Ladyfur

This may well meander a little. An anonymous poster turned up to give his two-cents worth of personal distaste to my earlier post denouncing the shaving of the pussies & then later to say how 'gross' the hair that grows under girls arms is. My reply grew somewhat volumous (yes I know it's not a proper word but it pleases me) so I'm posting it here instead as a follow-up:


I see these arguments being played out over & over again on the internet, often getting more & more heated & vitriolic, & I don't want to fall into that trap here. Personally, I like a little ladyfur there. In my experience there's all sorts of amazing pheromones - if that's what they are - that disappear once hair is scraped away, so the smell of a shaven armpit can be a turn-off for me.

Be that as it may, the greater point of the post was how this issue is a perfect opportunity to observe how transient & artificially created so many of our most firmly-held personal preferences actually are. This should be obvious, to all, of course, because it's easily observable if we only just open our eyes & look around this great big world, at all the wildly differing beliefs people hold in it. But somehow people never seem to do that for very long, & even when they do just for a moment, they never turn that gaze upon themselves.

If you lived a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, or a hundred thousand years ago - any other time in human history, in other words - you almost certainly would not find hair growing where it's meant to grow on a grown woman 'gross' at all. Because to be revulsed by a woman in her natural state would mean you were revulsed by all women, by the entirety of womankind. And so would never desire anyone enough to get laid.

Or another way of thinking about it: If you were stranded on a desert island with a collection of the most beautiful supermodels you can dream of, within a fortnight all of them would have the hair come back under their arms & around their sexes, just as you would also have grown a beard, because that's nature, that's how we are when we are left alone in our natural state.

Think about that. Are you really saying you would no longer desire the HB10 after a couple of days & the stubble started to show through? If so, doesn't that mean you believe that what we are in our natural state is wrong? Do you really want that to be the way you view the world? Do you really want that to be the way you view yourself?

*

What interests me most about this, as with the bizarre practice of American (non-Jewish) circumcision, which I've also raged about recently, is how new & demonstrably fabricated it is, & yet how quickly & widely accepted it has become, with almost no dissenting voices. They both have taken root in really only the past hundred years, & primarily - or at least initially - in America. Why? Why America?

"The society that loses its grip on the past is in danger, for it produces men who know nothing but the present, and who are not aware that life had been, and could be, different from what it is."

- Aristotle

The story of the 20th century (& beyond, up til the present day) is the story of the human race's move into the imagination, away from the real, actual, physical world & into the virtual, transient, manufactured & fake. It is predominantly American culture which has brought this about, the birthplace of modern advertising & the ugly consumerism now colonizing the rest of the human planet. For the story of America - modern America, at least - is that of the triumph of the artificial, temporary & disposable over the real, vital & eternal.

A rock star friend of mine once told me he couldn't make sense of the USA, & refused to play there, the place just creeped him out. It seemed to him, he said, "the white man hit the ground running". What he meant by that was there were no roots, no connection to the spot where you are standing, no real history or shared traditions that weren't imported from somewhere else across the sea. Everything there is so new that the streets in New York don't even have names, just numbers, & they are laid out straight, on a mathematical grid, rather than winding around like live roots the way they do in the old European cities of Dublin, Venice, London, Paris, York, Athens or even Rome. The place names all borrowed from somewhere else: New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York...

I can't help but think that under those circumstances, selling inessential, fabricated goods & beliefs to the masses must be considerably easier than to a tribe in the rainforest or a Bedouin tent. You can't sell snow to an Eskimo. They know who they are. If you don't know what is real, where your food comes from, what you really need to survive, then people can sell you anything. They can make you do anything. And that's what has progressively become the norm the past hundred years or so - again, due to the rise of America as the post-war empire. It's not surprising such a society should become the birthplace of fake tits, botox, cosmetic circumcision, labiaplasty & the shaven pussy.

*

Let me try steer this back to the point:

The desire to fuck, particularly in men, is universal & overwhelming, & the basic mechanics of that biological imperative can't really be tampered with too much without it interfering with the survival of the human race. But the trimmings - the arbitrary individual preferences - are inessential enough to be shaped & manipulated by a society whichever way prominent voices within it choose without any immediately catastrophic repercussions. So, you can make people think sex is dirty & sinful, just so long as you give them a get-out clause where sex is allowed (marriage). You can place limits upon men's natural biological drive to spread their seed as widely as possible but you can't make the whole society of men not want to have sex at all. As long as there is some kind of outlet for the shoots of grass to break through the cement, life can still go on, & whatever you've laid on top of it will seem the most natural thing in the world.

Again, the same with circumcision: if the Rabbi or the 'doctor' took an extra half-inch off: no more Jews or Americans. But take only a little less & those same Jewish & American boys don't feel there is anything unusual at all in having their genitals mutilated as infants. They don't - can't - feel that they're missing anything, any sensations etc, because they've never known anything else. And no-one ever told them they shouldn't have to need to use hand-cream to beat off without it hurting.

*



Most people, of course, are no more complicated than sheep in the choices they make & the causes they support. The herd mentality makes people defend beliefs & positions they never chose. 'Outraged monarchists' will defend the Queen, who never did anything for them, stole their land, resources & money, keeping them as peasants. She doesn't even know those individuals are alive & yet they're ready to die for her - not for the dream of something she stands for, something she represents, just for her, just... because. Because... that's what we do here. Nothing more complicated than dogs defending their masters. The thing is, though, leave anything around for three generations or more & it will come to seem not only normal & ordinary, but an inviolable fact of reality, & one that needs to be defended at all costs, perhaps even with our lives.

The same goes with religion: almost every Christian I've ever met is utterly incapable of recognizing that they would be holding equally passionate but entirely opposing views on, say, Islam, if they had only been born in Morocco, Iran, or Afghanistan, all of which are more than 99% Muslim.

But, of course, they would, & so would everyone else they know - what are the odds it could be otherwise? But still they believe that their set of assumptions, the set of assumptions they were brought up with, which only make sense within their particular culture & over a particular period of time, are the one & only Truth.

*

In any culture you lived you would find women you desired & want to be with. The cultural norms of this specific age are temporary, in this instance only 20 years in the case of the scraping of the punanis, & shaven armpits are only really as old as Hollywood. These societal norms are arbitrary & have no actual value or meaning in themself. We could just as easily have been made to find eyelashes or fingernails ugly & unsightly, & so be offered the opportunity to rip them out by the roots at beauty salons.(For a fee, of course, but then beauty comes at a price. In this culture, anyway). I'm asking you to see, Anon, that much of what seems to be your own revulsion is societally created. It doesn't belong to you, even though it very much feels that way.

We all believe things we have never questioned. We all have beliefs we never chose.

If we take that as our starting point, we can at least begin to attempt to approach the universe as it is, & perhaps start to make a little sense of it. As long as we cling to rigid, codified ideologies, the only thing we can be assured of is that we will never even begin. We may not be able to transcend fully the set of neuroses we were told were normal for the society we were born into but we can do our best not to pass those hang-ups onto the next generation.

We can blindly accept the propaganda of our times & location or question how we got to where we now are. Thinking about why we think the way we do, asking ourselves 'What is this in front of me? Beyond what I have read, beyond what I have been told, what am I actually seeing here?' seems to me a far more beneficial occupation of one's time than illusion & blind obedience, & the only way we know of to liberate ourselves from that game, that lab-rat maze.

It's funny the things that can set you to thinking.

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

Okay, so two things: first a piece by Carrie Lukas that was published in The Wall Street Journal about this time last year, that I thought bore another look-see. At the time it predictably came in for quite a lot of criticism from feminist quarters, though I took a little look & as far as I can see there was no substantial argument against Lukas' figures or basic premise, just a few angry women saying 'childcare & office work are not easy jobs' - no facts, no figures, no reasoned debate, nothing. 
So that was easy.

And I was just getting ready to post that when I came across this video of Thomas Sowell effortlessly taking apart feminist claims of discrimination in a television interview from way back in the 1970's. What strikes me is how the argument used in both pieces is basically the same, & the figures that don't add up today didn't add up then either. In other words: the Pay-Gap today is a myth, & perhaps it always was.

*
So anyway, first the video, then the Lukas piece, 40 years apart.




There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap by Carrie Lukas

Tuesday is Equal Pay Day—so dubbed by the National Committee for Pay Equity, which represents feminist groups including the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women's Organizations and others. The day falls on April 12 because, according to feminist logic, women have to work that far into a calendar year before they earn what men already earned the year before.

In years past, feminist leaders marked the occasion by rallying outside the U.S. Capitol to decry the pernicious wage gap and call for government action to address systematic discrimination against women. This year will be relatively quiet. Perhaps feminists feel awkward protesting a liberal-dominated government—or perhaps they know that the recent economic downturn has exposed as ridiculous their claims that our economy is ruled by a sexist patriarchy.

The unemployment rate is consistently higher among men than among women. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 9.3% of men over the age of 16 are currently out of work. The figure for women is 8.3%. Unemployment fell for both sexes over the past year, but labor force participation (the percentage of working age people employed) also dropped. The participation rate fell more among men (to 70.4% today from 71.4% in March 2010) than women (to 58.3% from 58.8%). That means much of the improvement in unemployment numbers comes from discouraged workers—particularly male ones—giving up their job searches entirely.

Men have been hit harder by this recession because they tend to work in fields like construction, manufacturing and trucking, which are disproportionately affected by bad economic conditions. Women cluster in more insulated occupations, such as teaching, health care and service industries.
Yet if you can accept that the job choices of men and women lead to different unemployment rates, then you shouldn't be surprised by other differences—like differences in average pay.

Feminist hand-wringing about the wage gap relies on the assumption that the differences in average earnings stem from discrimination. Thus the mantra that women make only 77% of what men earn for equal work. But even a cursory review of the data proves this assumption false.

The Department of Labor's Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.

Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.

Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.

Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks—or even reverses—when relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. Given that women are outpacing men in educational attainment, and that our economy is increasingly geared toward knowledge-based jobs, it makes sense that women's earnings are going up compared to men's.

Should we celebrate the closing of the wage gap? Certainly it's good news that women are increasingly productive workers, but women whose husbands and sons are out of work or under-employed are likely to have a different perspective. After all, many American women wish they could work less, and that they weren't the primary earners for their families.

Few Americans see the economy as a battle between the sexes. They want opportunity to abound so that men and women can find satisfying work situations that meet their unique needs. That—not a day dedicated to manufactured feminist grievances—would be something to celebrate.


Ms. Lukas is executive director of the Independent Women's Forum.

Titanic Day

A little post-feminist song to commemorate the sinking of the Titanic, 100 years ago today.

Feminists Killed Kurt Cobain

Feminists killed Kurt Cobain

Men my age are all the same

They hate themselves & feel ashamed

For what they are & cannot change

Little heads filled up with lies

Raised only to apologize

For thousand-year conspiracies

In gender-studies histories

Put down at home, drugged up at school

Helped to sit still & follow rules

Help follow what their teachers say

Look, see how well the girls behave

Men chastised, demonized,

Healthy males pathologized

A man is just a dirty ape

Longing, lust, desire: all rape

Your body is a loaded gun

And all that it has done is wrong

Girls demands are sacrosanct

Boys complaints beneath contempt

A ‘good’ man knows his sex is bad

The life of ease that he has had

A good man turns his back on men

Puts women first in everything

White knights, on their hobbled steeds

Still cling to laws of chivalry

Passed over by the queens they save

A joke to all the other slaves

Ashamed of all their endless wealth,

Those riches that they’ve never held,

The privilege we’ve never felt

Only endless shame

All of us the sons of Cain

Feminists killed Kurt Cobain.

Feminists killed Kurt Cobain

Who’d rather die than bear that blame

That curse he carried from the womb

Still with him laid out in the tomb

He screamed onstage & pierced his flesh

Put on make-up, wore a dress

Numbed the pain when he could score

Then shot his face across the floor

Feminists killed Kurt Cobain

Men my age are all the same

Generations X & Y

Hate themselves & want to die

Too late for them, too late for me

We’ve been what we were made to be

Can’t turn back, can’t start again

But then no-one can, I wonder when

The tide will turn, the waves will part

Our lives were laid out from the start

A man today’s no easy ride:

Three-fourths of all the suicides

Nine-tenths of all the deaths at work

And more in war, dead in the dirt

Under hateful ideology

Hatred becomes ordinary:

A man in pain should make us glad

A man in pain should make us laugh

Each loss for men, each tragedy

Crowed over like a victory

A victory for who? Are we

not one? Are we not family?

Does our thirst not match your need?

If you cut us, don’t we bleed?

Don’t we grieve, just like you do?

Your loved ones torn away from you?

We used to walk in sunny glades

& share the cup of blessed rain

Warm each other winter nights

Watch children play through summer’s light

Work together in the fields

Share the bounty of their yield

Stand together, sacrifice

& not be bought for any price

Now the girls get told get what you can

After all, he’s just a man

You’re right to think it’s right to take

Yes you go girl, you make him pay

The girls get taught they must get on

Like work empowered anyone:

To sell your life for dollar bills

Taking calls & stacking shelves

In offices & factories

Fulfilment sought in drudgery

I’m dreaming of a brighter age

Where all are loved, where all are praised

For what they are, what nature made

Its words are heard & ways obeyed

Where prison rape is not a joke

To decent, well-raised gentlefolk

And mutilated genitals

A horrifying spectacle

No matter which land they occur

Regardless if they’re his or hers

I’m dreaming, & I dream alone

This world’s insane, as we all know

I sit & wait, I hope, I pray

The human race will find its way,

Again

Feminists killed Kurt Cobain

Men my age are all the same

They hate themselves & feel ashamed

For what they are & cannot change

Too late for them, too late for me

I can’t say what is going to be

This age will pass, & all within

& these words too, & me, & him

Where to next, nobody knows

The light is dim. But still it glows

(February 20, 1967 – April 5, 1994)

The Invisible Man On The Donkey

GirlWritesWhat taking apart patriarchal theory & the feminist historical narrative of domestic violence. It doesn't get much better than this:

Feminarchy

My response to a nice piece by Leap over at Staged Reality, where he asked "Does Feminism = Anarchy?"

Feminism emerged from, & is essentially a perversion of, Marxist theory, & is best understood (politically, at least) within that framework. In the late sixties, going into the seventies, women who were involved in university campus Marxism decided they could no longer stand to work alongside the men they were supposed to be trying to bring about revolution with & decided to start a new movement of their own, keeping almost all the same concepts but simply replacing CLASS with GENDER as the explanation for everything. That itself pretty much explains all feminist theory the past 40 years.

Coming from a country that still has a monarchy(!), the concept of anarchy is actually pretty cool - all it means is 'without a ruler', after all, & that is surely the wish of all freedom-loving peoples the world over. The dream of democracy, the dream of socialism, & the dream of anarchy all came about as blueprints for possible ways of re-ordering society after the removal of the monarchy, & actually have huge amounts in common. They have only come to be enemies because of the machinery & ideology that sprung up around them once the dream had been written down. It happens in politics as it happens in religion, as it happens in all closed, dead systems, once the thinking (& questioning) has stopped.

Most of my adult life I've moved in anarchistic, 'progressive-thinking' circles, working for what I hoped was the common good alongside people I thought were seeking truth the same as me & wanting the best for all. One of the hardest things I've had to wrestle with since taking the red pill has been the realization of how all left-wing political thinking - which I otherwise see many benefits of - is utterly rotten with totalitarian feminist dogma. And feminism is, after all, a hate movement. So you see my problem.

There is no space for any kind of debate upon whether feminism is a beneficial force within an anarchist or socialist forum, which is sad because it is those people, more than any others, the people wanting most passionately & generously to bring about change, that I would most like to speak with & help develop a new, post-feminist language of the sexes.

My present position is that anarchistic principles can work - I've seen them work - on a small level, within groups of a few hundred people, but to implement them on a national level is very likely unworkable. I tend to think the ideal would be to have small groups - tribes, really - of self-governing peoples who interact democratically on a national level, with one spokesperson representing them at yearly/monthly meetings etc. Really not too far from the dream of American democracy, when you think about it, just with less of the heinous, bloated corruption & capitalistic greed that ruined humanity's greatest stab yet at utopia.

Rape Propaganda

As an addendum of sorts to that last piece, here is an interesting article by Duncan Idaho over at Eternal Bachelor. Hope he doesn't mind the callous thievery.

Feminists love to rant and rave about how men are all rapists, potential or otherwise. Naturally, this is absurd, as they well know.

In fact, the idea of young women being raped is one thing guaranteed to infuriate men and get them rolling up their sleeves and ready to hit someone (note that I’m defining rape as forcibly having sex with a someone without their consent, not the feminist definition of rape, which is where a woman consents but regrets it the next day, or the Andrea Dworkin definition of rape, which is any sex between a man and a woman regardless of whether the latter consents or not.)

The outrage men feel about women getting raped is utilized with great efficiency in propaganda. The extreme-right-wing British National Party recently spread rumours around that Asian gangs in Bradford were organizing gang-rapes of white women. The KKK whipped whole communities into a lynch-happy frenzy by telling horrifying tales of how black men prowled around raping white girls. Anti-semitic groups in Russia have been uttering ominous claims that Jewish gangs are supposedly abducting poor Russian girls to be taken to work as sex-slaves in Israel, and the Iraqi insurgents try to bolster anti-US sentiments by producing fake evidence of American GIs raping defenceless Iraqi girls.

All this is through the simple knowledge that – assuming they believe them – men will be outraged by such tales. Claim that a certain ethnic or religious group has a desire to rape women, and tell them that this group is eying up “our women” then you will get men more liable to feel hate towards that group.

In Birmingham a few months ago, the rumour of a 14-year-old black girl having been gang-raped by Asian men lead to rioting between the black and Asian communities, resulting in two deaths and dozens of injuries. Tensions had been simmering between the communities for a while, but it exploded into violence just by the rumour of a rape that almost certainly never happened.

Likewise, talk of the enemy raping “our women” works well in war. This does have some basis in truth, as rape is often carried out by victorious invaders, especially in the old days before War Crimes tribunals came about. It is rape that is so frequently emphasized and exaggerated in wartime propaganda more than any other atrocity.

The Japanese atrocities in Nanking during World War II included the murder of over 300,000 civilians and the sexual assault of about 80,000 women, but it is largely the sexual assaults that are often concentrated on in Chinese accounts of the atrocities (and indeed they gave the whole terrible affair the name “The Rape Of Nanking“) because the idea of Japanese soldiers raping women and girls ensures an even greater amount of anti-Japanese sentiment can be whipped up than “just” the idea of Japanese soldiers killing civilians.

Tell men the enemy are “raping our women” – or planning on doing so – and whether that “our” is translated as female relatives or just women of the same nationality or religion, and you will have most of the male population grabbing swords or guns and marching off to risk their lives. It works wonders.

It is very rare to find a man who genuinely thinks that tying women up and screwing them against their will is okay, and such men are naturally shunned if they make their beliefs known and imprisoned if they act upon them (significantly, of course, rapists are the regarded as the lowest-of-the-low in prison; even their fellow criminals do not like them.)

Yet on and on feminists rant and splutter about how all us men are somehow in favour of rape. They insist we’re all evil rapists-in-waiting, that there is an epidemic of rape in society, that teenaged girls should even be wary of their own 11-year-old brothers lest they want to ravish them with their evil willies, and furthermore they try to give the impression that the supposedly small minority of us men who don’t regularly beat up and rape women at least approve of such activities.

With the exception of hardcore lunatics like the thankfully-dead Andrea Dworkin, not even feminists really believe this. They know damn well that the majority men are outraged by the idea of rape. They rely on this fact to push through their anti-male laws (like VAWA in the US) and to ensure plenty of tax-payer cash flows to misandrist feminist organisations that help break up families. They know that exaggerating claims of rape – by either coming up with absurdly loose definitions of rape, such as a woman who regrets consensual sex a few days after the event, or by just coming up with utterly fabricated statistics – will infuriate male judges and politicians and get them to engage Chivalrous Mode and start coming down hard on the supposedly rape-happy male population.

This is why you get organizations like Men Against Rape (a rather loathsome name for a group because it implies that men who do not join them must therefore be for rape.) These guys may mean well but they’ve just been suckered into the propaganda of feminists and their bullshit statistics. Their outrage against rape has been manipulated by feminists so that they are as paranoid about the idea of an “epidemic of rape” as feminists are.

Feminists know damn well that if they claim that there are tens of thousands of unreported rapes on college campuses a year then, without even bothering to ask for evidence, men will be extra-fearful for their daughters and will join feminists in demanding women-only areas in colleges. Feminists know that if they claim that it is very common for men to spike drinks in bars and clubs with rape-drugs then you will have men becoming intensely protective of their girlfriends to the point of paranoia and will support the idea of taxpayer’s cash being poured into feminist anti-rape organizations, creating more lucrative jobs for the girls. Feminists know that if they make out that the majority of men who are acquitted of rape are actually guilty and only walk out of court free (and with wicked Patriarchal Oppressor grins on their faces) because the law is stacked against victims, then you will get men – furious at the idea of their sister or mother being raped and the rapist getting away with it – happy to accept laws being pushed through that shred men’s rights in rape cases and force men to prove their innocence against a woman’s word, even though these same men may one day find themselves the victims of such anti-male laws.

Most feminists don’t really think men are all rapists, but they do know that we hate rapists, and so they claim the former to utilize the latter, simply in order to make us hate ourselves as much as they hate us.

Female Self-Interest Vs. The Pursuit Of Wisdom

There's a subject I've been wanting to look at & write on for awhile now, though it's something that is hard to put into words, & is such an emotional minefield to try speak openly in, I'm not sure I ever will, or maybe this is me doing that right now.

Loosely speaking, it concerns the differences between women & men & their differing approaches to the larger truths - & of the drive to follow those truths at the expense of all else, & regardless of the cost to the self & for no other reason or reward than itself.

And how it is that women, as a general rule, have little inclination to do that, which is why women (again, as a general rule) don't start religions, or write symphonies, or start revolutions in art or science or philosophy, & the only political movement begun by women in the history of the world is feminism, by far the most selfish, short-sighted & dishonest political philosophy ever devised by humankind, demonizing one whole half of the human race while pandering to the herd instinct of the other & shamelessly lying to them both.

The need for group identity seems to me to be stronger as a rule women, which does raise troubling questions when thinking politically, (whoah! here we are at that minefield I was telling you about!) as it may be that women are, as a demographic, more easily manipulated by those looking for power - as historically they have been - by appealing to their own self-interest & immediate concerns of themselves & their children rather than higher, selfless ideals for the good of all.
 
Men have always been manipulated too, as demonstrated by all the rape propaganda used by every side, for every cause, in pretty much every war there's ever been. Through their innate concern for women, men can be made to go die in a trench, start fights, organize lynch mobs, risk their own lives & safety, & vote for policies which have directly adverse effects upon themselves & put their own interests last.

But the same does not work in reverse: women will not risk their lives for those of men they don't know. Women will rarely risk their lives for anyone but their own children. This, of course, is simply nature, just the way we evolved to be, & women's innate drive for self -preservation (& hence the preservation of their offspring) is one of the things that has made humanity the most dominant species on earth.

The point is, there's a difference, & a double standard. And it's one I don't actually mind being there at all - like most men, it is innate in me to want to put the women & children first, but we live in a society where that noble imbalance is ignored & even shouted down every single day. We are instructed to act like there are no differences between men & women, even though we all know that there are. We act like it is a sin to even acknowledge this double standard, & keep giving even more help & assistance & special treatment to women than we were doing already, all the while acting as though the opposite is true, that women are oppressed & held back by that black nightmarish fantasm the feminists dreamt up & called 'The Patriarchy'.

What the feminists call 'Patriarchy' is, of course, to all intents & purposes simply 'civilization' - all civilization - as there has never been found any society either now or in all recorded history, anywhere in the world, any society in which men did not hold the majority of the positions of responsibility. Given our differing biological make-ups & requirements, it has always made the most sense to most peoples to configure their societies that way.

If men really were the greedy, heartless oppressors of women depicted by feminism, they would surely never have voted for the enfranchisement of women in the first place. But the important point is, since then, women - the entire female demographic - have never used that vote even once to aid 'men' as a group. Men are still popularly seen by perhaps the majority of women to be The Enemy, even the men they live & work alongside. This sexism is considered healthy, harmless, even funny, & all society encourages it.

Women never vote against their own self-interest. And, because of how much men innately want to both please & protect them, they have never had to.

I'm not saying women en masse can't be noble or self-sacrificing or whatever, only that those muscles may perhaps have atrophied over time through lack of use. Evolutionarily, they became inessential for women to survive, & besides, they had men to do all that hard work, & make all those hard decisions, for them.

Justice, Liberty, Equality - civilization - these are all male creations, borne out of male modes of thought. On the other hand, Comfort, Kindness, Consensus decision-making, Community... society (the social world).. these may well be less easy to define, undervalued female contributions, along with perhaps even language itself, or at least the language of personal relationships. All these are a much-needed tempering force to balance out the strict, ascetic male principles that created working human civilization, but when left unchecked, or even encouraged, as they have been the past hundred years  - & especially the last 40 - they can themselves become a detrimental & destructive force.

Getting back to the point - such as it is - there are innate, clearly observable, evolutionary-based differences between men & women that skew much rational dialogue between them. Every now & again I am reminded that we really might be from Mars & Venus, though sharing the same language. Repeatedly, I think I'm having a nice, reasonable discussion, pooling resources, sharing ideas on politics or philosophy, & suddenly a woman stands up, face white with fury & tears in her eyes, marches out of the room & slams the door, goes off to break things in the kitchen & never talks to me again. This shit really happens to me. I remember one woman, the girlfriend of a friend of mine I gently questioned about some of her (frankly hateful) feminist statements, pushed herself back in her seat, crossed her arms & said (to her man) "okay, I'm not saying any more until your mate gets his gender politics put right".

And I thought: 'That's genius! What she is saying is: "I REFUSE TO ARGUE WITH YOU UNTIL YOU AGREE WITH ME!" What a perfect method of debate! No-one could ever make you feel even the littlest bit uncomfortable in your beliefs ever again!'

Anyway, the maddening thing is the women that do this usually don't realize, or refuse to realize that they are even doing it, often vehemently denying they are becoming emotional while in the same breath attacking personally & ending all discussion. On the internet, especially, I find girls continually derailing reasoned discourse to interject ad hominem attacks, use shaming language, & appealing to others around to come to their aid. Making the impersonal personal. Women often seem to have a harder time than men seeing that there could be a difference between the wider truth of a situation & their own felt experience, or what their particular group mind has told them they should believe.

I never used to think this way. I used to do my very best to believe women & men were interchangeable units & that the only reason women as a group hadn't been able to create anything much of great or lasting value was because of a universal conspiracy against them to keep them down.

I know! Crazy, right? Well, I was young.

I do see some extraordinary women who seem to me possessed by genius but there's not a lot of them, & every single one of them is working in a field opened up by men, within a conceptual framework invented by men. Genius is male, & the initial spark of creativity, courage & invention emanates almost exclusively from the masculine.

The first person to get to the North Pole, for instance, or even the moon, or to sail a balloon around the world, was always going to be a man. Later, once it had been shown it could be done, repeatedly, & in relative safety, then a woman would climb into the cockpit of a plane, or fly a hot air balloon, or go up into space. The Wright sisters getting that crate off the ground was never going to be a possible future, regardless of differences in opportunity or the structure of society. And if we try to look rationally & objectively at the weight of evidence throughout history, we must recognize that as a simple truth, beyond any conspiracy theories of women's oppression. I'm not trying to rub anyone's nose in it by saying this, I guess all I'm wanting to do is try get women & the men in western society to consciously acknowledge these complimentary halves of the whole & to factor them into their models of the world. We need to be able to speak openly of the things we can see with our own eyes to be manifestly true.

*

There's an Australian YouTuber, Kelly Jones, who has gone into some of this in a few of her pieces recently, usually from the perspective of a psychological analysis of religious experience - which is of course interesting in itself, but this video in particular I felt went some way in expressing much of what I've been thinking myself on these things. Check her out, she has soothing voice & a sharper mind than mine:

And this one addresses matters even more bluntly: