Male and Female: Equal But Different

.

Click Pic for "The Masculine Principle"

Males and females are polar opposites. They are as up is to down as night is to day. One thing that is common to all opposites is that by the very nature of being opposite, they must be equal. If they were not equal, it would be impossible for them to be opposite. In any given year, at any spot on earth, there are an exactly equal amount of daytime hours and nighttime hours. The same is true of males and females; they are polar opposites and therefore are equal. However, we are not talking about legal equality here, but rather the essence that makes “male” and “female” has equality unique unto itself.
.

In terms of intelligence, men and women are equal in that the average IQ of all males is equal to the average IQ of all females. There is a difference in how these equal intelligences are arrived at however.

.
Female intelligence is clustered around the mean far more than male intelligence. There is far less variation in female intelligence. To put it more simply, the female population’s intelligence tends to be concentrated in greater numbers around the average IQ of 100, while the male population has a greater range on both the high and low IQ scale. A far greater percentage of female IQ’s reside between 90 to 110 than males, while conversely, males inhabit the extremes of IQ between 70 to 130 in far greater percentage than females. The more you go to the extremes, the more it becomes virtually all male, in both high and low.

When one takes all of the IQ’s of the female population into account to find an average IQ, and then takes all of the IQ’s of the male population to find their average, the collective IQ’s of the two sexes are virtually identical, even though there are vast differences in their variability.
.
When one looks at “happiness,” we find the same thing as we find in intelligence. Researchers have discovered that when they ask men to rate the periods of their lives where they feel satisfied or dissatisfied, they find that men have a major “spike” of dissatisfaction commonly known as Mid-Life Crisis. But, when asking the females, what they find is that women do not have a major mid life crisis like men; however, they have several “mini” mid life crises that occur at various times in their cycle of life.

When the researchers total up all of the time in a male’s life to find his “average” happiness and compare it to the female’s average happiness throughout her life, what they find is that both males and females have almost the identical average amount of happiness in their respective lives. However, the male’s midlife crisis is far more intense than anything the typical female will ever experience – but, he only goes through it once.

It's true that most of the world's powerful people are men. Most world leaders, billionaires and corporate CEO's are indeed male. But so are the world's least powerful people mostly male - 85% of the homeless are men. More men rise to the top than women, but more men fail at life and fall through the cracks as well.

If we look at sin, or good and evil, what would you expect to find except again the same phenomenon? The 9/11 Terrorists were reportedly male, but so were most of the firemen who sacrificed their lives saving others when the towers collapsed. Hitler and Ghandi were both males - the worst and best of humanity both in the same spectrum but at different ends, just like IQ.

While men are certainly physically stronger than women, they are also more likely to succumb to the top ten fatal diseases and on average die seven years earlier than women. Who is stronger? The willow or the oak?  
.
When a boy is bad it is very noticeable and often in the form of an outburst or some form of physical aggression. It is very hard to miss a male’s evil because its nature is overt and it occurs as a “spike.” Male aggression is stereotypically to hit, kick, shout or destroy something. The boy may go through long periods of “nothing” followed by a spike that is hard to ignore.
A girl, on the other hand, uses covert aggression. More commonly this is known as “Social Aggression” or “Relational Aggression” and it is stereotypically a female form of aggression. Its nature is to use gossip and social manipulation to hurt the targeted party, and this necessarily occurs over a longer period of time and is less visible than the male’s aggression.
.
What we end up seeing is that male aggression occurs as a noticeable spike that lasts only a short time while female aggression is less intense but lasts over a longer period of time. When we average out the two forms of aggression, we again will find that both male and female are equal, but different.
.

The essence of “maleness” is that things occur with infrequent but large “spikes” while the essence of “femaleness” is that things occur with more frequent but less identifiable “rhythms.” When one averages them out, men and women are equal yet they have gotten to their equal averages by different means.

Now, to the point of “equal but different,” it must also be noted that male and female sex drives are equal but different in the same manner as the above examples.

Jack Kammer, in his online book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules? said it best, so I will steal his example:

.

Click Pic for Free Book, "If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make the Rules?"

Male sexuality is like a pushy door to door salesman; it picks one target and gets in your face so much that you simply cannot ignore it.

Female sexuality, however, is like annoying junk mail. It is everywhere and steadily drones on and on at everybody, whether they are the intended target or not.

While males may think about the sex act itself more than women, the equal opposite is that women think about being “sexy” to the same degree.
.

Males and females have equal sex drives but they work differently. Even physically, men and women are equally sexual.
.
Men have fewer but far more intense erogenous zones, while women have erogenous zones located all over their bodies. In fact, it is fair to say that a woman’s entire body is an erogenous zone that is dispersed with lowered sexual sensitivity but over a greater area, making it equal to the man’s. This is why women are so much more into “intimacy” and the mental aspects of sex. Her entire body is involved in having sex whereas only certain, but more intense, parts of the male’s body are.

Click Pic for "Women Want Sex More Than Men"

In the end of it all, men and women both have equal desires to have sex and to be sexual creatures, although they are expressed in different ways. Women have their biological clocks and get “baby rabies” that demand of them to go out and get impregnated with the same intense irrationalness that men display when they are willing to do anything to copulate with a female - including the willingness to commit treason or sell out one’s own mother.

"Contrary to the general opinion, there is no difference in the total sexual impulses of the sexes.../...Any such idea comes from a confusion between the desire for a thing and the stimulus towards the active part in securing what is desired.../...It is important to distinguish between the intensity with which sexual matters are pursued and the proportion of the total activities of life that are devoted to them and to their accessory cares." -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Male and Female Sexuality.  

It is horribly inaccurate for one to say that only men want sex. It is far more accurate to say that both men and women want sex equally. In fact, the only imperatives of all living things is to: 1). Survive, so that one can: 2). Reproduce. All other things are in support of these two imperatives that are universal to all living things. Males and females both have an equal desire to do this. Sex is the core of existence itself.
.
We may think that we humans are smarter than animals, but when it comes to sexual instinct we are animals that follow the same mating patterns as most other species in the animal kingdom.
.

This has become even more evident since the sexual revolution arrived and women became free from pregnancy via the pill, and free from the social stigmas associated with being a “loose” woman.
.
One needs only to look at studies of sexually transmitted disease by gender to see that STD’s affect a far greater percentage of the female population than the male population. There is a reason for this: 80% of the females are sleeping with 20% of the males, and those males are the alpha males in society. Humans have reverted back to the mating instincts found in most of the animal kingdom where the alpha males breed most of the females, while the beta males breed with none.
.
Again, you can see that male sexuality and female sexuality are “equal yet opposite.”

This “equal-opposite” aspect of sexuality is essential in understanding patriarchy and why things were set up in certain ways, which I will attempt to describe and explain in the next section.
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Further Reading:

.

Sex, Mathematics, And Political Correctness -- by Fred Reed

Rats (Or, He Chases Her Until She Catches Him)

Women More Promiscuous at Sex than Men

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
“‘Really, women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissictic.’ — it’s dominated by the yearnings of ‘self-love,’ by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need. Still, on the subject of narcissism, she talked about research indicating that, in comparison with men, women’s erotic fantasies center less on giving pleasure and more on getting it. ‘When it comes to desire,’ she added, ‘women may be far less relational than men.’” -- Sex and Relationships, Bonobo Sex, and ‘Lady Boners’: Is Women’s Desire Really That Confusing? – by Vanessa Richmond
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

From Belfort Bax's 1913 piece The Fraud of Feminism pp.25-27

.

Now let us consider the whole of the differentiations of the mental character between man and woman in the light of a further generalisation which is sufficiently obvious in itself and which has been formulated with special clearness by the late Otto Weininger in his remarkable book,"Geschlecht und Charakter" (Sex and Character). I refer to the observations contained in Section II.,Chaps. 2 and 3.

.

The point has been, of course, previously noted, and the present writer, among others, has on various occasions called special attention to it. But its formulation and elaboration by Weininger is the most complete I know. The truth in question consists in the fact, undeniable to all those not rendered impervious to facts by preconceived dogma, that, as I have elsewhere put it, while man has a sex, woman is a sex. Let us hear Weininger on this point. "Woman is only sexual, man is also sexual. Alike in time and space this difference may be traced in man, parts of his body susceptible to sexual excitement are small in number and strictly localised. In woman sexuality is diffused over the whole body, every contact on whatever part excites her sexually."

.

Weininger points out that while the sexual element in man, owing to the physio-logical character of the sexual organs, may be at times more violent than that in woman, yet that it is spasmodic and occurs in crises separated by intervals of quiescence. In woman, on the otherhand, while less spasmodic, it is continuous. The sexual instinct with man being, as he styles it, "anappendix" and no more, he can raise himself mentally entirely outside of it. "He is conscious of it as of something which he possesses but which is not inseparate from the rest of his nature. He can view it objectively. With woman this is not the case; the sex element is part of her whole nature. Hence, it is not as with man, clearly recognisable in local manifestations, but subtly affects the whole life of the organism. For this reason the man is conscious of the sexual element within him as such, whereas the woman is unconscious of it as such. It is not for nothing that in common parlance woman is spoken of as 'the sex.' In this sexual differentiation of the whole life-nature of woman from man, deducible as it is from physiological andanatomical distinctions, lies the ground of those differentiations of function which culminate in the fact that while mankind in its intellectual moral and technical development is represented in the main by Man, Woman has continued to find her chief function in the direct procreation of the race." 
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"The central organizing principle of primate social life is competition between females and especially female lineages... Females should be, if anything, more competitive than males, not less, although the manner in which females compete may be less direct, less boisterous, and hence, more difficult to measure" -- The Woman That Never Evolved -- by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
“Study debunks stereotype that men think about sex all day long”

[T]he research discredits the persistent stereotype that men think about sex every seven seconds, which would amount to more than 8,000 thoughts about sex in 16 waking hours. In the study, the median number of young men’s thought about sex stood at almost 19 times per day. Young women in the study reported a median of nearly 10 thoughts about sex per day.

As a group, the men also thought about food almost 18 times per day and sleep almost 11 times per day, compared to women’s median number of thoughts about eating and sleep, at nearly 15 times and about 8 1/2 times, respectively. – Medical Xpress

(*** Please note, even though I posted this to show how stupid this meme has become, one still has to realize the way feminist researchers came to this "once every X seconds" BS is by taking the amount of hours one spends in a day thinking about such things, then dividing it by the amount of seconds in a day, and coming up with every seven or fifteen, or whatever seconds, to make it seem like men are stunted rapists thinking about sex constantly. What they are really saying is that men thought about sex for 15 minutes, multiplied by X per day (maybe three times, or six times a day), which is not surprising, and then divided the total amount of those times into how many seconds are in each day. It is totally bogus propaganda which was used to fuel the rape industry. So men think about sex for 10 minutes at a time, 8 times a day, while women think about sex 7 times a day for 5 minutes. Does that really make men into walking hardons that are looking for easy rape victims?)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Otto Weininger's Sex and Character, Male and Female Sexuality

Woman is only sexual, man is partly sexual, and this difference reveals itself in various ways. The parts of the male body by stimulation of which sexuality is excited are limited in area, and are strongly localised, whilst in the case of the woman, they are diffused over her whole body, so that stimulation may take place almost from any part. When in the second chapter of Part I., I explained that sexuality is distributed over the whole body of both sexes, I did not mean that, therefore, the sense organs, through which the definite impulses are stimulated, were equally distributed. There are, certainly, areas of greater excitability, even in the case of the woman, but there is not, as in the man, a sharp division between the sexual areas and the body generally.

The morphological isolation of the sexual area from the rest of the body in the case of man, may be taken as symbolical of the relation of sex to his whole nature. Just as there is a contrast between the sexual and the sexless parts of a man's body, so there is a time-change in his sexuality. The female is always sexual, the male is sexual only intermittently. The sexual instinct is always active in woman (as to the apparent exceptions to this sexuality of women, I shall have to speak later on), whilst in man it is at rest from time to time. And thus it happens that the sexual impulse of the male is eruptive in character and so appears stronger. The real difference between the sexes is that in the male the desire is periodical, in the female continuous.
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy

.

Click Pic to Read "The Declaration of Sentiments"

In the last section we examined points 1 to 3 of the Declaration of Sentiments and how the suffragette movement's demand for the "unalienable" (inalienable?) right to vote was against the concept of the Republic formed by America's Founding Fathers. America was never intended to be a democracy but adhered to principles which were the political embodiment of the masculine principle and the ordering of truth as put forth by John Locke.

As we carry on through the 16 sentiments made in this document, which is obviously based upon the United States' Declaration of Independence itself (since its preample is almost a word for word copy of it) we are presented with the 4th sentiment:

4 - Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

When I looked at this point, I struggled a bit whether to include it in the last section, which was about the nature of the State and the difference between inalienable rights and legal rights, or whether it should be included in this section - which will deal much more with the notion of "equality" in society. It belongs in both because we first must clarify what is exactly meant by this statement.

Although the first three points of the Declaration of Sentiments are in regard to the vote, and this is what Elizabeth Cady Stanton is referring to as the "first right of a citizen," it's already been shown that voting is not an inalienable right, but a legal one.

The phrase "a stopped clock is right twice a day" comes to mind here, because although she was wrong about the vote, she actually is right to say "the first right is equality" - and in fact, she is perfectly valid when, in the beginning of her drawing off the Declaration of Independence, she only makes the single alteration of inserting "and women" into it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; -- The Declaration of Sentiments.

Our "first right" is that we are all created equal, but this is not the kind of "50-50 quota system" of equality we think of today. No. This equality is another of those "unalienable" rights which exist outside of the State.

"While natural rights are innately part of being human, and exist prior to any culture or society, legal rights are those that are acknowledged and protected by a given government. So, in the Founders’ understanding, natural rights would include the right to life itself, the right to think for oneself, the right to self-defense, and the right to keep what one has worked honestly for, among others. Legal rights would include the right to vote, the specific methods by which fair trials are conducted, and copyrights and patents–all of which might be defined and protected in different ways in different countries or states, based on their particular customs and beliefs." -- Documents of Freedom

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Republic"

The equality referenced to in the Declaration of Independence is saying that all men (and indeed women) are equal before The Creator. Therefore all the rest of the unalienable rights granted by Him - such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - are applicable to everyone because it is part of being a human being - and women, I've heard, are part of the human race. This is not the same as "the right to vote," or "the right to an education" or "the right to free healthcare," because those are legal rights provided by the State - and which the State can take away. Unalienable rights exist outside of the State - therefore the State has no authority over them, which is actually the point of the Declaration of Independence making such a statement.

You are not guaranteed any other equality than that of: before the Creator, we are all seen as equally human... because he created us. Therefore, all the things that are part of being human, the government is prohibited from trying to control, for it is not their right to do so - but only the Creator's. 

It is not, however, an unalienable right to have civil and legal equality. If it were, five year old children would be permitted to drive their cars to the voting polls. We don't allow that because they obviously are not capable of doing such things. A five year old child is, however, as equal before "The Creator" as any other human being.

Phew! I'm glad we got that out of the way!

As we carry on through the 16 sentiments made in the Declaration of Sentiments, you will see that points 5 to 12 are in regard to women's position in marriage, the workplace, and education. While a lot of these points seem reasonable to us in the modern day, things were different back in 1848 when the sentiments were written and under closer examination, it was not entirely unreasonable for people to be opposed to their demands.
.
The Declaration of Sentiments:
.
5 - He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.

6 - He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

7 - He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
.

***

.
Point five declares women were civilly dead in marriage. This was no doubt true, since all the legal titles went to the husband and even the woman's last name changed to show she was now part of a new family. The point of marriage is to become "one flesh" - to become a family unit - the only system of "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" that has ever worked! The family is pure Socialism, but aside from perhaps extended family, it has never worked at any level higher than this. You'll notice that Socialist countries also don't adhere much to individualism. Private property is appropriated in Socialism for "the Greater Good" - if the concept of private property is present at all. The same thing happens in the family unit.

Click Pic for "Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager in the House?"

And let's also be clear here: She voluntarily entered into the marriage contract. She chose her husband, she chose to exchange vows with him, and she chose to leave a life of spinsterhood and civil autonomy behind.

It's been a long time since arranged marriages were the norm for anyone but royalty in our culture - and it certainly wasn't the case in 1848 that women were brought kicking and screaming to the altar by their evil fathers, forcing them to marry ugly frogs.

It's the same as volunteering for the army means you agree to submit to the authority of your commanding officers. You are willfully entering into a hierarchal system. The private cannot lead the general. The employee cannot lead the employer. The wife cannot lead the husband, and the child cannot lead the parent. 

Point six - that he has taken from her all rights to property, even to the wages she earns - is something that benefited women in marriage far more than men. As has already been discussed, the point of marriage is to become "one." If wives would be allowed to keep their property and wages outside of the marriage, then logically it extends that husbands should be permitted to do so as well.

Click Pic for "Sex Sells (Hypergamy Explained)"

Women, however, are hypergamous - they tend to "marry up" rather than down. In most cases, marriage was an economic bonanza for a woman because she joined her far lesser assets with his much more substantantial wealth - and his future ability to create ever more wealth. Holding all property together meant that in practice, "the pool of marital assets" would be substantially contributed to mostly by the husband - all of which the wife would have access to during his life, and title to after his death. It wouldn't take you too long to decide to co-join your assets with Bill Gates, would it?

Also, keep in mind that in 1848 society had not yet been propagandized into believing "Gender is a Social Construct" and they pretty much acknowledged there were innate differences between the sexes. (It's pretty hard to live on a farm and believe anything but!). As has been pointed out before - both in Rome because of their dowry laws, and in Sparta because of dowry and inheritance laws, when their cultures allowed women to hold property outside of marriage, divorce rose, birthrates plummeted, and the culture collapsed. Obviously there is something about structuring marital holdings under the male that works!      

Point seven can hardly be made into a case for the oppression of women at the hands of men. Let me get this straight. You breaking the law and me doing the time in jail for it is me oppressing you? Have a look at how this man oppressed his wife:

Sends Husband To Jail To Aid Suffrage Cause -- The Milwaukee Journal, Sept. 21, 1912
.
Mrs. Mark Wilks, whose husband is in jail because she refuses to pay her taxes, is credited with discovering a new and formidable weapon for the suffragettes. The suffragettes are generally women of property and they will follow Mrs. Wilkes example immediately, it is said.

The plan will work only in cases of husbands whose wives have independent incomes. Nor will it work in cases where the husbands pay taxes on their wives' incomes. Some husbands, like Wilks, haven't enough money to pay their wives taxes. Suffragette husbands who can pay are counted on to refuse to do so. Thus will a large portion of the Englishmen with suffragette wives be in jail shortly.

Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife's property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income tax - $185 - and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless his wife pays or the law is changed. When at liberty he is a teacher in Clapton.

.

After they changed the property laws, splitting husband from wife, they still didn't remove the responsibilities from the husband.

Click Pic for "A Woman's Right to Choose"

Can you imagine it? Your wife inherits a $5 million estate that requires $50,000/year in taxes. You make only $45,000/yr, and when your wife refuses to pay the taxes, you go to jail for tax-evasion on her behalf. You have no way out. You have no right to take the funds out of her estate to cover the expenses. It kind of makes sense why all property was put into the husband's name, wouldn't you agree?
.
As you can tell, I agree with Elizabeth Cady Stanton - that women are considered morally irresponsible beings and shouldn't be allowed to break laws with impunity, then have her husband blamed for it. But society just doesn't work this way - and it never has!

Society bends over backwards to try and lay blame at the hands of men rather then women - even today:

- If a man cheats on his wife he's a lout for betraying her, but if the wife cheats on the husband, he's a lout for not keeping her happy.

- When a man hires a prostitute, society tries to consider her a victim and him the criminal. This not only occured before women's suffrage (As is illustrated in The Fraud of Feminism) but it still occurs today. Canada, for example, has been tripping over itself lately to "help prostitutes" by increasingly laying the blame on men for using their services. We do this nowhere else but when men and women are together. For example, we don't consider drug dealers to be the innocent party, and lay all the blame on the college kid trying to score a joint. But we actually do this with prostitution, and have been ever since the government stuck its nose into the oldest profession.

- When Lorena Bobbit viciously attacked and mutilated her husband by severing his penis as he slept, society went out of its way to excuse her. Not only was she not properly prosecuted for her violent crime, but she was invited to appear on the Oprah Winfrey show and was hailed as a hero by feminists clear across the land. "Bobbit jokes" became all the rage of the 1990's. Could you ever imagine a man carving his wife's uterus out of her body while she slept being hailed as a hero and greeted with standing ovations? 
.
- We've had several cases over the last few years where men have been charged with rape for having sex with a woman who is intoxicated, even though she consented at the time. The exact same excuse, that he was intoxicated when they had sex too, is not a justifiable defense on his part, but instead he is held fully responsible for his actions. Furthermore, if this same woman got behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated, she would not be excused from her actions but considered to be responsible for them. But whenever it comes down to doling out justice between men and women, the blame is nearly always shifted to the man. Belfort Bax noted already a century ago in The Legal Subjection of Men that the only time it appears the legal system is capable of delivering justice to a woman is when she has harmed another woman.  

"Nature has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them little." -- Samuel Johnson
.
This is not so much a legal or social problem as a biological one rooted deep within us. We are naturally inclined to blame men over women - just as we naturally tend to blame parents when a child does something morally improper. Women are not only prosecuted for committing crimes less than men, when they're convicted they aren't held equally to account either:
.
"Men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts. females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."
.

And make no mistake, it's not just the men that do this excusing of women. Men don't "impose" this upon women, as Elizabeth Cady Stanton suggests. In the case of Lorena Bobbit, it was the entire feminist movement which made excuses for her. In the more recent case of the Duke Lacrosse Team's Fake Rape Trial, every single person from the feminist movement to the Duke University's "80 Professors," to the media to the eventually disgraced District Attorney, Mike Nifong, all bent over backwards to blame men rather than examine where the fault actually was - with the woman. Even after it was shown she had committed several crimes and innocent men were purposefully being railroaded, she was hardly held accountable - in fact, she was offered assistance to help her out of her situation. 

It happened this way in Sparta too:
.
...in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.
.
"...But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt." -- The Politics of Aristotle, The Spartan Women
.

Click Pic for "The Rule of Thumb for Wife-Beating Hoax"

So, if society can't keep women under control and will always be seeking to blame the man anyways, then the man ought to at least be empowered to have authority over her. You can't blame parents for not keeping their children under control if you remove any and all means of actually keeping them under control, can you?

This is the simple logic of hierarchy, the same as in the army. The general has authority over the colonel and the lieutenant has authority over the enlisted men. But the reverse is also true: the officer is held accountable more than the subordinates he commands.

Furthermore, unlike children, women seem to get enjoy getting a few smacks on the rear - so be it, as long as he doesn't use a rod thicker than his thumb.
.

***

.
8 - He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women - the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.

The eighth point is the one which undermines the ancient contract of marriage entirely. It is, in my opinion, THE most significant thing the suffragettes did - and it wasn't a good thing.

“I would die before I will give up the child to its father.” -- Susan B. Anthony, Quoted in Phyllis Chesler, Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p. 38.  

The ancient contract of marriage is not about romantic love - as Elizabeth Cady Stanton insinuates when she says divorce laws give no regard for women's happiness.

Click for "The Wife of Noble Character (Would Make Me a Sandwich!)"

These notions that men are obligated to make women "happy" are relatively recent. No, marriage was an economic contract between a man and a woman, whereby the man traded his lifetime's work of generating "excess resources" for children that are his own. In other words, he would have 100% presumed custody of any children produced from the woman's sexuality for the duration of their time together. It was about the concept of property rights, or in this case, of custody rights. The products of his wife's sexuality (children) became "his" and the products of his life's work became "hers."

I will be going into this again later in this chapter, so I will keep this short here.


Women have a natural right to have children - it's "unalienable" because it's part of what it is to be human. Women do not require society for it - nor the concept of marriage.

All they really need is a six pack of beer, a clearing in the bushes, and a sultry look in their eyes. Even if it was frowned upon in the past, it was still entirely possible for women to choose to have children outside of wedlock.

Click Pic for "The Fraud of Modern Marriage"

Marriage is a vehicle for men to have children - not women. When she "sells" her reproductive ability to the man, who pays for such ability with his lifetime of labour, his "unalienable right" to keep what he has honestly worked and paid for has been violated if she can retain custody of the children in divorce.   

A brief history of what happened is as follows: The (British) Custody of Infants Act of 1839 already gave judges some power to over-ride a father's custody rights in certain instances, particularly in establishing mother-custody for children under seven years old. By 1873, Parliament extended the age of mother-custody to sixteen years, effectively undermining father-custody altogether. (In some states, the age was thirteen). This is known as the Tender Years Doctrine, and although it was first established in Britain, it spread around the world fast as the British Empire was at its peak in the late 19th Century. The Tender Years Doctrine was similarly used in the USA as a principle in the courts to establish the arguments of parental custody. This is the beginning of the "Best Interests of the Child Doctrine," (something which is purely relative, whereas custody laws are exact and absolute) and we have been dealing with it ever since.

Also, while Elizabeth Cady Stanton claims this practice of father-custody was built on the presumption of the supremacy of man, this is another obfuscation of the truth. The reason why ancient marriage was structured that way is because of the hierarchy of how "love" works. It kind of goes like this:

Click Pic for "The Legend of the Selkie"

Men love women --> Women love children --> Children love puppies.

Men's love for women is greater than women's love for men, just like parental love for children is greater than children's love for their parents. The Bible indicates this concept when it commands men to love their wives, but commands wives to honour their husbands in return, just as children are commanded to honour their parents, not love them.

When children are placed in the position of 100% presumed custody of the father, it strengthens the weakest bond in the family - that between father and children. Fatherhood mostly doesn't exist in the animal world, while motherhood is positively everywhere. By attaching fathers and children directly to one another, the mother now equates her children with the father. If she divorces the father, she knows she will lose access to her children. Therefore, in order to maintain her love with her children she must also maintain her love with their father.

If one believed that men and women were the same, one might project the female behaviours of the present day, where women leave their husbands simply to "Eat, Pray, Love" whenever they please, as how men abused such rights in the past. However, this was not the case. Men's greater love for women than women have for men made it so the vast majority of men never tried to remove their wives from the children. However, after presumed custody was shifted from father to mother by around the 1870's, divorce rates began rising... and kept rising right up until the present day. 
. 

Click Pic for the free online book, "The Case for Father Custody" -- by Daniel Amneus

There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dad’s paycheck. This family stability began eroding as later nineteenth century divorce courts, under pressure from the rising feminist movement, began awarding child custody to mothers. -- Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p360

“Between 1870 and 1920 the divorce rate rose fifteenfold, and by 1924 one marriage out of seven ended in divorce" -- James H. Jones, Alfred Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p.292.

Probably the one single largest problem of marriage and divorce today stems from the custody changes the suffragettes introduced a century and a half ago, when they undermined the ancient contract of marriage which had held marriages strong and divorce rates low throughout the West's long history. This was far more significant than anything the second wave feminists did with "no-fault divorce," but this will be explored in depth later in this chapter.
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

The Suffragettes versus The Marketplace

.
Let's continue our examination of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Declaration of Sentiments with points 9 to 12 done briefly, as these issues will be addressed with greater detail later in this chapter.

Click Pic to read "The Declaration of Sentiments"

9 - After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

10 - He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.

11 - He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

12 - He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education - all colleges being closed against her.
.

---

.
To show that I am not a horrible cretin of a misogynist, I'm going to grant Elizabeth Cady Stanton her point number nine. I wholeheartedly agree that a woman who owns property while single should be allowed a voice if she is being taxed upon the property. This was the basis for men having suffrage too, and indeed, this is how women slowly on began getting more access to the vote - especially since women who were widows owning substantial property holdings left behind by their husbands paid hefty taxes indeed. Most of society thought this reasonable as well, which is why women in such situations were soon allowed to vote by proxy - they could send a man in their stead to deliver their vote. (Women were sometimes given the vote in various states or municipalities long before 1919).  Back in those days, voting was quite often violent, with union leaders trying to intimidate voters and riots erupting at the polls. So, instead of sending these women into the dragon's lair, they arranged for such property-holding women to vote by proxy rather than in person.

Touché, Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

However, I'd like to remind her that Sparta fell because, according to Aristotle, its faulty inheritance laws resulted in women owning 2/5 of the land - so, there's what we think is fair, and there's what works. The two need balance. I suspect women not holding property outside of marriage, as addressed in point six, would suffice to keep this in check in our civilization because it would keep the number much smaller than that which Aristotle claimed as the cause of Sparta's plummeting birthrates. (How much of the population were widows and single women back in 1848? Not that much.)  Keep in mind this is a legal right, not an "unalienable" one, which has been established earlier. Legal rights are about making society "function."

Click Pic for "The Amazon Women (The Science of Why Males Exist)"

Points 10 to 12 were pretty much true as well, although this wasn't something women didn't neccessarily approve of themselves either. Most of the suffragettes were upperclass women - but most of the wives around the country were decidedly not. They did not get to sit around prattling away about their rights. They were busy out
on some Little House on the Prairie, chopping wood to boil water and to cook food on a woodstove. When they were done that, there was the cow that needed to be milked and the eggs to collect. The butter needed to be churned and the clothes needed to be scrubbed on the washboard. There was a garden to tend to and preserves to make - or the family would starve through the winter. And there was a lot of them in the family too - maybe 6 to 12 of the little rug-rats, all hanging off of her breast while she did this... and amazingly, she found ways to nurse all of them in private...

And after all of this, do you think she wanted a job too?

Furthermore, what kind of work would she have gone to do? Would she have competed with her husband in the workplace? The "common-man" of those days mostly found employment in the most inhospitable of conditions - down dirty and dangerous mines; on construction projects in inclement weather; away from home for months at a time driving spikes into the railroad; chopping down trees with an axe and a cross-cut saw - sailing on a ship for perhaps years at a time; joining the military...

Believe it or not, the vast majority of men were not working as lawyers and doctors and accountants in fancy air-conditioned offices as they do today. Men lived under horrible and dangerous conditions and regularly died in the workplace. They did all this 12 to 16 hours a day, for very little pay, and without much in the way of having labour rights. What little money they did make was sent home to support their families. 

27,609 Men Died Building the Panama Canal

The truth is that women were not oppressed by being out of the workplace. Rather, they were spared from being a part of it.

"The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure."" -- Extract from David Thomas' book, Not Guilty

USA "In 1900, only 6 percent of married women worked outside the home, usually when their blue-collar husbands were unemployed. Among wives with children at home, very few worked at all. Almost half of single women held jobs, but they usually stopped working when they married or, at the latest, when they got pregnant, and most never worked for pay again. About a third of widowed and divorced women worked, typically out of economic necessity. Never-married women with children were virtually unknown."
.
As for the Declaration of Sentiments' points about women's education, first we must decide what kind of education we are actually looking at, because in the aggregate, the women were actually educated more than men back then. More women went on to the higher grades in highschool, while the boys got pulled out of school when still quite young to work on the farm. Often times, after missing two or three months here and there, the boys found themselves several years behind and simply dropped out to join the workforce fulltime. The reason why the girls stayed on in school was because it was important for someone on the farm to know their reading and writing, and someone had to know their maths so they could keep the books. This task was usually left to the girls, and it was considered an attractive feature in a farm wife - because so few men had those skills. So overall, more women had a higher level of education than men, although of the small amount (something like 2% of the population) that went beyond highschool, it was virtually all male - just like everything else between males and females.

As an aside, there was actually a women's university in America in 1848. Mount Holyoke College was established in 1837 (as a female seminary!), and Vassar would soon be established in 1861, followed by the other "Seven Sisters Colleges." But it wasn't because of misogyny that so few universities catered to women - it was because of the Free Market.

It was very expensive to send people to university (still is today) and most people didn't have a lot of money. Only the very best and brightest of boys finished high-school and went on to university, and the reason why was because it had to be a good investment for the family. A boy who would spend the rest of his life as a doctor or a lawyer would be worth it. But for a girl, who would most likely be getting married and having children, then spending the next decade or two taking care of them, higher education would not be a good investment. If you had five boys and five girls, and limited funds - who would you spend the money for education on? The boys, who will be expected to marry and support a family with their earnings - or the girls who will marry and become part of a family where they too are provided for by their own working husbands?

It's known even today, that dollar for dollar, training women to be doctors is not as cost effective as training men, because the men tend to work straight through from graduation to retirement while women tend to take a break in their careers to have children, and often only return to the workforce part-time. Although it's politically incorrect to point it out, one of the reasons we have a doctor shortage today is because we are affirmative actioning less cost-effective-to-educate-women over and above more efficient per-education-dollar men. For example: 
June 2003 - More than half of all students taking up scarce places at medical school are women - yet, after 10 years, 60 per cent of them have given up, leaving a huge hole in the NHS. The same goes for teaching. 

September 2012 - Rising numbers of women doctors working part time present a “huge risk” to the NHS, the General Medical Council is warning, with hospitals potentially having to employ many more foreign-trained medics to plug gaps.

It was not the Evil Patriarchy (tm) keeping women out of universities. It was the Free Market. As the bloated tuitions of our modern universities illustrate to us today, if there's a market for it, they will build it. But back in the 19th Century, there simply wasn't a big market for throwing away vast sums of money on your daughter's degree and subsequent high-flying career in Women's Studies or Queer Theory.

Well, we're coming to the end of this section. But the effects of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's points 10 to 12 won't really be felt until "The Second Wave" appears in the mid and late 20th Century, when hypergamy coupled with the now bastardized form of marriage, sent divorce rates to da moon! But this will be dealt with in more detail later in this chapter.
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
Consider the employment conditions in the 19th Century!
.

The Suffragettes versus The Truth

In an odd sort of way, I'm excited to tackle the next three points of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Declaration of Sentiments, for this is the culminating moment of an underlying theme found throughout this book: The Truth, how it differs for men and women, and why it matters very much which one leads the other.

Click Pic to read The Declaration of Sentiments in full.

Points 13 to 15 of the Declaration are as follows: 

13 - He allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

14 - He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.

15 - He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.

***

"When the Cow Rides the Bull, 
Priest, Watch Your Skull!" 

"Women can sing to more than one tune. What good were the Perihermeneias, the Elenchi, divided into several branches, the Prior and Posterior Analytics, logic, or the mathematical sciences to Aristotle? For a woman surmounted all of these in mounting him and conquered the master of logic. She placed a bit and headstall on his head and he was dragged into solecism, barbastoma, and barbarism. The hussy used him as a horse and spurred him on like a female ass. She lifted her crotch far too high when she rode the male. The governor was governed and the roles of the sexes reversed, for she was active and he passive, willing to neigh under her. . . ." -- Woman over Wisdom, The Lamentations of Matheolus, 1295AD

***

First, let's be clear here. In case you haven't noticed, I am an unabashed sexist. I absolutely do not believe Gender is a Social Construct. I think there certainly were social constructs society once endorsed, but they were based upon our biological differences - and it was more or less correct to structure society as it once was because of them. Our civilization has endured for millenia - proof of its viability under defined gender roles - while in the past century we've been tripping over ourselves to commit cultural suicide. The Bible, whether you believe in God or not, is the "blueprint" for our civilization - it is the key to how our cultural and social mores developed. It has proven itself to be a "Book of Life" because the structure of the society it puts forth certainly endures, grows and succeeds.

Click Pic for "Male and Female: Equal but Different"

That there are biological differences between man and woman is clearly evident. It behooves me how society could think this only stops on the surface. There is evidence of it all around us, but the problem is we are only premitted to speak of these things when they praise women's attributes over men's - and we never point out the drawbacks of their features. For every cloud there's a silver lining. There is balance to these things - what gives you power in one area, takes away power in the other. For example - Men have greater physical strength than women, but also die seven years earlier and are far more succeptible to the top ten fatal diseases. So who is stronger? The willow or the oak? They are both strong, but possess entirely different features which make them so. 

Here's a study that touches on a biological difference in the way men's and women's brains work:

Hard-Wired Difference Between Male & Female Brains Could Explain Why Men Are Better At Map Reading 

- Researchers found that many of the connections in a typical male brain run between the front and the back of the same side of the brain, whereas in women the connections are more likely to run from side to side between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. This difference in the way the nerve connections in the brain are “hardwired” occurs during adolescence when many of the secondary sexual characteristics such as facial hair in men and breasts in women develop under the influence of sex hormones, the study found. The researchers believe the physical differences between the two sexes in the way the brain is hardwired could play an important role in understanding why men are in general better at spatial tasks involving muscle control while women are better at verbal tasks involving memory and intuition.

... Because the female connections link the left hemisphere, which is associated with logical thinking, with the right, which is linked with intuition, this could help to explain why women tend to do better than men at intuitive tasks, she added. “Intuition is thinking without thinking. It's what people call gut feelings. Women tend to be better than men at these kinds of skills which are linked with being good mothers,” Professor Verma said.

Note that male brains run front to back, thus not crossing logic with emotion as with women. Not only do women use their greater emotional sensitivities to help them communicate with children, but they also communicate with each other in a similar way. There are plenty of studies out there illustrating how women have better social networks than men do, and they have better support systems to help them through a life crisis (her 4th divorce!) and so on. Women are not only emotionally wired differently than men, they are also emotionally "in-tune" with each other - kinda like a herd!

Or a beehive,

                                   Or a harem,

   Or feminist protests:

Women find a man sexy because of "social proofing" - if enough women find a man sexy, other women will find him sexy too, which is how harems develop. Women are in-tune to ever-changing fashions in a way men never are - because fashion is an ever changing opinion "of the herd." When women seek to aggress against another, they mostly do so by-proxy - through using other people. This is called "Social Aggression" or "Relational Aggression," where they use gossip and social manipulation to hurt others - by excluding them from a group for example, which is why so many "traditional punishments" for women involved things like shunning - it really matters to them! Heck, I've even read that women who live together wind up co-ordinating their menstrual cycles to each other! 

And it's all "thinking without thinking."

Click Pic for "Social Strategy: Why Men Shouldn't Argue with Women"

"... Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who knows how?" -- G.F. Hegel

The female principle, like a herd, is pure Democracy. It seeks to find truth through consensus and opinions without regard for timeless principles. If the herd believes that 1+1=1, then it is correct because the herd believes it is so. Tomorrow, perhaps the herd will believe 1+1=3 and then that will be correct. Sometimes they may even stumble on 1+1=2 and look pretty smart, but the day after it could easily be 1+1=4 again.

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy"

This is precisely why women were not supposed to be mixing with men's place in the government, which was based upon the timeless, unalienable principles found in a Republic:

"Were our state a pure democracy there would still be excluded from our deliberations [...] women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issues, should not mix promiscuously in gatherings of men." -- Thomas Jefferson

Men are like a pack of wolves - they have an established hierarchy and don't work quite so democratically, but rather assign themselves different positions to achieve their goals. There are leaders and there are followers - there are established "truths" to the male principle.






The Female Principle is a representation of Democracy, while the Male Principle represents a Republic.

And last I heard, the Bible wasn't a Democracy either. Instead, it's based on the concept of timeless, never changing Absolute Truth. God doesn't hold a vote to see if you approve of what he has to say. Like the Absolute Truth, what he says just IS!

God's Law = Absolute Truth
Natural Law = Objective Truth = Male Principle
Civil Law = Subjective Truth = Female Principle

Click Pic for "The Masculine Principle"

If a Civil Law contradicts a Natural Law it is a false law, and if a Natural Law contradicts God's Law, it is a false law.  

The whole point of setting things up this way is to control the ever changing subjective truth - that truth which convinces so many convicted felons of their innocence, despite the evidence piled up against them. Certainly men have the subjective truth within them too, although not as much as women, and a man can be held to the Truth by other men in ways they're incapable of doing with women.

As was pointed out earlier up, because of women's "intuition" and social connections to one another, they are masters at socially manipulating each other - and men. But this social ability women possess has its drawbacks:

"The consciousness of how one stands with other people occupies a relatively larger and larger part of the mind, the lower one goes on the scale of culture.  Woman's intuition, so fine in the sphere of personal relations, is seldom first-rate in the way of mechanics.  Hence Dr.  Whately's jest, "Woman is the unreasoning animal, and pokes the fire from the top." -- William James, Principles of Psychology

Click Pic for "A Guide to Birdwatching"

Whenever a woman enters into a group of men, the group becomes subconsciously feminized. In the same way we allow our biology to over-ride principles of justice and excuse women from the most henious of crimes, once a woman enters into a discussion with a group of men, our biology over-rides us as we seek to "please the female." Women quickly lead men away from their ability to seek "principles" and draw them back down to the level of social manipulations found within "the herd," where everything is subjective. Very soon, because of women's much greater social power than men's, she'll be leading the men away from the Truth like the Pied Piper.   

³² "I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. ³³ But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, ³⁴ and his interests are divided." -- 1 Corinthians 7:32-34

Click Pic for "The Garden of Eden, Empty Vessels and Relative Truth"

This is the story of the Garden of Eden all over again, and how Eve over-ruled the Absolute Truth with her Subjective Truths, leading Adam astray. And, it should be noted, while Eve was deceived, Adam sinned willingly. 

“I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” -- 1 Timothy 2:12-14

Adam, in his desire to please the woman, over-ruled the Truth he knew to exist, and sinned willingly.

In fact, when God later gives his reasons for cursing Adam, the first reason he gives is for listening to Eve:

"Because you listened to your wife, and ate of the tree about which I commanded you..." (Adam's Curse)

It couldn't be more clear.
.
You have to keep in mind, historically, what kind of an atmosphere the Israelites were in during the Old Testament. All of the cultures and civilizations around them were fertility cultures - they worshipped sexuality and women's power was enormous. In fact, the Israelites were constantly being tempted to adopt the practices of these sex-worshiping cultures -  like when they were influenced to worship Baal, a consort of the goddess Ishtar. In fact, even the names of the goddesses were removed from the ancient Hebrew texts before they became part of the Old Testament, so it's far more likely that instead of worshipping the male god Baal, they were actually worshipping the goddess Ishtar, since goddesses were considered more powerful than gods in these Sumerian-Babylonian off-shoot cultures. This happens over and over in the Old Testament.
.

Jeremiah 44
15 Then all the men who were aware that their wives were burning sacrifices to other gods, along with all the women who were standing by, as a large assembly, including all the people who were living in Pathros in the land of Egypt, responded to Jeremiah, saying,

16 "As for the message that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we are not going to listen to you!

17 "But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from our mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.

18 "But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met our end by the sword and by famine."

In fact, if we go back to the story of Abram/Abraham and compare it to the Ancient Sumerian/Babylonian religions, we actually find that "our God" was present there as well. He was known as "El," and there were even idols of him there. Abram's father was an idol maker, remember, and idol worship wasn't outlawed until Moses came down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments a few centuries later. (There wasn't even a Bible until Moses).

The plural of these El idols were known as Elohim - the God of the Flood and the God of Noah and his son Shem, who was the ancestor of Abram. When Gilgamesh (a descendant of Noah's other son, Ham - who didn't follow God) was running around in "The Epic of Gilgamesh," he was angered at the God of the Flood for killing his ancestors and swore revenge against him. Some suspect that the Nimrod of the Tower of Babel and Gilgamesh were actually the same person, since the purpose of building the tower was to defy the God of the Flood while the name Nimrod means "the rebel" and was possibly a nickname rather than a real name.

El was not a popular god, however, because unlike all of the other gods, he had no wife - and therefore there were no sex worship rituals involved with El. When Abram left the wickedness of the culture surrounding him and set out for the wilderness, he took with him the god of his ancestor Shem - El or Elohim. It is with Elohim that Abram makes a pact to follow One God (One Truth) rather than the multiple gods (multiple truths) he had left behind. 

Click Pic for "The Wife of Noble Character (Would Make Me a Sandwich!)"

So, you can easily see, right from the Garden of Eden all the way through the Old Testament, what we are really talking about is the resistence of letting the female lead the male - because they naturally lead us away from the Truth with the power of their sexual influence.

And of course, all of the animal kingdom worships female fertility - but we are commanded to not live as animals: Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, honor your father and mother... all are things which make us different from animals. It is our ability to "rise up" from being animals that makes us human - and we do it by grabbing onto the Truth, and then ordering it in the proper way.


Rising Up from being Beasts of the Field 

QUOTE: "I think that the closest that we can get to an absolute truth might be termed “objective truth,” which starts with an objective assessment of existence and leads to falsifiable conclusions. In a sense, one starts with axiom(s) and follows the logical consequences."

Yes, but remember how the Founding Fathers/John Locke look at truth and “lock one into the other.”

1 – God’s Law = Absolute Truth
2 – Natural Law = Objective Truth
3 – Civil Law = Relative/Subjective Truth

I agree that the best “we” can know is the objective truth… but we must go higher and acknowledge the existence of this Absolute Truth – because sometimes the objective truth changes, with history or technology or what not, what is true today is not true always. 

"If God did not exist, it would be neccessary to invent him." -- Voltaire

An example of this is found in Orwell’s book 1984. The storyline is essentially a struggle between the Relative Truth (or lies) surrounding the main character who believes in an External Truth.

And, aside from direct philosophical discussion about “finding Truth” – what I keep seeing is the necessity for Truth to exist. An external truth – one that can’t be changed – one we can’t deny. Whether there actually is Truth might not be as important as the human need to believe in Truth.

There has never really been a civilization that has ever existed that didn’t have some form of religion - it's a universal trait in human cultures.

And keep in mind how the Absoluteness of the Bible has been used to keep us in check - by using it to reign in the king and force him to sign the Magna Carta, for example. Despite the fact that the king had his "divine rights," he still couldn't over-rule the Bible - just like although the President is the most powerful man in the world, the Constitution still has authority over him and can be used to curtail his powers. Like the Constitution, since the Bible is unchangeable, it keeps us from drifting off into La-la Land as time goes on. 

In order to “rise up from being a beast of the field” we need to grab onto a Truth – preferably a never changing one, like the Bible, or at least a hard to change one, like the Constitution.

In Angry Harry’s piece Men Are More Intelligent Than Women, he points out how the more you emote, the less you think… and which sex would one think is the “most emotional,” and which sex is, by their own admission, “more in touch with their emotions?”

Alright ladies, I’ll believe you.

But it is also clear that, the more you emote, the less you “think.” The more your emotions lead you, the less your reason leads you. “Passion” is all great and fine, until it becomes “murder in the heat of passion” or a bazillion other things resulting from a highly emotional state leading to a person “not thinking.”

Life by “passion” is the life of living by instinct, which is the life of an animal.
.

Now, I am not a neurosurgeon either, but I have read of the “three brains.”

The old brain/lower brain/reptilian brain, which contains the brain stem and spinal cord, is the one that doesn’t “think.” This is where your fight or flight response comes from and a whole host of other things that don’t involve “thinking.” It is also where our sexual instinct and mating behaviour comes from. In the days when such experiments were still allowed, you could open a cat’s skull and suck out all the cortex. Sexual and mating behavior was not affected at all, but social behavior was destroyed.

The next brain is the limbic/mammalian brain, and this is the brain where emotions come from, or "our passions." Animals have emotions. Ever separate a cow from its calf? Ever seen a dog wag its tail when it sees its owner?

The new brain, or cortex, is where we “think.”

So, in order to “rise up from being beasts of the field” we have to “think.”

As we get assaulted with things – violently or emotionally or in any number of ways – our brains “shut down.” The “thinking brain” will shut down in favour of the mammal brain, which will in turn, in emergency, shut down if it has to and run completely on instinct – fight or flight. There is no “thinking” or “emotion” in it.
It just “happens.”

So, we have to keep “rising up” in order to find enlightenment.

And now, these highly emotional creatures with hairy triangles between their legs, what do they do to us? They get our emotions running all the time. All of the girls that wing their shaming language around are trying to control men emotionally instead of rationally.


"I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare." -- Ecclesiastes 7:26

The Feminine is constantly manipulating away from the truth with emotions that are subjective.

If there is an external unchanging standard of Truth to compare things to, men can much better pull themselves out of being led by their mammalian brain, and lead themselves by their “thinking” brain.

"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you…"

I'm sorry, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, but you are trying to subvert God himself with your subjective truths - and the very fact you are trying to do so is the reason women have no business philosophizing about Church doctrines. After all, wasn't God's Absoluteness the entire justification for this Declaration of Sentiments in the first place?

Click Pic for "You're Such a Tool! (Briffault's law)"

The final point of the Declaration of Sentiments:
.
16 - He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.
.
Yes, I know, you're a victim... but the fact is, women are always victims, because it's one of the primary methods used to entice men to be their tools in society. Babies who don't cry don't get milk either, and when something goes wrong, the first people children blame is their parents - just as the first people women look to blame is men.

Children are at war with their parents, women are at war with men, and men are at war with God/Truth. But it descends from here as well. The Truth is not at war with men, men are not at war with women, and parents are not at war with their children. Furthermore, only when man is in proper relation to the Truth can he be in proper relation to woman. The fact of the matter is, as Jesus told us, to rule is to serve... and the Truth is, as I think I've demonstrated throughout this series, the entire Declaration of Sentiments is an absolute fail. Sometimes the Truth hurts... but it's still the Truth.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.