />
<br />
Men have long been waiting for a voice of peace from women saying in effect "We like men, we like men's attention. We don't think it is a crime." Since we now have to deal with the "reasonable woman" standard, where are the reasonable women speaking out saying "This is NOT sexual harassment." or "This is NOT rape." ?!<br />
<br />
Without female voices speaking this message, it is likely that the war will continue to rage on.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-gender-war-sexuality-and-love.html">Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love</a><br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Further Reading:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2009/02/bonecrker-13-dv-myths-cold-war.html">Bonecrker #13 - DV Myths = Cold War </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2009/02/bonecrker-20-rape-fantasies.html">Bonecrker #20 – Rape Fantasies</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2004/03/bonecrcker-65-repeating-patterns-of.html">Bonecrker #65 – The Repeating Patterns of Women Who Cry Rape</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-24863981120969815202014-03-20T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-20T06:00:09.616-07:00Dominating Clock - Mathieu of BoulogneThis female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn't stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn't care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there's not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn't want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear-sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/lamentations-of-matheolus.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Mathieu of Boulogne Index</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/winning-sophistry-of-wives.html"><span style="color: #445566;">Next</span></a>Polk Highhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10542161068814524250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-35528787424142115812014-03-19T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-19T06:00:03.795-07:00EOTM: The Chain of Violence4/22/99-<br />
<br />
In the wake of the Littleton CO shootings, once again the issue of violence in the culture comes up for debate. Everyone has leapt on this tragic event as evidence for their pet theory of utopianism. Most pathetic and ridiculous are the gun-control fanatics who ignore the fact that there are already pipe bomb and other explosive device control laws which did nothing to prevent such a pre-meditated act of mayhem.<br />
<br />
Overt violence is like the volcanic eruption which is the result of the buildup of stresses over a long period of time. Isolating the violent act itself from the events and forces which created it, make it impossible to understand.<br />
<br />
Our culture's relationship with violence is schizophrenic. As long as we don't have to confront it directly in reality, it is fine. But when it happens in our faces we act shocked. US culture, and any culture which imports US entertainment, is saturated with a steady diet of violence. Movies are violent, television commercials are violent, comedy and cartoons are violent. Yet, when real violence instead of fantasy violence erupts in our culture, some people act shocked. "Where could this have come from? HOW could this have happened?"<br />
<br />
Those people will never find the answers to those questions until they confront the issue that violence is a chain. Any overt act of violence will have been preceeded by a long slow buildup of pressures which finally erupt in the same way that a volcano erupts to let off the immense tectonic pressures which have built up. Attempting to deal with the eruptions alone, while ignoring the forces which preceed them, assures that understanding of violence will be limited to assessing the carnage after the fact. These people will become very good at assessing carnage, and will be quick to offer solutions which "could" have prevented this particular eruption, but they will offer nothing to prevent any other eruption in the future.<br />
<br />
Violence does not just suddenly come from nowhere. Violence is passed along from person to person in many forms until it reaches such a concentration in one person that it erupts. Two people prone to violence can dance each other into it in no time. Culturally we live in a sea of violent images and still seem surprised when those same images are turned into reality in front of us. We seem to deny violence until it escalates past any ability of denial, then to get angry at those who forced us to recognize it.<br />
<br />
One characteristic of the Littleton shootings distinguishes it from the other school shootings: it was obviously suicidal in intent. The primary focus of the violence turned out to be themselves: they just decided to take a few of those who had acted violently toward them along with them.<br />
<br />
Until the cultural denial is broken regarding just how much violence had been poured onto and into these two boys, they will just be another in a series of pressure relief valves which allow the pressure cooker to keep simmering without blowing up. As the picture of these boys emerges, the word "marginalized" continuously comes to mind. These boys are inheritors of the legacy of marginalizing men which has been going on since the late 1960s. More than a society of haves and have-nots as many have been predicting, there is also a division brewing between what might be termed "ins" and "outs". The boys in CO were definitely "outs".<br />
<br />
What will compound this tragedy is if no one points out that these boys were acting like lenses and focused the violence in this culture to the point of ignition, like a magnifying glass can focus the sun to start a fire. Why should people be surprised when these boys take all the "You have no place in this world" messages and believe them? The term "War on boys" is constantly being used for the wholesale medicating and berating of boys which happens in the public education system. Maybe these boys didn't have all that happen directly to them, but they saw it all the time everywhere. They lived and grew up in an environment which was hostile to them because they were boys. That is cetainly Sexual Harassment. It seems remarkable to have to point out to someone who has talked about the "War on boys", the simple fact that this is what it looks like when boys fight back.<br />
<br />
The answer is so simple that I'm not surprised that it has escaped the bureaucrats: decrease the violence against boys and men, if you want to decrease the violence BY boys and men. Men have been saying for years that hate bounces. Yet, men today get man-hatred shoved in their faces no matter where they look. All popular entertainment, and particularly the commercials that support it, reek of man-hatred.<br />
<br />
Breaking the chain of violence will involve quitting expecting anyone to absorb constant and focussed hostility for a long period of time without returning in kind. It involves seeing the assassination of men's characters as a form of violence and understanding that violence can be hidden and covert just as well as it can be overt. Until all involved take the responsibility for their own participation/contribution to violence, each violent act will contribute to eventual retaliatory violence.<br />
<br />
In order to break the chain, ALL parties must stop.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
The issues of <a href="http://webspace.webring.com/people/mz/zenpriest/maleanger.html">men's anger</a> and men's violence have become central to the angry rhetoric of the gender war. Men face an absolute seemingly unbreakable wall of denial regarding female violence and participation in feeding events of violence.<br />
<br />
The answer to everything seems to be for men to suppress their anger even more. All that will do is assure that the next time an eruption occurs to let off pressure that it will be even more explosive.<br />
<br />
On one of the discussion lists, the one maintained by backlash.com, there is a great deal of discussion of male anger and violence. How and why men are suppressed in their expressions of anger, and how and why this makes the problems worse, are frequent topics - as is what form the "backlash" will take if there ever is one.<br />
<br />
One man stated the situation particularly eloquently. I have his permission to quote it here.<br />
<br />
"And now there's Littleton, Colorado to add to the list of American towns where the end result of this has brought death and violence. Janet Reno and the gun control lobbiests are already preaching tighter restrictions, etc. Why don't we ask if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold gave a FUCK about gun control laws? I'm not much one way or the other on the issue of gun control, but I do know that people have been killing each other for a lot longer than guns have been around.<br />
<br />
"The current body count is 15 total -. 11 males, including 1 adult and the two shooters, and 4 females. One of the victims was black. I wonder how long it will take the VAWA promoters and the Hate Crime people to draw on this tragedy to promote their agendas ? Will we just bury the other 11 victims and call them "Colaterial Damage" in the war on women and minorities ?<br />
<br />
"You all are probably sick of hearing me rant about the Socially Forced Supression of male anger, and how we are taught from day one to "Be a MAN, and EAT it.". Then when it explodes, ALL men become violent murdering wife beating rapists. These young men were pushed over the edge, and no less victims of the same urge to kill that drove them to commit this atrocity.<br />
<br />
"Goddammit, we need to face this issue of anger ourselves. As Fathers and male role models, our children NEED US to teach them how to deal with it by example. That's why I put my web page back online after it disappeared two years ago, although sometimes even I think it's a pathetic cry in the wilderness. If we who know and feel the pain don't start to deal with it, NOBODY WILL !<br />
<br />
"The "authorities" were alerted a full year before these two kids decided to self-destruct, and take 15 innocent souls with them, now they're wondering how they missed it. I see it every day in every person I meet, and it scares the shit out of me."<br />
<br />
Another man tossed in:<br />
<br />
"The state says my kids only need their mother. They don't need me for anything but money."<br />
<br />
To which the first man responded:<br />
<br />
"I understand how you feel, and God knows that there are thousands of other men just like you who are just as angry and have every right to be. I think it's time we made an issue of this, a BIG issue. It may be too late for us, but maybe we can shake some sense into the future leaders of our children's world. I've already decided that anyone who even mentions this story to me is going to get my "WELCOME TO THE BACKLASH !' speech. 'The Fun has just Begun...'<br />
<br />
"Welcome to the Backlash. This is the direct result of the legacy of socially surpressed anger that men in Amerca have been sitting on for the past three generations. I call it the "Big Boys Don't Cry" syndrome. If greater effort is not put forth to encourage men to deal with their inner hostilities, and to allow them to become the Fathers and positive role models that our children need, it's going to get a lot worse. "<br />
<br />
Stu-<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-gender-war-sexuality-and-love.html">Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love</a>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00954715060471574125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-502236060189187526.post-42268669688520792312014-03-18T06:00:00.000-07:002014-03-18T06:00:05.130-07:00Procopius 30 - Further Innovations of Justinian and Theodora, and a Conclusion<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-6795496519871498989">
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/secret-history-by-pocopius-of-caesarea.html"><span style="color: #223344;">From: “The Secret History” – by Pocopius of Caesarea</span></a><br />
<b></b><br />
<b>30 - Further Innovations of Justinian and Theodora, and a Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
How much he cared for the interests of the State may be seen by what he did to the public couriers and the spies. For the preceding Roman emperors, so that they might most quickly and easily have news of enemy invasions into any province, of sedition in the cities or any other unexpected trouble, of the actions of the governors and everyone else everywhere in the Roman Empire, and also so that those bringing in the annual taxes might be kept from delay and danger, had established a system of public couriers everywhere in the following manner.<br />
<br />
As a day's journey for an active man, they decided on eight stages in some places, in others less, but hardly ever less than five. Forty horses were kept for each stage, and grooms in proportion to the number of horses. By frequent relays of the best mounts, couriers were thus able to ride as long a distance in one day as would ordinarily require ten, and bring with them the news required. Also the landowners in these provinces, especially those whose estates were in the interior ' were greatly benefited by the system, as they sold at a high price to the government each year their surplus harvests to feed the horses and the grooms. And accordingly the State received the due tribute from each of these, immediately reimbursing them for furnishing it: and this was to the advantage of the whole State. Now this is how things were formerly done.<br />
<br />
But this tyrant first suppressed the post from Chalcedon to Dacibiza, and then compelled the couriers to go from Constantinople to Helenopolis, however little they liked it, by sea. Faring in small boats, such as were usually used for crossing the strait, they were in serious peril if a storm came up. For because speed was demanded of them, they could not wait for calm weather. In the case of the road to Persia, he permitted the former system to remain; but everywhere else in the East, as far as Egypt, he reduced the number of stages making a day's journey to one, and provided, instead of horses, a few asses. Consequently news of what happened in each province was brought with great difficulty, too late to be of any use and long after the event, and the farm owners got no benefit of their crops which either rotted or lay idle.<br />
<br />
The spies were organized as follows. Many men were formerly supported by the treasury, who visited the enemy, especially the Persian court, to find out exactly what was going on; on their return to Roman territory, they were able to report to the Emperors the secrets of the enemy. And the Romans, being warned, were on guard and could not be taken by surprise. This system was also a long-established custom with the Medes; and Chosroes, they say, increased the pay of his spies, and benefited by the precaution. But Justinian did away with the practice of hiring Roman spies, and in consequence lost much territory to the enemy, including Lazica, which was taken because the Romans had no information as to where the Persian King was with his army.<br />
<br />
The State had also always kept a large number of camels, which carried all the baggage when the Roman army marched against the foe. Thus the peasants did not have to carry burdens, and the soldiers lacked no necessity. But Justinian did away with almost all of these animals. Consequently when the Roman army now marches against the enemy, it is impossible for it to be supplied with what it needs. Such was the zeal he displayed for the interests of the State.<br />
<br />
There is nothing like mentioning one of his ridiculous acts. Among the lawyers at Caesarea was one Evangelius, a man of no mean distinction, who, favored by the winds of Fate, became the master of much money and much land. Eventually he bought a village on the seacoast, named Porphyreon, for three gold centenaries. Learning of this, Justinian immediately took the place from him, giving him back only a small fraction of the price he had paid, and uttered the remark that it would never do for Evangelius, a mere lawyer, to be the lord of such a village. Well, we must stop somewhere when we begin to recall all these stories.<br />
<br />
This, however, is worth telling among the innovations of Justinian and Theodora. Formerly, when the Senate approached the Emperor, it paid homage in the following manner. Every patrician kissed him on the right breast; the Emperor kissed the patrician on the head, and he was dismissed. Then the rest bent their right knee to the Emperor and withdrew. It was not customary to pay homage to the Queen.<br />
<br />
But those who were admitted to the presence of Justinian and Theodora, whether they were patricians or otherwise, fell on their faces on the floor, stretching their hands and feet out wide, kissed first one foot and then the other of the Augustus, and then retired. Nor did Theodora refuse this honor; and she even received the ambassadors of the Persians and other barbarians and gave them presents, as if she were in command of the Roman Empire: a thing that had never happened in all previous time.<br />
<br />
And formerly intimates of the Emperor called him Emperor and the Empress, Empress; and the other officials according to the title of their rank. But if anybody addressed either of these two as Emperor or Empress without adding "Your Majesty" or "Your Highness," or forgot to call himself their slave, he was considered either ignorant or insolent, and was dismissed in disgrace as if he had done some awful crime or committed an unpardonable sin.<br />
<br />
And before, only a few were sometimes admitted to the palace; but from the time when these two came to power, the magistrates and everybody else had no trouble in fairly living in the palace. This was because the magistrates of old had administered justice and the laws according to their conscience, and made their decisions while in their own offices, while their subjects, neither seeing nor hearing any injustice, of course had little cause to trouble the Emperor. But these two, taking control of everything to the misfortune of their subjects, forced everyone to come to them and beg like slaves. And almost any day one could see the law courts nearly deserted, while in the hall of the Emperor there was a jostling and pushing crowd that resembled nothing so much as a mob of slaves.<br />
<br />
Those who were supposed to be in the imperial favor would stand there all day and most of the night, sleepless and foodless, until they were exhausted; and this is what their presumed good fortune got them. And those who were free of all this sort of thing, asked each other what would become of the prosperity of the Romans. For some were sure it was already in the hands of the barbarians, and others said the Emperor had hidden it away in his various dwelling places. But only when Justinian, be he man or King of the Devils, shall have departed this life, shall they who then happen to survive him, discover the truth.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/29-other-incidents-revealing-him-as.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Previous</span></a> <a href="http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/secret-history-by-pocopius-of-caesarea.html"><span style="color: #223344;">Index</span></a> <br />
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
Polk Highhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10542161068814524250noreply@blogger.com