Essays by Philalethes

Essays by Philalethes

Philalethes #1 - Feminist Allies? 1). Quote: "I am sure in their own way groups like IWF mean well but the truth is, they're still feminists."  Close, but not exactly. They themselves will dispute the ―feminist‖ label, which — since, like any word used by women, wo men, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment — only confuses things. The truth is, they‘re still women, and as such are different from men: they think differently, have different concerns and priorities, different strengths and weaknesses. Our culture has already been thoroughly feminized, and we have all been conditioned to base our thinking on the primary, unexamined feminist dogma that the sexes are really no different, outside of  ―socially--imposed‖ role models. Even in this forum I find most ―socially participants unconsciously taking this idea for granted. So long as you do not question this assumption, the most you will ever accomplish is begging women — your masters — to treat you nicer. "If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your   fellows, they will become your masters."  –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE Which is exactly what this IWF ―discussion‖ is about. The quoted message from a concerned man is very well reasoned and moderately stated, yet is dismissed out of hand, h and, with hardly veiled contempt, by the female ―moderator.‖ Why? Because she can. Because he asked, and in so doing ceded the authority to her from the beginning — and she couldn‘t resist the temptation to use the power he handed her, all the more because she couldn‘t respond to his points on the reasoned level he presented them. This is known as ―changing the subject,‖ and has been a primary female tactic from time immemorial. Women instinctively regard such a man with contempt, even if he is their thei r own creation — in fact, precisely because he is their own creation: how can the Creator regard her creature as her ―equal‖? Boys — ―Is it okay for me to be me, mommy?‖ — are not ―equal‖ to women. Just as women are not ―equal‖ to men.

Get this: There can be no question of ―equality‖ between the sexes. There can be parity, a balance of power based on recognized, differentiated gender roles — most of which are natural and innate — and territories of authority, so that each sex has something to exchange with the other, and thus both have reason to cooperate. Only when boys separate from Mother M other and grow into men do men have such a territory from which to address women, and do women respect them as men. And of course women instinctively try to prevent their boys growing up and away, out of their sphere of power. Who likes to lose a possession, a toy? And neither is this bad for men, for manhood ―won‖ without effort is not manhood. Which is why women cannot make boys into men, because they are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict — which might result in someone‘s feelings being hurt. We cannot look to t o women — even ―intelligent‖ women like IWF or ―iFeminists‖ — to show us the way out. For all their talk, they simply don‘t know. The sexes are different. If they were not, there‘d only be one of us here. One of the few thinking men to be found these days in public is Fred Reed, whose latest commentary points out, in his usual inimitable style, the real, significant difference between the sexes: "Women and men want very different things and therefore very  different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of  men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women."  Read Fred twice, or more. Despite his informal, uneven style — which I‘m not sure is unconscious as it i t may seem, his s tyle in itself is an expression of maleness, not ―nice‖ but charmingly rough, beer in hand, direct and to the point, often ungentle but never inconsiderate — he repeatedly gets right to the heart of the matter. ―…female incomprehension of men.‖ Exactly. An d no amount of explaining or ―inter--gender dialog‖ will ever entirely correct this. Women talk; men ―inter do. Ultimately, women will never understand under stand men. If they could, they wouldn‘t need us.

"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." Never women."  Never forget this. Keep it in mind, and you‘re well on your way to understanding understand ing women. Women want us all to be women — or children — because that‘s what they understand. But, like children, ultimately they don‘t know what‘s best for th em. Quote: I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based  on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevalent in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. ... I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the manhaters. ... In general, they are our allies, despite the fact that their   focus is on women."  They‘re not my ―allies.‖ They‘re just women, blabbing on as women do, sometimes making sense but as often oft en just talking to hear themselves talk — because that‘s what women do. It‘s not a matter of  being ―anti―anti-male‖ or propro -male; it‘s that level of ―thinking‖ that is the problem. I‘m not in a war with women, or feminists. They may be at war with me, but I refuse to cooperate — because if it is a war, then women have already won it. They cannot lose; on that level they own all the power. But a man — which is what I strive, hope to be — is not on that level; he has graduated from it. As I‘ve mentioned before, I‘m not in the t he cheering section for such women as ―iFeminists‖ or Christina Hoff Sommers. Sure, she makes more sense than most women these days, but she still thinks as a woman — as this quote makes clear, confirming my previous take on her. ―Who stole feminism?‖ Nobody stole feminism; it never was anything else. Its true nature has become apparent as it has been allowed space to show itself. Restraint is the key; with it, we have human beings and civilization, without it we are overdeveloped apes living in chaos. "The idea that women were repressed until the sexual revolution in the 1960's is absurd ... they were certainly restrained, a crucially  different matter." – matter." –Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. Yes, women do occasionally make sense, and I‘m glad to see it when they do; but I never take ta ke it for granted — or assume the next thing they say will make sense also.

Women change; change; it‘s their nature. It‘s why men are designed, in ‗Enry ‗Iggins immortal phrase, to "take a position and staunchly never  budge." So budge."  So that women, finally exhausted themselves by their constant changes, can have something to rely on in this world. Of course course IWF‘s focus is on women; what else would it be? Women‘s focus (―Women‘s Focus‖ is the name of a local ―public‖ -radio feminist program) is always on women — and, if they‘re among the increasingly few women who grow up, on children. It‘s It‘ s the natural order : women take care of themselves and their children, men take care of women and children. Women do not understand men, any more than children understand adults; this is why, when women have overt power as they now do, they naturally, instinctively do everything in their power to keep boys from growing into men, i.e. growing out of their field of  power. Thus the drugging of boys in female dominated schools. The very existence of men — adult, independent males, no longer motherdominated — is an intolerable challenge to female political power. No such matriarchy can survive if there are any men in the vicinity. Actually, the ―Independent Women‘s Forum,‖ like ―iFeminists,‖ is just another oxymoron. There‘s really no such suc h thing as an ―independent woman.‖ It is only the civilization that men — with our annoying insistence that 2+2=4, even if you don‘t feel like it — have created that allows these women the leisure time for their endless coffee klatches. No need to be annoyed with them about it; it‘s what women do. But don‘t take it seriously, either; when women w omen talk, they don‘t mean the same thing(s) by it as men do. The sexes are different. Philalethes Index Next -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 wa nt the

so-called non-traditional relationships. -- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989

Philalethes #2 - The Sexual Noise No ise is Deafening

Quote: "... young women tend to get away with murder just by   flaunting it."  Remember another feminist slogan of recent years: ―If you‘ve got it, flaunt it!‖ I for one am increasingly tired of the constantly escalating level of  sexual white noise in the culture. In summertime a lot of females parade around practically naked. For a long time I wondered why it is that women seem to have an overwhelming compulsion c ompulsion to bare their bodies in public; in winter I‘ve seen them sometimes with serious gooseflesh when they could just as easily wear a little more clothing and be comfortably warm. Finally I recalled reading in Desmond Morris‘ classic The Naked Ape (highly recommended) the simple, scientific observation that while other species‘ sexual signals may be olfactory (scents––which is why dogs urinate on fireplugs) or auditory (birdsong), (scents human sexual signals concentrate on our most developed sense, i.e. sight. When a woman bares another half-inch of sk in, it‘s never an accident: it‘s an escalation, either of an attempt to capture male attention, or of competition with other females to do the same.

If human sexual signals were transmitted in sound, our present situation would be literally deafening. Once again, women don‘t make sense, at least on first observation: Once they behave in a manner obviously calculated (though often subconsciously so) to attract male attention, then they complain that males ―can‘t keep their eyes to themselves.‖ It‘s just more testing.I testing. If  nothing else, it‘s a test of the male‘s ability to deal with the stress caused by female irrationality. ―I‘m not logical. Deal with it.‖ What does not destroy you … makes you a promising candidate as a mate. From the point of view of Nature, their (and our) ultimate Boss, this makes perfect sense. Nature knows no restraint; she will escalate every contest to the ultimate. In ―traditional‖ cultures, women generally had the sense to discipline their collective behaviour, to keep the sexual sexu al noise to a level that wouldn‘t cause a total collapse of social order. This is the origin of all the restraints which feminists complain so bitterly about, from marriage to the seclusion of women to the burkha: simply varying, often desperate attempts to govern the overwhelming sexual power of  the female so that we can have human societies, rather than the life of chimpanzees. In our ―modern,‖ revolutionary culture, these restraints have been broken down, abandoned, and it‘s a free -for-all. Women themselves are caught in the situation: as the level of competition rises, even women who don‘t feel incli ned to act like prostitutes feel they have no choice. Few women other than Camille Paglia are willing to admit that under the ―patriarchy‖ women were far safer to walk the streets at night than they are now, in our ―enlightened‖ social order, where women are are ―free to be themselves.‖ The simple fact is that (most) women, like children, on their own don‘t know kn ow what‘s best for their own welfare. People who come to our country from traditional cultures say that our women dress like prostitutes: why advertise so aggressively unless you‘re selling what you‘re showing? But of course, course , as our ―modern‖ culture spreads across the world, traditional cultures‘ restraining patterns are breaking down as well. A recent issue of National Geographic shows this quite graphically, with a cover photo of an Indian woman and her daughter: the mother is dressed in a traditional

sari, the daughter is dressed like a typical American teenage wanna-be whore, complete with pout. No culture can last when this behaviour becomes the norm. Some years ago I had the opportunity to meet a woman shaman from the Iroquois nation. She was impressive: one of the few real, grownup women I‘ve encountered. Calm, restrained, gentle, completely aware and in control of herself, she glowed with power. I sat in a room full of  women at her feet, and was struck by the behaviour of a middle-aged, white-haired whitehaired Anglo female sitting across from me. She didn‘t know how to comport herself; she had her legs up so her underwear was clearly displayed to the room. I thought, th ought, ―This is the best model our culture c ulture can offer as an adult woman?‖ It was sad. I was amused to see the following follo wing passage in the Seneca Falls ―Declaration of Sentiments‖: The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and  usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. The truth is, the history of humankind is a history of desperate attempts to escape the unconscious, unrestrained rule of woman, and thus the absolute rule of unconscious, ruthless Nature, by creating social constructs which, whatever their imperfections, at least offer us a life less ―nasty, brutish and short‖ than that of the animal world from which we came– came –and back into which we may fall at any time. This is the real meaning of ―Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.‖

Philalethes #3 - The Anti-Logic of Women I had a girl friend once who taught me a lot. (A Japanese-American, BTW.) On one occasion I got into a big argument with her (about what, I forget), which ended when, finally, in extreme frustration, I exclaimed, ―That‘s not logical!‖ ―I‘m not logical,‖ she replied. I thought, Oh, that‘s right. Deal with it. There‘s no answer for that, but for f or a man to know himself, him self, who he is, and what he stands for; then she can take it or leave it. If she takes him, she will conform herself to the discipline of his logic –though she‘ll continue to test him, him , so he‘d better be sure his logic has integrity. If a man has to ask a woman to think for him, it just won‘t work. If he‘s so attached/dependent that he‘s afraid he‘ll lose her if h e stands his ground––gently but firmly–he‘s ground firmly –he‘s already lost anyway. And so is she.

What I‘m coming to understand lately is that not only must I know where I stand, but past a certain point it‘s useless to try to explain or persuade. Just state your position, and let her take it or leave it. ‖Never argue with a woman‖ is not just a tired old joke; it‘s real wisdom. If she‘s worth your time, she‘ll come co me around; if not, don‘t waste your time. But in order to make this work, we males must be weaned, and few of us are these days. Another time, another altercation, terminally exasperated, I asked her what she wanted. ―I never know what I want until I get it,‖ she said. It was like one of those cartoon light bulbs went on over my head. ―Aha,‖ I thought, ―there speaks Woman.‖ It‘s certainly become plain by now that women really don‘t know what they want; they may think they want one thing, but if you watch you‘ll see that if they get it they complain even louder-and what they really respond to is usually something quite different. Thus do feminists dream of stevedores. And this is the answer to Devvy Kidd‘s question about why women buy billions of ―romance‖ novels– even as they demand that their own men behave like doormats. It‘s not that they really want their men to be doormats; it‘s that they need their men to be strong, and how do you determine how strong something is without testing it? They do this instinctively, not consciously; naturally they think they want to win, but when they win, they lose. And don‘t know why they‘re unhappy. Being a woman is not easy; they can‘t figure themselves out either, because, in the short run, they make no sense. For a woman, a straight line is not the shortest distance. Because in the natural order, her man is supposed to be breaking the trail, while she follows his lead. I remember in my hippie days, out in the California Mountains, watching a young woman follow a young man on a trail in the forest. It was an archetypal scene, like Sita following Rama, the Last of the Mohicans: everywoman following everyman. I had another girl friend once who wanted to arm-wrestle. She was a tough girl, but when I beat her, she was satisfied. I could see it: I‘d passed the test, and right away she started fitting herself to me. (In fact, before I knew it seemed seeme d we were planning to move in together, which was more than I‘d bargained for. I really wasn‘t thinking ahead–

which is the man‘s job. Took some contortions to get out of that one, and an d I haven‘t seen her since.) This is the fundamental, archetypal relationship of the female to the male. ―He chases her until she catches him.‖ Even Martha Burk and all the other feminists who so adamantly insist on entry to the boys‘ clubhouse are doing the same basic thing: testing men. If they win, they lose, because boys can‘t become men in a female-dominated environment. And any environment with females present is fundamentally female-dominated, regardless of  appearances. Every boy starts out utterly dominated by a female, a domination which requires decisive change to escape. But if he doesn‘t escape his mother‘s gravity field, the next generation of o f women wil l have no men to marry. That‘s essentially our present situation. Few American males (myself included) would I call ―men‖ in the real sense. A woman cannot show a man how to be a man; what she needs is for him to bring her something she doesn‘t already ha ve ve––or know. Watch birds courting. This whole process works just fine, more mo re or less, in other species; but among humans, so much more complicated, with so many ―choices,‖ it‘s gotten seriously derailed. It‘s not easy being a man either, especially in our time when the traditional processes that used to make men of boys have been lost. lo st. The best our culture has to offer these days are military basic training and football –neither of which has ever appealed to me in the least. In Burma, traditionally a young man becomes a monk for at least a few months, up to a couple of years. Having experienced a similar form of Buddhist monastic life, I can say it can be an excellent molder of character, if properly understood and applied. A friend of mine does summer camps for teenage boys, wherein they learn wilderness skills and suchlike. And how to act. One assignment sometimes given is to sit all day in one place without moving, which is essentially the same thing that Buddhist Bud dhist monks do. It works. Young men need something to push against– against –preferably themselves–that themselves –that won‘t really hurt them or anyone else. I‘d say that male consciousness tends toward abstraction and

identifying principles, then ordering thinking and behaviour on that basis. While female consciousness is based on feeling and pragmatic in the short term. Each has its place and use, but they are not ―equal‖; one or the other must be in charge, and it matters absolutely which. I‘m a fan of Jefferson of Jefferson also, though I certainly recognize his character failings. There were ―men in those days.‖ They were all classically educated, too. "If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your   fellows, they will become your masters." -- Cato the Censor

Philalethes #4 - What Do Women Want? It's What We've Got! We Just J ust Aim to Please, Ma'am!

Quote: "Apparently you missed part II. Perhaps you'll feel differently  after you read it."  Would have read it had I known; it should be linked on the first page. What‘s perhaps most interesting about both articles is how little they differ from what we see from regular ―feminists.‖ The flavour is exactly the same. Feminism is really nothing new, just the latest version of an immemorial attitude. What‘s new is how completely it‘s

taken over. Thoughts on the second article: I don‘t think you‘re a lesbian–a ridiculous charge. I don‘t think you hate men, but you don‘t seem to understand unde rstand them either . You have the female‘s instinctive understanding of how to control men with praise and/or shame, but you don‘t understand that the problem here is not that men disagree with you, y ou, it‘s that other women disagree with you, and the men they control naturally do what they want. You may excoriate these men, but if they did what you want the women who own them would excoriate them more. We just aim to please, ma‘am. Most men are idiots, indeed. But where did they come from? You may not be a feminist like Barbara Boxer (sheesh!), but you do share a basic attitude with her; you have more in common c ommon with her than I have with either of you. (―… pull over to the side of the road and change the air  in her head." That‘s head."  That‘s great; I‘ll have to remember it.) Like you say, all the Supreme Court justices in 1973 were men. That‘s exactly the point; they were doing what most American women wanted, what most of them still want. Personally, I‘d love to see American men rebel and stop doing what women want –and instead give them what they they need. But I don‘t think it will happen anytime soon– not until women want what they need, rather rat her than only what they desire. In William Wallace‘s day the women of his community had a different idea of what they wanted from their men, and so their men were different. Oh, and William Wallace lost, by the way; as I understand it, he was betrayed by fellow Scotsmen, whose wives probably didn‘t make a big fuss about not having to sacrifice their comfortable lifestyles to resist the English. Even if they‘d st ood with him, they all probably would have lost anyway; the women of England had more husbands and sons to send into battle, and they wanted to add Scotland to the jewels on the British crown –now worn by the Queen. Some of the comments on this forum may be laughable, but some are quite thoughtful; if you really want to know why men aren‘t answering your clarion call, a lot could be deduced from what is here, both directly and indirectly. And your second article doesn‘t answer any of  the points raised– raised –including mine. If you find my analysis outlandish (I know many do), then at least consider this one objective, verifiable fact: Since 1920, by their own insistence, American women have been

taking part directly in the political process. Females are an absolute majority (something like 55%?) in the population, and an absolute majority of voters are women, both registered and actively voting. Therefore, even discounting any other possible influence women wo men may have on politics (―I (― I govern the Athenians, my wife governs me."  – Themistocles, 528-462 BCE), what we have is what women want. Who am I to argue? I‘ve just lost my longest, closest female friendship because I was careless enough to criticize ―affirmative action.‖ I‘ve been clawed enough.

Philalethes #5 - Women's Use of Power I feel that the main error [the forum] made was to have a woman administrator taking part in major changes in policy. Indeed; this turned the forum into just another elementary-school classroom presided over by Miss Wormwood, an environment which few American males remember with pleasure. Not surprising that some apparently (I didn‘t see the forum, all I know is what I‘ve read about it here) responded by behaving like children — thus sadly providing yet more self-fulfilling prophecy for the feminist view of men. The truth is, it is women‘s use of the power they already have, as mothers, caretakers and teachers of the young, that determines the character of a culture. American women have decided, wherever in consciousness it is that such decisions are made, that they prefer their men to be perpetually children, because children are not in control of  themselves, and thus — some of the time, anyway — easily controlled. The rest of the time, unfortunately, they are merely out of control; but this is a price that feminists seem to be willing to pay — since offensive male behaviour (including serious violence) ―proves‖ that they are ―right‖ about men. The alternative would be to have developed, grown-up, adult men. Such men, masters of themselves, would not behave in the childish manner apparently exhibited by the offending posters on the forum (or here, for that matter — and the rants do not amuse me). But they also would not be easily controlled and manipulated by women. This is the choice faced by women in every human culture; they can have whatever kind of man they want, but it takes adult women to realize that they need adult men.

My response to feminism remains simple: Where do men come from? If  you don‘t like the product, talk to the produc er.

Philalethes #6 - In Women's Image? I am not interested in putting anyone either on or ―off the hook.‖ I am interested in facts, in the truth of how things actually work, because I believe that no real changes can be made, in our own lives or in the world, unless based on a clear vision and understanding of what is actually happening and why. ―Blame‖ is an emotionally -loaded opinion; facts are emotionally neutral, simply aspects of reality-as-itis. What I present is (what I believe to be) a factually-true — if little understood — picture of how our world is formed. So far as I‘m aware, there has never been a reported case of a man becoming pregnant, gestating and giving birth to a child, of either gender. Nor of any similar event in any other sexual species. Indeed, the definition of ―male‖ is based on this fact. It is females that lay eggs, or give birth. It is females who create new life. Males play a part, true, but not always. As I‘ve noted before, the single key to understanding the entire ―gender question‖ I found when I learned (in the book Why Males Exist) that there is a significant number of species which used to be sexual but no longer are — because the females thereof simply stopped producing males. These species still exist, quite successfully occupying ecological niches, but they consist entirely of  females — though that may not be the correct term, since ―female‖ implies ―male,‖ and there are no males in these species. Think about this: Males are optional. It is females who make males — and can not make males, if they so choose. Where power is exercised, there lies responsibility — and nowhere else. This is not a moral judgment; it is simply fact. If a member of one of these female-only species does something, you can‘t ―blame‖ the male — because there isn‘t one. And among humans this female creative power extends very much beyond the simple fact of physical gestation and birthing. Women are responsible not only for the fact that men exist, but for the character and quality of the men they create, because they naturally have charge of the child‘s early development. Even feminists, for all their claim of ―equality,‖ are clearly unwilling to give up this power — else why do mothers demand and get ―custody‖ in over 80% of divorce cases? This is not ―blaming the mother‖; it is simply a statement of  fact.

Certainly ―we need to stand up to the image that women have for us.‖ But to do so effectively we must first understand that we are that image, the ―little man‖ that Mommy created in her mind‘s im age of  the ―ideal‖ male (i.e. better than the lout she unfortunately married). The key word you use yourself: ―unconscious.‖ So long as the process remains unconscious, it cannot be corrected. If our ―clinging to mommy‖ is unconscious, then how will we ever ―find our power‖? It‘s not necessary to ―blame‖ mommy, but it is necessary to see clearly that how she created and reared me has made me what I am: to bring what has been unconscious into the light of consciousness. Only then will I have the opportunity to change the relationship, and the course of my life. Very few men, in fact, ever entirely separate from Mother. In the past, however, there was commonly at least enough separation to provide a reasonably healthy balance of power in human culture. Nowadays, the process of male growth is being aborted at very early stages, so that most males never seem to gain enough stature to meet women without being flattened by them. Nearly every male I know up to age 50 is totally bewildered and intimidated by females — including, apparently, the proprietor of [the forum]. I understand why, and certainly he‘s far from alone. There‘s no ―blame‖; but if we‘re ever to get out of this situation, we have to start seeing it clearly. I use the word ―aborted‖ deliberately. Th ere are many ways a woman may ―choose‖ (however unconsciously) to abort a bort the full development and maturity of a child in her care. As I‘ve said, I believe that the infant male circumcision program was and remains a pivotal event in the history of our culture, which has by now aborted several generations of American men, all of us permanently, unconsciously terrified of females, and thus severely handicapped in our encounters with them. Very few American men can see women clearly: the Gorgon is as much a part of Woman as the Angel. Thus the Myth of Female Innocence, which allows women to literally get away with murder. As I said, I never saw the forum under discussion, but what I‘ve learned here about the course of events is not surprising. That the proprietor of [the forum], a supposedly ―anti -feminist‖ forum, would put a woman in authority over a men‘s discussion there, only demonstrates how successful feminism has been in completely c ompletely reshaping our culture‘s thought processes. No man before the late 19th cent ury, at

the earliest, would ever have done such a thing. Healthy human cultures understand that males (boys and men) need places to go and meet and an d be active together that are free of the female domination that every boy experiences from the beginning of  his life, and spends most of the rest r est of his life trying to escape. esc ape. And that he must escape if he is to become a man capable of giving women what they really need. A human society made up solely of women and children (of whatever age) will not survive.

Philalethes #7 - All Female Populations Pop ulations in the Animal Kingdom Quote: "The "The topic of all female populations in the animal kingdom is  fascinating."  Certainly, and even more, crucial to understanding ―gender issues.‖ For me, as I said, this discovery was the key; once I got that, everything else fell into place. Quote: "A friend of mine told me the other day of a lizard population that is all female."  One such species lives in the desert de sert here in New Mexico. Haven‘t seen any myself, though. Another I have seen: the common dandelion. Worth noting, however, that so far as I know there is no such femaleonly species among the birds and mammals, the fast-moving, intelligent (well, relatively), warm-blooded warm- blooded species. So it‘s not clear how far feminism can go in this reverse-evolution scheme. Quote: "He said that if the lizards were removed from their  environments that they die immediately. Without the male they have lost all adaptability."  Well, not quite all, I suppose, but they would evolve very slowly, by comparison. I have a newspaper article about geckos, the ubiquitous lizards of tropical Asia and Pacific islands: Seems that some island populations became isolated long enough to take this step and lose their males, but now with frequent human travel between the islands the species are mixing again, and the female-only species are losing out in every encounter with the male female f emale species. Can‘t compete. That‘s the tradeoff: comfort and security for adaptability and variety — a.k.a. the ―spice of life.‖ A while ago a woman told me she‘d quit being a lesbian because in the end the lifestyle was just terminally boring. And there‘s nothing she can‘t stand more than boredom — after

all, that‘s why she created this whole show in the first place. Yes, the Ancients knew a lot we seem to have forgotten. For instance, according to Cato the Elder (234-149 BCE), "If you allow them [women]  to pull away the restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them?  From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." MISOGYNY!! masters."  MISOGYNY!! (See, if you yell loud enough, nobody‘ll try to figure out if there‘s any truth to it.)

Philalethes #8 - When the Cow Rides the Bull - Priest, Watch Your Skull As for 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. 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. 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 advises 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 de fined as any encounter between the sexes, and ―all‘s fair‖ because that‘s how women fight.

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 dif ferences between the sexes in some feminist polemic. Well, it doesn‘t. Like all feminist ―natural herstory,‖ it‘s entirely specious. Quote: "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. Some good thinking here. But I would say that in Reality, there is actually no such thing t hing 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 i n 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, sur face, the reverse is often true. But that‘s as it should be; how ever, turn the relationship over and everything‘s upside-down. upside -down. An old English saying I read once: "When the cow rides the bull  priest, watch your skull." Meaning skull."  Meaning that when natural relationships are turned upside-down, upside-down, the truth (represented by God‘s God‘ s deputy dep uty in this world, the priest) is in danger. What is often forgotten about the Biblical idea is that the corollary to the wife submitting to her husband is i s 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 suit ed to do. And neither ―lords ―lord s it over‖ the other, in public or private. 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 childhusband 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 (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. (But don‘t 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.) Quote: "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."  Indeed. My thanks for an insightful observation.

Philalethes #9 - Immaculate Conception Sea horses are vertebrates verte brates Indeed they are; my error. I‘m not good at thinking/writing in the haste required by these forums. Nor am I expert in biology; that‘s not my point. Unfortunately for the sake of your argument, females, or any other individual, cannot change their biology. There are many species, including birds, fish and most amphibians, which the females lay eggs regardless of the presence of males. The problem? The eggs are infertile. Every time. The male is NECESSARY for reproduction. In humans? Well, the Mother Mary excepting, there are no cases of  Immaculate Conception documented. Why? Because it takes a male to

create life. Well, this particular thread started with my mention of a number of  known species (at least dozens, probably hundreds, maybe more) in which it does not take a male to create life. These species are assumed to have consisted of females and males at some point, but now consist only of females. I don‘t know how evolutionary biologists think that happened; given the example of the geckos, in which male+female species always overcome female-only species in head-tohead competition, it‘s difficult to construct a simple Darwinian model in which an individual female who reproduced without benefit of  fertilization would have an immediate advantage over her ―heterosexual‖ sisters in the same environment. Nevertheless, somehow it happened. The New Mexican Whiptail lizard ( Cnemidophorus neomexicanus ), for instance, is a female-only species; no males of this species have ever been found. She reproduces by laying eggs, which, though unfertilized and presumably haploid, nevertheless hatch as baby female New Mexican Whiptail lizards, essentially clones of their mother. Some such female-only lizard species engage in a kind of lesbian sex, in which one female mounts another, presumably to stimulate egg production; of  course no fertilization occurs, but the eggs do hatch and produce the next generation of lizards. ("The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified  as a lesbian to be fully feminist."  –National NOW Times, Jan.1988) There are, I gather, examples of such female-only (not asexual, as in amoebas) reproduction in all the major life groups (reptiles, amphibians, fishes, invertebrates, plants) except the warm-blooded birds and mammals — I presume because the pace of o f 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 requir ement for this evolutionary development (or devolution) is a comfortable, secure ecological niche without any significant competitive pressure. As we all know, males are incurably competitive; they can be dispensed with only when species don‘t need such abilities. But so they will when possible, as males are also expensive (as snidely remarked in the title of a recent feminist screed).

BTW, an American Indian (Iroquois/Mohawk) shamaness I once discussed this with told me that her teachers had told her that femaleonly reproduction was possible in humans, but the resultant offspring would be only female — as in other species known to do d o so. So perhaps the logical end of feminism is theoretically possible; though it‘s worth noting that this shamaness‘s wise women teachers apparently didn‘t think the idea worth promoting. She herself is married, by the way. Anyway, my point is simply this: that clearly the male is not ―NECESSARY for reproduction.‖ The eggs are not ―infertile. Every time.‖ Or maybe they are, strictly speaking, since they possess only a half-set of genes, but nevertheless they do hatch, and produce individuals of the species capable of surviving, living full lizard (and other species‘) lives, and reproducing. True, it appears that ―females, or any other individual, cannot change their biology‖; biology ‖; but nevertheless it happened, somehow. My picture pic ture of  how (―she … could dispense with the male and redefine her species as female-only‖) femaleonly‖) was of course a metaphor. Maybe God did it; maybe it happened through some kind of mindless evolutionary process. In any case, if there was some sort of consciousness involved at some level of  being, it makes more sense to me to say that it was the survivor of this event (the female) who made the ―decision‖ rather than the one dispensed with (the male). My point was that the discovery of this fact, unknown to me before ca. 1987, and still unknown to the vast majority of people, was, like the discovery that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than viceversa, 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 enti re vexed question of ―gender relations.‖ Clearly, Simone de Beauvoir had it exactly, 180 degrees wrong in the title of her feminist Bible, The Second  Sex (assuming Sex  (assuming that she was referring to woman; I haven‘t read the book). Before I learned about this, I was caught in the ―he said – she said‖ trap when trying to unravel gender issues. Feminists claim that they are tired of being the th e ―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 endles s circle; there‘s nowhere to start. Are there real, irreducible ir reducible 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. tru th. When I was a teenager, my father sat me down one day and explained something to me: that freedom and responsibility are indissolubly linked, indeed, two parts of the same thing, like two sides of a coin. At the time, he was simply setting out ground rules for my teenage activity (that I could have as much freedom as I was willing to be responsible for); but it was not long before I realized that this was a Fundamental Principle of Life, and in the 40+ years since I have found its application to be unlimited, and unfailingly productive of  understanding, sanity, and peace of mind. I‘ve had a similar experience in application of this understanding of the true relation between the sexes; it has clarified every situation I‘ve observed, including those previously most confusing. Thus I believe that no real, fundamental understanding of any of the issues discussed here can be gained gai ned without beginning from the foundation of this fact: males are the ―second sex,‖ and are optional in terms of fundamental biology. Of course, 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 wher e we must start, if we wish to understand how this world works. Think of a man as a stick in a woman‘s hand, a tool which she has created for her use. Clearly, the woman with the biggest stick will prevail in any contest with other women and their sticks — or against any woman who doesn‘t have a stick (which covers the example of the geckos). (And the idea that females are not competitive is another of  the Big Lies of feminism.) Fundamentally, that‘s what males are: tools created by females to use for tasks which they cannot or would rather not do for themselves. (Including, for instance, taking the rap for human competitiveness: "It's those awfule men who cause all the wars; we're just here being sweet and gentle all the time.") Front men, fall

guys, whipping boys. Garbage men, soldiers (the ones who actually do the fighting) … all the jobs that all those ―equal‖ women somehow still don‘t seem to want. With the advent of test tube reproduction, reproduct ion, we have seen that neither parent need be present to create life. Give it another few years and the artificial womb, or male womb transplants (for the gay community) will make the woman as unnecessary to the whole process as you claim men to be. God help us. Of all the insanities thought up in the ever-busy human mind, these must be among the most grotesque. gr otesque. 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 ―Test -tube reproduction‖ repr oduction‖ combines gametes from two human parents in an artificial environment; it does not create the gametes. The two parents may not be in the room, but they are absolutely necessary. The same goes for an ―artificial‖ or ―transplanted‖ womb; they are but containers, useless until they contain something, and that something comes from (at least) a female of the species. Only the Creator creates life; human hubris creates only misery. Women have not always been in charge of every species. I find it interesting that you claim my example of the sea horse feminist (more national geographic than feminist in origin), when your argument for females being in charge is exactly what ―proof‖ feminists themselves use to justify their position. Depends what you mean by b y ―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 onl y of males?‖ And a minute later she said, ―No, I guess that‘s impossible, isn‘t it?‖ Exactly my point. ―Girls rule!‖

The sea horse example I believe I‘ve heard/read before from feminists trying to ―prove‖ that males are as suited as females for childreari ng 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: qui p: 'Sir, a woman's preaching [in church] is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."  Not clear to me what you mean by the feminist ―position‖ that is justified by the argument I present. Let me make clear that, as with the subject of ―blame‖ addressed addre ssed elsewhere, I am not seeking to ―justify‖ anything. Justification invo lves 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 fact s straight before we can begin to discuss moral or similar issues. It‘s not that I do not care about moral issues, only that their discussion will be fruitless if we are not first agreed on the ground. For instance, it‘s pointless to discuss questions of power and its proper use unless we first understand what power is and who has it. Feminists are constantly complaining about being powerless, and in fact ―everyone knows‖ that women are helpless victims of male power — and, as exhaustively documented on this site, our entire moral/legal system is constructed on the basis of this assumption. 500 years ago, ―everyone knew‖ that the Sun revolved around the Earth; after all, you could see it come up in the east every morning and travel across the sky. Until someone really looked, and found the truth was just the opposite. If NASA were running its space program on the basis of the pre-Copernican 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 assump tions, we‘ll only go around in circles, and everyone will hurt more and get more angry, until perhaps we reach some sort of sexual Armageddon. It‘s true that in a way I may seem to be agreeing with some part of the feminist view. Because it‘s true. Girls do rule. Tactically, I suppose,

my approach is something like the ―gentle‖ martial arts of judo and taiji (I‘ve practiced the latter): yield to the opponent, and use her force to accomplish ones own goals. But it‘s not a game I‘m playing; I wouldn‘t ―agree‖ with any feminist position because it‘s a feminist position, I merely present the truth, and if a feminist position agrees therewith, well that‘s a place to start. And then hold them to it. Yes, girls do rule: so why not quit whining and rule responsibly? As a Zen master once said, if your horse-cart horse- cart isn‘t moving, do you hit the cart or the horse? In the encounter between the sexes, it is women who make The Rules. Men may hold some of the cards, but women own the deck. All that‘s really necessary to find solutions to the problems between the sexes is for women to recognize and acknowledge the power they already have, and that what we have has resulted from their use of that power, and to begin using that power consciously and constructively rather than, as in the past, unconsciously and (all too often) destructively. Will this ever happen? I don‘t know. Disciple: Why is there evil in the world? Ramakrishna: To thicken the plot. But it does seem clear that we can‘t go on much longer as we have, for we are truly accelerating toward a precipice of a magnitude that few of us can even begin to imagine. I‘ve gone on far too long again. Don‘t know if anyone really reads all this; but at least it‘s helpful to me to think it through while whil e writing it. Hope you get something out of it, anyone who reads this far.

Philalethes #10 - Male vs. Female Thinking

Unfortunately, in this age of ―public education,‖ very few of us are taught to think clearly anymore. One effect of this lack is careless use of poorly-understood language in emotionally-loaded contexts. For instance, the word ―censorship,‖ used in the heading of this thread. It‘s important to understand that this word can have two related but different meanings: in a general sense, it denotes the suppression of  expression of views, while in a more specific s pecific sense it means such suppression when done by the State, with its ―monopoly ―mon opoly of force.‖ In these times when the State‘s power is increasingly felt in all areas of  our lives — thanks in great part to the growing power of feminism (see below) — many seem not to know or understand the difference between these two kinds of ―censorship.‖ This is a case of the first type of censorship (and a classic example of how women wield power, covertly and by proxy), but not the second; the proprietor of [that forum] indeed does ―have a right‖ ri ght‖ (so far) to run his site however ho wever he wishes. Nor has anyone in this thread said he does not. On the other hand, anyone else also ―has a right‖ to criticize how he runs his site; he does, after all, present his efforts to public view. And I haven‘t seen anything here that I‘d call ―bashing.‖ An honest, frank exchange of views between men is not ―bashing.‖ Though women, who live in a world primarily of feelings, and often are so insecure in their thinking that frank disagreement (indeed any difference at all) is experienced as personal threat, might see it as such. Which again is the problem. There‘s nothing wrong with women thinking (or ―thinking‖) like women, but when men start thinki ng like women, things are out of balance. Feminist dogma notwithstanding, the problem is not that men aren‘t more like women, it‘s that ―men‖

aren‘t more like men. Though it seems quaint (and very politically incorrect) to current sensibilities, Rudyard Ki pling‘s poem ―If‖ has a lot of truth to it: If you can keep your head when all about you  Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,  And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise... … you'll be a Man my son! One of the hallmarks of female (and childish ) ―thinking‖ is the instinctive belief that one ―deserves‖ to have what one wants. It‘s instinctive, biologically based — since the universal pattern is the male required to please the female (i.e. give her whatever she wants) in order to get ―access.‖ But in humans this assumption has gone far beyond its evolutionary function — and is the reason behind both ―chivalry‖ and the huge success of feminism. And thus arises the complaint of ―injustice‖ (or ―it‘s not fair‖) when she doesn‘t get what she wants. That‘s how women naturally ―think.‖ I don‘t think that there‘s ―something unjust about the fact that a liberal news site doesn‘t exist [similar to the forum].‖ Of course it‘s not [the site owner's] responsibility to cater to my views, and I‘m not a ―liberal‖ anyway. But what‘s interesting is the use of the word ―unjust.‖ What does ―justice‖ have to do with it? Nothing, except in the female mind — or a male mind that, like so many in our modern world, has never developed beyond the female/child mode of thinking. Finally, as for ―dividing‖ the men‘s movement: I‘m not part of any ―movement,‖ actually. I‘m a man (or hope to be one someday), and a truth seeker. And truth speaker, now and a nd then. I don‘t know that I really have ―common goals‖ with anyone who wants (o r acts on the unexamined impulse) to suppress the free fre e exchange of ideas in the interest of some ―higher good.‖ In my view, there is no higher good than the free exchange of ideas, and the freedom it requires. All I really share with [the forum] is a critical attitude toward left-wing feminism; beyond that, the ideal world [the forum] appears to long for

— an imperial American hegemony over the world, a totalitarian ―conservative‖ (as opposed to ―liberal‖) dictatorship at home — is no more attractive to me than that envisioned by the most rabid leftfeminist. The two of them are totally agreed on the level of principle; their only argument is who is going to dictate my life to me. That [the forum] should be thought representative of ―men‘s‖ ―men‘s ‖ views I find appalling. app alling. As I said above, I wouldn‘t be the least bit surprised to learn that it‘s a complete hoax, fabricated by a feminist ―disinformation‖ program. ―Movements,‖ like harems, herds, and other collectives, are for females. It‘s been remarked that men‘s fi rst priority is freedom, while women‘s is security. Thus women are natural herd animals, for security is most easily and immediately found in numbers. And thus the inclusion of women in political life must inevitably lead to totalitarian collectivism, as it i t has everywhere it‘s been tried — at this point, essentially the entire planet, which is fast turning into one vast nursery, where ―everything that is not prohibited is compulsory.‖ Women instinctively seek the security of such an environment; when women rule, this is where everyone must live. ―Do you want to be free, or do you want to be taken care c are of?‖ Answer this question honestly, and you‘ll know where you stand on the male– female spectrum, regardless of what form your personal plumbing may have. .

Philalethes #11 - The End Results of Female Suffrage Suffra ge Quote: "The feminists have started to push for the majority (read  'female') elected government to use tax dollars (much of them taken  from men) to pay for women to be mothers. In other words, as women continue to eliminate men from the family, they will have their   governments take money from men and give it to women and their  children to live on."  No kidding. This is exactly what Warren Farrell explored The Myth of  Male Power, in the aptly titled ―Government as Substitute Husband‖ section. Once I believed the idea that, th at, on principle, women ―deserve‖ to vote. However, it is now plain to me that the situation described is the inevitable consequence of women voting.

Women expect to be taken care of; this is not ―social conditioning,‖ it‘s genetic programming, going back at least to the avian level of  evolution, where pair-bonding was invented. Male birds have to bring something, usually food or a built nest, to females to induce them to mate. Among humans, this arrangement was ―formalized‖ somewhere around 50-100,000 years ago, anthropologists conjecture (see, among other sources, Helen E. Fisher, The Sex Contract), when women began emulating sexual receptivity even when not fertile, to induce men to bring them food, protect them from sexual and other predation, etc., while they were tied up with nursing infants they had to haul around. Women instinctively expect to be taken care of. When women begin taking part directly in the political process, i.e. voting, they naturally begin to transfer this expectation of care and protection from the imperfect men in their personal lives (fathers, brothers, suitors, husbands, and sons) to the State, which, as a relatively distant, conceptual entity, can be imagined, in minds that don‘t think very hard, to be perfectible. And the new arrangement works, in the short run, anyway. Since all politicians need from (most) women is votes, they‘re they‘ re happy to give them everything they want in return; and when women learn this, their desires quickly become unlimited. They don‘t just want ―equality‖– whatever that may mean– mean – now they ―want it all!‖ Not just ―the vote,‖ but affirmative action and every other form of guaranteed outcome, heavily skewed divorce and related laws, welfare (supplied by single, working men) for ―female heads of household,‖ etc. etc. Like a horse that‘s got into the oats, they‘ll literally keep eating until they bloat up and explo de. They have no internal self-restraint, self- restraint, because they‘ve never had to develop any before; previously they were restrained by men, and by circumstances, but now in the artificial world of political power they‘re restrained by nothing. Frankly, at this point poi nt I don‘t see any way to stop it. A Brave New World populated by ―gender―gender -transitioned‖ (Farrell‘s term) perpetual pre adolescents is the inevitable result of feminism. In the words of the late, lamented Edward Abbey, "A world of androgynes, encapsulated in beehive cities, fiddling with buttons penile, electronic and clitoral that is the future beloved alike by the technocratic futurologists and  throroughly logical radical feminists. Cut off from their primordial animal natures, denying the biological wellspring of life, reproducing themselves through artificial insemination of laboratory wombs, the inhabitants of this glittering metallic city will live to the full the

existence of rationally programmed robots. And what is the ideal robot but a properly processed human being?"  (―The Future of Sex: A Reaction to a Pair of Books‖ [by Susan Brownmiller and Gloria Steinem], in One Life at a Time, Please ) Sure, ―men‖ nowadays prolong adolescence to their 30s and 40s. They have no incentive to do otherwise; in fact, should they try to become men, i.e. developed adults, they‘ll catch hell for sure, from the perpetually-preadolescent perpetuallypreadolescent ―women‖ (―Boys. Yech.‖) Of  Sex and the City. For my part, I‘m happy I‘m finally old and tired enough not to be entirely under the domination of my hormones, h ormones, and thus of the females who control the supply of what wha t my hormones tell me I can‘t c an‘t live without. I know it‘s nearly inconcei vable to younger men– men –which I was myself not so long ago– ago –but the only solution I see is i s for men to simply turn away from these women. Should I get close to another woman in this life, I very much doubt it‘ll be an American woman. I saw an interesting website websit e (don‘t have the URL handy) from a guy who went to Southeast Asia to find a wife who was willing to give him a little respect in return for the traditional love, support and protection. Nothing‘s perfect, of course, but this sounds at least doable.

Philalethes #12 - Foreign Women It does seem to be true that Asian women are, on average, a lot nicer to get along with than the American version (not to mention nicer to look at, to my taste, anyway), but I have to wonder: for how long? I don‘t think there‘s any an y fundamental difference between American and other women; what we‘re seeing is simply traits native to female consciousness and character, unrestrained. And the rest of the world does seem to want to emulate America, Ameri ca, in this perhaps more than anything else beyond simple economic prosperity. A few years ago a local young man in his twenties met a Japanese girl in a Chinese class in Beijing, and brought her home and married her. Recently they separated, at her behest, I gather. I don‘t know them well, but an older male friend who has been a mentor to the young man, and to their marriage, tells me he got so tired of the woman calling him up and screeching at him that he finally hung up on her. (He‘s also been having a hard time keeping his own marriage togeth er; his wife, a Filipina-American, beautiful and sweet, nearly left him –with their three children–after children –after having her ―consciousness raised‖ by local Anglo feminists. I know he‘s a good husband and father, but they

almost had her convinced he wasn‘t good enou gh.) In my slight acquaintance with the young man, I did find him selfconfident to the verge of a kind of quiet arrogance, and suspect he may not be a very good listener. But that‘s how young men are (if their spirit hasn‘t been trashed, like so many of  us); in effect, the challenge for a young woman is to tame him without breaking him, so she‘ll have a strong protector. Modern American Americ an women just don‘t seem to be up to that challenge, preferring weak males instead; and I have the feeling this pattern is spreading. A nation, a civilization whose women cripple their men is ripe for conquest. As Graham Strachan points out, ―behind the feminist and other popular movements are some very  ugly scheming people who want to destroy the institutions of  civilisation so they can rule over the wreckage.‖This wreckage.‖ This is what‘s really happening.

Philalethes #13 - A Letter to Devvy Kidd (In response to Devvy Kidd's article, Where Have All The Men Gone?) Gone? ) Dear Devvy Kidd, I was most interested recently to come across your article ―Where Have All the ‗Men‘ gone?‖ which was referenced on a site concerned with what are nowadays being called ―men‘s issues.‖ I note this article first appeared over nine months ago; I don‘t know what kind of  response/s you may have had, but would like to add my own. I‘ve heard of you before, through my own involvement in the ―constitutionalist/patriot‖ movement, and while I haven‘t followed your activities closely, I‘ve had the impression you‘ve been doing valuable work, alerting and educating the American people to the peril we face– face–in particular your role in the awakening of ex-IRS agent Joe Banister, among, I‘m sure, many others. other s. I‘ve heard you on one or another shortwave radio program, and taken a couple looks at your web site. So I was intrigued to t o see you pop up on a site whose general political orientation tends to be (due mostly to ignorance, I feel) rather different than yours, or mine, on such issues. Born during the Second Great War (while my father was away defending hearth and home–and home –and Standard Oil‘s profits, though he didn‘t know it at the time), raised in the liberal atmosphere of a southern California university community, an avid experimenter with psychedelics in the 1960s, 1 960s, as well as ―draft―draft -dodger,‖ all-around all-around hippie

and long-term student of Oriental wisdom traditions, I was until about age 40 a fairly typical example of the feminist/socialist revolution‘s effect on American culture: a regular ―Sensitive New Age Guy.‖ However, I also had the advantage of having had a father who was one of the fast-vanishing type of American men who thought for himself, was a real truth-seeker, and understood about freedom and responsibility. (He came home to a war with his wife, which she naturally won, assigning him the role of bogeyman and turning his children against him. Nevertheless, at least I had a father.) He taught me, mostly by a kind of osmosis, to ―question authority‖– enough that not only did I question the same authorities that so many in my generation questioned, I also continued questioning after most in my generation simply accepted yet another authority –the feminist/communist orthodoxy that is if anything even more rigid and stultifying than the one we originally rebelled against. Thus, when at about age 40 I came across the work of Irwin Schiff, Tupper Saussy and others I was open enough to recognize almost immediately that they were making a lot better sense than anything I‘d been taught before about political, economi c and social issues. I immediately quit paying at least the major taxes for which I was not legally (or morally) liable, and have continued studying and learning in the twenty years since. Which was why your name was familiar to me when it appeared on the Mensactivism site. What‘s interesting to me about your article is that, although I know you disagree emphatically with all (or nearly all) the aims of the femmunist movement, you clearly agree agr ee with them on the one basic issue that I would consider the very cornerstone of their whole ideology: the idea that men, a mysterious species totally foreign to women (as in ―Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus‖), rule the world, and women are merely their innocent, powerless victims. Thus, frustrated (understandably) in your efforts to awaken the American people, you resort, as women have since the Beginning, to castigating men. Unfortunately, it won‘t work. The premise is false, so any action based thereon will be fruitless. The truth is, regardless of appearances, it is women who truly rule the world. This has always been so; it will always be so. Human males, like

males of all species, are created by females for purposes of their own: to provide services which they cannot or prefer not to do for themselves. Including, e.g., the rapid evolution enabled by genetic roulette; taking out the garbage; fighting wars to capture (or defend) territory and assets whose possession provides for the comfort of  women and their children; etc. etc. And, occasionally, when asked, the ability to think clearly and dispassionately about issues of import, simply because men, at one remove from Nature who rules women‘s lives, have at least the potential ability to escape the total hormonal control that She (the very Goddess the feminists femin ists insist we worship) exercises over women‘s consciousness. But of course, this will be no help if women refuse to acknowledge that men can do anything for them that they can‘t do for themselves. Human males, like males of all other species, operate under a single Prime Directive: Please the Female. Since the invention of sex, roughly 1.5 billion years ago, males have been ruthlessly selectively bred to obey this imperative: those who did not, who failed to get there fastest with the most, did not become our forefathers, thus were genetically irrelevant. The truth is, the argument you‘re involved in is actually, like all human arguments, between groups of women. (In fact, I would extend this even to arguments between individual women and men: when a woman marries, she marries her mother-in-law‘s mother-in- law‘s idea of what a ―proper‖ man is.) The men you complain about are the men created, molded and used by the women who run the other side of the argument. They don‘t please you because that‘s not their job; they please the women who control them– them –just as the men you and (the few) other women like you control strive to please you. ―Why is this? Why is this?‖ If you can‘t see it for yourself, I guess I‘ll have to enlighten you: The men you complain c omplain about are the sons of o f the mothers who created the feminist movement, which gave ga ve us Infant Male Circumcision (terrorize, torture and mutilate male babies so they‘ll be sure to remember who‘s the Boss througho ut their life), Prohibition (if men drink to excess, never ask why, just clamp down with all the power of the State, in the process creating a vast network of organized crime and its mirror image, the Federal Police), and the ―19th Amendment‖ (is it entirely entire ly accidental that the slide into

totalitarian socialism has radically accelerated since women decided to trade in their husbands for the support provided by the All-Powerful State?). Not to mention the entire catalog of horrors since the 1960s, when the first universally-circumcised generation of American men came of age and began caving in completely to feminist demands. ―Systems and agencies that are putting their women and children into a state of involuntary servitude for all their lives.‖ Well, maybe they are (though I‘m not sure exactly what you‘re referring to)– but only in the time they have to spare from enslaving men, especially divorced fathers (now defined as ―sex abusers‖) abu sers‖) who must turn over most of  what they make to their ex-wives ex- wives while they‘re they‘r e barred from any contact with their children. Not N ot to mention single men who pay confiscatory taxes to support ―female heads of household.‖ That‘s what the ―black robed judges‖ spend most of their time doing. At the behest of the women who elect them. ―Back in 1776, this breed of men would be called cowards.‖ Maybe, but now they‘re called ―enlightened,‖ while Washington, Jefferson Jeffersonand and their ilk are seen for what they really were: male-chauvinist slavedrivers. This is the history that is taught in our government-run schools, by 90% female teachers, supported by the vast majority of  American women voters– voters –who are the absolute majority of all voters. ―The men of this country … refuse to lift a finger to ensure that their  women and children will not be forced into global citizenship under  the UN. Why is this?‖ You really don‘t know? It‘s for the simplest, most powerful, most ancient reason of all: because it‘s what women want, and an d any man who doesn‘t give gi ve women what they want is a failure, out of the picture. ―Why won‘t these men stand up to this rogue agency called the IRS?‖You IRS?‖ You really don‘t know? Have you ever tried to talk to a woman about the IRS? I‘ve found this is i s one of the best ways to lose all the female friends you have. They love the Income Tax, because it‘s what makes it possible to dump their husbands and live off the State. Any man who says anything negative about the Income Tax is in serious danger of never getting a date. ―These men have put their children in harms way via mandatory social indoctrination in the anti-God anti- God public school system.‖ If talking about the Income Tax doesn‘t get you drawn and quartered, try criticizing

the public school system. There‘s hardly any cow more sacred in our utopian Matriarchy. ―Over the past 40 years, the men of this country have sat back and  allowed themselves to be brow beaten into submission and castrated  by so-called so-called ‗feminists‘ like Rosie O‘Donnell and Hillary  Clinton….‖Nearly Clinton….‖ Nearly all (90+%) of those men, like me, were already ―castrated‖ at birth when their mothers had them circumcised. (The psychological effect of infant male circumcision is essentially the same as castration– castration–i.e. abortion of full development of male consciousness and character– character–while still leaving the male able to provide necessary basic stud service.) You‘re asking these men to rebel first against their own mothers. Is that what you want? Can a viable human society be created on such a basis? Is it even possible? ―Our nation was built by men who were self -reliant, independent and  strong.‖ No, they were male chauvinist pigs and patriarchal oppressors. Just ask (almost) any woman. ―Women in this country spend hundreds of millions of dollars every  year on ‘romance books‘ whose pages are filled with knights in shining armour and genuine heroes coming to rescue the damsel in distress. Why do you suppose that is?‖ I‘ve wondered about this mysel f, since those same women demand that the men me n in their own lives be the spineless wimps you so scathingly describe in your essay. I don‘t know why; perhaps, as a woman, you can enlighten me? ―Today they are tolerant, sensitive and genuflect at the feet of   perverts called ‗gays.‘‖ While you‘re at it, perhaps you can elucidate another mystery for me: Why is it that the very same s ame women who complain that all the ―good‖ men are either married or ―gay‖ also become instantly rabid in defence of ―gay rights‖? Sigmund Freud became famous for (among other things) his immortal question: ―What do women want?‖ Well, I‘ve figured out the answer: WHAT WE HAVE is what women want, because it is what they have used their power to create. If they wanted it different, they would have made it different. Q.E.D. One thing I do know, however: Although I was brought up to be a perfect little 20th century American male feminist, it has been the behaviour of women themselves which has finally convinced me of the

truth in the ―traditional‖ views of women, and of the wisdom of men in the past who kept women ―in their place,‖ where their passionate p assionate irrationality could be prevented (at least somewhat) from doing damage, not only to men, but to themselves as well. Clearly, the 19th Amendment was one of the biggest mistakes in American history. ―Why are the women the ones out there on the front lines battling this government tooth and nail for our children – ready and willing to die if necessary to protect our own?‖ Sorry, not so. There may be a few women, such as yourself, involved in this thi s fight, but there are many m any more men. I have a list of over a hundred web sites, 90% 9 0% of them by men, devoted to the struggle to prevent the evils you enumerate in your article. Though I honour your work, s uch intellectual dishonesty … well, is typical of why men of the past –the very men you praise – paid only limited attention to women, even as they worked and risked their lives to build a nation wherein women were better off than they have been at any other time or place in human history. Which these very same women are now working with equal enthusiasm (though far less risk, at least in the short run –which seems to be all they can see) to destroy. You may have seen an excellent response to your article from Australian Graham Strachan. I would disagree with him only in that the history of this war on men and maleness is not just twenty years old. Its modern phase began, by the feminists‘ own ―herstory,‖ in 1848, at the Seneca Falls Convention (see its ― Declaration of Sentiments‖ Sentiments ‖ for a catty parody of the Declaration of Independence)– Independence) –the same year that the Communist Manifesto appeared. Coincidence? Cui bono? For my part, after a lifetime of abuse, I‘ve gradually become rather sick of women, their endless complaints, irrational inconstancy, selfsatisfied narcissism and wearisome te mper tantrums. I‘m retired. While I can see the value, in absolute spiritual terms, of standing up for the truth, it seems pointless to engage in battle for something whose intended beneficiaries clearly don‘t want it. It‘s your world, sisters; I‘m only a guest here, my very existence a result of my mother‘s not having bothered to exercise her ―right to choose‖ to abort me. If you don‘t like how things are, rather than complaining to the hired hands, the front men, fall guys, whipping boys and cannon fodder,, you‘d do better to talk to The Boss. fodder

If something you‘ve purchased doesn‘t work right, what do you do? Take it back where you got it, no? Well, where do men come from? I‘d suggest you address your complaint to the manufacturer. Maybe when you girls‘ve got it sorted out, you‘ll let us know exactly what you do want. Or maybe my nephew (thank God I don‘t have any children to worry about), or his son or grandson. My nephew, age 25, recently married. His wife is clearly smarter than he is –not to mention at least 50% heavier– heavier–and clearly knows exactly what she wants. God help him, poor chump. He‘s what his mother, his teachers, American women have made him, and so he shall be. Sincerely, An American man who‘s had enough

Philalethes #14 - Hyphenate Them Any Way You Yo u Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist F eminist I‘m sorry, I won‘t be joining the pathetically eager Wendy McElroy fan club. She may be a ―kinder, gentler‖ dominatrix, but you can be sure she still holds the whip. Can‘t anyone see what‘s happening here? Even if some ―tide‖ is turning, it‘s it ‘s still women who hold all the power, p ower, and use it solely at their whim. McElroy writes, ―My point is that our cultural assumptions have shifted.‖ What do you mean ―our,‖ white woman? My ―assumptions‖ haven‘t ―shifted‖; it‘s always been plain to me that Naomi Wolfe and all her myriad ―sisters‖ are idiots. What she means by ―our‖ is the consensus among white, Anglo/Jewish North American women. Men, men‘s thoughts and opinions, men‘s welfare or abuse, a buse, don‘t count except insof ar ar as they may affect men‘s fitness to meet the needs of  women. This is nothing but an argument between factions of women about how men should best be managed. Have you not noticed that this is the case in all the current ferment over what is feminism, wh o is a feminist, etc.? It‘s a big coffee klatch, a room full of women, all talking at once at top volume. (One of the biggest lies of feminism is what I call the Myth of Sisterhood — that all women think alike. The truth is all wars are between factions of  women, using men as proxies: front men, fall guys, whipping boys, cannon fodder.) When — if  if — — they figure it out, they‘ll let us know what our role is to be. Note that every one of the ―critics‖ and ―sceptics‖ she quotes or refers

to are women. Not a single sin gle man. Men‘s opinions of Naomi Wolf are irrelevant; this is an issue — like all issues of any importance — to be decided by Woman, alone in Her Perfect Wisdom. Women are notoriously, eternally creatures of mood, whim and impulse; change is their natural element. If you faint with gratitude to see her changing her mind today and allowing that men — some men, at least — should be treated a little better, what will you do tomorrow when she exercises her eternal prerogative and changes it again? She will, you know. She gets bored easily. Very easily. The idea that justice should be based on standards that do not change is a product of the male mind, and foreign to the female, for whom how she ―feels‖ at any given moment is the absolute, final standard of  judgment. Another element of the male mind, much ridiculed and complained of  by females, is the faculty of discrimination, whence comes the understanding that in some matters (everything, in fact, that matters in human life) you can‘t have your cake and eat it too. We must make choices. One of those choices is which part of our nature shall rule our lives: emotion or reason? It‘s either one or the other; no ―equality‖ is possible. It‘s women‘s hatred of and refusal to acknowledge that choice that is the bedrock of feminism. You heard what they yelled:―We yelled: ―We want it all!‖ They were not kidding. One way you can always tell a feminist, even the ―kinder, gentler‖ variety: she refuses to use her ―husband‘s name. na me. I know, women will fume and spit about this, but I‘ve found it to be a good indicator of  where a woman really stands. I know intelligent, powerful women, clearly dominant in many respects in their marriage situations, who nonetheless identify themselves as their husbands‘ wives; this thi s does not diminish their real power in any way, but seems to constitute an acknowledgement, subtle (and often not consciously understood by the woman herself) but real, that she is not the be-all and end-all of  creation. That there is a natural hierarchy, and that, for human life to be human, reason must be acknowledged ackn owledged the master of emotion. ―Individualist‖ feminism femini sm is really the ultimate form of the disease, woman usurping not only man but God as well. ―I am Me, I don‘t need anything or anyone, no one can tell me what to do, and I can do

anything I want!‖ It is precisely because Woman is naturally subjective and narcissistic that sane cultures have placed man in charge. ―If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become yourr fellows, they will become your masters.‖ Marcus Porcius Cato you (the Elder, aka the Censor), 234-149 BCE Read this quote again: it is not a joke, it is simply the truth. There is no ―equality‖; one or the other must be the final authority. And the prediction has come to pass, pa ss, as evidenced by the common response of  ―men‖ here to Wendy McElroy. American ―men‖ in our time are really boys, expectantly awaiting Mother‘s judgment, pathetically grateful when she deigns to withhold the lash. Boys are males who are subject to women; men are males who have graduated from childhood, that state that is naturally under female authority, and become capable and worthy of caring for and managing women and children. This ―graduation‖ is another kind of birth, and in our culture it has been aborted wholesale (not by accident that abortion is the ―sacrament‖ of feminism), so that boys do not grow into men, and thus women can be ―free‖ — which in practice means totally out of control, along with every imaginable social pathology. Look around; it is all of a piece. Probably nothing can be done about this; the disease, like every historical case of social degeneration and collapse, must run its course. Perhaps no one who reads this will be capable of understanding, but here it is anyway: the truth. Hyphenate them any way you want, a feminist is a feminist is a feminist.

Philalethes #15 - Women Are Out of Control In Our Culture Some years back I came across this bumper sticker ( ―MEN ARE NOT  PIGS! Pigs are intelligent, sensitive, s weet and caring beings.―)This beings.― )This was not long after I saw in a shop window a rubber stamp that read ABORTION IS HARMFUL HARMFU L TO WOMEN / LEGALIZE LEGALI ZE CASTRATION. I went inside and inquired of the shopkeeper about ab out the stamp, which I found also displayed on a shelf. ―Some ―Some people  people find it funny,‖ she said. I wrote a letter of protest prote st to the store owner (a woman), quoting another joke I‘d heard (―Old enough to bleed, old enough to

butcher.―) and asking if she found it ―funny.‖ Curiously, I received no reply. Last I looked, the rubber stamp was still on sale. I don‘t think this kind of thing will ever end. It has become clear that even in the most intelligent, kind, gentle, even enlightened woman there is an underlying stratum of resentment against men that is never penetrated by reason. I have yet to encounter a woman whose first, involuntary reaction to this kind of ―humour‖ is not amusement — perhaps quickly suppressed, but it‘s always there. I don‘t really get angry about it any more. What‘s the point? It‘s like being upset about the weather, or other Acts of Nature. Women are as they are; it‘s a fool‘s errand to expect them to be like men, to understand that ―equal treatment‖ really means something besides a way to wheedle everything they can get out of men. When a woman appeals to principle, it‘s only a device, to get a man to do what she wants; the idea that a principle is something that applies to all equally, that might limit her activity as well as a man‘s, is completely foreign to her mind. She knows instinctively that her innate power, derived from the power of Nature Herself, absolutely trumps anything a man can come up with. After all, she created him, did she not? What she doesn‘t understand, what never ne ver occurs to her without male assistance, is that the ultimate result of the use of her power will be her own suffering. This is why the Buddha, and every other great teacher of liberation from suffering, was a man. Woman on her own can‘t get out of the prison of suffering life. The bottom line is: there is no such th ing as ―equality‖ between the sexes. It is a chimera, a mythical beast, a political tool used by women — on average much more clever than men, as Harry Belafonte (―Dat‘s right! De woman is uh! smatah!―), among many others, noted — and fundamentally lacking the innate sense of scruple that even the most corrupted man possesses — to fool and manipulate men by appealing to our sense of ―reasonableness.‖ Lead, or follow. There cannot be two drivers at the wheel, two hands on the tiller. Either our activity is guided by Reason, or it is propelled by Passion. And the life ruled by Passion is the life of suffering, no matter how attractive it may seem in the (very) short term. Women in our culture are completely out of control. They have taken

over the lead, but they really don‘t know where they are going. They are no longer restrained and guided by men, and self-restraint is unknown to the female mind. The other day I saw an overweight teenage girl wearing a sleeveless tee-shirt tee- shirt that said ―It‘s all about ME. Deal with it.‖ Which I thought summed up feminism neatly and for all time. ―If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters.‖ Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, aka the Censor), 234-149 BCE

Philalethes #16 - Who Stole Feminism? Nobody! Apparently Ms. Sommers (and a few like her) is smart enough to see that feminism‘s success has not brought the matriarchal paradise we were led to expect, and honest enough to be uncomfortable about it; but she‘s not ready — not yet, anyway — to admit to herself that this has been no accident. I can sympathise; the truth can be hard. But in the end, either we make the truth our first priority, or we do not. Any ―philosophy professor‖ (according to her book‘s flyleaf) should be clear on this point. As it happens, I have her other book, Who Stole Feminism?, which I picked up when I was working at a newspaper. Haven‘t read it, only skimmed, but from the title alone it is clear that the author still ―doesn‘t get it.‖ Not surprising — she‘s hardly alone, and at least she‘s making an effort. But exactly what is she trying to do? Is she really seeking the truth, or (perhaps unconsciously, as a s women will) hoping that a half-truth will confuse the issue enough to prevent the real truth from coming out? The truth truth is, nobody ―stole‖ feminism: it was wa s never anything other than what it is now. The only thing that‘s changed is that feminism‘s overwhelming success has revealed its true tr ue nature to an extent seldom before seen. Indeed, never before has the entire male population of a major civilization been infant-circumcised: savagely tortured, mutilated and crippled, sexually and emotionally, by their own mothers. Truly, feminism is the ―Society for Cutting Up Men.‖ It is in the very nature of the female mind to want t o ―have her cake and eat it too.‖ (Remember ―We want it ALL!―? ) Ms. Sommers wants to keep the ―good parts‖ of feminism while reforming the rest. It won‘t

work. There can be no such thing as ―feminism lite.‖ The female appetite — for power, for possession, for solipsistic self-gratification (it is no accident that one of the most successful ―women‘s magazines‖ is titled simply SELF) — is in its very nature unlimited; either it is restrained, and we have (some measure of) civilization, or it is not, and we have chaos. Look around. Imperfect as it was — and everything in this world is imperfect, can never be otherwise — the American Republic created by those awful ―dead white males,‖ George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and the rest, provided the freest, most prosperous and comfortable life that any women have ever enjoyed in human history. I can remember, as a child growing up in the 1950s, we used to leave our family house‘s door unlocked! Can you imagine anyone anywhere in America doing so today? Like it or not, in the bad old days of the ―patriarchy,‖ most women were able to ―walk down the street unmolested.‖ That the America of the 1950s could have used a lot of improvement is certainly true. Unfortunately, however, instead of building on what we had then, women have used their newfound power — now that American men have been reduced to whimpering slaves — to destroy it. This was no accident, though neither was it exactly intentional. But because female power is fundamentally and overwhelmingly unconscious by nature, its unrestrained, unmodulated exercise could not have produced any other outcome. The flyleaf of Who Stole Feminism? Says, ―A group of zealots, claiming to speak for all women, are promoting a dangerous new agenda that threatens our most cherished ideals and sets women against men in all spheres of life.‖ This is well stated, but not entirely accurate. The agenda is by no means ―new‖; the ―battle of the sexes‖ is as old as humanity. The modern ―feminist movement,‖ merel y its latest, most successful incarnation, is generally considered to have begun at the 1848 ―Seneca Falls Convention,‖ whose"Declaration whose "Declaration of  Sentiments" stated: ―The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and  usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.― Does this not ―claim to speak for all women,‖ and ―set women against

men in all spheres of life‖? Exactly who, then, is the ―group of  zealots?‖ That this ―Declaration of Sentiments‖ was a clever pastiche of the Declaration of Independence was not an accident: from the beginning feminism has always been a war against men, based on an absolute denial of the two sexes‘ fundamental unity, whose ultimate object must be an absolute severing severi ng of the mutual ties of  interdependence between them, in the Utopian hope that th at women will be better off in a world not n ot ―ruled‖ by men, wherein me n are at least reduced to docile slaves of Woman‘s will, at most (the logical conclusion) eradicated entirely. Make no mistake: both of these outcomes are possible; the first, indeed, has largely been realized. But is this really best for women? And by the way, if, as the Who Stole Feminism? Blurb seems to imply, it is not a good idea to ―set women against men in all spheres of life,‖ is it still good to do it i t in some spheres? If so, which ones? one s? Who decides? (My guess is Ms. Sommers would nominate herself, and others like her, to wield that authority.) This is the problem with ―feminism lite‖: once you start such a war, how can it be contained in only ―approved‖ arenas? When the female fights, Marquis of Queensbury Rules (the ―male code‖ that women find so laughable) do not apply. Nor is it an accident that the ―founding document‖ of feminism is based on ―sentiment‖ — not, be it noted, on reason. Actually, the entire history of humanity can be reduced to one struggle, between passion and reason: by which shall sh all we rule our lives? Homo ―sapiens‖ and Pan Troglodytes — the common chimpanzee — are 98+% genetically identical. The chimpanzee‘s life is ruled by passion; human life, insofar as it may differ from that of the chimpanzee, must be ruled by reason. The real truth, to paraphrase from the feminist declaration above, is this: ―The history of humankind is a history of constant struggle with our own animal — i.e. chimpanzee — nature, having in direct object the establishment of some form of life not entirely ruled by blind, unconscious Mother Nature.‖ The sole reason r eason for the historical ―domination‖ of males in human culture is that males — because they are not so totally ruled by Nature‘s imperatives as are females — are, on average, slightly more able to restrain the rule of passion in their own minds and lives, and thus slightly more able to devote time and energy to the development of reason, which whic h alone makes possible the invention of what little we have that distinguishes human life from chimpanzee life. Including, In cluding, inter alia, the ―philosophy‖ whereof Ms.

Sommers is a ―professor‖ — and the very ideas of human individual indi vidual worth, dignity and freedom which the feminists use to advance their appeals for evermore special privileges. The real truth — the Big Secret — is that it is Woman who truly rules the world (this world, anyway), and that any idea of ―equality‖ between the sexes is utterly nonsensical. How can the creature be considered ―equal‖ to his Creator? But the irreducible paradox of life in this world is that in creating man, Woman has externalized that part of herself which offers her the most hope of escaping from the endless wheel of suffering that is worldly existence. Thus the instinctive pride a woman feels on giving birth to a son. Note that the universal image of Madonna and Child is of a mother and her son — not her daughter. If  the latter, it would be meaningless, meaningles s, merely another turn of the wheel, nothing new, nothing different. The mother-son relationship is the beginning of everything that matters in our world; its relative health or pathology is the measure of the possibility of human progress. This is the real reason for the ―dominance‖ of men in human history: to serve women‘s needs, both proximate (the invention of the washing machine, etc., etc.) and ultimate (the seeking and finding, through reason, of the means of liberation from the endless suffering of earthly life taught by men like the Buddha). As one honest woman, gadfly Camille Paglia, put it: ―If the development of civilization ha d been left up to women, we‘d still be living in grass huts.‖ (Note again: the feminist ―Declaration of Sentiments‖ was adapted from a document created by men.) This is not a value judgement; it is simply an observation of reality. It is worth noting that the feminist ―Declaration of Sentiments‖ appeared concurrently with the Communist Manifesto (1848). Both are products of the same kind of thinking: superficial, short-sighted, earthbound, materialistic, utopian (from the Greek: ou-topos, ou- topos, ―no place‖) efforts to create an ―earthly paradise‖ by forcibly moving the furniture around, without any effort to understand, much less address, the real causes of our suffering. It is not an accident that the century wherein women first began exercising overt political power (as distinct from the covert, total power they have always had and can never lose) also saw the greatest manifestations of collectivist mass hysteria (need we explore the etymology of this word?) — And mass suffering — in human history. Again, not an accident that the first and so-far only worldwide feminist convention was hosted in Beijing; feminism and

communism are spiritual sisters. (I was not surprised to learn recently that Simone de Beauvoir, author of the th e feminist bible The Second Sex, was an ardent ardent Maoist, who applauded the ―Cultural Revolution.‖) If Ms. Sommers really is a ―philosophy professor,‖ I would expect her to seek to understand a phenomenon by examining its essential principle, rather than wasting time on myriad superficial manifestations. The essence of feminism is inherent in its very name: it is concerned exclusively with women (Latin: femina), not with humanity as a whole. Feminism necessarily sees the sexes as at war — and why start a war if you don‘t mean to win? Let us be clear : if it is to be war, then women cannot lose. Ultimately, in the game of life in this world, men may hold some of the cards, c ards, but women own the deck. But does one hand truly ―win‖ by cutting cutti ng off the other? Now, it may be true that women could exist without men, while men certainly could not exist without women (―equality‖?) — But what kind of existence would that be? In fact, a considerable number of species have taken this evolutionary path: they‘ve simply stopped producing males, and now consist entirely of females. But they‘ve also ceased to evolve; secure in their ecological niches, they‘re dead ends. An ex-lesbian once told me she gave it up because the exclusive company of women bored her out of her h er head. I‘m a little slow; only later did I realize she was, rather clumsily, attempting to attract my interest. She went on to tell me how proud p roud she was of her little son (conceived by anonymous artificial insemination), for staunchly maintaining among his preschool peers that fathers were unnecessary. What exactly was she trying to tell me, I wondered? What do women want, anyway? (Pace, Dr. Freud.) Sorry, not my type. What do women want? Look around: what you see is what women want, because it is what they have made by their (mostly unconscious) use of their creative power. If the women of a culture want their men to be strong, physically, morally, intellectually, they will have strong men. Present-day American women want their men weak, indecisive, ―sensitive,‖ easily controlled and manipulated, and that is what they have. So it has always been, in every dying civilization. If they want it different, they can have it different, but merely hating men for being what they have made us will not make any difference. It is, indeed, exactly how we have gotten to where we are now.

Yes, indeed, men are terribly imperfect. imper fect. But, after all, where do men come from? I offer this bargain to any woman: when women are perfect, men will be perfect also. In fact, this is an ironclad prediction. Until then, however, we‘ll just have to make do with what we have. That both sexes would be wise to tender more respect to the other is certainly true; but like everything e verything else, this must begin with women. Very few women I know have any real respect for men — their own sons, every one of us. They treat us like the lapdogs whose ears and tails they crop to suit their sick fashion whims. They regard us with contempt while enjoying all the comforts of the civilization we created for them — from flush toilets to computers. Why value what you can always make more of — of  — what, indeed, you have already produced to excess? Front men, fall guys, whipping boys and endless cannon fodder. True, males exist to serve females‘ needs; but we are also human beings. And even if we were not, the Golden Rule still applies; even an all-female allfemale Congress cannot ―repeal‖ this Law. Now and forever, you get what you give.

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, politicallycorrect 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.

Philalethes #18 - Opposed to Woman Suffrage?

Women SHOULD have the right to vote. When I was younger, before the ―hormone ―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 sam e. 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 po wer) 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 v alue 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 un derstand 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 Chi ldren 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 propo sed 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.

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 t o be a lesbian, but gave ga ve 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, 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 fem ales 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 good s 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.

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 cour tesies 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. porcu pines. The ancient bargain is, in essence, this: mothers care for and protect their sons, who grow up to care for f or and protect their wives, wive s, 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.

Philalethes #21 - Circumcision Quote: "While "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 post-t raumatic stress, and (2) I‘ve noticed a consistent psychological pattern which I consider significant: infantcircumcised 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  was  precisely when 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 ha ve been and will be disastrous dis astrous for women as well as for men. Because Bec ause––feminist dogma notwithstanding– notwithstanding – even women are not perfect, and we all need someone in our lives to tell us ―No‖ now and then. When our most infan tile impulses are given free reign, we suffer. (*Note: ―Subconsciously‖ means we aren‘t aware of it, it , but it profoundly affects our behaviour. We can become aware of such subconscious influences, however, and try to compensate; c ompensate; 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 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 countr ies (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 "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 Americ an ―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 "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, 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 energ y to waste on ―having a good

cry‖ when home and family must be defended, right now , against a savage attack. This is where I– I –regretfully regretfully––must disagree with Warren Farrell, much though I respect his work. Farrell Farr ell thinks the solution is for the sexes to become more alike– alike –which only shows he has not yet completely recovered from his former lapdog l apdog 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 bet ween 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 ha ppens 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, vir)–gentleness, compassion, caring, etc.––for the protection of which men have made themselves hard and etc. ―unfeeling‖–women ―unfeeling‖– women begin cultivating contempt for the men they see around them– 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 wh ose women have kept their men strong. There may be no help for it, really. Quote: "The "The person who submitted this apparently has some issues with women…and I think the credibili ty 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. o pposites. 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 mother s 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 Ma ma‘s boys whose assigned role is to gratify women‘s infantile greed for power. In the last century, American Americ an 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 o f the relationship is to win win––by whatever means necessary–it 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– 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 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  mother had had done to me– me – unconsciously and thus in ―innocence,‖ but nevertheless the consequences for me are very real– 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 o ffer lies in response to truth. Like the Man said, the truth– truth –and only  only the the truth– truth –will set us free. ―Let us speak the truth.‖ – George W. Bush, Berlin, Germany, 23 May 2002 (Scuse me, I couldn‘t could n‘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 "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– implications –deserves a whole essay in itself) and the White Anglo Protestant Americans– 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 blee d 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 example only consider 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 m entioned 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. d one. 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 any thing 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 exi st 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). exist ). That is a legitimate solution, because it is women‘s decision. But if they do want men, they are ar e 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.

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 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 you‘l l hurt my feelings!‖ A meaningful, useful dialog between bet ween 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.

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 h ot 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. else‘s– i.e. men‘s men‘s–fault. –fault. Sorry, I don‘t buy it. After all, if women have the ―right to choose‖ to terminate their child‘s life 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  the  power to 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  say they 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 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 ha d 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– 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 r eason that the military‘s job is to protect women. Any baboon troop that put its i ts 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. i t. 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, cir cumcision, I‘ve received far more resistance and ridicule from men than from women. Though this thi s 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 Eug enics 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 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 h ave a choice? Because they haven‘t taken the trouble to research the issue. And because apparently the idea of cutting of  cutting off part of their sons‘ sexual organs seems to them entirely normal. Why? I‘d I ‘d bet if the doctors told them it was necessary to circumcise their daughters 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 furt her at the time, since it was washer 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– 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. 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 shatter ing 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? 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.– etc. –it was fathers who were assigned custody, because they were seen as the responsible parent. Interesting. There can be no comparison compari son 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 ridiculous– especially after decades of  insisting that men should follow women‘s ―lead,‖ ―le ad,‖ without question, in all situations. Female power is subtle. Most Mo st of the time, women are not consciously con sciously 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– 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 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 newlywon ―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 alw ays 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 birth this fundamental inequality between the sexes. And of course, there‘s no need for men to become women; if that‘s where we‘re 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 done 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, 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 antianti 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 desper ately 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 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– women –millions of ordinary, supposedly wideawake, sane, sensible women– women –responsible for what they have voluntarily done to their sons. While, it i t 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―non -confrontational.‖ Sure, that‘s fine; whatever it takes to stop it. It may very well stop without the real r eal truth ever being publicly acknowledged. Of course that would be

better than nothing; but I‘m sti ll 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; i t; but I‘d suggest she be prepared to face some hard truth– truth –as men men do, when they‘re not adjusting their words so as not to offend women‘s delicate deli cate 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, hastilywritten essay. I have to get back to work now.

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 a dmit it to themselves or not, that th at 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 refu se to deal with something that, if allowed into i nto 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 a dd ―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 trus t our mothers? –naturally grow into men who subconsciously fear women, and such fear can easily lead to unexpected violence– 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 s ense of ownership: that her children are her possessions, to be modified to suit her tastes, and used to gratify her needs. Aft er all, she made them, didn‘t she? But is this the proper attitude toward children?

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 t o 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 I f she is the head of the family, f amily, she should provide its support, as man m an did when he was its head. If I f 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, woma n, ―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 w as 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 other wise 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 in centive 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 c onscious thought, she will continue to take everything she can — eve even n 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 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 wi sh to participate in the collective self-immolation, we can only withdraw and turn away — as many men have done in the past. p ast. 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 the m 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 c an do to affect the situation; they have the power. We can‘t take them on head-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 longterm 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!

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 th at our Republic was founded. This Thi s 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 Rom an 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 ― Thou shalt not kill.‖And 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 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 rul es its citizens according to its own whims.

The author does indeed cite some precedents prec edents in law for his argument, including several Supreme Court cases and a key provision of the federal Constitution (―No State shall…pass any…Law impair ing 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 th at it won‘t succeed in court, not only because it hasn‘t been sufficiently suffici ently 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 w ho‘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  An argument requires an offer, acceptance and consideration, 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 o f 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 responsibili ty. Am I responsible for my existence or not? n ot? 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‘ ‗ 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 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 ther e‘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 i s a war between the sexes. I don‘t believe the real interests of men and an d 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  only in 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  only when when he understands that he too is subject to a Higher Authority. Auth ority. Most of the problem with the ―patriarchal‖ family has resulted from men forgetting this fact. Encouraged, I will add, by women. ―Wome ―Women n rule the world; no man ever did anything unless allowed or encouraged by a woman.‖ (Bob Dylan said that.) Quote: "There‘s "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 di fference 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 reduc ed 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 d ays 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 o f 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 feminis m besides a mirror of its own fallacies. Quote: " And  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 t o 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‘sreally  That‘s really responding 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 whil e 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 a s they are, precisely so they won‘t rule me. It‘s certainly not easy, because of the ―hormone ―hormone-induced  -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 beli eve 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 i s 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.

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 i f 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, mi nd, 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  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‖ ―inde pendent‖ 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 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.

Philalethes #28 - Feminism Is Successful Precisely Because Its Basic Bas ic Premise Is Not True! Quote: Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a fine book on the subject, ―The War Against Boys.‖ I saw this book in the library and applied my usual test: looked in the index f or or ―circumcision.‖ Not a mention of what is clearly the preemptive, decisive, surgical first strike in the war she purports to be writing about. Christina Hoff Sommers appears to mean well, but like others of her type she isn‘t ready to really challenge f eminism, eminism, she just wants to adjust it a little so its uglier aspects will be tucked back out of sight.

Another book by her asks ―Who Stole Feminism?‖ Nobody ―stole‖ feminism, Christina, it‘s only that with such overwhelming success its real character has become plain for all the world to see. This is a complex subject; ‗fraid ‗ fraid I don‘t have time right ri ght now to examine it fully. I realize that my statement might seem mysterious to someone who hasn‘t thought it through as I have. I‘ll try a few points, in hopes the picture might fill itself out with some thought. First, one thing I‘ve realized over the last decade of thinking about the American infant male circumcision program, and the wider/deeper subject of relations between the sexes, the origin and nature of female power, etc., is this: It is not necessary to be conscious of ones power  in order to use it effectively. This fact is key in understanding the entire phenomenon of feminism, as well as female psychology. The power exercised by women, like the powers of Nature whence it is derived, is primarily unconscious. This is why, although it is obvious to anyone who really thinks about how the world works that it is women who have and use the real power, women see themselves as helpless victims––and can usually, easily convince men to agree with their world victims view. ―Women run the world. No man ever did anything unless he was allowed or encouraged by a woman.‖ – Bob Dylan (interview in Rolling Stone, late 1980s) Thus the rape victim who becomes incensed if someone suggests that perhaps she might have had something to do with what happened to her, when she wandered half-drunk, in short-shorts and halter top, into a locker room full of testosterone- enhanced males. ―But I didn‘t do anything!‖ she wails, and the feminists scream about ―blaming the victim!‖ Again, it is curious that even while any biologist (including even female biologists) will affirm that in all other species sexual behavior is totally controlled by the female, her needs, cycles, and signals, amongst humans the idea that the female is anything but a victim of oppressive male power and violence is totally unthinkable. Why? Female power, subtly, unconsciously applied: what women do not want to acknowledge will not be discussed. Ever wonder how it is possible for a little, tiny woman to control a

great, huge, hulking man? Think about it. Obviously, the idea is preposterous: the one who is more powerful must dominate the one who is less powerful. Yet we see this archetypal encounter acted out all around us. Feminism is successful precisely because its basic  premise is not true! The Zuni Indians, whose home is in what we call western New Mexico, have a story, about a couple of young hunters who one day freed a dragonfly from some mud. The dragonfly, being of course a magical creature, offered its saviors a couple c ouple of wishes. The first young hunter said he would like to be the smartest man in the world. ―Done,‖ said the dragonfly. The second young hunter naturally was a little miffed at this, but then he had an a n idea: ―I want to be smarter than the smartest man in the world,‖ he said. ―All right,‖ said the dragonfly, ―you‘re a woman.‖ I‘m old enough to remember Harry Belafonte‘s great hit song in the 1950s: ―Dat‘s right! De woman is – uh! – smahtah! Dat‘s right. Dat‘s right.‖ Never forget this. However, also remember that ―smart‖ is not necessarily the same as ―wise.‖ In older times, it was this knowledge, more than anything else, that male elders passed down to their sons, s ons, nephews and grandsons. More than anything else, it is the loss of this knowledge that has led to our present predicament. (I remember another song from the 50s, an early rock-n-roll ditty whose refrain went, ―De girl cain‘t he‘p it, de girl cain‘t he‘p it…‖ I‘ve come to the conclusion, based on observation of the actual results of  several decades of feminist denial, that this is true –and that a ―civilization‖ based on ignoring this fact cannot last.) So no, I wouldn‘t say the circumcision program was a ―deliberate move.‖ Like much of what women do, it didn‘t (and doesn‘t) have to be ―deliberate,‖ i.e. consciously conceived and executed, to work very well indeed. As I understand it, the circ program was first marketed during the Victorian era (the time when ―civilized‖ women spoke of the ―limbs‖ of a table, because ―legs‖ was too suggestive– also the time of families, like my father‘s, of a half -dozen -dozen children or more, sometimes many more) as a ―cure‖ for the terrible problem of masturbation, the ―nasty habit‖ to which boys were unfortunately all too susceptible, which at the time was the known cause of a whole host of both personal health he alth difficulties and societal ills. As that idea fell out of fashion in the early

1900s, newer ―scientific‖ excuses ex cuses were made up. Which also are obviously bogus, not holding up even to brief examination. So why is the circ program such a ―sacred cow‖? Nobody will talk about it, the media won‘t discuss it, mothers become hysterical when it is questioned. Again, female power: what women don‘t want to confront will not be discussed. Note that the circ program is based on the idea that there‘s something wrong with males– males –something, indeed, that requires drastic corrective measures. This is the very cornerstone of feminism. I note also that the American practice of male circumcision came out of the same Northeastern WASP/Puritan cultural matrix (check the origin of this word) which also produced Prohibition –another force-based force-based ―solution‖ to the problem of What‘s Wrong wi th Men– Men–and Feminism, whose official birthday was at a conference (originally to promote ―female suffrage‖) in upstate New York in 1848. Feminism is based on the proposition that t hat there is no significant difference between the sexes. This is usually taken to mean that women are not ―inferior‖ relative to men, but this is just another red herring. The truth is that female power –if/when she wishes to use it – totally trumps anything a man can do. Feminists insist on being dealt with as if they were men, and an d ignorant, igno rant, ―honorable‖ men do just that– and don‘t/can‘t see the knife under the table, in the realm of darkness which is women‘s real field of power. ―Take back the night!‖ is misleading: they never lost it. As Camille Paglia makes clear, there is truly ―No Law in the Arena.‖ Whatever else it may be (and sometimes it can be very pleasant), the sexual encounter is a war, and, as I remarked elsewhere, women (a) don‘t fight fair, and (b) fight to win. Men enter the arena handicapped by ideas of honor –but if we abandon such principles, we betray ourselves. If we attempt to meet women at their own level, we lose –and so do they. This picture is the truth behind that old axiom of male wisdom: ―Never argue with a woman.‖ I‘ve not yet come across a woman who is willing to really confront what I‘m talking about here. Sooner or later, she will take evasive action, like Scarlett O‘Hara: ―I don‘t want to think about that, and I don‘t have to, so I won‘t, and you can‘t make me.‖ True, I can‘t, if she doesn‘t want to. Throughou t human history, this tactic has worked for women, as it must. This is the reason for all the ―keep women in their place‖ ―oppression‖ that feminists complain about. Now that they have been allowed out of ―their place,‖ the results are

becoming plain. The only thing men can do in response to female power is to create a limited, artificial realm where such power is not allowed to rule –and then show women how it is in their interest to subject themselves to the discipline necessary to live in such an environment. This can be called human culture, or civilization: a way of living together and relating that is different from how other, unconscious animals do it. Where the rule of law– law –an artificial, human construct– construct –is paramount, rather than the rule of power. In order for this to work, men must be wise to women‘s tricks, and not allow them to get away with the kind of unconscious manipulation that is their natural, instinctive skill. None of this is easy, which is why it is not easy to be a man: because to do this, we must also be aware of the trickster in ourselves, oursel ves, and not let ourselves ―get away‖ with anything that is less than our best: self self aware, and self-disciplined. All I have time for now; perhaps some food for thought. Regarding the subject of circumcision circumcis ion itself, some useful links if you haven‘t seen them: Sexually Mutilated Child Circumcision Information and Resource Pages A Brief History NOCIRC NOHARMM Of course, you‘ll see little or no mention of women/mothers and their role in any of this information–because information –because they‘re seldom if ev er evident on the surface of events. However, note the Bob Bo b Dylan quote above. I put it this way: There is no human culture that is not fundamentally a Matriarchy. Any apparent ―Patriarchy‖ is no more than a front for the Matriarchy that really runs everything everyth ing in this world. It wouldn‘t be happening if it didn‘t somehow serve the female agenda.

Philalethes #29 - They Can Do It Because B ecause They Really Believe It! Quote: It has always fascinated me how the fems can deny ANY  responsibility in a rape victim. They can do this because they really believe it. Camille Paglia remarks somewhere in the ―Sex and Violence‖ essay that the structure of the relationship between the sexes requires the female to be the passive receiver of male action, and unfortunately women have come to

believe that this superficial melodrama actually reflects the real state of things. Which, of course, it does not; but only a few women take the trouble (or, perhaps, even have the necessary intelligence) i ntelligence) to become aware of this truth. The ―wise women‖ of older and indigenous cultures know this, but modern women have forgotten –which is why I find feminists‘ feminist s‘ pretense to being ―wise women‖ laughable. A real ―wise woman‖ knows her power and doesn‘t need to flaunt it. I actually met such a woman once: a Mohawk shamaness; she was awesome. She was also kind and considerate toward men, as she knew that she could either support or destroy them, and that it was w as in her best interest to support them being their best. Feminists take exactly the opposite view, believing that using their power to suppress and destroy men proves their ―superiority.‖ This is akin to a carpenter deliberately dulling his saw, breaking his hammer. In a word, stupid. Feminists disprove their claims by their own actions. I heard once of a study done by putting video cameras in singles bars; it was found that every encounter began with a covert, subliminal glance from a woman to a man: an invitation. In most cases, this invitation is unconscious on the woman‘s woma n‘s part. And so, she believes (and so men believe) that he made ma de the first move, that she is merely the passive object of his active acti ve power. Quote: "The sad fact is that many men are literally afraid of their  wives."  Yes, especially now, as nearly all of us have been heavily conditioned to that fear by what our mothers did to us when we were born. The ―balance of power‖ between the sexes is actually very delicate, as it depends entirely on women raising their sons to be strong and independent, able to meet their future wives in the arena ar ena and hold their own. When mothers give in to their own greedy impulse to keep their ―little men‖ mother-bound, mother -bound, weak and dependent, their daughters will not have developed men to marry. And, following their mothers‘ example, will believe a healthy relationship consists of dominating their men. Look around. Quote: "The good news is that as we age and get into our upper 40′s and beyond the hormones begin to dissapate and some of our pre puberty clarity returns." 

Well, I don‘t know about ―pre―pre -puberty clarity‖; I‘d say it‘s more like a combination of life experience with the slow dissipation of the ―hormone--induced fog.‖ I remember when I was in my early 30s ―hormone reading a biography of Gandhi wherein that great man remarked on what a relief it was as he got older that the slavery to sexual desire faded. At the time I found his sentiment nearly incomprehensible; now in my 60th year I have a better understanding what he meant. The purpose of all those ―initiation rituals‖ discussed in another thread is to help a male master himself, so he is not ruled by his impulses. A man ruled by his impulses will also be ruled by women, and a man who is ruled by women will be unable to give them what they really need. Quote: "I think I understand what you are saying here…that women by  default have power and a vested interest in their position and in their  capacity to manipulate men. The circumcision fiasco is more a result of this than a planned action. Is that what you are saying?"  Uh, not exactly, I don‘t think. Again, this subject requires more time and energy than I presently have to do it justice. One thing I am saying is that there is more to the world, and to our experience, than what appears on the surface. This world we live in is a realm of paradox, and cannot be understood until we go beyond the conventional way of  seeing and thinking. An Oriental Oriental teacher I studied said, ―Everything has a front and a back. The bigger the front, the bigger the back.‖ The front of the relationship between the sexes is what we all see, and what women believe when they say that they are the helpless victims of male power. That‘s the front; the back is much the same, but reversed, like a photographic negative. And (mostly) unconscious. Our being is like the proverbial iceberg: what is conscious is above the surface and visible; the unconscious is below the surface, invisible to the ordinary mind, far larger, and dangerous. It is what we all do unconsciously that hurts us most. The solution, then, or at a t least the beginning thereof – thereof –as I see it– it–is to bring what is unconscious into the light of consciousness. It is precisely precisely because the natural realm of women‘s power is in the unconscious that we cannot afford to turn over the running of the world to women– women –and why, when that happens, women suffer as much as men (or even more). ―Equality‖ between the sexes is a myth; either one or the other is ―on top.‖ In the natural order of things, first the

female contains the male, physically and emotionally; but eventually, if the male fulfills his potential, the male contains the female, mentally and spiritually. In the beginning, it is the female‘s task to protect and nurture the male, so that later on he will be able to protect and nurture the female and her offspring –who become the next generation, and repeat the cycle. The circumcision program breaks this fundamental contract, by aborting the proper development of the male. Again, when women attempt to use their power deliberately, the result is destruction. It is not exactly an accident that the #1 feminist ―issue‖ is abortion–the abortion–the supreme act of irresponsibility, whose apparent ―necessity‖ arises directly out of the female‘s inability to control her own unconscious power. Notice that feminists never speak of their ―right to choose‖ not to engage in the activity which results in ―unplanned‖ pregnancy. If they were able/willing to ―plan‖ at that end, abortion would never be ―necessary.‖ But they take sex as an unavoidable, unquestionable given, because apparently they are unable to restrain their impulses. Quote: "Sometimes they would refuse to assist in circumcisions and  sometimes they would form groups within the hospitals to function as conscientious objectors to the procedure."  This is interesting. So far as I‘m aware, the only place nurses have organized to resist circumcision is here in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where about a dozen years ago some two dozen nurses at the local hospital stepped out as ―conscientious ― conscientious objectors.‖ objectors. ‖ It was their action which brought the issue into public view here, which eventually e ventually resulted in my reliving the experience myself, which … well, it‘s a long story. They remain a continually persecuted minority in their place of work. Certainly there are ―some women who are working for what is just‖; but they remain very few. And, to my mind, ―what is just‖ is not really the point; it‘s a lot deeper, more fundamental than that. ―Justice,‖ again, is a concept, a product of the intellect, the ―male‖ side of  human consciousness. It‘s abstract, cerebral. What I‘m interested in is women realizing that the present trend is not functional; it just won‘t work. Unless what they really want is more suffering. I don‘t bother to argue with women about ―justice‖ or ―fairness‖ because I understand that that that isn‘t what really motivates them. The female is fundamentally practical, the ultimate pragmatist. Only when she

realizes on a level below, and prior to, conscious thought, that what she is doing isn‘t working, will she change. This is why I rather think the disease must be allowed to run its course. They want it all? If that‘s what they want, nothing men can do will stop them, so might as well quit resisting resi sting and let them do it. Just go fishing, I say. Let them stuff themselves until they choke on it. ―Ne ver argue with a woman‖ is not just an old joke; it is really the wisdom of  wise men of old. To carry it off, though, a man must know himself and be in control of himself. In short, he must be a man, not an overgrown mama‘s boy–which boy–which is what nearly all of us are these days. Including, I will add, myself: only in my 50s have I gotten some clarity on what was done to me (and not done for me) in c hildhood and youth, and begun to try to figure out how to grow myself up, in the midst of a culture which does its best in every way to discourage me in this endeavor. A culture totally dominated and run by women. Who clearly do not understand that one hand does not benefit by cutting off the other.