Tuesday, August 31, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Bonecrcker #44 – Women Have Contradictory Love

Fitness Testing (Shit Tests) 

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Philalethes #26 - The Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Philalethes Index Next


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

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Philalethes #24 - Who's to Blame II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Philalethes Index Next

Further Reading:

Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?

Philalethes #21 - Circumcision

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Philalethes #23 - Who's to Blame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Philalethes Index Next


Further Reading:

Philalethes #21 - Circumcision

Philalethes #9 – Immaculate Conception

Philalethes #7 – All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom

Zenpriest #3 – Repressing Sexuality

Monday, August 16, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, August 13, 2010

Philalethes #21 - Circumcision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Philalethes #20 - Chivalry

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 07, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly

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

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

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

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Philalethes #18 - Opposed to Woman Suffrage?

Women SHOULD have the right to vote.

When I was younger, before the “hormone-induced fog” (thanks, Warren Farrell) began to clear and I started to actually see the situation with some clarity, I would have said the same. Now I’m older, not so desperately in need of female approval, I can simply say what I see without having to be furious, which also clouds the vision.

Another common prediction by opponents of female suffrage was that it would destroy the family. Well? Isn’t that exactly what has happened? When women can look to the government for their needs — a government funded by involuntary contributions from working men — why should they bother to do the work of maintaining relationships with men? Why should they have any respect for men, if they can use and discard them at whim? As Warren Farrell made clear in The Myth of Male Power, the State is now every woman’s “husband.” Women are generally the majority in most human populations, so when women vote, they’ll get what they want. (It’ll be very interesting to see what happens in China in a few decades, with something like 20% more men than women. Sexual power far outweighs political power in any case.)

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” (Alexis de Tocqueville) What about when politicians can bribe the “voters” with other people’s money? Then you have socialism, which ultimately self-destructs, like any “system” that separates freedom (or power) from responsibility.

Is it only coincidence that the century that saw the transfer of political power to women also saw the exponential growth of socialism all over the planet? Remember: while the prime value of the male is freedom, the prime value of the female is security. Women may say they want to be “free,” but what they really want is to be able to indulge their whims and fancies without being held responsible for the consequences. It’s not an accident that the #2 issue of feminism (right after voting) is abortion.

I suppose I’m not really an “MRA” … I’m not proposing that the “right to vote” be taken from women. I understand that women rule the world, and it’s what they seem to want. I’m merely commenting on what I see. I agree with the poster below: there’s really no way to “fight” it; we can only walk away. Let them change their own damned oil.

In a healthy political order, voting is not a “right”; it’s a privilege. For thousands of years, human cultures that lasted understood, if only unconsciously, that formal political decision-making power should be in the hands of those society members who understand that freedom requires responsibility — i.e. those with whom the buck stops. Children do not understand the connection of responsibility with freedom, which is why adults are responsible for children, and children traditionally have not been given political power. I hear that in Europe, it is now seriously being proposed that children should be given the vote. Not surprising, once power has been separated from responsibility. Politicians, of course, love the idea: more fools to rule.

Traditionally, men have been responsible for supporting their families, i.e. the women and children dependent on them, which is why men have had the power that rests on that responsibility. Now that women can use the power of the State, men are still assumed to bear that responsibility — have you been watching the “family court” travesty? — But no longer have any authority — or freedom. A “wallet” is not a man. Similarly, in the area of sexual encounter, men still bear all the responsibility, but women have all the freedom — thus the “bias in the system against men” that “infuriated” you. Think about it.
“The women’s suffrage movement is only the small edge of the wedge, if we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Women are well represented by their fathers, brothers, and husbands.” -- Winston Churchill
Further Reading:

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Philalethes #17 - When Women Rule

Switzerland is now ruled by a woman (the president or whatever is the single-person office at the head of its government), and a few years ago discarded their ancient governmental system for a new, politically-correct constitution which, like that of Canada, pretends to “give” rights while actually vastly expanding government powers. Switzerland, R.I.P.

In 1995 I saw a PBS special celebrating the 75th anniversary of the 19th Amendment (1920), and was amused to hear that opponents of female suffrage predicted that it would result in alcohol prohibition (the “temperance” movement — like the push for infant male circumcision — was closely allied to the female suffrage movement, all promoted by 19th century Miss Wormwoods determined to make the world a better place by controlling male behaviour). Somehow it seemed to escape the writers of the show that indeed that was exactly what happened. Duh. The 18th Amendment actually preceded the 19th in ratification, but was a product of the same growing influence of women in political life. And Prohibition typified the female obsession with appearances over reality, and the use of force-by-proxy to make the world “better,” which actually makes the situation worse.

Previous Philalethes Index Next


"The female of the species is more deadly than the male." -- Rudyard Kipling

"The history of woman is the history of the worst form of tyranny the world has ever known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts." -- Oscar Wilde

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

"When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy" -- Hegel
Further Reading:

Man Superior to Woman - Chapter Four