MAN/WOMAN WAVES

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

BIBLICAL MALE PORK ‑‑NATURAL "DOUBLE STANDARD" -- MONOGAMY & DO YOUR THING ‑‑ THE FORGOTTEN UNCHANGEABLE ‑‑ THE MATING GAME ‑‑ VIVE LA DIFFERENCE ‑‑ THE CROTCH AND THE MYTH ‑‑ PURITAN NYMPHOMANIA ‑ ‑ SOPHISTICATED PRIMITIVES ‑‑ MAN/WOMAN GUTTER ‑‑ RAPE RAINBOW ‑‑ WHERE WOMAN BELONGS ‑‑ FEMINISM TRAPS ‑‑ THE ABORTION ARENA ‑‑ GOOD OLD SEX RELIGION ‑‑ FEMIRANHAS ‑‑ OPEN SEASON ON THE WHITE MALE ‑‑ UNISEX LANGUAGE ‑‑ DEVOTION OR EXTINCTION ‑‑ GOD IN DRAG ‑‑ MONA LISA TELLS ‑‑ THE SIMPLE COMPLEXITY‑‑ MAN/WOMAN VS. REALITY -EVE'S PRIMORDIAL SUPERIORITY -- SCRAMBLED THOUG HTS

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

BIBLICAL MALE PORK

GENESIS, 2,22: "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man"

GENESIS, 3,16: "Unto the woman he [the Lord] sa id, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth chil­dren ; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he s hall rule over thee".

The sacr ed writings of the Jewish, Christian and Moslem religions grant only a guilty and subordinate position to the woman. The Cat holic worship of the "Mo ther of God" suggests a genital focusing in calling her "the Virgin Mary", but it put woman on an altar.

The cult of the Virgin Mary, and the promotion of woman to an exalted positio n in our Western World, resulted refinements we gained from the Moslem s after the 12th cen tury, as a consequence of t he Crusades.

Conventionally, such a result would seem absurd, considering the su bordinate position of the Muslim woman as a person and sex-mate. But it is in the Judeo‑Christian culture that obedience, devotion and sex are considered on a "subservient" level, in contradiction with the Christian glorification of common hu mility, bu t in accordance with the Christian dis approval of sexual ple asure as such, and taming the woman for it.

As it often happens from our fickle interpretation of reality, our Crusaders went to conquer and were conquered by a more refined culture; the Christians wanted to teach the Moslems and learned from them instead.

Our "politically and culturally correct" ideas of today (1993) are a morass of sophisticated primitivism affecting not only our society, but also the liberal humanities in American universities.

Just as Marxist materialism became an open enemy of the Christians, Adam's rib has become an ultra-feminist battle cry against Christianity.

Finally, the last and worst twist has come from the Islamists, who embalmed their culture in the quicksand of fanatical religionism, bound on the self-destructive doom of kill or enslave the "infidel" or be killed in the name of Allah.
According to their maniacal leaders, nothing will be acceptable other than the total destruction of the Western civilization.

NATURAL "DOUBLE STANDARD"           

We know too little of the why, what and how of the processes that produced us. Yet, as soon as we manage to use our limited faculties, we create values commensurate to our limitations, and measure reality with th em.
That tricks us into th e delusion that we know reality.

We distort the truth to fit the modes we can understand.

We laugh about the people who di d it in the past; future ge nerations will laugh not less ab out our present a ssumptions.

Take the fundamental subject of m an‑and‑woman relationship.

First, nature gave man and woman puberty as the beginning of life‑ generating capability.

Accordingly, man and woman can start copulating and reproducing at about 12‑15. They often do.

Then, the average woman cannot generate children after menopause (between 40 and 50).. Man can continue fruitful copulation for another 30‑40 years. So, a 50‑90 years old man must choose women under 35‑40 for a fertile marriage.

There goes man/woman equality: the average woman over 40 cannot start a family. Man can. A woman can give birth to a maximum of 25‑30 children in her entire life. A man can impregnate hundreds of women, and father as many children, every year.

A married man who wants to generate children when his wife is beyond menopause must impregnate a younger woman.

That is a powerful motivation for polygamy, not to mention adultery.

Polyandry has never succeeded, because a woman cannot produce more children with more than one man, whereas a man can generate the more children, the more wives he has.

Besides, if a woman is promiscuous, no one is sure who the child's father is.

A man can have one thousand wives, impregnate them all, and no one has any doubts about paternity and maternity if the loyalty of his wives is assured.

This is one of the reasons for the "double standard", which is indeed the most fair for both men and women, no matter how unpopular with the present generation.

The "equality" rationalization against the "double standard" gives woman a perverted advantage in deference to a wishful ideology against nature.

The question of promiscuity alone is an obvious clue.

The erotic temptation is biologically and culturally much stronger for man than for woman. Therefore, man's fall into temptation is more forgivable than woman's.

This alone carries a multitude of corollaries strong enough to consider even the most macho culture fairer than American gender- feminist's.

Main corollar y:        MONOGAMY & DO‑YOUR ‑THING
 

This is an oversimplified subject. 

Or it will be simple after we have eliminated the stereotyped notions.

Why does man demand exclusivity in sex from woman?
 

Random‑chosen rea sons:

(1) Man can copulate only a few times a day, or less. Woman can copulate scores of tim es daily.

Some prostitutes can copulate with over one hundred men in one day.

(2) Man can do it only with women who exc ite him. Otherwise, he can not even reach the nec essary erection. Woman can copulate wit h or without ple asure, awake or asleep, with anyone, whether she likes them or not.
Indeed, the less she fee ls it, the more frequently and the mo re men she can copulate with.

(3) For a normal man, physical attraction wit hout romantic love is suf ficient to seduce him into complete copulation. Woman's power to seduce him is so strong that he would make love with hundreds of women a day, if he had the physical possibility, and he would conce ive scores of children daily. A normal woman needs more enticement than pleasure to feel attrac ted to a man, since orgasm for her is vastly less significant than c onception. It seems that nature wants the man to be motivated by pleasure and the woman by whatever promotes evolutionary mating and childbearing.

That would make her the superior sex, but we ar e not to mention it.

(4) A woman with (but also w ithout) the same sexua l desire as a man can be more promi scuous than any man could possibly be. She would find it almost impossible to resist such t emptation with scores of men daily, although she cannot produce more than one child every 10‑12 months. Any husband, lover or child of such a woma n would find it impos sible to lead a normal family life with her.

This d ilemma is apparently at the root of the double standard.

Other reasons  (consequences of the above):

(5) Seducing a man is remarkably easier than seducing a woman. Therefore, it is much easier to forgive a man, without c ondoning the sin.

(6) A man's "sin" has no physical consequences on him personally.
A woman's "sin" can produce a child, namely a new life and the endless consequenc es connected with it for many years.

The enormity of these consequences is so unpredictable that the safest thing is to focus on the woman: classify the promiscuous woman as a prostitute (or non‑child-bearing, non-marriageable love professional, as in some ancient or new societies) and guide the wife/mother companion with limitations that cannot be distorted .

(7) Many reasons have been brought for the difference of male and female possessiveness toward their partner.
Two are seldom mentioned: as the male needs the female to satisfy his powerfu l sex urge, he fears s he may no longer be available if allowed free choice. for the average woman is not so desirous of sex as he is.

The woman, on the other hand, wants a decreed monogamy and forbidden promiscuity lest th e man could leave her when she grows ol der or less attractive.

We must also consider how "cle verly" nature has programmed us:

As we are desi gned to like sex for reproduction purposes, nature wants man to be sexually attracted to "beautiful" women : women w ith the attributes typically displayed between the beginning of puberty and the s tart of menopause.

Women, on the other hand, are programmed to almost disregard "handsomeness" and youth as the dominant motivations, because men can be fertile most ly until death.

This is a hurried expla nation of a very complex matter.

We may question the validity of that argumentation only b ecause of what we fail to mention.

Practically, all developed cultures have reached the same ‑or very similar‑ "double‑standard" co nclusion; this conf use most objections.

If we seek clues in the animal world, two interesting ape patte rns are loaded with meaning to be interreted:

(1) The gibbon is monogamous and lives in a patriarchal pattern.

(2) The chi mpanzee is sexually promiscuous and lives in a ociety.

It is not difficult to understand that monogamy and polygamy resolve the paternity question and conduce to a patriarch al arrangement.

Promiscuity and polyandry render paternity an unanswerable quest ion; therefore, matri archy is the natural outcome where only the woman can be the nucleus and head of a family

in which no one knows for sure ho the fa ther is.

Feminists would like it in princile, but, like normal women (the overwheming majority), men and children, they could not live with it, beside the fact that it would kill femnism faster than anything else.

THE FORGOTTEN UNCHANGEABLE           
 

Nature shows the essentials:

Male bears, bulls, birds , apes, and most male mammals en gage in fierce fights to gain the exclusive right to mate with the available females. They are c ompelled by an instin ct, which say s that o nly one male may copulate with all available females, after defeating all other males.

The male who fights is also the one who hunts, dominates, leads and protects, like the human male who c ourts the female, goes to war, fights, bu il ds, composes, leads, creates.
 

The primordial females of the above mentioned spec ies wait impartially for the outcome of the fi ghts and obligingly co pulate with the victorious male.

This results in h er best interest, fo r it assures the best progeny, at least in the evolutionary sense.

A fter copulation, the females undergoes pregnancy, delivery, feeding, raising and nurturing of the y oung: "domestic" tasks.

The male is not affected by copulation. So, h e keeps hunting, protecting, leading..., a nd fighting for the rig ht to copulat e with the next batch of f emales...: competitive tasks that become le ading, building and creative tasks in our pr esent so ciety.

I f we analyze th e wh ole scenario, the above desc ribed pattern is only possible, in a primordial society, if woman is born with an instinctive hostility toward the adult man. Reason is not enough to protec t the pregnan t or otherwise vulnerable female body ag ainst contamination from promiscuity.

When the natural woman has chosen (or has been chosen by) a man, she caters to him by subservience or other forms of nurturing, so that he p rotects not only her survival, but also the in tegrity of her child bearing organism.
It cannot be otherwise, for independence", "rights" and any other oblig ation are not a suffic ient defense against the continuing e fforts of normal men to sed uce normal w omen.

The f amily-based civili zed society is too shak y if female promiscuity is a pursued female "right".

In the original life proce ss, for millions of years, there has been neither time nor reason fo r anything else.

Moreover, anyone who w ould have talked about gender superiority, inferiority, equality, or rights to our distant antecede nts would have made a hole in the water.

Reveal to a lioness, or to a female antelope, elephant or "natural" woman that she is wr ongly classified as inferior to the male of the species, and de prived of her rights...  Sh e would consider the revelation as ludicrous as the finding that a r ock can not sing any better than a finger.

The matte r is ridiculously insignifica nt, compared to life and death, family or individual survival, food search and storage, mating fights and selection, copulation rituals and consummati on, pregnancy, birth, raising the young, training them into independenc e and struggle for survival...

Superiority, equality, racial prejudice, sexism, chauvinism are frivolous wastes of time for peo ple who are unable t o focus on more seriou s matters such as survival, education, nutrition, sc ience, health, cultural, sci entific and artistic matt ers.

On one extreme, a woman consumed by the passion t o compose an immortal symphony, o r immersed in the for mulation of a cosmic mathematical theory couldn't care less about fe male equality and rights, as expounded by the "feminazis" (label presumably created by professor Thomas Hazlett, of th e University of California in Davis) or politicians, who are often on the extremes of mediocrity and uselessness.

T he creative woman would advocate education as the solution. Those who label her "in ferior" could never understand how absurd the label is, unless they a cquire the necessary knowledge.

Legislating t he wished change in their attitude is apparently faster, but ultimately much longer than the time they need to learn the truth.

It is the feminazi who perpetuates inequality and chauvinism through imposition of deviant equality and divisive rights.

THE MATING GAME

Probably,a our present ve rsion of the mating game started after the Jewish(?) invention of sin.

The players are man and woman .

Nature pulls the strings.

She loads man with blind sexual desire, and woman with maternity instinct.

Man is attracted by the female's appearance, as dictated by nature's reproduction requir ements.

A s stated before, it is not a coin cidence that the woman man finds most "sex y" has the age, and   the physical attributes most fitting fo r pregnancy, childd delivery and child‑raising.

It is a delusion to think t hat man makes the
"f ree and independent" decision of choosing the young and "beautiful" woman.
Choices based merely on hair or dress style, lips, eyes, legs e tc. can play an important role, but some have reasons we don't comprehend and some are temporary fashions (evolution may experiment also by hit and miss).

The anti-male submissive hostility of the primordial woman becomes almost unnecessary as civi lization advances. But it is not eliminated: it remains in her con sciousnes threshold and surfaces whenever a stimulus brings it up.

Sometimes it surfaces distorted into self destructiveness, as it does with the voc iferous minority of gender-feminists.

The criterion of today's "civilized" woman for choosing a ma n is more than just a "handsome" or "sexy" man to sustain her in pregnancy, mother

hood and the long child‑rearing years. While her erotic desire is much less intense, her need for sex is more pe rvading and endurin g for its consequences, while the mal e urge is temporarily extinguished after orgasm.

Because of her extensive requirements, woman shows the instinct to attract man already at an age before man starts desiring her.

When the adolescent man develops a conscious desire for the female body, he also develops the ability to display appreciation for her "total person", a conventional mean s to persuade her to cop ulate w ith him.

Woman, on the other hand, finds it necessary ‑or at least useful‑ to feign much more sexual desire than she actually feels (which was unnecessary in the primordial society, in which man simply grabbed woman and copulated; and she tolerated it) in order to obtain the man s he needs for reproduction and nurturing. Then, she has no trouble holding him in her power, if she cult ivates the skills to give him the pleasure he becomes addicted to.

Man has to do more than that to hold her in his "power". Originally, the sex impulse itself was the necessary and sufficient power that conquered woman and procreation.

When both are successful in convincing their mates of the authenticity of their displayed feelings, they have set each oth er up for trouble.

The woman is offended when the man rolls over and sleeps after copulatio n.

The man is disgusted when he discovers that the woman was "phony" when she claimed she coveted him erotically.

"Men are hypocritical pigs; all they want is sex..."

"Women are deceiving b itches...".

VIVE LA DIFFÉRENCE

Both convictions of an/woman equality and o f superiority of either are  surrogates for knowledge.

Where male superiori ty is the rule, one may accept it on the basis of muscular strength, or on the ba sis of the male's function to protect the child‑rearing woman.

Shrewd women may parad e male‑su tion to gain real advantages over the thankful male.

On the other hand, realistic people ignore the male‑supremacy convention and give prominence to the "b etter" individuals, re gardless of gender.

Such societies often have more female leaders (over men and women) than societies who observe the off icial cult of male/female equality.

In the latter, authentic male‑female equality is made impossible by the distorting misinterpretation of "equality" and "rights".      

In societies like America, where women demand equality with men, this very demand could betray a female complex of inferiority (with a defensive pretension of superior ity or equality), for one  wants to be equal only to those who are "better".

The gender feminists are just the kind of persons who would never accept equality with those they feel superior to.

Many men in the feminist camp are promiscuous foxes in the chicken coop.               

Men who campaign for feminism are often affected by a smug complex of male su periority.

Both creat e a degenerate male‑female hostility that is worsened by every feminist or macho remedy.

The argument that female libbers aim at men's rights, not at results, is only misleading, for their claims for equal rights irresis tibly slide into claims for equal results and demands to obtain them by rights instead of merits.

Here again, only the more simplistic members of such societies believe that gender equality or superiority can be generalized or meani ngful.

The more we delve in the problems of equality of man or woman, the more entangled we get into a snarl, for real equality, superiority and inferiority are extran eous to the man/woman reality.

Wherever man's superiority is accepted, it works because it cannot be taken seriously. Where male /female equality is the rule, it self-destructs because it takes itself too seriously.

There is a pers pective for woman superiority, but it is far beyond the simplistic feminist and macho comprehension.

It was the equality and independence fetishism that s tarted the confusion.

The belief that man and woman must be equal, independent and self‑sufficie nt individuals "freed" man and woman from mutual responibility, but trapped the woman into the inextricability of her vital need for a man to fulfill her womanhood.

Nothing galls a man|
hatiing "femiranha" more.

This is most unfortunate, because man needs no woman to ful

zfill what is now considered "independent manhood", a macho delusion.

This is also the harbinger of woman's resentment and complexed "inferiority", brought about by the equality and independence fetish.

Woman can only be "inferior" to man from a perspective of macho parameters, as well as man "inferior" to woman on feminazi  parameters.

T he evidence that almost nowhere in the w orld woman enjoys t he kind of legally enforced equality and independence advocated by almost onl y American gender feminism is an overwhelming message against that very goal.

If equality of mutual dedication and unconditional devotion are chosen in place of a hostile equality and independence, the latter look like the human waste it really is.

 THE CROTCH AND THE MYTH    

Recently, an enlightened friend of mine claimed that the bond of marriage should never restrain a spouse from le aving the present partner for a more attractive one. "The proof that I love my wife", he said "is that I consider her bound to me only until s he finds another man who would satisfy her better than I".

T his view is not as remarkable in itself (as an ages‑old failure to sublime crotch mo tivations to a qua si‑Platonic level) as my friend's crusading attitude that all should follow it, for "it is the most logical approach for modern times".

Let us see where this log ic can bring us.

Suppose that we have a gigantic super‑computer containing and updating all con ceivable psychological, physical, cultural and whatever information on each human being on earth; that is, on 2‑3 bill ion men and 2‑3 billion women.

From "common sen se" and traditional logic, we have that: no 2 human beings are 100% equal, and only one person, in the entire world, comes closer than anyone else to one's marriage ideals and

req ui­rements.

Thus, even the most optimistic would deduce that chances are millions against one that we can find ‑without that miraculous computer‑ the ideal mate, o r tha we have marrie d that one.

Hence, like any married man, I could safely say that I married the wrong wom an.

The computer's oracle would show that the woman I should have chosen is lovely Ponga Ponga, from Equatorial Africa, or delica te Choo‑poi‑ping, now living in a Chinese ri ver boat.., or heavenly Mabel Smith, who happens to dwell just right in Missouri, USA...

To foll ow my enlightened friend's ethics, the new computer‑facilitated awareness should let us all dissolve our obviou sly wrong ties and set tle with those who ca n fit us best.

All happy thereafter?

I am afraid not, because the solution would only be the start of a longer rosary of problems than ever before.

As countless people are born and die every minute all over the world, just as many reach a dulthood, gain new ex periences, traits, virtues, defects, new knowledge, attitudes, desires, etc.

We all change continuously, beside growing older.

That means that, days or hours after I have settled with Ponga Ponga, the computer indicat es that Maria Boccarosa, from Florence, has developed into my new best choice, as well as Wolfgang von Schwarzv ogel, from Hamburg, is the new best for lovely Ponga Ponga.

So, let's change again. Then, I switch again to June Mu chdough, Sidney, and Maria to Krishna Visnukioto, an Indian Japanese with a Lao touch...

And so on: new partners, until computers do us part.

In this l ight, every one who remains many months with the same partner, including my enlightened friend, should b e suspected of being a failure.

It would seem, then, that marriage is one of the obsolete myths we must dispose of.

The new approach would be emotionally uninvolved and sexually promiscuous.

But this is exactly what mankind abandoned -at least in principle- after many thousands of years of experience.

At the end of this ex perience, every culture in the world, mostly i ndependently of the others, evolved into some form of marriage and family which tends to become more permanent and meaningful as its cultural environment progresses.

Uninvolved promiscuity decreases also in the animal world, from lower to higher species.

As if to confirm it, dependence‑period of the yo ungsters from their parents increases at the same rate. Man's children probably have the longest parental dependence among the known livi ng things.

That needs the most enduring form of marriage; just as marriage needs -at least conceptually- children.

The "new thing", th erefore, is not loosening the bonds of marriage ‑as today's fa d would have it‑ but evolution of marriage toward more m eaningfulness and permanence.

The m arriage myth? Yes, the one of man and woman to become an indivisible unit in mutual devotion..

A myth that separates from today's corrupted reality to take its place. er than it.

Superficial people discount myth because they see only its initial separation from reality, not its strength to adapt and reabsorb reality.
Marriage may fail in our society, but its myth remains to reconstitute man/woman nunity n 9mutual and permanent devotion w hen we are ready for it.

========================================================================================================================================================

=====================================================

\==================================================

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

***********************************************

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

The presen t crisis has many reasons, not all clearly und erstood.

The worst, however, A e:
1) U.S.A. I

hi23v34 m giwever howeverorth mentioning here stems from opularized pseudo Freudianism.

The misinterpretationFof Freud's all‑including "libido" has caught us into the semantic trap of not only fusing all passions, drives, and affections with sex, but of solving most of them through sex, sex technique, unrestrained sex gratification and so on.

Within this current, whereas the old Puritanism considered sex indulgence as a sin, today's "liberated" puritans consider NON- indulgence in sex a worse sin.

Yesterday's puritans went to the confessor or minister to be freed of sexual temptations. Today's puritans run to the therapist when they feel unable to indulge in, or enjoy, sex. Some therapists insist with priggish intransigence that the patients use the word "fuck" instead of "make love", to be "realistic and sincere". 

This may be especially strident to "normal" women (and many man), whose nature is best expressed with "make love".

The "unisex" tendency and the inadequacy of most psychologists are remarkably harmful.

It is true that evolution favors the sex‑loving, erection‑capable man for procreation reasons.

But this is far from true in the case of the "hot" woman. A man needs orgasm to procreate. Not the woman.

Many frigid women are among the most fertile. Then, men have the overwhelming tendency to avoid marrying a "hot bitch".

They tend to relegate the "hot" ones to the conventionally childless role of prostitutes.

As devotion and love are more essential, for a mother and wife, than orgasm, evolution has given women an approach to sex made more of love and tenderness than pure and simple erotic pleasure.

This makes the mother sublime.

To require the woman to feel the same as some "masculine" sex athletes is a distortion of her nature.

Today's word, for the enlightened, is ORGASM.

Lack of orgasm is a worse tragedy than lack of love.

Orgasm without love is now more acceptable than love without orgasm. Not only the zoologists agree with it.

Women devoted to this doctrine often fall into the nymphomaniac vortex of trying again and again with always a new man, with the result of worsening their frigidity and their feminine sensitivity.

The male counterpart seeks reassurance of his potency in a detached promiscuity that can culminate in impotence, since the essential "passion" component of his love‑making capability is progressively numbed through uninvolved, sterilized sex.

The self‑destructive meaning of this pattern is recognized not only by the discredited Freudians (who connect it with the "death instinct" from fully gratified libido), but by almost all mentionable psychologists.

One might as well accept the ultimate solution offered by the praying mantis, who kills and eats her lover at the conclusion of the mating act: his life's supreme libido has been fulfilled; what is left if not death? The human mantis seeks another and another partner, instead of death; which, in the long run, means the same.

For "human" humans, however, marriage is not simply mating or sublimation of sex.

The most obvious uniqueness of a marriage is in the children: a child is, and symbolizes, the inseparable union of a unique man and a unique woman.

No divorce can change that reality.

Even without considering the children, man and woman unite ‑with and beyond pathos‑ to form a new entity from interaction: a new entity which acquires a life of its own and yet is made of the lives of that man and that woman converging through love.

It happens even if we don't understand it.

It fails to happen only to those who sacrifice devotion and fidelity to some "personal freedom", personality enrichment from giving to defensive individualism, the pursuit of meaningfulness to the pursuit of mere pleasure.

Instead of personal fulfillment in converging awareness, they pursue the death of pathos in aimless self‑gratification.

Their love is copulation, their freedom is isolation, their mutual respect tends to mutual indifference, their communal involvement is individualistic but impersonal.

Their apathy knows no bliss and grief: they are turned ON and OFF like appliances.

A society based on their approach, aided by depersonalizing technology, tends to become an ant‑hill (perhaps, I should apologize to the ants).

PURITAN NYMPHOMANIA  

It is easy to suggest that universal love is the solution. It is not.  

Love is the MEANS to the solution.

This is not just a semantic problem.                   

The unpopular truth is that love has been degraded to a sentimentalist banality, a metaphysical triviality.

As a goal instead of means, love has become the object instead of the verb.

Dedication to love tends to become inhuman, insofar as it uses human beings for its implementation.

This is evident in a wide gamut from puritan righteousness to nymphomania, depending on the interpretation of love, and on the people used for it.

It may be humorous to talk of a puritan nymphomania, but it is a reality.

Nymphomania is mostly the result and cause of frigidity at the same time. Because of her obsession to find the man who gives her the orgasm, the victim is progressively desensitized by the fruitless search and by confusing the consequence with the goal.                    

The same happens with the love worshipers, who sacrifice themselves and others to a love that becomes more tantalizing the more they fail to reach it.

Many hide ‑even from themselves‑ their deep hostility by parading passionate love.

Many unite "in love" with those with whom they can share hostility toward others.

Subconsciously or not, love‑worshipers abhor real understanding and involvement.

They withdraw into hostility when they realize that further involvement may change their comfortable hostility into arduous understanding.       

SOPHISTICATED PRIMITIVES

Another vicious class of primitives has sophisticated their propaganda, but embalmed their education in crass prejudice: the ultra feminists.

They can be described in two main categories: the "feminazis" (so called also by Rush Limbaugh, most brilliant radio commentator in USA 1990‑2003..), dedicated to dictating female rule, abortion holocaust, elimination of the family, triumph of lesbianism, and the "femiranhas" (my designation), compulsive male‑haters so busy attacking men that they cannot do anything else coherently.

The terms are ultimately interchangeable. 

They are an insignificant minority among women, but incredibly vociferous.

Quoting them is like quoting vicious lunatics.

Among typical examples:

"The simple fact is, every woman must be willing to be recognized as a lesbian to be fully feminine", (National Organization for Women Times, Jan. 1988), or:

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking marriage.

Freedom for women cannot be without the abolition of marriage" (Sheila Cronen, one of the many "authoritative" feminist sources).

The truth that man is normally physically stronger than woman infuriates the femiranhas and embarrasses the civilrightniks.

Give them the idea that we have the right to fall upward, as well as downward, and they will start a war against the law of gravity, which will be obligingly declared unconstitutional by the civilrights‑ apparatchiks.

We have those bizarre havens for battered wives, in which the husband is regarded as the malefactor "a priori". They are shown as places where wives can take refuge when husbands get physical. They don't.

They offer much less than a friend's or relative's home, a police station, church, hospital, motel, Salvation Army, YWCA. In reality, they are places to make ultra-feminist vampires feel good about themselves, infect vulnerable women with their man‑hatred, and receive funds to empower feminazism.

There, a "battered" woman will find only help to worsen her situation with husband and children.

And salivating shysters are waiting around the corner.

They are run, whenever possible, by militant women who allegedly have been victimized by men.

They are as impartial as bigots.

We laugh about foxes running chicken coops, but feminazis and femiranhas get furious if militant hens don't run fox dens.

Ultra-feminists exaggerate women's problems beyond credibility.

They encourage women and children to pose as victims, regardless of the illegitimacy of their claims and of the permanent self‑ degradation.

The more victims they find, the more "entitlement" money they get.

If they don't, they have to close shop and lose their juicy do-gooding funds.

The problem of battered wives, abused children, raped women is undeniable where it occurs, but it loses credibility when it is handled as a crusade by femiranhas, feminist‑fearing dogooders, politicians who need their votes, and news media who need their patronage.

No place is shown where a husband can go to seek help against a vicious wife.

If a man dares to merely say that there are vicious wives, he endangers his job, political career or social standing, let alone being attacked by the ultra-feminists.

We are so naive ‑or biased‑ that we think only physical violence by men hurts.

This doesn't even apply to animals.

Humans can inflict and experience emotional suffering that can be worse than physical pain.

It is implied that man can hurt woman, not vice versa.

Asking to hear the other side of the story is frowned upon and politically incorrect.

From the start, the militant fem inist pretends to have women (half of mankind) prej udiced on her side .

Women dedicated to battered‑wife shel ters reflect the most intense male-phobia, as well as the highest per centage of divorc es. The huge percentage of fem ale divo rcees with horror stories of male brutality and drunkenness is ridiculous and fraudulent.

Many are male‑defying women, who more than any other women do everything possible to goad men into beating them. These women, by the way, are not the norm, but they are so vociferous and so eagerly listened to by the media,

lawyers and politicians, that they give the impression of being at least 50 times their number.

They claim that they fight for women‑equality.

They do it in a sadomasochistic way, by hitting all the weak spots they have learned about their men.

They enjoy doing it and dressing it with presumably lofty ideals of freedom and equality; especially when they have no talents or virtues that could motivate positive postures.

Their triumph comes when they are finally beaten : they wallow in hatred, they feel proud rather than a shamed of its causes, and m ake a lot of friends they would never have w ithout the shared hatred .

Without that, they would hopelessly remain in a life of boredom and worthlessness befitting their lack of interests, goals and skills.

Many of them are typical femiranhas.

For every femiranha I have met, I have known at least 20 man-loving women. Yet, the former are so vituperously loud and militant that we end feeling as the latter hardly existed.

In spite of their debilitating hatred, the ultra-feminists have t he satisfaction of pontificating about the suffering of the poor women and about the only solution they can suggest: more hostile power for the women.

Not to help men, but to push them into a corner, goad them into something wrong, and blame them more for the desolation of anti‑male freedom.

The observation that there are no similar havens for men beaten by other men, or women, is not as silly as it seems.

The flip response that men can defend themselves only applies to the stronger ones who win.

Battered men are even more numerous than battered women. Battered men, like battered women in the past, hate to publicize their troubles.

Some are right, others not.    

Havens for battered men would b e ridic ulous and superfluous, because the law already provides enough remedies.

Well, wouldn't you guess that the same could be said about haven s for battered women? Besides, why are there no havens for women battered by other women and men battered by oth er men (or women)?

The feminazis have chickencoops where they hatch hatred eggs to nurtur against men. , not against females, nor humans against humans.

This is an issue that only foments evil ... divides men and women in factio ns worse than political parties, with the added advantage for women that many men take women's male-hating side to man ifest that they are not "male chauvinists".

I have a mother, sisters, daughters and a wife. I love them and they love me.

I don't need to vilify men to show my love for women.

Every woman has a father. Most women have brothers, sons and husbands.

That alone should dispel the suspicion that I see two compact sex blocks, as befits the saga of the "adversary system", which would be preposterous in the family.

Conventional American wisdom seems confused if it doesn't force men, women, old, young, whites, blacks, employees, employers, rich, poor..., all people whose existence they can perceive, into adversary blocks.

It is the essence of a perverted freedom worse than the freedom of the jungle, because the latter at least follows the natural laws of survival and reproduction together.

Women, of course, are thought to be one solid block against violence because they would be the losers in a violence conflict they may (unnaturally) engage in against men.

Women are not less violent than men, when they can attack phycally.

Nowhere and in no time in history have men been as hostile to women as ultra-feminists to men nowadays.

Besides, the violence of many "feminist" women against their own children is notoriously worse than male/female violence.

The problem is that people stop at the report that a woman has been beaten.

They don't want to know why and how, lest they get the feminist militants and the male self‑flagellants after them.

We treat wife‑beating worse than assault, theft or other crimes in which the victim did not provoke the criminal.

How probable is that the man attacked the woman without any provocation?

There are, of cours e, contemptible men.

But, what about the overwhelming majority of the normal ones?

Suppose that the woman ensnared and badgered the man into it, which is so common that it has become a cliché.

Suppose that the man is weak and extremely excitable, and the woman knows too well how to lure him beyond self‑control, so that he hits

her and she can wallow in a legal case against him for months or years (for a matter that could often be resolved in a few minutes)...

Setting up someone for extortion or blackmail, causing an accident or a fire for financial gain, teasing a man into a phony sex‑harassment situation are every‑day tricks.

Women do it to men and women, as well as men to men and women.

Murders, maiming attacks and other abuses against men are t reated with more forgiveness and "understanding" by ultrafeminists than husbands who lost their tempers.

At this writing, the most recent example I read about was the case of a woman who accused her boss of sexual harassment after having made love with him for "at least 40 times a year for four years".

Wives who set up their husbands for legal troubles have become commonplace. Husbands also do that, but much less than wives.

Suppose the woman hit the man first. Or that she threw to his face some horrible revelation... We just accept that a woman slaps a man, or worse, if he says something offensive. A man who does the same is condemned. What is a double standard?

History and literature overflow with cases of women who drove men (and vice versa) into insane suffering, torture, murder and suicide without any physical violence. When women do the same to men, the matter is not news...

The above and worse is more frequent than many care to admit. We can not ignore it just because of our anti‑male‑violence crusade. An anti‑ male‑violence crusade instead of an anti‑violence and anti cruelty crusade is viciously dishonest. Our sophistication consists in never condoning violence. Which is alright, but ludicrous as an absolute as such and against men only.

We don't investigate the causes, when a woman has been beaten by a man.

It is dishonest, or at least incompetent, to assert that emotional hurt (by the woman or man) can not do more harm than physical violence.

We even justify homicide as a defense in some extreme sadistic circumstances.

The legal language has the expression "justifiable homicide", but not "justifiable violence"... That is odd.

This oddity has the characteristics of a primitive anti‑violence psychosis. Slapping a child is not necessarily a crime.

And so forth.

For thousands of years, woman developed the talent of emotional manipulation as a balance to man's physical strength.

We are reluctant to acknowledge it, probably because we don't know how to analyze it.

Yet, on the quicksand of this ignorance, we have built a lopsided defense system  against the menace of male physical violence.

Our propensity to unconditionally believing a woman who claims to be victimized by a man has an anti‑male slant.

The number of allegedly violent alcoholic husbands, for instance, is admittedly greatly exaggerated.

The number of divorced or separated women, who describe persecutions by alcoholic and violent men, is simply too large to be believable.

Women are somehow rewarded when they claim to be victimized by men.

People exposed to the public eye are afraid to show any doubts about the anti‑male, as well as anti‑white, accusations.

The femiranhas have developed a defiant class militancy ready to crucify any male who dares to doubt their anti‑male claims.

With this grotesque sense of justice, it is not strange that the American woman is enticed into a subtle viciousness toward man. The rest of the world has already noticed it.

The American male in the public eye avoids to mention it.

The law must punish the violent man. There is no reason why the woman should not be punished too, if she has provoked the man.

Why are the courts reluctant to punish both?

It is easy for a woman to get away with anything, if she knows how to goad the man into slapping her.

It is peculiar how we use the opposite approach in a prostitution interaction, in which, however, none of the participants is a victim.

We punish the woman who provoked, o merely accepted, the man into the victimless act.

Apparently, the feminazis have a particular pique against the prostitutes, who offer an abundance of sex appeal the femilibbers resent not to have.

It seems American society nurtures the anti‑male attitude the same as the fashionable anti‑white racism.

The civil rights movement and feminazism are allied against the white male.

They are sophisticated primitives, for they have sophisticated their "anti‑" activities on primitive half‑notions of historical, philosophical, anthropological, psychological, biological, medical, ethical, religious, literary and basic cultural factors...

Their present exponents, from Gloria Steinem to Jesse Jackson (?), reflect the sophisticated maneuvering and primitive concepts typical of their trend.

By the way, their claim that their causes converge would be best disproved by letting them marry or live together... Of course, just as a laboratory experiment...

They would also be deactivated and forgotten if racial and gender animosities were resolved.       

The American public may be uninterested in the intricacies of this problem, but they are defeating the Equal Rights Amendment and oppressive racial integration out of the gutsy feelings that these measures will overcure the symptoms and worsen the ailment.

Women and anti-white racists never had more dangerous traps to fall into.

One new emerging fact is the documented awareness that women's violence against men is not less frequent than men's against women.

A report by Prof. R.L. McNeely (University of Wisconsin ‑Milwaukee) and Gloria Robinson‑Simpson, disturbed children program supervisor in Norfolk, VA, indicated that domestic violence against men in the decade ending in 1985 has been proportionately the same as against women.

The report appeared in the December issue (sorry, I forgot the year) of "Social Work", in the article "The Truth About Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue".

Probably no more than 5% of domestic violence cases against men are reported to the police, because men tend to hide the fact, just as much as militant women pride themselves of parading the suffered violence.

A man would feel ashamed to report his wife's violence to the police, although the law would require him to do so. But then, would the police heed him? Wouldn't they laugh at him?       

It also reaffirms that the femiranhas (that is, I repeat, the anti-man and anti-family so-called feminists, not the true, original feminists) are furious at the "injustice" that man is stronger than woman.

What if the woman were physically stronger?

Violence is not a male problem; it is a human problem.       

WOMAN GUTTER            

The realities of man and woman, and their differences, persist unchanged, as in the past, regardless of our theories, and whether they are understood or not.

On the other hand, opinions, theories and guidelines are clear, regardless of their validity.

Often they are believed to be reality itself.

Today's rationalized fads have produced a clear mandate: man is not allowed to voice any opinion or formulate guidelines in the man‑woman relationship, unless they are "feminist"‑approved and man‑flagellating.

Woman is mostly declared the victim and the only one who can voice opinions and principles about women and man/woman relations.

But how can "victims" be impartial? They substitute vengeance for justice.

Man is loaded with the guilt still in the process of being listed in the new general inventory of crimes against woman.

The mere listing a male "guilt" is accepted as a convictiloll. kkk

The inventory rules are simple:

Take the history of mankind and call it "male history". Select everything unpleasant, ugly, harmful, wrong and negative, and attribute it to the male.

Don't worry about proofs.

Man is in charge (really? Most of man's subconscious personality is formed in his early childhood, when mother's influence is permanently dominant), therefore he is responsible and guilty.

Then, cull everything loftier, anything more clever, beautiful and pleasant than what really happened, all that was idealized by man himself but remained wishful thinking, because neither man nor woman could realize it.

Take it, or any of it, and ascribe it to women, and say that women were not allowed to realize it because males were in charge...

There is enough of it to write volumes and volumes without effort, once one has learned the routine.

Then, go ahead and rewrite history.

A little practice can make it look scientific and exhaustively researched.

Enormous lists of anti‑male indictments are thus being compiled for the trash‑cans of history.

Man is not allowed to participate in today's witch‑hunt, for he is the witch.

The anti‑white‑male witch‑hunt is "in", not because it makes any sense, but because it is the new fad, like the hula‑hoop, the pet‑rock, the "minority" person in the TV commercials.

Besides, it gets the "feminist" votes block. Politicians need it badly.

Go to any book store and look for books written by women who ridicule, disparage and accuse man as the callous, obtuse, deliberate originator and perpetrator of today's evils, as the oppressor and corruptor of our morality, liberty and life, as the truly inferior sex: these books are not only plentiful, but they keep multiplying like cockroaches.

Human male and female cockroaches have always been plentiful.

If a man tries to publish a book that ridicules, disparages and accuses woman as the callous originator and perpetrator of today's evils, as the oppressor and corruptor of our morality, liberty and life in general, as the truly inferior sex, he will hardly find a sympathetic publisher, for obvious reasons.

Even if there were one, he would not dare to publish anything against the taste of the "feminist" Inquisition.

(White) Man has no First Amendment.

Publishers scurry to print anti‑male literary nincompooperies with the same haste of those who must sell hula‑hoops faster than the duration of the fad.

But they don't have much to fear: the fad will last quite a while, for the majority of women is not less mediocre and incompetent than the majority of men.

They love the male‑blaming nincompooperies they can use as excuses for their failures.

A typical approach of many of those books goes as follows:

The author (mostly a woman‑psychotherapist) first goes to spacious lengths to assure her readers that what she writes benefits men as well as women, just like a male chauvinist pig who is about to "enlighten those silly broads for their own good".

Then, she proceeds to report case after case of evidence selected to support her thesis of male ignorance, incompetence and red‑ neck despotism.

As she is a typical cultural fad specimen, she is unaware of the already existing mountain of philosophical, historical, literary, sociological, psychological, theological, legal, even operatic and other writings by men portraying the inadequacy, arrogance and all kinds of shortcomings of man's achievements and competence.

The difference between these writings and hers is that hers are gossipy, incompetent, irrelevant and graciously hateful.

Then, she embarks in the cheap strategy of luring the blacks, "Latinos", Orientals and "American natives" to her side by glibly stating how oppressive and blind the "white male system" has been toward them all.

She goes on explaining that blacks, Chicanos & Co tried everything possible to open the white male's eyes, to no avail, until they had to give up.

Now, they have no choice but to refuse cooperation with a white male who is hopelessly thick‑sculled.

Similarly, even her efforts to enlighten man were so hopeless that she came to the conclusion that all she could answer to a man questioning her purpose was: "If you must ask that question, you will never understand the answer".

She thinks she can get away with that.

She does. (No one dares oppose it yet).

That is supposed to be a brilliant solution that benefits the male, as well as the female... And the tit‑for‑tat goes on and on for a whole book avidly read by women and men of her mental stature, who, as previously stated, are the great majority in any society.

Those books sell like hot dogs for the bitches.

By the way, it is now public knowledge that "feminists" have repeatedly claimed the right and pride of woman to expose her "inner bitch".

The sad story is that women who act in that manner have adopted the worse of the male-chauvinistic trash, transformed it into female chauvinistic trash, and labeled it as women‑liberation philosophy.

They act like claim jumpers who will later find out that their gold mines are no more than garbage dumps.

At that point, their wrath will be spooky.

While competent male and female innovators strive to overcome human (male and female) shortcomings, the "feminist" zealots cover many of them with glitter and parade them as female virtues in their ephemeral literature.

They gossip rather than reason, accuse rather than help, they take instead of offering, make war in the name of peace, hate in the name of love, insult and emasculate the male to "improve" him...

They have "equaled" themselves down to the worst man has already produced.

They give the false impression that most men and women are on their ati-man crusade.

They live in emotional and cultural ghettos, like the male chauvinist pigs.

They have glitter, tinsel, carpeting and chandeliers, but no drains, plumbing or sanitation.

RAPE RAINBOW

When a woman accuses a man of rape, the activists simply proclaim RAPE, and the woman is believed without proof. And there is just no impartial inquiry about the.. type of rape. Why, the do-gooders say, rape is rape.

Let us see what kinds of rapes we have heard of. Examples:

1) A woman gets mad at her husband and decides to accuse him of rape. Yes, there have been cases of women accusing their husbands to have raped them. Were the husbands convicted? The point is: the court accepted the cases on political grounds with rationalization.

2) A woman asked a man to give her a job. But he had no openings and she had none of the required skills.

She promised him any sex pleasure he may wish at work and gave him a sample of that skill. The man accepted her for that skill. She took the job but then refused to deliver on her promise. When he complained that she had deceived him, she brought him to court for sex harassment.

If this point is brought up, the man is accused of having accepted her sex enticements, not the woman of having used sex intercourse and promises or more to get the job she did not deserve.

3) In another case like (2), she and her employer had sex, as she promised, but then she accused him of rape when he refused to give her a bigger raise than she asked for after the fact.

4) A woman meets a man in a tavern at 2 o'clock in the morning. They have a few drinks, then they go together into a motel room and have sex. Afterwards, she claims she raped her.                                                                                                                      ................there is more and more................

The feminist pundit Andrea Dworkin published a book that states that any sexual intercourse is a rape.

If it were so, rape should be worshiped instead of condemned, for rape would be the natural means for reproduction; and life vanishes without reproduction...

[did I really say that? She put it in my mouth!]

WHERE WOMAN BELONGS

Sometimes she belongs with the broom and the dirt‑shovel...

Nonsense.

Yet, once I had a chore that required many hours of lifting and carrying objects too heavy for my wife.

She was available and wanted to help. As the work generated a lot of debris that required lots of clean‑up, we agreed that she could help with cleaning up the mess. She was happy to do it in our common interest,

When the same chore came up again, it became logical that I would do the heavy work and she would do the clean‑up.

Cleaning up became her "place" (that is the trouble with words) in that case.

No one could suggest her that her position, as a wife, was "inferior" or servile. It was just obvious that her logical share in that particular job was cleaning‑up my mess (again, the infamy is in the words).

She did the same in caring for our baby. Baby's and other feces are conventionally on a "lower" level than the debris from building, carpentry, general household and other work.

Yet, only some feminine libbers are pushing to consider that maternal care degrading.

If we consider that man and woman have a history of tens of millennia of togetherness in which this division of tasks was based on countless jobs made for man's physical strength, it gives us an explanation of how a logical allocation of tasks was later interpreted in terms of "superiority/inferiorty" intelligent observers have never accepted.

As to a comparison of man's and woman's intrinsic worth and capabilities, we could start commenting that no female Moses went to the mountain to carve the Ten Commandments.

In case Mrs. Moses was the one who guided all of Mr. Moses steps, including going to the mountain, and what to carve on the tablets, Mrs. Moses and history would have not allowed us to know it.

Some "feminists" claimed that Columbus was about to sail East of Italy to India, until his wife told him to sail West instead. Even kindergarten geography would have shown them he couldn't have planned to sail a boat over land and mountains eastward of Italy and Europe toward India (beside the fact that there was no Suez Canal then)...

Not many female achievements are known to be worthy of being recorded in history.

Not as many books are known to have been written by women as by men, not so many art masterpieces or other achievements, not to mention conquests or other historical events achieved by women.

Nor do we have records of any great female achievement suppressed more than male achievements by anyone, and therefore more ignored by history.

Most recorded history has a male imprint, even if woman was equally responsible.

In recorded history, women have devotedly cooperated to the glorification of what appears to us as male preponderance.

When capable of achieving something, they mostly preferred to inspire or lead men into it.

But that is precisely what the mother does for the child.

The above evaluation is only a perspective offered by today's knowledge.

Reality is unconcerned with our interpretation.

It is evident, even if the reasons are not quite clear, that both man and woman decided to put man on the center of the visible stage of history.

Again, that is what the mother does for the child.

We should not confuse the stage with the whole life, for most of history was made by those who didn't make history.

It is this confusion that traps the politicized common man and woman into demanding stage equality at the expense of human nature.

The stage only presents an image. We confuse that image with reality, and we want to change reality to fit the image. This has a high degree of nature perversion. Even if legislators and psychologists support many kinds of perversion.

The negative hall‑of‑fame of history is waiting for them.

There is no escape.

The shallow mind of those who demand "equal rights" for the women fails to see in it distortion of the woman instead of justice to her.

We can correct our interpretations of reality, not reality itself.

Placing man on the center of the historical stage may have been, for some reason, a good expedient. In the course of time, however, it fell into the "superiority/inferiority" stereotyping, which is now frowned upon.

First, we don't know exactly why the male was placed in his apparently prominent role.

Some theories may be correct, but we don't have enough evidence to select them.

Second, the role of the woman has been misunderstood or underestimated.

After all, it is only our peculiarity that the "visible" man is considered on a higher level than the less visible woman.

Making woman as visible as man is not the same as giving her justice.

"Equal rights", "equal pay" are only a stage positioning.

Moreover, giving equal rights and higher pay to women may cause them to lose more important advantages that we are unable to define at present.

Real privileges can offer much more than political or juridical rights.

Moral, ethical, devotional and other substantial but subtle advantages simplistic people cannot appreciate are more real than money and power, but require a personal sophistication that goes beyond simple wealth, education and status to enjoy them.

No law can provide them.

One fact is dangerously overlooked: privileges are degraded and degrading when they become rights.

Woman doesn't have to go to "work", be an executive, go to war, become a doctor, a Napoleon or an Einstein to obtain her due.

Any little child would know how his mother is much more than any Napoleon or Einstein. Any sane man knows it about his mother, wife, sister and daughter.

Any loving mother knows or senses it.

It is the choice of both us males and females that ultimately gave more importance to wars and conquests than to a child's needs, which are the most genuine human needs.

Apparently, woman likes the warrior because nature tells her she must mate with the winner in a ruthless evolutionary contest.

If femilibbers fight this interpretation, they do no more than what countless men have initiated, articulated and fought for since time immemorial.

As usual, gender feminists are claim‑jumpers in all fields of thought, morality, ethics.

Virtually all they say has been said by some men (and women) long before.

They have as much originality as counterfeiters.

Blame nature, ask woman, but stop blaming the man who is stuck with fighting and competition to please the woman (and any sublimed woman‑substitute) nature tells him to desire.

The cult of the Virgin Mary and other virgin mothers (from Zoroastrian  to obscure divine heroines), poetry, literature, myths of most cultures point to women on the highest levels, but mostly in some background, which was historically convenient for the woman.

It was said that the place of the woman was the house and the kitchen, with or without the children....

Well, it is unfortunate that today's woman is losing that privilege.

Male chauvinism was probably the first to transform that privilege into a limitation.

But woman at least agreed with it.

Ultimately, a male‑hating and macho‑imitating feminism agreed on that interpretation without correcting it.

Now, liberation requires woman to hustle like any man.

Childbearing and all its consequences are still hers. She cannot give any part of them to the man.

To add insult to injury, she must be careful not to like childbearing and house‑duties too much, lest the feminazis would declare her a domestic animal.

Do they want it to look like a new kind of Freudian insight?

What is the place of a successful man? A castle? A royal palace? A house with everything he could dream of?

Would he probably dream of having a devoted woman going out and hustling, and fighting, and conquering... so that he could keep living undisturbed in the castle of their choice?

What would he have to do to keep woman going so hard?

Give her leadership and the center of the stage.

After thousands of years of this arrangement, history would only record the feats by women, with men in a "modest" background....

When would the time of a masculinism‑movement come?

FEMINISM TRAPS  

One of the problems "feminism" should address is the self‑trapping of woman in erotic focusing.

Starting from puberty, woman (especially the attractive one) concentrates on cultivating her sex appeal and -consciously or not-  subordinates almost everything to it.

More logical would be, for a woman who wants to focus on femininity, to concentrate on a total pattern: female and motherhood attributes, such as caring, devotion, teaching, nurturing, or whatever seems to be typically female.

Rather than promote subservience, inferiority and other lowly attributes, as understood by the present sissy and macho interpretation, it could propose women's probable "superiority" as physicians, psychologists, teachers, biologists, administrators, etc.

Instead, the present one-dimensional trend traps the woman in a pattern that may become all she really feels and knows.

When the flower of beauty and youth withers with age, there is no recognized fruit of maturity, which is most of human life.

Then, with the present posture of rights without merits, woman shrinks into the self‑conscious, defensive hostility of those who demand the rights of attributes they never understood, learned or cultivated.

Man has the questionable luck that woman's original devotion placed him in "leadership", which he keeps until death.

But both woman and man misinterpret leadership as "superiority", so both conspire to underrate, or even ridicule, woman's attributes indispensable for man's leadership, as the present demasculinization proves from the feminist demeaning of woman's attributes.

Another trap is the one "feminists" fall into, through faith in their premises.

A statistical analysis, for instance, is correct in showing that working women show a higher health average than housewives.

The "enlightened" conclusion is, therefore, that a job career is healthier than home‑making.
 

Yet, I need no statistics to observe that unemployable sick women stay home.

Furthermore, women who may have been made sick by work careers will be found at home, classified as housewives by the statisticians.

Thus, while the statistical investigation tells the correct data, it fails to see the truth through them when an ideology blinds the analysts.

In the USA, women's "problems" are treated as if they were on a sterilized socio-political checkerboard no politician or other publicly exposed person would dare to be sincere about.

Therefore even societies where women are considered "inferior" have far more political female leaders than America.

Even "Third World" nations have and have had female prime ministers, presidents, queens... America has had none.

Eliminate the ultra-feminism and real women will come to the fore and guide the nation like any man, if they wish.

THE ABORTION ARENA

When conception results from love‑making, both man and woman are irreversibly responsible for their offspring.

When they copulated, they made a choice that cannot be changed.

When one copulation and one conception are weighed against each other, it is gruesome to even think that the fruit of conception can be sacrificed to the "right" to copulate, rather than subordinate copulation to the right to life of the conceived being.

It is so simple to make love with contraceptive precautions, that there is no excuse for irresponsible intercourse.

Before the invention of contraceptives, copulation and responsibility toward conception and child were enormously higher than now, in spite of the fact that the sex desire was rendered much stronger by the greater limitations and dangers.

No matter how we worship or condemn it, the sexual urge is not a matter of human invention, choice or dignity, but of biological programming for no other purpose than reproduction.

Sexual pleasure is only nature's bait into reproductive intercourse.

Worshiping or condemning sex are both beneath our dignity of free human beings.

We are free and dignified humans only if we have the strength to accept or reject normal sex like any other natural function, like metabolism, hormonal, vascular or neuron functions.

Embracing "sexual freedom" as a basic human right would be far more misconstruing than embracing the right of cardiovascular functions or hormone secretions.

In spite of their claims, feminazis  seem unable to go beyond matters connected with their sexual apparatus.

To assert their genital freedom, they are willing to throw away the baby with the bathwater.

Ultimately, nothing is more anti‑feminine than today's ultra-feminists. Their fighting for anti‑feminine goals in the name of woman separates woman from femininity and considers it a female conquest.

No other political or  philosophical current is so powerfully anti‑woman.

Think that the pleasure of sexual intercourse is rapidly self‑extinguishing into a nothingness, whereas conception contains the cosmic meaning and essence of life from that moment to the end of time. They don't want to see that "male" and "female" are meaningless without either accepting the coexistence and intrusion of the other.

The pro‑abortion posture of the feminazis is a front for their intense resentment against any "interference" by the male about female matters, whether connected or not with carrying a child.

Abortion is a frantic feminazi goal, as well as lesbianism, elimination of the family and emasculation of man. They care nothing about the child who already IS.

Nor do they want to admit that the child is no less a man's "product" than a woman's, no matter who carries the child.

When a tree is there, it is inane to debate whether the seed or the earth was its main source. Worse yet, it would be a perversion to resent the "interference" of the seed with the soil...

The narcissism of the pro‑abortion position borders on criminal irresponsibility. All for the sake of their anti‑male, anti‑ patriarchal frenzy that clings to an unbridled sexual freedom beyond natural needs.

Their craving for so much sexual freedom is not a basic female urge but a bull‑in‑the‑china-shop interpretation of equality with men.

They also risk falling into "frigid nymphomania" just to one‑up the male.

The above statements sounded extreme until I read an interview with feminist leaders published in the July 1986 issue of "Harper's Magazine".

Some excerpts:

"I see the anti‑abortion movement as coming out of a traditional Judeo‑Christian conception of morality, a patriarchal morality based on the idea that repression is not only morally permissible but necessary....

"My own morality... is anti‑patriarchal and anti‑authoritarian.

I see sexuality as a fundamental force of which procreation is a byproduct...

And support for sexual freedom, by which I mean not only the rejection of traditional patriarchal restrictions but acceptance of the erotic impulse, and one's own erotic impulses, as fundamentally benign and necessary for human happiness, is a very important part of that outlook........."

"If you are going to have a society in which fetal life is absolutely sacrosanct, then women are going to be vulnerable to the biological process of procreation in a way that men are not.

There will be no way of changing society in such a way that women can be free and equal human beings or that both sexes can have sexual freedom.... And the abortion debate is ultimately over the importance of this kind of equality"

"...Control of fertility. That is the cornerstone of women's freedom."

"It is me or the fetus, so the fetus has to go."

"I certainly don't think there is any room  for compromise.... There should be no restriction of a woman's right to have an abortion, none whatsoever.... Any such restriction is anti‑feminist and anti‑woman."

First of all, the assertion that "..sexuality as a fundamental force, of which procreation is a byproduct", is a sick absurdity. If it were so, homosexuality or extinction of mankind would be more natural than heterosexuality and life (=reproduction).

Sexuality is obviously the instinct nature gave us to induce us to perform the act that causes procreation.   

Everything involved in natural sexuality is a reproductive organ. Besides, to call procreation a "byproduct" is a bizarre nonsense in view of the fact that life perishes without it and only natural intercourse produces it (with or without "sexuality" 's erotic pleasure).

It was Nature who conceived "sexuality", not man, woman or the feminists.

Sex, as conceived by the feminists and by the homosexuals, is against nature, because it is against its very "raison d'être": procreation.

Ultra-feminists and militant homosexuals are inextricably committed to each other: this very commitment is a mutual death‑kiss.

Nature does not ordain a drive or instinct for its own sake: the sexual drive is for the act of conception and procreation, just like hunger and eating are for nourishment and survival, not for indulgence and obesity.

Then the sinister statement: "..women are going to be vulnerable to the biological process of procreation in a way that men are not" is the epitome of dyke‑like anti‑male perversion.

This woman treats the privilege and blessing of procreation as it were a Satanic curse.

Furthermore, she resents that men are not hurt, if women are...

She could accept a suffering or unpleasantness only if men were afflicted with the same, deservingly or not...

Who would like to be the child of such a mother, or husband of such wife? Who would like to be her brother, her father?

I am sure I am not the only man who considers women far more fortunate than men for their privilege to bear life.

The gender feminist approach to sex, with or without abortion, distorts the meaning of procreation and its immense implications not less than the homosexuals..            

At today's knowledge level, being pregnant, as such, doesn't give an average woman (or man), any more than to a goat, a chicken or a cow, any wisdom about pregnancy. It may have happened intentionally, but without knowledge of the process, or even against her intention. She doesn't understand its essence and how it functions.

Neither she nor man have understood it for millions of years.

So, pretending to master or own the reproduction phenomenon is incredibly presumptuous.

Such a person claims the absolute right to make a decision and to build a whole social movement on a life phenomenon she doesn't understand any more than man.

Here too, as in other issues, feminism pivots on the crotch, without understanding it.                     

Well, I would never allow a woman I made pregnant to decide without my consent what to do about a child who is mine not less than hers.

No woman or man has the right to ignore this restriction. On the other hand, what right do I have to consent to an abortion, even if I regret having impregnated a woman?

Whether I wanted it or not, I have created a life, with a process which I, and my sex partner, neither master nor understand.

The life is there, even if at an initial stage I don't understand.

We have no more right to kill it, no matter what our reason is, than the right of anyone else to kill us. Nor do we have the right to kill any human being just because we have nothing to do with his conception.

Who of us would have wanted to be -or to have been- aborted?

From another perspective, let us think about the consequences of an abortion (hours or months after conception) by the mother of Jesus Christ, the mother of Aristotle, Michelangelo, Galileo, Shakespeare, Newton, Buddah, Mohammed, Beethoven, Pasteur, Lincoln, Einstein...

Would we tell such women that they have an unrestricted right to abort and "change" history?

Sorry, no woman or man is big enough for such a decision.

I think that an "anti‑feminist" decision is by far not as objectionable as an anti‑Jesus, anti‑Shakespeare, anti‑Einstein, or other pro‑ abortion decision.

Woman may have the right to sexual pleasure (who objects?), but, just like man, not to irresponsibility, sexual or otherwise.

As to the statement: "It is me or the fetus, so the fetus has to go", its ghoulishness and dishonesty are appalling.

As stated, it means a comparison between killing the fetus and killing her.

"It is me or the fetus" would mean that either the fetus kills her or she the fetus, which is a vicious falsehood.

The fetus wants to live, love her and be loved by her, not to kill her.

She is the one who wants to kill an innocent unprovoked, after killing her own maternal instinct. In reality, she demands killing a human life to relieve her of the most basic life responsibilities.

She advocates a human sacrifice for an irresponsible fugitive pleasure of a few minutes.

Finally, even if the above were not gruesome, how does a woman know whom she is killing when she commits abortion?

Again, would she have consented to be aborted herself?

Then, no matter how she answers this last question, she can only answer -or make any choice- because she was not aborted...

A woman or a man can have significance and rights primarily because they were not aborted...

This is a fact, not just an opinion.

GOOD OLD SEX RELIGION

One of the most stupid delusions of today is the myth of sexual equality.

Whether promoted by shrewd women, or by men who fear that other men may covet their women, or young men resentful of old, it should be determined by evidence, not by wishful interpretation.

The origin of the problem starts in sex pure and simple: mating, copulation, as ordained by nature.

As far as the man is concerned, the copulation act, with all its related matters, is not something he would have devised as a lofty goal, pastime, or desirable endeavor of any kind: the position is awkward, the duration too short, the preliminaries silly, the consequences enormously out of proportion, the pleasure a self‑extinguishing non‑sequitur.

Going to the core of it, one could say that man ends up being the victim of expecting heaven and ending empty‑handed.

Woman's classic complaint that the man turns over and falls asleep after the act confirms man's predicament.

The woman is the winner, even when she experiences no pleasure in it.

She doesn't need to be lured with the bait of pleasure, like man.

Her nature‑mandated purpose (or at least capability) is to bear and nurture a child. Nature gives her that urge with a compulsion as powerful as man's craving for pleasure, even if less definable in a diffused eroticism.

Man cannot function sexually unless he is erotically attracted. Moreover, erotic motivation alone is no guaranty of desirable results.

He is motivated by the instinct to satisfy a lust rather than by the consequence of mating.

Men have been genetically motivated on that basis for millions of years.

For countless centuries, all the male knew was his blind desire for sexual pleasure. He could not stop until orgasm.

After that, all is suddenly over, as if nature's order were: "After that, leave her alone and keep going on with other things" (presumably hunt and search for food, watch against dangers, impregnate another woman, etc.).

Conversely, frigid women can copulate and procreate as well as "hot" ones.

Furthermore, the sexually‑active man can depend on the loyalty of a frigid woman more than on a woman who could be attracted to other men (why should he raise other men's children?).

A normal man is biologically programmed to be excited by physical perception of the female charm.

In many cases, this excitement renders him irrational, until he obtains full gratification.

He may restrain himself, but the temptation and tension linger uncontrolled for long time.

A woman is not similarly stimulated. Her sexuality is not as genital‑ focused; she doesn't need an orgasm as much as a man. Indeed, she may even experience revulsion, fear, or violent opposition.

There is evidence that most women experience a kind of evolutionary, or also culture conditioned, sexual attraction which is connected with the men's being "very strong and powerful", "well dressed", "a real gentleman", "fun to be with", "good provider"...

It is interesting to note that it was considered (wishfully) normal, for a woman, to dislike and oppose sex not connected with marriage and child‑bearing.

Now, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme, as if to obey a historical recurrence, and women are expected to assure everybody that they just love sex.

This repeats the previous occurrences of this sex comedy, as history shows.

First, the woman decides that she gets the man if she can feign great sexual attraction toward him, in the manner he understands sex.

She also finds easy to fake orgasm, to please the man she wants to get.

The man would probably play the deception game to the same extent, if he could, but the male erection and sex climax cannot be faked.

That gives woman such an "unfair" advantage, that man becomes resentful and distrustful of women when he discovers (normally too late) the truth...

World's literature, poetry, legends, folklore and history are full of endless variations of this theme.

That doesn't open man's eyes, because nature made his sex urge stronger than his reason.

Mostly, a woman defines a man "sexy" on the basis of currently accepted meanings of the word. Consequently, since male and female drives are so different, we cannot attribute the same degree of responsibility to the male and the female, when an "illegal" sexual act is performed.

First, a normal woman can do without sex much better than a man. She can resist temptation much more easily. This can apply even in the rape cases where the woman enticed a weak man beyond his ability to resist.

A weak man is not a criminal because of his weakness.

The same cannot be said of the woman who knows how to seduce his weakness into a "rape".

The ancient rule, in many cultures, that requires the woman to behave, and be dressed, in a "modest" way is based on that, not on primitivism or unfairness toward women.

In many cases, female employees entice their employers and then practice extortion or blackmail.

That is comparatively impossible for a male employee.

Sex harassment cases of males accusing aggressive females are virtually non‑existent. A judge would seldom consider such a claim seriously.

It is well known that a woman has enormously more power to seduce a reluctant man than a man to seduce a reluctant woman.

Much too often trouble arises between a man and a woman in a sexual relationship because the man concentrates on the simple sexual pleasure, without qualifications. The woman does not concentrate on the same pleasure the same way and is resentful that the man doesn't give something else in return.

Thus, the man is resentful because the woman puts a price on love‑making while pretending to love him.

Animals are honest enough to accept pure and simple sexual intercourse as a natural occurrence.

Despite the claimed equality, a woman ‑rather than a man‑ is traditionally supposed to be tainted by a sex act.

Similarly, a woman feels insulted by a direct sex proposal by a man, not a man by a woman.

It would be interesting to see a man slap a woman because she tries to seduce him.

The substantial differences in sexual attitude between male and female seem to be irreconcilable, in spite of the light shed by literature, history and specialized investigation.

We keep hearing the woman's ageless complaint: "Men are all the same pigs: all they want is sex".

Man's complaint is: "You cannot trust women: they are hard to please, treacherous, fickle and unpredictable".

The truth that both have to put up a front has always been the same.

It is like a ritual dance.

Man must feign lofty motivation in order to convince woman to satisfy a sex impulse his nature subjects him to.

Woman must feign to have a similarly genitals‑focused desire in order to conquer the devotion of a mate who can impregnate and protect her.

This mutual deception had been going on for longer than we recorded.

As to the question of equal rights, the concept itself is artificial.

First, the question has been caused by theories, prejudices and consequent abuses, not by a proven necessity.

In other words, the problem has been created by our present Procrustean bed of socio‑psychological‑political convictions.

They sound good and obvious on the basis of premises that we accept as self‑evident.

But our ignorance of the consequences of their implementation is deplorable.

They remind me of a two trite stories I heard in my childhood.

One was about a simple man who just loved to hit his head against the wall. One day, someone revealed to him how bad his habit was. He got rid of his habit, but was unhappy for the rest of his life, as he could not find anything he would enjoy as much as hitting the wall.

Those who took the trouble to "liberate" him didn't bother to show him an alternative he was not prepared to seek and recognize.

The other story was about a woman who was happy to live for no other purpose than to serve her husband. The worse he treated her, the more she thanked Allah for giving her more chances to prove her love and devotion. "What merit is there to anyone who only loves one who treats her well?".

One day, she traveled to the West and was converted to the equality of man and woman... She learned to distrust and fight man, but lost her husband and happiness, for she did not know how to find, in righteous equality, the joy she had experienced in her unconditional love...

Warning to the feminnazi male‑watchers: this story would be equally valid if it were about a man who enjoyed unconditional devotion and submission to his wife.

The most harmonious families I know have a strong hierarchical structure. One spouse (mostly the man) is the undisputed leader, and the other spouse is the devoted follower.

There is no discussion about discord‑producing equal rights, and they live in (relative) harmony.

Most happily married men and wives do not believe in the real 50/50 sharing of tasks and responsibilities.

They do not keep accounting about whose turn comes next...

Each is committed to carry 100% of the load, unconditionally.

The goal is not who must do something, but what must be done, regardless of who does it. There is an irresistible beauty in it.

Usually, our traditional societies and religions have adopted a uniform code of male leadership and devotion by both.

This does not have to signify a superiority/inferiority relation­ship, or slanted rights..

It is only our competitive‑adversary culture that gives us the premises for this semantic trouble.

Besides, most don't realize that family realizes a happy community of duties, regardless of rights.

We are too limited to be able to explain it briefly in more sophisticated terms.

There is much to be undone and unlearned.

We must begin with the restoration of time‑proven values about "woman's and man's function", instead of homogenizing them with the catsup of easier simplifications.

Then, we can proceed with analysis and cautious evolution beyond our black‑and‑white good‑and‑evil oversimplifications.

FEMIRANHAS

The notion that man and woman are equal, must be treated equally, and have the same rights or opportunities is as simplistic as the opposite.

It has become a dogma in our prescribed folklore. In order to exorcise the dogma‑defying realities, we have adopted the glib theory that most "male" and "female" behavior is learned rather  than natural.

It is convenient for the femiranhas or feminazis (male- and family-hating "ultra-feminists") to believe it.

On the other hand, even if it were true, it is interesting to consider that the woman is normally the one who shapes the American male and female for life.

So, we could say that woman created our presumably macho environment.

Most feminists say woman has been brainwashed by a male‑biased upbringing.

Psychologists agree that human learned  behavior is permanently fixated in the first 5‑8 years of  childhood.

The American child is hardly influenced by the father in that period.

It is also likely that the anti‑man feminism of today is the result of child‑brainwashing by the contemporary defensive woman.

Some feminists have even succeeded  to publish Bibles and books of prayers in which God is  not  called Father, but "Parent", or "Mother and Father", the Holy Spirit is called not "He" but "He or She",  Jesus is not the Son but the "Child" of God,  etc...

If we need such paranoid "pedagogic" precautions to think correctly, we are not even worth raising.

In more earthly matters, I met women who demanded to be called  "sales persons" rather than "saleswomen", as if there were something bad in being called a woman.

Freudian slip?

The same goes for spokespersons, chairpersons...

Business letters starting with: "Dear gentlepersons:" are no longer rare. Fortunately, they are already being ridiculed.

There is an obsessive preoccupation with saying "he‑or‑she,  him‑ or‑ her, his‑or‑her, men‑and‑women"... instead of "he,  him, his, people"..., as if people were really too stupid to  understand that the "he" in general statements applies to both genders.

Many feminists say that the “All men were created equal” excluded women: it should have said: “All men and women were created equal”. But that would have been eve worse, because it would have unintentionally negated the obvious and welcome differences between the two genders.   

Finally, the words “man”, “men” have always been used also to designate human beings in general. Exclusion of females would have commanded a statement like “all human males’, or at least “all males”, instead of “all men”. The same gender extension happens in other languages, but only the Americans are asked to be so dumb as to require such a ridiculous language for the sake of a feminist paranoia.

We all know darn well that the "he"  or "his" of general statements mean both genders, but feminist bigots want to enforce a superfluous "he‑or‑she" or "‑person" on an unconcerned public, like school zealots on hapless children.

Someone must make them aware that English is a monumental achievement in world culture and communication.  

To mess up English with bisex-language fetishes would be like changing a lofty cathedral into a third‑rate circus.

There is a remarkable number of women who resent men who happen to have more knowledge, talent, experience or whatever attribute that breaks some supreme feminist rule that a man cannot be "better” than a woman.

They clamor that something has to be done to assert sex equality also in that sense.

Let us keep our sanity and accept that some men are better than some women, just as some women better than some men.

It has been held as self‑evident for millennia in all cultures. Why not now by self‑flagellating Americans?

Obsession with feminist frivolous fetishes lowers our cultural level to the point that we miss the real components of progress.

Treating feminism, racial prejudices and similar symptoms as contaminated consequences of other factors is more realistic.

Instead of embracing feminism ‑or the symptom‑cure‑, we should nurture the cultural premises through education and scientific approach.

Curing the symptoms instead of the ailments invites our general collapse.

The feminist claim that women's talents are suffocated by motherhood and family duties is crudely anti‑woman, and blind to the talents required by civilized motherhood and family.

Those talents can be far superior to most artistic or technical talents.

Any mother or father able to raise a Christ, Newton, Einstein, Bach, Confucius  or da Vinci would have a gift more precious than virtually anything else, even granting the genetic roles.

Any wife or husband who could cause the success of a family generation would create an unfolding societal nucleus more precious to mankind than a super-car, an industrial empire, or the national budget and defense.

Being a "domestic" person is a natural female gift.

It should be masculine too.

There is now an impressive number of career and professional women who have the courage to "confess" that they would be happier as full‑time mothers and housewives.

Our blindness toward the "domestic" values has frozen into a destructive incompetence in the matter.

"Domestic" matters are treated with no more training or sophistication than required for natural metabolism or other biologic functions. Being a female is considered sufficient in order to be a mother, wife or housekeeper, as if she were just an animal.

Being a physician, cook, or teacher requires complex training; yet they are by far not as important as being a good mother or housewife.

The present average woman and man enter parenthood like brain surgeons who operate without any medical training.

We cannot tolerate an untrained physician even for a simple cold or head­ache assistance, but we require no qualifications and training for anyone who wants to start a family.

Parenthood is much more complex, even if it leaves medical and other specialized functions to professionals.

Yet, parenthood is expected to be implemented with the same non‑training of any animal: copulation, birth and animal‑level assistance.

Mistakes in raising children can hurt more than death itself, for a distorted education can cause worse damages than a fatal medical mistake (Hitler is only today's easiest example).

No wonder that the untrained woman is overwhelmed and the unprepared man stands aloof from it.

Ultra-feminism jumps into it with an incongruous bill‑of‑rights to program a computer.

When man cannot master something, he often distorts it into what he can understand, manipulate or look down upon.

In this atmosphere, the woman who fails to achieve the expected mother/housewife results ends up seeking more glitter on a lower level that even gender feminists can understand.

Already many women wonder what fulfillment can be found in blaming men and competing with them, instead of cooperating.

I can hear the femiranhas: "Why must I cooperate WITH A MAN?".

It sounds like insane asylum talk.

On the other hand, what man would want cooperation with a militant ultra feminist?

It is intriguing to observe that women who are very attractive and successful with men abstain from militant feminism.

Even as "silly broads" (if they so choose to be), they are far more useful than the femiranhas.

Feminist organizations are now having well‑publicized international rallies all over the globe.

In every such event, they sink a little deeper in their own predicament, for they only meet for womanhood, not for humanity, no matter what they claim.

They proclaim that their cause is the cause of mankind (or "personkind") too, but they sound like the invaders who wage war in the name of peace.

It is peculiar that most women who participate in those rallies would be much less enthusiastic to work for causes that benefit all of mankind, rather than women alone.

The feminism I used to advocate demanded a respect and recognition for woman's attributes to be not inferior to what was bestowed on such "male" attributes as productivity, creativity, executive achievements etc. They were and are darn right.

It was ‑and is‑ not just a matter of granting something, but simple recognition of the contribution of what the macho boars and the femiranhas have so far disparaged as a "domestic animal".

History gives us plenty of examples of belated recognition for important attributes that were only later comprehended, when we had evolved to the necessary level of sophistication.

Writing and reading used to be tasks for slaves or lower‑level workers.

Commerce, finances, science, medicine were elevated to their present level only in the last centuries.

Music, poetry, visual arts were high‑level endeavors in the times of ancient Greece and Rome. Then, they were confined to servants and modest sycophants for more than a thousand years. Now they are on the highest level of human recognition.

Today's feminists could have learned from history that the feminist problem was one of recognizing woman's value and capabilities, not of glibly transforming her nature, endeavors and posture into an anti-male  war or male imitation.

Choosing the latter condemns woman to an untenable situation of stepping down to levels that appear higher only to those women ‑ and men‑  who have theorized womanhood on the basis of male‑connected standards that enlightened people always found questionable.

If the femiranhas had their way, gone would be the day of woman's happiness and pride for her man's or son's victories and qualities.

Modern woman should not "lose her rightful identity in the shadow of man"..

It sounds convincing if put that way, but the image changes for the best if we call it devotion, dedication, selflessness, nobility, Christian virtue, or many other things from other perspectives... 

Even in the most macho world, there would be nothing wrong for a man to "lose his identity" in the shadow of his successful woman.

Man/woman‑togetherness and family thrive on mutual and unconditional devotion, not on competition. Man's attribute of "social animal" is a consequence of the natural family togetherness and devotion. Feminazism's position is thus antisocial: anti‑woman as well as anti‑man.

The heart‑warming pride and happiness a woman used to feel for the successes of her husband (and vice versa) is now being replaced by the competitive resentment prescribed by the “modern  enlightenment".       

OPEN SEASON ON THE WHITE MALE

Crimes against nature? You can bet they are perpetrated by the white male of the human species.

Crimes against the environment? You see an Indian crying about the malefic activities of the white male.

Any movie about cruelty to animals?

The white man is the culprit. There is a woman who tries to warn the cruel man. An Indian comes with the ever‑present calm wisdom of his ancestors (which presumably let him sell Manhattan for glass beads).

A black (austere, fearless and wise) contributes some other noble words or actions...

Do you want to see a degenerate father in a movie, a polluter/exploiter?

It's a white male. In all probability blond.

If a black, a woman, an Indian, another "minority" or "disadvantaged category" (well: a woman is no minority) is shown in any bad light, there is a strong probability that some ambitious "civil-rights" empty drum makes enough noise that no one dares to ignore it.

As a matter of fact, an almost sure way to foster a political career is to find some successful white male and attack him as a white opportunist, exploiter, polluter, racist or child and woman‑abuser.

Human piranhas, maggots, rats, sharks, leeches and vampires will frantically run to show their support. Their active block is a majority among the activists.

Are there any other white males blessed with success and power?

Still plenty ‑who pays all those taxes, anyhow?‑.

Then: attack them!

They have to pay for all the injustices perpetrated by our society in the past centuries.

Apparently, non‑white people have an angelic history composed exclusively of heroism, selflessness, righteousness, nobility, liberty, democracy, love love love...

Just as the only occupation of the Romans was orgies and Christian persecutions, so was and is the white male totally dedicated to oppression of minorities, women, children, little old ladies and environment.

Wasn't the white male the one who crucified Jesus Christ? Come to think of it, the Romans and the Jews were white; not only the ones at the Golgotha; and they were all male.

Someone will soon discover that women and minorities tried to reform those cruel Romans and Jews, but to no avail...

The first signs of historical nemesis started with Genghis Khan, Sitting Bull, Standing Cow, and now Jessy Jackson and Gloria Steinem...

Now the revolution is in full swing.

In TV, movies and commercials. Finally, we are seeing justice.

Now, a lot of TV police chiefs are black.

They are loud, powerful, feared, and they command respect.

Commercials? Who dares, now, to advertise or advocate anything without at least one "minority" in it?

I am curious to see a black playing Hamlet: will he wear a white makeup because Hamlet was a white Dane (like a black makeup for a white playing Othello), or will the civilrightniks interfere there too?

Before the present integration bigotry, I would not have objected to a black Hamlet. Now, I see the encroachment of arrogant racist poison.

I used to feel outraged that it was unthinkable to have a black (or Latino, Catholic, of Jewish, Italian, depending on the current prejudice) or female police chief, mayor or president.

Would you fly in an airplane built by people selected on the base of being white, black, or yellow, or Dutch, Italian, German or Indian, rather than for their skill?

Now, I am outraged that police a chief, mayor or president may be elected only for being black, or white, or male, or female, Jewish, German, Swedish, Ethiopian etc.

Blatant racism, sexism or blatant stupidity.

The excuse that it must happen in favor of the blacks to redress past injustices is as valid as the proposition that victims of theft must be allowed to steal, or the rape victim's son may rape the rapist's daughter.

Never before were the incredible "quota" laws promulgated to punish innocent people for alleged wrongs committed by others, and to reward some undamaged or damaged people for damages done by others or to others.

Only a decaying country could impose such lunatic imbecility and make it stick...

But, again, it only hurts the white male.

If you think deeper, it hurts us all more...

UNISEX LANGUAGE

A new trend tries to establish itself in addition to the present obsession  of "person", "he or she", "his or her": the use of "his" and "her" equanimously distributed in general examples in most writings. For example, the sentence:  "A politician cares for his own reputation" would be considered traditional. The present fad would be: "A politician cares for his‑or‑her own reputation", as if anyone would need that clarification..

The new fad would be: "A politician cares for her own reputation". 

A newer one, and even worse: "A politician cares for their own reputation".

Such choices are not only at odds with accepted English usage, but they will sooner or later generate protests by those who keep tab and sound the alarm that the one gender or expression has been used more than the other.

The traditional system of attributing both meanings to the male gender not only obviated misunderstanding, but it could not be seriously accused of male chauvinism.

It is the grave‑digging by militant femiranhas that always needs an additional issue to feed upon.

(They were furious that hurricanes were named with female names and forced hurricanes to be named George, Hugo etc.

They did not object to the traditional feminine gender attributed to countries, ships, machines, heavenly bodies and other objects so dear to men).

This problem does not exist in languages in which the gender of words has no strict sex connotation. For instance, the gender for the word "girl" is neuter in German (Mädchen) , feminine in Italian (ragazza); "chair" is masculine in German (Stuhl), feminine in French (chaise); "sea" is masculine in Spanish (mar), feminine in French (mer). "Person" is feminine in Italian (persona), German (Person), French (personne), Spanish (persona)...; "human being" is masculine in German (Mensch), etc... French vernacular has a male word for the female sex organ and a male word for the male organ.

In all cases, there is no sexism in the words or language. English has a structure that gives a traditional feminine gender to countries, ships, machines and structures people refer to as "she". That has no female chauvinism connotation.

There was no male chauvinism in the "all men are created equal" of the Declaration of Independence. Yet, today's feminists are serious when they assert that the Declaration if Independence meant only "males", not human beings.

If they knew some history or English, they would understand that Jefferson & Co. could have never written "all persons" or "all men and women".

Their English was too good to tolerate that.

The whole unisex preoccupation is parading its own nakedness.   

MIND EATING SEX

Sex and food are almost continuously present most persons' minds.

Yet, we officially act and talk as if it were not so.

For too long we have treated them as subjects beneath the dignity or interest of intellectuals and other lofty people.

Are then the latter remote from reality?

We should focus on those subjects and treat them in the first plane.

Conventional intellectuals or "sophisticated" people consider "corny" or vulgar to focus on the obvious.

The same happens when we repeat history or the well known because we elect to ignore it.

Clichés, for instance, are discounted or ridiculed. On the contrary, they are the proven reality that we misunderstand or choose to ignore because we don't want to contemplate again what has been said before.

The result is that the intellectual leaders set a fad that ignores the proven truths, because they are considered clichés beneath sophistication.

The truth is thrown into the underground, where it is picked up by the "unsophisticated" who cling to the living reality.

So, we have an underground porno literature and activity, an underground racism and other uncomfortable truths which we cannot yet suppress...

The fad says that there is no difference between sexes, races... And the "unsophisticated" have no choice but to go underground to preserve a posture that they feel to be more valid than the current intellectual fad. For good or for bad. And the "sophisticated" make sure it can only be bad.

Food was prevented from coming into its own as the determinant factor according to "we are what we eat". We should concentrate on finding out how to use food to not only feed and cure ourselves, but also to develop basic parameters such as intelligence, longevity, emotional strength, and the countless attributes that we don't know yet how to correlate with food.

As to sex, being it confined to low mental levels, it is actively focused on only as porno, prohibitions, legislation and primitive‑morals postures, where it must hide.

On the other hand, it might be better so, because sex falls into banality when it loses its mystery, taboos and myths, as it happens in nudist camps.       

DEVOTION OR EXTINCTION

Devotion as a feminine trait seems to be biologically motivated, rather than a learned cultural pattern.

As it is with male/female matters, the origin is in the sexual urge.

Man's sexual urge is female‑body oriented. He is attracted to the female body like Mr. frog to Mrs. frog.

The woman excites a man because of her body erotic characteristics, even if the woman is stupid, ill‑tempered, depraved or in any way unfit for marriage or any form of harmonious togetherness.

This is the way natural man selects woman, copulates, and goes on about his business.

This is what the female of any species is used to accepting or yielding to.

Thus, the nature‑ordained mating and multiplication occur.

That is all nature is interested in.

Our opinions in the matter are cosmically frivolous.                   

If woman had the same sexual aggressiveness as man, she would ultimately kill man's desire for her.

She could render him impotent.

Every time she would seek sex gratification from a man when he could not perform, or when he would not desire her, she would kill a little of man's sexual potency and motivation. It would be an accumulative phenomenon.

This is not obvious for a woman, because woman can have sex in the same manner whether she desires it or not, whether she likes the man or not. Even when she is asleep or unconscious.

A biological law seems to be that man must strive and even fight, and then perform flawlessly for sex gratification, and woman must be cooperative or yielding about it.

Nature doesn't care whether that agrees with the American Constitution, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Kant"s "Kritik der reinen Vernunft".

As far as the criterion of selectivity, nature makes man select the body.

Nothing else is consciously important to the man involved.

As for woman, nature lets her passively accept the winner in the male fighting competition, as with most species.

That passive acceptance, then, is viewed as active preference.

In the human species, the fight is sublimed in other forms of competitive qualifications, such as any ability to support and protect a woman, make a living, possessing attributes that seem to offer a quality of life.

The overwhelming preponderance of these qualifications over erotic sex appeal is remarkable in the woman.

Most natural women are not always very impressed by mere male handsomeness for the purpose of mating.

Ultra-feminists react vehemently to the above considerations. They proclaim that women have the right to approach sex the same as men, because the above mentioned differences are learned instead of natural.

They got their way in so many instances that proves of their futility are accumulating relentlessly.

A remarkable example are the shows of male strip-teasers for women.

At the start of the fad, mobs of "liberated" women swarmed to the shows and paraded a delirious enjoyment.

Then, those same women resulted to be the sexually unfit from sacrificing their instinctive essence to an anti‑feminine fetish disguised as liberated womanhood.

The male strip teaser shows faded away almost as fast as they appeared. Interest in them, as well as in male nudity magazines, survived among homosexual men.

What if we change the rules of the sex ritual into a pattern of evolutionary preference for the man who pleases woman?

First, such a decision without knowing the long‑range consequences could only be chosen by ultra-feminists who would destroy humanity to impose their fetishes.

On the other hand, such experience has already been made and is being made every day.

The sex ritual starts with the man pleasing the woman, which is the quintessence of seduction.

Then, as in a ritual dance, the pace reverts into the woman pleasing the man. Or it won't work.

It is a law of nature we cannot change, as explained above.

Thus, rather than the choice of liking or disliking it on the basis of fashionable convictions we believe to be eternal, we are faced with the necessity of understanding, enjoying and reinforcing reality.

We must recall that "happiness is not in doing what we like , but in liking what we do".

The reality is that woman's devotion is a nature‑ordained bliss for both man and woman.

GOD IN DRAG  

The Nemesis of feminazism is Patriarchy.

Patriarchy is and will remain the natural order of things, like a law of nature we  cannot change.

No human matriarchal society ever succeeded anywhere, no matter how the feminazis try to distort history.

Matriarchy may be found as a rare early childhood phase which invariable vanishes with growth.

The best way to promote patriarchy is to establish a matriarchy.

Historical clue or conjecture of a matriarchal beginning indicates that each case led to patriarchy.

Even today's feminist Goddess worship in California leads, if unwittingly, to the same conclusion.

AMs.

Ruth Barrett, of Los Angeles, is reputed (Wall Street Journal, June 7, 1990) to present the Goddess worship as follows:

"In the beginning there was no God. There was the Goddess. She peered into the great void and created the Heaven and the  Earth, and in this new domain women ruled. The world was peaceful and both sexes worshipped Her.

"But then, about 3000 B.C., men decided they had a better idea. They installed male deities ‑ among them the sun god Marduk, who did in Tiamat, the mother of all gods, by pumping air down her throat and blowing her to bits."

Quite a pneumatic feat, but hardly more than that.

A Evie‑Kaiulani Dauphin finds spiritual fulfillment in the "Garden of the Goddess" in Cotta Mesa, California, in a fertility rite, clad in grass skirt and bead necklace in the shape of Fallopian tubes and ovaries. She and other priestesses plunge a 12‑foot pole into a hole they have dug in Mother Earth... They clutch their wombs and beseech the Goddess to render them more fertile.

They whine, wail and howl in a frenzy.

They instinctively replicate the evolution into the Phallus worship. After all, the sculptural representation of a penis is remarkably more feasible than a gawky statue of the female genitals...

The phallus worship is a natural product of a matriarchal cultism, not of a patriarchal posture.

Whereas man derives pleasure from the genitals much more than woman, it is woman who focuses on the genitals in her worship for procreation.

For man, the penis is a tool of pleasure. For woman, it is a symbol and means to the reproduction end.

Since it is typical of such religion to require worship of images, the procreation worship needs the image of genitals, male and/or female.

The female genital organ is a wound‑like soft opening with an out-of-site meandering extension.

The male genital is very easy to represent; almost like the stem and a base of a malformed column with odd aesthetics.

I suspect nature had a shrewd motivation that probably intimates, "Do it, but get out of it as soon as completed"

Besides, the male genital, as the source of the seed that fertilizes woman for procreation, is an ideal cultist object, certainly more inspiring than the feminazi hatred for men.

Lunaea Weatherstone publishes a magazine on pagan rituals and erects a statue to the goddess Aphrodite, a crystal penis, purple candles, a chalice and a shell.

Thus her cult worships the Goddess on solstices, equinoxes and Groundhog Day.

Judith D. Auerbach, at the University of California Institute for the Study of Women and Men, asserts women seek feminism in the spiritual realm.

In keeping with the modest cultural level of the cultists, spell casting is a very popular course.

In San Francisco and Los Angeles, the "Circle of Aradia" and "Women Spirit Rising" bring over 200 women together at the equinox in Long Beach, with a high priestess, sword in hand, chanting "Blessed Be!".

They blame man for weaponry, but must use a sword for a "peaceful" love worship.

The "Ocean Amazons" share war tales about the "P.J's" (=patriarchal jerks= men) they once loved.

One day, the anti‑men hostility declares, women will not need men anymore to multiply: science will provide the male‑free procreation.

They want to believe in a possibility as reasonable as the earth producing any plant without a seed.

It is inescapable that man produces the seed.

The Goddess worshipers are resentful about that inevitability. Hence their catty hostility toward men, produced by the phallic worship women have created and nurtured.

The phallic worship continues now disguised in fashion, cosmetics, beauty salons, etc.

Femiranhas are furious for having painted themselves into a corner.

Men, on the other hand, find the greatest pleasure in women.

They seek and love women for the simple fact that they are a source of joy and pleasure.

Ultra-feminists seethe at the idea of giving pleasure to men.                   

If those same women have so much hostility, and men still find so much irresistible pleasure in them, then men can only treat them as concubines or prostitutes: merely for services, for any other kind of intimacy or devotion with such hateful beings would be masochistic...

Sooner or later, it will dawn again on the woman that she can conquer a man only if she finds and shares pleasure in togetherness and sexual union.

When woman cannot have the same kind of helpless sexual pleasure, she finds redemption in the devoted enjoyment of giving pleasure. Which is noble and feminine.

Woman wins when her joy of giving pleasure becomes a genuine pleasure.

That pleasure is real power.

So, woman "gives" and man "takes", to use the misleading concepts of feminists and chauvinists.

It may give the appearance of subservience. "I enjoy causing pleasure in you" is ultimately perverted as "How can I serve you?". It may sound  like subservience  to those who cannot understand its sublime subtlety.

Does the Christian claim "The meek will inherit the Earth" gives Heaven to the "inferior"?

The "inferior" in interpretation becomes thus "superior" in essence. Te Christian belief that the last will be the first is far more profoundly real than what most can perceive.

So, the greatness of woman was imprisoned in the semantic trap of "obeying", "serving", presumed "inferiority", as misunderstood not only by the "patriarchal jerks", but also by the feminist piranhas.

It is fascinating that woman can return to her natural greatness when she resumes her devotion role (incidentally: man must be not less devoted) and weathers the endemic plague of the militant ultra-feminists and macho pigs.

MONA LISA TELLS

From time immemorial, human work and activities have been conceived in a male direction, or with maco values and leadership.

In that approach, typically female functions, from child‑bearing to expanded household tasks, were rewarded with male protection.

The male was the hunter, the fighter, the provider. He brought home food, security, rewards.

These functions also made him the leader of the family.

That was the interdependence and hierarchy both man and woman accepted.

Today, man and woman are told that equality and individual independence are the new way. Just like that, as usual with the changes that only look at the surface.

Man and woman are now expected to be equal in a life style they both created for men.

Jobs intended ‑or fit‑ for women are considered demeaning (consciously or not), which is puzzling, because woman's and man's cause would be best served by drawing men and rewards toward "female" tasks, whether performed by women or men, as the original feminism pursued and is still supposed to pursue.

As it happens with many popular ideas, ultra-feminism was taken over by mass  mediocrity, whose typical attitude is symbolized by "taking from the rich and giving to the poor" rather than "creating prosperity".

So, instead of evolving toward any of the possible kinds of life styles with just rewards for complementary functions, they shrank typically female tasks to a lower level (with human rights, to be sure).

They claim that the past idealization of the mother and housewife was a ruse to keep her on the level of a breeding cow.

With such an asinine conception of motherhood and family, they aimed at the "male privileges".

Whereas the woman of the original feminism was the only model men had of the real values (parental and conjugal love, family as societal microcosm, evolution through education and devotion...) and away from wars, technology worship, dehumanizing industrialization..., the new woman obtained the cooperation of the new man in "raising" woman's level to martial, technologic, industrial and other "male" creations.

The consequence is that man loses the hope of overcoming his raw power, and woman her gift of focusing on reality.

First, we must remove the adversary attitude male chauvinism and gender feminism have brought into the man/woman relation.

Then, man must transfer his focus and re‑channel his energies to the family, more than to goals resulting from technology worship and other cults.

No science, technology, knowledge, culture, any other kind of progress need be sacrificed in the process. On the contrary, they can be humanized by steering them into the mainstream of human living: family, love and children, which are what mankind's core is all about.

Man should learn to recognize this reality and channel his power to it.   

Woman is born with it: all she has to do is being herself. Therefore she bears and nurtures the new life without having to learn it.

She attracts man by just being there, and man pursues her with the same intensity as he pursues food and survival.

She procreates by accepting man.

Man must perform with woman to procreate.

For the sophisticated, that may appear to be an oversimplification, but it is the foundation of the most refined structures envisioned by the most accomplished thinkers.

Philosophers, by the way, can refine every­thing to the ultimate: life as a path toward death...

Last and first, the most avoided explanation is the most unavoidable manifestation: the primordial sex truth.

Man is obsessed by the need to succeed, create, conquer, like a sublimation of his need for erection and orgasm, or he cannot be fulfilled.

It may sound a little too Freudian. What of it?

Woman has no existential problem. She needs no success or creative initiative, for she has them in herself.

Her body can conceive a child even while she is asleep, while man has to perform the complete mating and orgasm cycle, or the peak of his endeavors, and at the same time fight the ever menacing failure.

Thus, war, conquest, success, creation, art, building are the sublimed copulation struggle only man is condemned to.

Woman waits for him and rewards him as long as he performs successfully. Until, sooner or later, drained, he can no more.

And -like the praying mantis-she can devour him without struggle, and reproduces him beyond the need for creation and success.

Mona Lisa's self‑satisfied and mocking smile and her desolate rocky background haunt Leonardo, who created her and was  drained by his creation of her.

Therefore he kept her portrait with him like an exorcism, until he died.

THE SIMPLE COMPLEXITY

A revealing aspect of man‑woman relation is the different reaction of man and woman to the sex act that occurred simply for erotic pleasure, without any thought beyond sex:

If it was a happy copulation, the pleasure was so intense that the man feels gratitude and renewed desire for the same woman.

He would go back to her for more and more.

In many cases, the man feels an irresistible attraction toward the same woman, to the point that he is unable to give her up or forget her.

Even without the romantic love, the pleasure man derives from sex can be so intense that, once experienced, he cannot do without it.

It is like a true addiction.

It reproduces the whole life cycle: desire/fulfillment/death, repeated every time desire is renewed

For the woman, since she mostly expects more than she consciously obtains, often she prefers to forget the event and can do it like turning a switch off.

She cannot understand why the man cannot accept her sudden decision to terminate the relationship.

The man is thus defined a "pig", "why doesn't he understand I don't want him anymore?".

She becomes hostile when he insists that he cannot help desiring and needing her, for the pleasure she gave him that he cannot give up or obtain from other women.

The hostility turns to hatred and viciousness if he falls pray to his desire for her.

It is strange how such a love desire by him, which has absolutely nothing hostile or damaging, and which was generated by her ability and willingness to give him a supreme pleasure not otherwise obtainable, becomes such a source of her hatred and spite against him.

History and literature are full of woman's "cruelty" toward a man who desires and loves her.

Man's cruelty toward the seduced woman can be just as devastating; perhaps even more so, because woman can be more damaged by sex than man in the traditional moral and practical convention.

But the reasons are different.

Just as the rejecting woman cannot understand the helplessness of man's desire for her, the man who rejects the woman is just as blind because a man who has lost his desire has also lost the ability to understand what that desire is, even if it refers to only one particular woman.

This seems to suggest that reason must be transformed by bio‑chemical factors in order to comprehend sexual desire.

Let's repeat the same with different words (still referring to purely erotic sex):

Man desires woman and enjoys the highest physical pleasure known by copulating with her. The joy is so intense that he cannot give her up: he is irresistibly attracted to her, to repeat the joy and pleasure he is helplessly addicted to.

The woman copulates with him with mostly another feeling: she likes to satisfy him. If she does it for her own enjoyment, it is an enjoyment much less physically intense and helpless than the man's.

When the woman wants to terminate her relation with the man who really enjoys her, she can do it in a similar manner of the dope supplier who refuses to give more drug to the addict. But, whereas the dope peddler knows what the situation is, the woman is unable to understand that the man cannot accept her decision to quit copulating with him.

She ends up resenting or despising him for being so insistent in desiring or loving her...

When this love by the man is found to be "nothing more than sexual desire", it is conventionally condemned as if it were evil, and the rejecting woman is protected by the general hypocrisy.

The fact remains that woman counters love with obtuse hatred and condemnation of the most beautiful man/woman interaction.

If we scratch below the surface of sin and our conventions, we discover the reason why the woman results to be the ultimate loser when she wins in rejecting man and disparaging his desire for her.

A different "scenario" of the man‑woman relation refers to the same reality, but from a different perspective, when one can focus beyond sex:        

The pathos and irresistible erotic fascination that obsesses the man before the sex act is like a balloon that is prickled by the orgasm. The culmination of the intercourse is like falling into an abysm of banality after conquering the peak of pleasure.

The orgasm performs the metamorphosis that explains why even the most beautiful woman can suddenly become a dreary bore for the man that coveted her like a goddess of pleasure before copulating with her.

Before orgasm, all man sees and desires are the woman's body and erotic attributes he covets. Anything else is out of focus. After the orgasm, the erotic dissipates and one faces all the other elements of reality, personality, mental and emotional compatibility.

Sex is forgotten, if sex is all that man sees in that particular woman, until man's hormones are regenerated.            

Once the hormones are regenerated, the process repeats itself: sex is what matters, and the rest falls out of focus... As the cycle returns, the erotic impulse becomes progressively milder, and the other factors unfold a persistent significance. This becomes disturbing if the woman does not possess the characteristics that make her "tolerable" for the man who sees only seen sex in her.

The phenomenon is so normal that it may explain why the woman is seen as a resented "deceiver" after the man remains "stuck" with her.

This is exacerbated and perpetuated by woman's concentration in seducing dresses and cosmetic ruses to attract man sexually, without much thought of what may happen afterwards.

This may also explain how woman may have painted herself into a corner of atoning subordination to the resentful man.

MAN/WOMAN VS. REALITY

Man/woman relationship contradicts conventional reality.                                      

It is not uncommon that a man (or woman) conquers power and riches, and then marries a woman (man) who has no other asset than a beautiful body: no talent, no virtues, no education, not even fidelity.

She (he) uses his (her) riches and power lavishly, then she (he) divorces him (her) and gets away with a portion of his (her) wealth that is absurdly more than her (his) worth or contribution.

The American law allows and ordains it.

This story repeats itself in numerous variations in the world of the "beautiful people".

The divorce rate among exceptionally attractive actors and actresses is very high. This contradicts the idea that beauty of both husband and wife should be a powerful incentive to stay together.

But it is still the marriage of a person and a body (that is what "marrying for love" mostly boils down to).

The trouble is that man, woman and law misunderstand (or conveniently refuse to see) reality and misapply what they misunderstand.

All three are distorted to fit "equality" or "equal rights".

Equality is not a bad idea, but it is misunderstood and misapplied.

Like freedom, it is conceived by dreamers and implemented by the incompetent.

Man and woman are not equal. Their inequality is difference, not the dreaded superiority/inferiority.

When nature programs man to crave woman's body, and woman to seek man to fulfill her maternity instinct [some women are just as oversexed as the equivalent men, but that is another story], the basic behavioral difference between man and woman is set up.

It is man/woman, not nature, that distorts the difference into a superiority/inferiority condition.

Before mating, sexual desire is idealized in human expectations. The letdown begins with the honeymoon (or its equivalent), when vision is no longer impaired by the unfulfilled hankering.

His sexual craving relieved by gratification, man needs more than sex to share his life with woman.

Woman needs more than her body to share life with man.

After erotic gratification, before his sexual batteries are recharged, a primordial man would rather leave the woman if they have no further task together. With mating, woman's maternal drive only starts a many-years cycle that goes through conception, delivery and child rearing into adulthood.

For that purpose, she needs the same man who doesn't need her after copulation.

But he will need a woman again when he is "recharged".

Why not her again? Sure, it would be the best solution.

Moral considerations apart (which nature disdains as ephemeral), the primordial man has no reason to remain with the woman he has mated with, unless he is motivated by a drive as powerful and enduring as her maternal instinct.

Fortunately, maternal instinct can help, but it cannot be contaminated by artificial concepts of "freedom", "equality", "justice" and other pompous pretensions improvised by the pundits of local folklore who want to be elected and reelected by the populace (that is, by the "8th graders majority").

Even romantic love and mutual trust are woefully inadequate.

First, a normal man wants to be sure that the child he devotes himself to is not another man's offspring.

Woman's virginity and total, permanent, exclusive sexual devotion to one man are the most foolproof answer we know.

Even if the man remains as promiscuous as an unfixed dog .

The only possible arguments about it are whether we like it or not.

If we like it, the problem is (unilaterally) resolved, as in the Islamic world.

If not, endless conflicts, fights, social unrests, political and legal intricacies ensue.

They are alive and kicking in our world, without an end in sight.

That is not all. When man and woman are together, the law can protect woman much easier than man.

Woman is assured maintenance, protection, often ownership of half or part of the possessions, etc.

She is basically comfortable with the material possibilities to function, rear children and survive.

At this point, the question may arise: what about the original sex that started it all?

Man can bring flowers, buy the jewelry, the car etc., [no feminist claims woman's right/duty to do the same with man yet] and woman will thankfully appreciate.

If he offers sex, as at the start, woman does not normally reject it, but she prefers it wrapped up in "romantic" tinsel.

There is no ill will on her side: her basic nature is more truly fulfilled by children, motherly care and all the corollaries of motherhood, including housewife tasks.

What goes with motherhood and "housewife tasks" can be on a cow or cat level, or on the highest level of medicine, nutrition, psychology, education, maintenance, finances, and more (only for the ultra-feminists the housewife is a cow).

At this point emerges the true superiority of woman over man, the one enlightened men and women have always agreed upon, if man does not elect to choose (over hunting, war, and executive games) the way woman was favored by nature with.

Woman can give the decisive push with her sexual power over man: to entice and excite him to enjoy it all with her.

Regardless of how she enjoys sex, if she sincerely loves and enjoys to please him, without faking or deceit, she is virtually in charge of happiness.

It is true that not every woman can do it without first learning it.

It is not easy, but success itself is not easy. It needs the learning curve evolution requires.

Those who expect instant success on demand end up in frustration, divorce, psychosis, feminism, odd religions or hate‑filled failures.

The failure is epitomized in many forms: interpreting woman's devotion as servitude or inferiority, luring hapless housewives into joining man's rat race, believing that man and his traditional values are superior...    

The Moslem consider our civilization Satanic because (among other things) it menaces their conception of family and man/woman harmony based on woman's subjugation (plus absolute devotion to Allah and conversion to all non Muslims in the world to Islam, which are basic of their culture).

Our way needs more and less in many ways. More freedom, less dogmatism, more possibilities for women in both education and initiative, less interference from religious leaders...

The major change we need, on our side, is unconditional devotion, priority of family duties over personal and career requirements. The historical  evidence of how it works is overwhelming, regardless of how many votes we think it produces for which politicians.

If patriarchal patterns and woman's apparent "subservience" are all we can come up with at the beginning, there is nothing "Satanic" with it, until we find a different solution WITHIN the family, rather than a destructive "liberating" invasion of the family by the ultra-feminists.

EVE'S PRIMORDIAL SUPERIORITY

In spite of what we think of ourselves, mankind is still in the kill-or-be-killed evolutionary phase.

For this style, male's specific attributes are still the prevailing factors. Woman is in still in the background supporting the life saving or conquering soldier, in war or in sublimed struggle postures.

She is still seen by many as a low-key "mother-nature" backup. 

In the kitchen, in the bedroom, in the dining room....., in social activities... and more... and more...

While René Descartes (1596-1650 a.d.) impressed the world with his "COGITO, ERGO SUM" ("I think, therefore I am"), woman, whether a "silly broad" or an empress, acted the unspoken but real "SUM" ("I am") since time immemorial.

She is the goddess who needs no worshipers, support or temples. She simply IS.

While man has to perform, struggle, create, prove himself on the life stage, just to justify his existence, woman was born complete for any circumstance.

She "is", as the primordial existentialistic fact, without having to learn, prove or earn anything, whether awake or asleep.

Man BECOMES.

Woman IS.

Life is reproduction.

The reproduction start is initiated by man who produces the semen and plants it into woman, after confronting and overcoming all the obstacles posed by his opponents and by woman herself, who puts him through tests.

Woman ultimately accepts the insemination by the victorious man.

Thus, man and woman become one, and the fact is irreversibly permanent, even if they separate afterwards.
And woman becomes the epitome of Mother Nature (there is no Father Nature).
Natural woman, as mother, accepts her children AS THEY ARE, to promote their survival, growth and their own reproduction, so that the natural cycle continues indefinitely and without qualifications.

 

Natural man, as father, accepts his children AS THEY BECOME, through growth beyond mere existence and survival.

He expects his children to learn, struggle, compete and assert themselves through evolutionary growth that requires constant efforts of learning, struggling to win, conquer, create and defend what they have achieved.

In so doing, man exposes himself to the unavoidable errors and failures that may cause defeat and self destruction.

He cannot avoid risking the worst, as it happens in the hunt for survival.

That becomes the subject and object of epics, legends, myths, victories, glory of lethal struggles, triumphs and tragedies.

Woman's natural posture is like that of life as such: striving for survival and reproduction outside of struggle, victory, and risk of defeat.

Therefore she needs no struggle, victory, or glory, as connected with the male daily ordeal.

She becomes, beyond the necessity of recognition or reward, the quintessence of life.

 

(to be continued)

SCRAMBLED THOUGHTS

- Women organizations are abuzz about their global meetings worldwide. Among other subjects, they keep discussing the problems of working women.

For instance: who and what takes care of the children when their mothers go to work?

Such a question is often based on the perverted premise that going to work is more important than taking care of the children.

Which is a corollary of another perverted premise: child-care is not a fulfilling activity, certainly not worthy of a "liberated" (liberated from what?) woman.

This change of values has created a disturbing metamorphosis in our socio-economic pattern: whereas in the past a man was considered little more than a failure if his wife had to get a job to complete the family budget, today it is considered obvious that husband and wife must both have a job to survive.

In fact, when a man complains that his income is not enough to support his family, if his wife stays at home with the children,  he is asked why his wife doesn't have a job. 

Today's salaries are so structured that husband and wife are expected to be both employed to support their family.
Consequently, our jobs and salaried work determine whether we can have children and how to raise them.

Who of us would have liked to be raised by parents for whom we were less important than their jobs?

‑ "He is wonderful, a real gentleman" is what many women say about a man who shows no sexual intentions.

Sooner or later, however, the same women find out that, if she continues going with the "real gentleman", she will be very disappointed, for the man without sexual intentions is not the one who will go as far as the woman would like: complete intimacy and union, mutual devotion, marriage, family and children.

Sooner or later, the woman learns that she wins by offering appreciation and desire for sex.

This, however, tends to create the delusion that many women desire sex as much as men, and in the same way.

‑ Islam seems to be the religion most aware of the greatest desire of men when it conceives a paradise in which men are rewarded by the houries, heavenly virgin(?) girls dedicated to give them sexual pleasures for all eternity.

It remains that we know of no physical pleasure more intense and total than sex.

Women don't find, in Allah's paradise, the male correspondent of the houries.

Islam speculates that women do not derive as much pleasure as men from sex. Probably there is a theological explanation about woman's rewards in Heaven that I would like to know.

‑ Ultra-feminism lures women into blaming their unhappiness on men rather than facing it within themselves, as men are supposed to do.

Many women lost the possibility of being happy because they embraced the feminist cause of the questionable goal on the wrong premises..

The only reality we have seen caused by ultra-feminism is militant hostility, even if unintentional.

The ultra-feminist sense of justice is artificial and unreal and puts women on a path toward the impossible.

They pursue unhappiness when they believe they pursue happiness.

‑ The life of the unmarried appears to be a perennial search and mating dance.

The happily‑wed seem to have no choice but turning to "higher pursuits" and looking down at the unwed pursuits.

If they did not, they would have to face the death that remains after the all-encompassing reproduction act.

As they live, they must find a reason for life‑beyond‑mating.

Or like being devoured alive by the she-mantis?

‑ Collecting "evidence" of the equality between man and woman is collecting opinions and nothing more.

It is amazing that we cannot openly deal with anything more than opinions in this field.

Feminists scurry to define opinions they favor as facts, and any other opinion as error.

On the other hand, most opinions or evidence we have recorded from some famous people are unnaturally anti‑woman.

‑ Love as the reason to marry is proven unreliable by the highest‑in‑the‑world divorce rate in USA, the typical marriage‑ for‑love country.

Societies where marriage is based on practical considerations and arranged by parents ‑or others more experienced than the candidates‑ have the most enduring marriages and solid families.

There is much more affection developed in "arranged" marriages than in "love originated' marriages.

The way marriage can destroy romantic expectations proves the fallacies of our popular psychology and presumed knowledge of human nature.

‑ The overwhelming majority of women are mainly interested in books, magazines, TV‑programs and other activities dealing with beauty, "sexuality", fashion, cosmetics and related subjects.

Also militant feminists show that same crotch obsession, especially in their continuous Freudian slips.

‑ In a society governed by male taste, female‑body "exploitation" has an obvious success, as well as other "moral" or "immoral" manifestations of whatever caters to male eroticism.

The latter includes, of course, fashion and all the cosmetic expressions.

If, on the other hand, we consider a society governed by female taste, male body exploitation would not succeed as the female one in a male‑taste society. Male strippers, for instance, would not be by far as successful as the female ones in a "male" society, as recent experimentation has shown.

One curious factor is that both erotic experiences have completely unfolded throughout history in virtually all cultures in a free play of many cycles.

The feminist assertion that the "male‑oriented" pattern is a result of male chauvinism is disproved by the fact that little boys and young men are considerably more prone to physical and muscular exhibitionism in front of girls than girls before boys. No one tries to stop this phenomenon.

The lengths to which boys go to show their prowess, their muscles and their erotic attributes are amazing. They perform something like a ritual to run after the girls and catch them.

On the other hand, girls learn to make themselves physically attractive and to exhibit their charms because they notice how much power they gain over men in so doing.

They perform also the ritual of running away to entice the boys to catch them.

Thus, the "male" erotic pattern has prevailed not only because men wanted it, but because women have found it much more practical and pleasant for themselves.

Hidden, however, is also the dark evolutionary ruthlessness.

So, we have powerful clues that the "male chauvinistic" society is what both men and women have nurtured for millennia.

Religions were first hesitant, then, they surrendered to it.

Feminism can undo that. And they are still trying with any means.

‑ Man is attracted to the woman's body and youth.

Woman nurtures it; thus, she promotes her youthful appearance and, consequently,  her own fading with age.

Woman is attracted to man's attributes that improve with age. Thus, man's aging acquires positive values that improve with time (to a point...).

‑ Woman tends to almost indifference in the repeated sexual act. Man, on the other hand, undergoes a "high" connected with pre‑orgasmic bliss and hormonal activity.

‑ It is remarkable that, normally, it is the man who finds irresistible attraction in the female genitals, not the woman in man's genitals. This reveals something we don't quite comprehend. Women have understandably exploited this fact for thousands of years by attracting men by simple exhibition of their own bodies.

Man is simply unable to attract woman in the same manner or to the same extent.

‑ Husband and wife are not equal primarily. They are two different persons. In the course of life, one establishes "superiority", prominence, or the "last word" from agreed‑upon shared experience.

So, one becomes the leader in the mutual interest.

But the law intervenes and blindly says "No. Equality at any cost!".

This law, then, is in the way of peace, happiness and evolution.

‑ Woman's position is "subordinate" or "inferior" because only woman's function is clear to our understanding and thus can be defined. Her morphology and biology gives a clear message: that is what she, and only she, can do.

She is only apparently subordinated, therefore, to a definition both he and she can understand.

Man is "free" or "superior" by default, because we have no clear message from nature about his mission relatively to woman, outside of copulating, which can begin and finish in a matter of minutes.

The woman is thus imprisoned in a definition we are able to understand (our way, to be sure), and man is free on account of our inability to understand and/or to define him.   

‑ Feminists want men to have virtues without passions, but they also want to implement feminist passions without virtues.

They condemn male passions but claim equal rights to have them.

‑ Lack of woman's fulfillment as a housewife and mother is a consequence of passing from the pre‑industrial/Christian society into the present technically and not humanistically.

The family concept did not advance like physics, chemistry, economics, management etc/.

We need no "family" discovery or historic advancement.

We must merely accept the new advancements in the family: goal‑oriented dietetics rather than "good tasting food", teaching children and grandchildren, instead of merely raising them, family‑size production of individually needed items or services, computerization of communications, records, networked activities...

All of the above would allow the woman AND the man to progress in the family, for the family, as well as for themselves individually, without losing the evolutionary advantages of the nuclear and extended family, away from the socially corroding industrialization, "liberation" and feminism.

Children would be integral part of the new development, not sacrificed to it.

‑ Women's rejection of married men in erotic involvement betrays the use of sex as a bait for marriage rather than for the pleasure feminists claim women are entitled to as much as men.

Why do they demand something no one denies them?

When the facts are exposed, they will justify the "double standard" both men and women have accepted since time immemorial.

Women will return to the old apparently "anti‑sex" posture, and the woman who wants sex in the same "sex‑for‑sex's‑sake" manner as man will be considered an anomaly or a physical love specialist, or no one will believe that she is trustworthy.

Full circle.

‑ Mores have changed to the point that sexual promiscuity has become acceptable. For how long?

Adultery is no longer a turpitude: it is not even considered in divorce settlements.

Virginity and chastity are losing their traditional value.

Affairs, escapades, extra‑ marital sexual activity, under‑age promiscuity without any feeling other than purely physical have become common place...

Why is then rape still a taboo‑fetish? In our changed moral and social environment, punishing rape like murder should be no more than a barbaric superstition.

‑ When a well‑known man has an affair, or just a one‑night encounter with a woman, and the fact is exposed, he is severely damaged, often for life in his career, and she hits the jackpot in money, publicity and other successes.

So, he is ruined and she is rewarded.

Not long ago, a similar case brought disgrace to the woman and nothing to the man, or disgrace to both, but certainly no advantage to the woman.

The message for women is: nowadays, your crotch is a source of revenues and a weapon against men; use it before the pendulum swings the other way again; which is bound to happen.

‑ Feminists are now being trapped by what they claim as their entitlements, as they are embarrassed by the contradictions obvious in some like:

"Playgirl" magazine;

Male strippers for women;

Forcing the homos on the military;

Erotic genital activity;

Business competition;

‑ Woman has always co‑created with man the long established human environment.

Both woman and man put man in charge.

Then, man was blamed by her for all negative results, only because he was in charge (with her cooperation).

‑ Most marriages are condemned at the start, because they are subject to folklore, religions, philosophies, laws and customs that have nothing to do with love, devotion, procreation and child‑rearing.

‑ The roles of man and woman are real and unchanged in copulation, reproduction and child rearing. The rest is folklore.

Equality, rights, societal roles have no meaning, unless they serve love, reproduction and child‑rearing.

Giving importance to the rest is presumptuous and no better than political prostitution.

‑ Today's feminists are the worst wives and mothers.

The percentage of successful wives and mothers among ultra-feminists is insignificant,  to put it mildly. The fact that very few of them are attractive says quite a lot.

‑ Much is difficult with human nature when it is so difficult for man and woman, friends, nations to get along.

Animals seem to harmonize better.

What is wrong? Rights without merits, aberrant equality, cultural perversion.

‑ Man and woman claim equality, until they have good sex.

‑ In our present legislative situation, the unfit mothers and wives are the majority of the women.

According to nature, the fit wives and mothers (as well as fathers) are those who are completely devoted to husbands, children and families before anything else.

In the present ideology, this is not "politically correct", and it sets woman's aspirations against nature.

As a lover and child-bearing mother, woman is apparently functional from, say, age 13‑ 16 to about 40-45 years.

Then there are women with children and without husbands; especially the black women.

They thrive on feminist principles that don't discourage them from bearing children out of wedlock and demanding a reward for it without the stigma of broken family.

If the family values were still valid like before, they would at least try to avoid being subject to the unwed stigma, and to make the fathers responsible.

There are then women in the ideal age group to be housewives and mothers, who are swayed by the present ideology into disparaging the "inferior" status of housewives and mothers.

They believe that a higher aspiration is to ape men in becoming executives, managers, and organizers in any field outside of the family.

When they realize how sterile those endeavors are ‑compared to the family‑ they are too old, or becoming too old, for a new beginning that starts with child‑bearing and family.

And their children are irreversibly damaged for life.

All they are left with is the feminist posture. So, they must cling to it for dear life and dignity; or at least to save face...

They may end up marrying, but with a defensive gender-feminist expectation like a time bomb exploding in divorce or other marriage perversions.

Their hostility toward men acts like an incurable AIDS that deprives marriage of all natural defenses resulting from unconditional mutual devotion.

These women are the ultimate losers.

Those of them who win, do it with hateful unhappiness within themselves and at tremendous cost to the husbands and children,  which gives more fuel to the gender-feminist man-hating excuses, resulting in more self‑destroying women...

Meanwhile, the coquettish attitude of women with attractive bodies goes on, feminism or not.

Also the less attractive women find out they can get a lot from men if they can attract them physically.

So, women go back to the natural attitude for the wrong reason.  

‑ Matriarchy is apparently against nature.

Matriarchal patterns are possible only if the woman were to exert maternal authority on the adults as well as on the children.

But it is an inexorable law of nature that adulthood brings a natural distancing from maternal guidance.

The male authority, on the other hand, is dictated by leadership postures originated and evolved from time immemorial. 

Probably, it developed from the obvious necessity of leading ‑ rather than nurturing‑ decisions in the paralyzing impasses caused by disputes among "equals".

This is apparently what made patriarchy the only choice supported by natural evolution.

‑ It is... remarkable that the abortionists would not exist if their mothers had aborted them...

‑ Feminazis are against anything in which woman is fulfilled with man, or in which woman's devotion to man (and man's to woman) is necessary, like the family.

‑ Feminists do not officially preach man‑hatred, but nothing fits man‑hating women better than gender feminism.

‑ A pattern between man and woman is millennia old: man pursues woman and woman is shy and initially defensive, or hostile.

Why not the opposite with the present equality?

Would the man be as shy and hostile if the woman took the initiative?

It would be worse.

‑ I never met a woman not interested in focusing her life on man, be it in love or hatred.

In fact, in no other endeavor a woman shows as much spontaneous, instinctive interest.

This is not less true when the woman goes out of her way to show that men are unimportant to her, or to show that she doesn't go out of her way to show that men are unimportant...

Even the most rabid femiranhas could not pursue their passionate causes without focusing on man.

‑ Two unexpected consequences of virulent feminazism are the decay of the family and a faddist psychological prejudice against spouses working together, because in both cases the man takes the leading role.

The woman herself expects the man to lead, to carry the load and responsibility.

Then, she resents it, as a gender-feminist.

This is just one of the many cases in which today's fads wound the woman in order to hurt the man.         

‑ Traditional family conception, many children, sex abstinence (in lieu of contraception), intimate family life are said to be avoided in view of the prevailing two‑career couple pattern and the gratification interpretation of sex.

This position is an anti‑nature fad which is mistaken as a realistic morality.

The reality is that sex was ‑and is‑ imposed to us by nature, regardless of our opinion of it.

Sex pleasure is not a human invention or conquest; it is the motivation nature has given us to procreate.

Not more, not less. Our interpretation is unimportant.

Society, work, wealth are all motivated by, and centered on, the family.

The moment work, wealth or society become central at the expense of family, our decay starts.

No opinion can change the facts.

‑ The main reason of the feminists' covert hostility toward men is that women simply cannot win in open hostility.

In the few cases in which they win, women are contemptuous of men just because of it.

Therefore they lose.

In the meanwhile, the coquettish tendency to display their bodies remains active in the women, in spite of their hostility.

So, they do the right thing for the wrong reason.

Or, if you will, the wrong thing for he right reason...

Later, when the age of attractiveness is over, woman falls back into resentful anti‑male hostility.

Half of her life is still ahead of her...

What then?

A female life dedicated to attracting men with sex charms is a time bomb women set against themselves by educating men to being attracted by charms young women can offer much better.

What then now that the young thing has aged? "The man is a pig: all he wants is sex..."

Modern feminist schizophrenia.

That kind of compulsive female hostility discourages man from seeking anything other than purely physical gratification from women.

Devotion to a hostile woman is masochistic.

‑ For nature man, sex is a goal; for nature woman, a means.

‑ Man cannot help having an irresistible desire (for woman) which dies out immediately after orgasm.

Erotic love is incidental, no matter how desirable.

The woman who can tolerate man's haplessly egotistic (but sudden-end) ardor is the one who can love unconditionally.

This puts man in the "taking" and woman in the "giving" position. Civilization has added "giving" attributes to man and "taking" attributes to woman. Words.

‑ Virginity, viewed as a constraining obligation for the woman, is actually a great tool for women to entice men.

It is a great equalizer of attractive and non‑attractive women. Without the artificial desirability of virginity, women who are not sufficiently attractive could not compete with the more physically fortunate. The transformation of this attribute into a great virtue is probably the greatest godsend for worthy women who would otherwise be completely insignificant for some men.

‑ Man beats woman because he is stronger, not because he is more violent.

Woman would probably beat him more if she were strong enough, because she is naturally more hostile to him than he to her.

Man is therefore punished not for being violent (woman is just as violent, or more, with children), but for being stronger.

A weaker man avoids provoking the violence of a stronger man.

If he does not, he is accused of being a foolish provoking troublemaker.

A woman should use the same prudence when facing a violent man.

Who gives her more rights to provoke a man than a weaker man has to provoke a stronger man?

If she goads him, she should be punished for provoking him, while he could be punished for violence.

‑ The most common denominator of feminist issues is nationwide focus on sexual matters like rape, sexual harassment, prostitution, abortion, birth control, maternity care, feminine hygiene...

TV is full of genital advertising for women: birth‑control pills and devises, pads, tampons and other menstruation aids, vaginal deodorants, suppositories, medicaments and cosmetics for all kinds of vaginal and female‑genital purposes...

No genital ads for men. Man never made national issues of male genital matters.

This pattern is chosen by both men and women.

The feminist claim that women are subjected to sex exploitation by man is bizarre.

In reality, considering that women are much less enslaved to, and interested in, the pursuit of sexual pleasures, women's incessant focusing on sexual purposes and the gender feminist bellicosity about them exposes the truth they vehemently deny: it is the women who practice sex exploitation.

The twist that makes of the man the presumed sex oppressor is probably the sin connotation imposed by the Judeo‑Christian morality on the enjoyment of sex.

‑ In spite of their claims to the contrary, most ‑if not all‑ feminists dislike being women.

They slide inexorably into the fight for the right of women to be like men.

It is interesting that the men who oppose feminism the most are mostly men who like women "too much"...

‑ Woman's hostility toward the man who desires her is articulated in her complaint that "all he wants is sex". But, if man's sexual desire were of the same non-intensity as woman's, he would no longer consider her worth the trouble, and woman would feel neglected and desperate for more male attention.

With the male sexual desire as it is, woman makes it worse for herself by endeavoring to attract man with the traditional sexual enticements, sublimed or not: sexy clothing, perfumes, cosmetics, hairdos... 

When her endeavor is successful, man covets her, and she ends up resenting man's sexual desire.

Often, she rationalizes her hostility by asserting that she would prefer the man to show an "above sex" sophistication.

If the man does it, she cannot cope with it, for she wants the man to give her a child, or the kind of attention that a copulation‑ready man provides, not the articulation of refined subjects.

So, she prudently keeps enticing man with her body, not with her intellect and/or virtues. Later on, when she is busy with rearing the children, he has no choice but to tackle "manly" problems of various nature, starting with support and protection.

And the bloke ends up disparaging the broad. And the broad becomes resentful of the bloke.

And the endless loop closes on her, because she needs him  for protection in a still violent and unjust world.

The consequent woman dilemma weakens her position so much that the only solution for her is the traditional "subordinate" role.

The well known reluctance of coeds to succeed competitively in colleges, in order not to antagonize eligible male students, obtained better and longer marriages than today's competition. Unjust, but realistic.

Predictably, the feminists rally vehemently against it to obtain competitive equality, that, in turn, devastates them to the point that they scamper back to the proven "subordination" bag of tricks.

History is full of it, but they have submerged history into distorted footnotes to rationalize anti-male crusades.

‑ Man's desire for woman creates a situation in which man appears to depend on the woman he desires. He must pursue and conquer her.

Woman's position appears much stronger: her defensive posture helps her to make herself desirable with a clear purpose, so that the man is attracted to her and she can exert mastery over him.

On the other hand, man has the advantage of the initiative: he can satisfy his goal of conquest by reaching and grabbing the target, with or without woman's pleasure, even without woman's consent. He can decide when and how to initiate his pursuit. This may be important even if he does not succeed.

Woman's apparent strength vanishes if man does not desire her.

There is no power on earth that can  help her seduce the man she cannot attract and/or physically arouse.

She has no choice but among the men she can attract.

Whereas the man can copulate with the woman who does not like him, the woman cannot copulate with a man who does not like her erotically. This puts woman in a surprisingly disadvantaged position, if we judge it from today's fashionable man/woman equality theory.

Woman's situation appears dramatically worse if we consider the second half of her life, after the menopause. Her own desperate youth cult works like a masochistic contribution to the tragedy.                 

Only the proven family values can restore woman to the meaningful dignity she lost with the present ultra-feminism.

It is in the true (or "traditional") family that the feminine attributes of devotion, dedication and contribution to her family return woman to the pedestal from which she fell when feminazism disparaged woman's devotion ("subservience") to man.

‑ Feminists' fight for abortion rights forces society to focus on woman's demands for right to promiscuity and irresponsibility, no matter whether she likes sex or not.

First, women know that all they have to do to obviate the problem of abortion is to choose between chastity, sex only for procreation, or sex with contraceptives, pills, intra uterine devices, or surgery.

Second, an ultra-feminist woman wants to have the one‑sided right to  choose between killing the child or bear it and burden the man with parental responsibility he had not intended to generate.

Man is indeed responsible, but he is expected to be at the mercy of such a blatant arrogance.

The intentionally hidden factor is decisive: woman can control sex to a degree that man can not even hope to approach, simply because nature has created this night‑and‑day difference between man and woman.

The feminist claim that woman can be just as driven by sex as man is a dishonest distortion or reality.

The sex‑driven‑like‑a‑man woman is motivated by some untypical passion or exceptional psycho‑somatic circumstances.

In fact, the woman who is as uncontrollably desirous of sex as man is considered abnormal and needy of therapy.

The hidden message of the fight for abortion rights is the unconfessed demand for an unneeded promiscuity equality to take from man an innocent "advantage" he got from nature. But the "advantage" is not really such, if the traditional order of things is accepted, in which man and woman have different functions but equal responsibility.

Feminists want equal functions, based on nature distortion, and unequal burden. The nature distortion is the dishonest assumption that male and female sexual urges are "equal".

Unequal burden is unavoidable when the woman is granted unjustified rights on the false assumption of equal urges.

Unequal burdens with equal rights presumes equal responsibilities which are therefore unequal. These pro‑woman unequal responsibilities are the only realistic way for "liberated" women to obtain the unnaturally equal functions they want.

These equal functions are what feminism menaces to devastate womanhood with.

‑ The sexual habits and feelings we consider normal are an interpretation accepted in the last 2000 years of what developed in the previous two million or more years.

Most likely, in much of that time, humans were not clear about the connection between intercourse and pregnancy. The intercourse motivation nature gave man was not the conception of children, but the craving for sheer pleasure.

To the craving, nature added the exclusive possession instinct, which induced men to fight with each other for a woman.

This competition served the needs of evolution: only the winners would procreate.

If woman was to accept the winner of the competition, she was to be made more or less receptive to whatever resulted of the male fight. That gave her not only a passive posture, but also a relatively impartial sexuality. If she had the spunk for any choice, she may end up choosing the loser rather than the winner, against nature's purpose. Moreover, reluctance against sexual contact was also useful, lest her pregnancy and child nursing would be impaired by further intercourse..

Women who were still sexually active during pregnancy had less successful pregnancies than women who did not desire sex that much.

It is known that very active prostitutes are virtually sterile even without contraceptives.

So, "frigid" women had more children and transmitted more genes than "hot" women.

So, evolution increased the percentage of "cold" women.

The opposite was true with men: only the sexually lustful could impregnate women and transmit their genes.

Those are apparently the evolutionary reasons for man's aggressive lust and woman's sexual defensiveness­.

‑ There should be an island and a continent to divide mankind in two categories:

The continent should contain all the men who think they are superior to the women and the women who think they are oppressed by men.

The island would contain all the men who are dedicated and protective toward the women and all women who devotedly nurture the men.

When any of the continent's man and women come to their senses, they should move to the island.

When the island's man and women confuse protection with superiority and devotion with inferiority, they should move to the continent.

Mankind's future will brighten up when the island becomes overpopulated.

‑ Statistics show that married couples who lived together before marriage have a higher rate of divorces than those who lived together only after marriage.

‑ The only persons who profit from divorces are lawyers.

‑ The emotional problems of aging are opposite for man and woman.

Aging men face decreasing sexual desire and ability to copulate. Their problem focus on themselves and does not attribute any responsibility to women for men's diminished capabilities.

Aging women confront the predicament of becoming less desirable, not of desiring less and performing less. They must cope with the reality that men don't desire them any more.

This can easily turn into hostility against men if it is not properly understood.

‑ Ugliness and unpleasant personality are not concomitant with ultra-feminism in women.

Gender- (or ultra-) feminism is not compatible with beauty and kindness.

One is tempted to agree that men are unfair toward plain‑looking women, but women are the main contributors to this injustice with their pervading competition in attracting men.
From early childhood, women are dedicated to making themselves attractive with direct or sublimed sexual enticements. Whatever fashion they adopt, men adapt their taste to it, as historical evidence shows.

In the process, women strive in a ruthless competition with each other, and men choose accordingly.

The desirability of the fat, thin, blond, dark woman, with such or such legs, lips, eyes etc. is a matter of adopted fashion dictated by women not less than by men.

In some societies, women are totally covered with veils to prevent the "Satanic" sexual competition.

This seems to work, insofar as their "plain‑looking" women have a far better chance than in Western societies.

It is also more natural, since their capabilities to produce and raise children and run houses, castles or empires are not inferior to those of the beautiful women.

However, also among veiled women there is competition to attract men. As one may surmise, their competition is based on femininity, pleasant character, intelligence and other attributes feminism keeps at a safe distance by claiming that women have been deprived of them by men.

‑ In spite of all the idealizations, the only natural relationship between man and woman consists of a communion in  copulation, nurturing and mutual care. The more we deviate from this rapport, the more women are distorted in "equality", "rights", "freedom" and other such postures that are worse than enemies of communion, insofar as they are zealously indifferent to it.

If the equality and independence of men and women had been granted by nature the primacy granted by our present society, there wouldn't be any present society or, for that matter, no mankind at all...

‑ Uncontrolled abortion rights tend to shrink man's parental role to almost nothing, for he has nothing more to say about life reproduction.

That is the main goal of the feminazis (or femiranhas).

Woman's unlimited right to abortion is a fatal blow the "praying mantis" woman deliberately delivers not only to man but to family.

‑ Abortion has killed more lives than any genocide in history.     

‑ In the "natural" order, abortion should be sought by men, not by women, because it is man who is more likely to want sex independently of child bearing.

When women are those who clamor for it, they deviate from their natural essence.

From primordial sex pleasure, only social evolution brought about man's interest and devotion for the family.

Natural woman's interest in sex is inextricably combined with childbearing and child‑rearing.

No civilization or cultural development has modified or even improved on it.

If anything, it conduced man toward the female devotion to child and family.

This, indeed, was the original inspiration of  feminism, which was later degenerated into male aping and hostility.

When a child is born, the normal mother is a transformed woman; she sheds the patina of her culture and time, and reaffirms the original, motherly womanhood.
Even the ultra-feminist can become a genuine woman. Whoever the father is, however the conception took place, the love for the baby is unconditional and unlimited.

There is literally nothing the normal mother would not do for the lovable creature.

Now, ask this very mother to look at the baby and say whether it would have been possible for her to abort him...

Aborting the baby would have had the same effect, for the baby, as to kill him at age 2 months, 2  or 20 years.

It is therefore not hard to understand that a woman who aborts her child can only do it if she deliberately ignores that she is committing the murder of the person she conceived, bore and would love more than herself.

It is impossible to escape this conclusion.

 ‑ A hateful, treacherous, contemptible woman may remain such while young or single...

Then, that same woman may become the ineffable symbol of love and nurturing, when she becomes a mother...

‑ Probably, matriarchy has failed because the mother cannot exert authority over the child after the child has grown up.

An adult male or female can be guided by an adult male, because the latter has the life‑long exercise of leadership, initiative and strength.

The complete woman remains concentrated on the extremely delicate tasks of bearing and forming a child into adulthood.

Motherhood is inextricably built within the woman, who therefore needs no fundamental guidance to conceiving, bearing and nurturing.

Nothing new under the sun.

‑ The hostility and demands of the ultra-feminist woman are alienating man from any non‑physical interest he might have in her.

No sane man in his right mind could become devoted to a woman who is hostile and defensive at the start, during and after togetherness.

Lawyers and divorce courts cooperate in this alienation even more, when they deprive man of what he has accumulated for the family.

‑ Man desires woman. Woman desires man's desire for her.

‑ The evolutionary selective gender is the male, for the males compete for the female.

Advanced species in which the females fight for the male are either rare or non existent.

‑ When ultra-feminists win, they wallow in their new conquered unhappiness.

‑ We assume that an intellectually sophisticated man would find more erotic pleasure with an intellectually sophisticated woman than with any other. But sophistication spills over also into the erotic needs, where the refined woman would be less versed than, say, a mainly erotic woman.

The latter would give the sought pleasure with the intensity and subtlety a complex man would require, but she would be an intolerable bore after copulation.

What then?

Our assumptions should be re‑examined...

‑ Enduring fad: judges, politicians, moralists, public figures snatch the center stage from each other to proclaim to an admiring ultra-feminist influenced public: "Once the woman says NO, that's it!", even in cases where she has encouraged and accepted intense sex play and initiated intercourse on a bed, where she has consented to lie with a man who has unequivocally declared he wants nothing but sex from her.

First, we are to believe that the sudden "NO" suddenly dictated by a woman in those circumstances is like a considered judgment by someone who has weighed the situation and consequences.

Second, man is reduced to utter insignificance when only the woman decides, and so unexpectedly, about something they have initiated together. When a YES or a NO involves both man and woman in something they do together, it cannot be an absolute dictate by only one of the two parties.

Third, those who have any significant sex experience know that a "no" uttered by a woman in an erotic or platonic interplay is like part of a ritual love game.

That "no" is often said like an instinctive artifice to intensify both the tension and the pleasure of the sex play.

If the man is a bloke, he doesn't understand and ruins the whole romance with jarring hostility.

It is surprising how little so many people know about love.

On the other hand, if the suddenly commanded "no" is really meant by one of the love partners, it is hardly better than a rape, or sadistic act in form of extortion.

If the man can stop everything so unexpectedly, after the woman has consented so far, we have a sudden new world by a miraculous fiat outside of any evolution or natural change, in which man's sexual drive is just as controllable as woman's, as some feminists would love to prescribe.

Moreover, it would be interesting to consider also how even a frigid woman would feel if the man were to command that surprising "no" in the midst of a sex play...

Who has the right to be so stupidly sadistic and/or masochistic?

The consequent devastating effect of this new world on women and their erotic desirability would destroy the power women have enjoyed over men for millennia.

In that case, what man would be so stupid to consider sex enjoyment other than as a paid service with skillful love professionals?

The purpose of procreation, then, would have to be served with an entirely new set of unpredictable regulations that would make the most primitive sex game look like a utopia.

The can of worms the feminists and sex‑incompetent moralists have opened is a monumental blunder.

‑ 1992. From Gloria Steinem's "Revolution from Whithin", as quoted in "Time":

"I would argue that masculinity limits a man's full range of human qualities, and so becomes a mask for a lack of self, shame, and low self‑esteem".

What if we substitute the words "masculinity" with "femininity" and "man's" with "woman's", for equality's sake? No, it would be unreal: I don't know any sane man who has such catty malevolence toward women.

‑ Man and woman are both prisoners and masters of sex, but in different ways:

Man is prisoner of pleasure, woman is prisoner of reproduction.

Man triggers reproduction; woman masters pleasure.

‑ A 1992 research report (which did not mention the lot of Muslim women) stated that USA is the most dangerous country for women, who get physically abused, battered and raped by their husbands and boyfriends...

A female authority states that man beats woman because he wants to dominate and subjugate her.

No other reasons are mentioned or investigated.

It does not occur to her that man would have now, as in the past centuries and millennia, easier means than the counter producing violence to dominate woman.

Violence against woman is caused by the same complex of factors that causes the American high incidence of divorces.

One of the most important is the unnatural roles and rules that have been imposed on both men and women.

As a reaction to alleged past abuses, men are now constrained in a manner similar to confined steam under increasing heat, and women are incited to produce the heat.

Lawyers make plenty of money with it.

The similarity of the patterns of woman versus man and of black versus white is not coincidental.

The concurrence of the two patterns is reflected in the increasing hostility between some elements of the two parties.

The situation will worsen before a retreat from the currently callow interpretations can occur.

The patriarchal and "dominant' postures were only the beginning of the evolutionary relationship that has been misunderstood and mishandled by all parties, male/female and white/black.

The initial "dominance" should be restored as an initial step of the process that must be conducted in a better way, in order to promote the evolution that should take place between genders, races and other categories of individuals rather than of groups.

We are to evolve beyond "equality", "rights" and ideals that are no more than words that trap us in definitions that have lost contact with reality.

In this trap, we fall into concepts of "inferiority", "superiority" and "rights" that probably no other form of life entertains.

The dominance of one party over another is a step that precedes another in which the relative positions mutate into new interactive patterns that we are not yet able to predict.

When we try to impose our interpretations in the process, we can damage it into a crippling distortion.‑

Our present set of values discards the woman over 40‑45. What is she for and who wants her? 

For this weird question, Nature and history offer the extended family.

The old man can still procreate, and he must, to be useful, if his unique function is still just copulation.

Woman's special function begins after copulation: bearing, raising children and nurturing the extended family.

The above may be correct, but we forget one thing: our politically correct notions trap us into presuming that feminists know what an "over‑40" woman is or is not.

They don't. Nor do we, if we accept their premises.

If the family is restored as such, independently of its "village" or state, there is no more "over‑40 woman" question.

‑ Woman appears to be the keeper of evolution when she retains the perspective of the reproduction function of sex beside pleasure.

Only the "prostitute" can then please man's sex urges for pleasure only.

The evil we associate with the term "prostitute" is hard to understand, especially when feminist "liberation" persecutes prostitutes instead of emancipating them.

Probably, the prostitute's unforgivable sin is to try to please men (ultra-feminists would never forgive that as such), pay or no pay.

‑ TV and other media are full of ads for products for the female genitalia. Very few products, if any, are advertised for the penis.

With this overwhelming focus on the female crotch by both males and females, the feminist claim that sex in the media is male exploitation of the female is incomprehensible.

Correction (year 2001): ads about Viagra (erection-promoting drug) and methods to "enlarge your penis" are proliferating with gusto. Cracks are developing in the macho fortress.

‑ Songs, poetry, art, literature show the passion of man for woman as a normal erotic‑romantic longing.

Woman's poems or songs of erotic passion for man are comparatively rare.

The man wants to love. He likes the woman as something he is irresistibly attracted to with desire, with a compulsion that can be rationalized, more than reasoned.

He is like propelled by a hormone injection, and the whole process subsides after orgasm, until a new supply of driving hormones renews the process, with the same or another woman.

Woman's attraction to man is more "rational", or at least family‑oriented. After childbirth, she does not need erotic togetherness, unless to "start" another child. Otherwise, her devotion to man is survival‑motivated, to protect the child and herself.

This man‑woman difference is radical, in spite of all the rhetoric and political claims.

‑ Gender feminists are delighted to mention that man is only necessary as a breeder to serve woman.

Or even less than that, because test‑tubes and genes technology will make him "superfluous".

They forget that also woman can eventually be replaced by "in vitro" technology, to serve any man who wants a child.

Woman claims an exclusive and controlling right to life conception and reproduction, something NATURE does in her, not woman herself, who doesn't understand the process any better than man.

Man is not less important than woman in life conception and reproduction.

If one of them becomes less important, both are dramatically diminished.

Nowadays, only religion seems to openly support man's indispensable function.

Since religion has lost clout, many patriarchal men are passive targets, either fearful of being ridiculed as religious primitives, or silent because they lack a firm faith.

World‑wide experience proves that religion is only the most popular symptom of deep seated realities that have no better way yet to manifest themselves.

Religion symbolizes natural reality in a language that can be understood by the contemporaries.

Today we have the problem of finding a new language for that reality, which gives man the (apparently) dominant position he has been given by nature all over the world since the beginning of civilization, regardless of whether he understands it.

Philosophy and religion evolve against each other, even when they marry in theology, yet they cannot survive without each other.

We should expose the evidence that most of our clichés and stereotypes are based on reality.

‑ Woman is. Man becomes.

Woman is like a complete existential system: she does not need to achieve or perform anything besides being what she is.

All she needs is to be herself, because nature provided her with everything life needs and offers.

Man doesn't have that luck.

He was created to perform, achieve, struggle, conquer and win/lose.

He must prove himself while the woman waits to receive and validate the result of the evolutionary struggle.

The man who does not win and conquer is eliminated in the evolutionary contest.

Woman does not need to win or lose or prove herself.

She simply is.

She is like nature, which reigns without the necessity of winning.

- The woman who wants to compete with man is the loser, because, in joining the race only the men are forced into, she loses her natural advantage.

No woman can win by abandoning her own defeat‑proof nature and adopting the defeat‑exposed ways of man.

- There are relatively few immortal female composers, artists, leaders, conquerors because woman simply has no need for such inspirations, struggles and goals.

Only man is forced to prove himself on the stage and win, in order to justify his own existence.

- The modern anti‑male feminist demands for "equal rights" (truly: equal results) for male and female takes from woman the advantage of existential  invulnerability and plunges her into the feminine‑negating masculinist distortion.

They give undeserved validity to a mislabeled male "superiority" and "dominance"

‑ Women who fail to bear children and family try to find fulfillment in social and intellectual endeavors, like men. These endeavors are not as significant as reproduction and family, but they are the components of the futile reasoning that convinces us, men and women.

- It is thus that we build the imposing pyramids of knowledge and culture, and their ephemeral ascendance on us.

We erect altars, civilizations and hierarchies, worship them and lose sight of the incessant life and reproduction cycles.

- Both man and woman end up losing sight of reality and reducing woman's role to "inferiority". Woman believes this false picture and decides to "liberate" herself into seeking equality with man (which recognizes his presumed superiority) and destroying the ancient reality.

At the end, feminism tries to emancipate woman (and man) into self-destruction.

‑ The human body, especially woman's, is totally indifferent to human ideals, just like nature is indifferent to the survival of man or any other form of life.

‑ Gender-feminism (or ultra-feminism) has painted woman into a corner of hostile sex narcissism.

‑ The focus history has placed on "masculine" subjects like wars, laws, politics, territorial changes, conquest, colonization, and inventions surely neglected women's equally valid contribution to human events and progress.

The cause of this "masculine" focus was the warlike situation that still prevails today.

Any society that replaced the male-centrism with female-centrism (as defined by the feminists) ended in utter destruction caused by conquering "masculinists", whether they were barbarians or merely stronger cultures.

Masculine values have been a historical necessity and will remain such, probably worsened by the eventual exposure of the historic and cultural distortions now being religiously practiced by ultra-feminist bigotry.

We need to eliminate masculine chauvinism and its distortions and realize the traditional "equity‑feminist" goals of woman's recognition is no way lesser than man's, but we cannot increase woman's stature by cutting down man's and mankind's history.

If the anti‑male feminists succeed in realizing their "Renaissance of the 21st Century", womanhood will suffer the worst loss in all history.

 030619

Please click here to send a comment or suggestion

Back to Main Page