Generalizing in a Politically Correct World (NAWALT)

.
Possibly the most consistent argument one is faced with when discussing politically incorrect subjects is the knee-jerkingly reflexive, "You can't generalize like that!" This is usually followed with an anecdote about someone's friend's cousin who lives next door to a lady located in a neighbouring town - ten years ago. The purpose of telling this story is that it "obviously proves" the politically incorrect premise is wrong. It is the trick of personalizing an individual characteristic over a group characteristic - which, by the way, indicates the person giving the annectdote has already lost the plot and is not arguing in good faith. 

Any logical person will soon realize that when discussing macro-issues in regard to society and its trends, not only can you generalize but in fact you must generalize. To fail to generalize is to demand all things must only be regarded one-dimensionally and in terms of the lowest common denominator. A more complex and proper way of thinking is that “there are individual groups and there are individuals within those groups.”
.

For example, saying something like “women have larger breasts than men” is a sweeping generalization. But it's a true one – even though some women have smaller breasts than some men. In the collective group of “women” there will be some individual women who have small breasts, while in the collective group of “men” there will be some porky men sporting a set of man-boobs. But only a simpleton would try to cherry pick a flat chested woman and stand her next to a
man-boobed male and claim that this is in any way an honest reflection of the physical nature of man and woman, therefore, we should not say that “women have larger breasts than men” anymore. It would be lunacy! The only thing we might be able to learn then is that “both men and women have nipples.”

Wow! Stop everything right there! The Tower of Babel is already reaching into the heavens! What more could we possibly learn?

Generalizations are absolutely necessary in order to learn anything about macro-issues and societal trends.
.
Of course, what a person cannot do is take one individual and generalize that the entire group resembles that individual. Take Marc Lepine, for example. Feminists have been screeching for over twenty-five years now that Marc Lepine is “proof” of the murderous hatred men harbour for women. Now that is pure bunk. The actions of one man is in no way a reflection of the mentality of the 15,000,000 other men who live in Canada. That is a wrong generalization.

But, to say that men are taller or heavier than women? Yes, this is a proper generalization, because the majority of men are taller and heavier than the majority of women – even though in some individual cases, you will be able to see a taller or heavier woman than a man.

We generalize that “birds fly.” But oh my gosh! You can’t generalize like that! Don’t you know that Emus, Ostriches, Kiwis and Penguins don’t fly? This is such a lame argument and it ought to be obvious that any biologist worth his salt must necessarily generalize that “birds fly.” Look up, grasshopper… not down!

In fact, generalizing is very beneficial and is used quite successfully in many areas of society - such as when the insurance industry analyzes the average frequency of an event (ie. a housefire) in order to offer protection to the individual homeowner while still reliably turning a profit. The government generalizes as well when they pass such laws as speed limits with fines for punishment. It is fully understood that not all of the people will reduce their speed, but most of them will and therefore, it works to keep most people driving at a reasonable speed and makes the roads safer - which is the positive result that is being sought.

Another example is that if we can see that men politically vote 60/40 for principles extolling freedom versus those which promote socialism, while women tend to vote 30/70 on the same issues, then there is little doubt that over time the government will become less freedom oriented and much more mired in socialism - as has been explored by John Lott and Lawrence Kenny's study titled, "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?"   

Many of the arguments that get put forward in regard to sensitive issues (like the War of the Sexes) automatically get dismissed with the intellectually dishonest statement, “You can’t generalize like that.”

Nonsense.

In fact, no-one is going to figure out anything if they fail to generalize. Ignoring the similar actions/traits/situations in 80% of the cases because 20% of the cases do not coincide… well… that is not going to help us at all in analyzing the world as it unfolds about us.

The thing to keep in mind is that there are individual groups (ie. men and women), and there are individuals within those groups.

The way to learn something is to recognize that the trait of the group follows in “this” direction, even though there are individual exceptions which follow “that” direction.

It’s time to stop looking for the lowest common denominator.

There are individual groups, and there are individuals within those groups. 
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

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

"Meanwhile, as long as there's one honest woman living at the temple atop Mount NAWALT in Tibet..." -- White Knight
.
--------------------------------------------
. 
Mathieu of Boulogne (1295) on NAWALT

From “The Lamentations of Matheolus”

"Yet one might disagree with me, criticize my conclusion. and, putting forward the opposite point of view, suggest that my words are completely untrue. For, if some women are evil and perverse and abnormal, it does not necessarily follow that all of them are so cruel and wicked; nor should all of them be lumped together in this general reproach. A speech is badly composed if one's general conclusion is only partly valid. Logic hates this type of argumentation. Nevertheless, this present work, which expresses the pain in my heart, wishes me to exclude nothing, but commands me to push my argument to its logical, if extreme, conclusion, which is that no good woman exists. Solomon, in his works, makes an amazing comment, which supports my case, for he exclaims, "Who could find a virtuous woman?" The implication here is, of course, that this would be impossible. Since he says this, who am I to disagree? Why should I be shocked? What's more, he says that a base and broken man is worth more than a woman when she's doing good. Thus there is no woman worth anything at all; I don't need to look for further proof. That's enough logical demonstration.

My exposition is clearly valid, for woman has - and there is ample evidence of this - deceived all the greatest men in the world; I shall be basing myself on rational argument. If the greatest are deceived, then the lesser naturally fall. In the street where I live they say that what applies to the greatest amongst us applies even more to lesser mortals. Who were the greatest lords? Who has ever heard of greater men than Solomon or Aristotle? Yet good sense, riches and reason were not worth a dung-beetle to them; all were made to look as if they had gone out of fashion; these men were both outmanoeuvred by women, deceived, vanquished, and tamed."

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

Belfort Bax on NAWALT

It seems not much has changed in a century, but this is a beautiful reply (Notice how he only responds to male feminists? Lol!):

The Fraud of Feminism - Belfort Bax, 1913 pp24-26

"At the time of writing, the normal person who has no axe to grind in maintaining the contrary, declares the sun to be shining brightly, but should it answer the purpose of anyone to deny this obvious fact, and declare that the day is gloomy and overcast, there is no power of argument by which I can prove that I am right and he is wrong. I may point to the sun, but if he chooses to affirm that he doesn't see it I can't prove that he does. This is, of course, an extreme case, scarcely likely to occur in actual life. But it is in essence similar to those cases of persons (and they are not seldom met with) who, when they find facts hopelessly destructive of a certain theoretical position adopted by them, do not hesitate to cut the knot of controversy in their own favour by boldly denying the inconvenient facts.
.
One often has experience of this trick of controversy in discussing the question of the notorious characteristics of the female sex. The Feminist driven into a corner endeavours to save his face by flatly denying matters open to common observation and admitted as obvious by all who are not Feminists. Such facts are the pathological mental condition peculiar to the female sex, commonly connoted by the term hysteria; the absence, or at best the extremely imperfect development of the logical faculty in most women; the inability of the average woman in her judgment of things to rise above personal considerations; and, what is largely a consequence of this, the lack of a sense of abstract justice and fair play among women in general.

The afore said peculiarities of women, as women, are, I contend, matters of common observation and are only dis-puted by those persons--to wit Feminists--to whose theoretical views and practical demands their admission would be inconvenient if not fatal. Of course these characterisations refer to averages, and they do not exclude partial or even occasionally striking exceptions. It is possible, therefore, although perhaps not very probable, that indi-vidual experience may in the case of certain individuals play a part in falsifying their general outlook; it is possible--although, as I before said not perhaps very probable--that any given man's experience of the other sex has been limited to a few quite exceptional women and that hence his particular experience contradicts that of the general run of mankind. In this case, of course, his refusal to admit what to others are self-evident facts would be perfectly bona fide.

The above highly improbable contingency is the only refuge for those who would contend for sincerity in the Feminist's denials. In this matter I only deal with the male Feminist. The female Feminist is usually too biassed a witness in this particular question."
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

The Truth About "Misogyny"

Click Pic for "The Masculine Principle"

“For a man to pretend to understand women is bad manners; for him really to understand them is bad morals.” – Henry James

Many people who read the following pages within The Masculine Principle will reflexively be uncomfortable with what they find. "Why, it's misogynist! The author must be living in his parents' basement and has probably never been laid in his life! He must have a small penis! He must be a dead-beat dad! He's just bitter! He certainly doesn't understand women very much!"

Well, no, no, no, no, no and no. I live in a nice little one bedroom condo. I have slept with the mid-double digits of women and even lived with a few of them, so while I am no stud, I am no virgin either. My penis is average sized. I have luckily never been married and I have no children. The only thing I am bitter about is how the Truth has been hidden and manipulated to bring harm to men, women and children, and I understand women and sexuality well enough to have compiled this "book," rather than just fling about emotionally charged insults.
 
I started studying this subject back in 2004 and when I fell ill in 2005, I found myself with a lot of free time while I was going through treatments. I decided that I could either watch TV, or I could put the time to use and learn something instead. At that point I started reading and researching in earnest, often spending eight to ten hours a day on it. Originally my doctors figured it would take around six to eight months to get through the treatments and to the other side... but it took much longer. Three and a half years, to be exact. So I got much deeper into this than I had originally intended, and afterwards, well, I just kept at it. It had become a habit, I suppose. Or perhaps it is better described as being unable to look away from a horrific train wreck. I am now well over a decade into my studies on this subject.
  

Click Pic for "Generalizing in a Politically Correct World"

“It takes a man a lifetime to find out about one particular woman; but if he puts in, say ten years, industrious and curious, he can acquire the general rudiments of the sex.” – O. Henry, Heart of the West (1907)

There's a difference between how a married man knows women and how a bachelor comes to know them. The married man, through the course of spending his life with the same woman, will naturally come to know her individual quirks and personality flaws. We all have them, and so does his wife. The married man therefore believes that Not All Women Are Like That.

The bachelor starts out from the same place as the married man. He falls in love with a woman, discovers her quirks and flaws, and as the relationship spirals out of control he thinks to himself, "I must have just been unlucky and ended up with a faulty one." And so off he goes and finds another, thinking that she will be different. When the second love ends the same way as the first, he starts to doubt himself. Maybe he is the problem. After all, he is the constant factor in this equation. And so, off he goes through life until he loves yet another, and this time he focuses on changing his behaviour. Then he loves another, and another, and still, they all end up being remarkably similar experiences - often even down to the very words she says when in the same situation. 

Click Pic for "Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess"

Finally, he comes to the amazing conclusion that yes, something is wrong with them! All of them! And thus, with enough notes to compare from various women he has known intimately, a pattern begins to emerge, and once he begins to identify it and map it out, he starts to see it everywhere. Further, as he ages and his old friends disappear into the void of marriage, he begins to hang out with more and more bachelors, and as they compare stories he discovers they've had similar experiences as him throughout their lifetime too, which begins to solidify his conclusions. 

Marriage hides the nature of women while bachelorhood exposes it as life goes on. I've read before that if a man reaches the age of 38 without having married, the likelihood of him ever marrying is negligible. This is why. He's figured out "the game" in ways that not even men who have been married multiple times ever will, and he knows it is all an illusion - one that does not operate in his best interests. Marriage hides the true nature of women as a sex from men, while bachelorhood exposes it. The feminists have indeed destroyed "The Feminine Mystique" in their bid to free women from men by destroying marriage. The more men that remain bachelors, the more women will fall from the pedestal they've traditionally been placed upon by men. 

Andrea Dworkin Reincarnated???

It is not hatred to recognize the true nature of woman any more than recognizing that tigers are carnivores instead of herbivores means that I hate tigers. It merely means that I recognize the Truth and will act accordingly. What will make me hate tigers however, is thinking they are playful little kittens and getting my arm chewed off every time I dangle a piece of yarn in front of one because I don't understand their nature and why they behave that way.

Misogyny versus Misandry
 
Much of feminist theory is based on the belief that misogyny is inherent in men, and thus the dreaded Patriarchy is a natural extension of this inbuilt negative attitude towards women which men possess.

But ask yourself, is this really true? Is it true that men are naturally misogynistic towards women? Is it true that most of the men you meet think negatively of women? Is it true that when in the locker-room the men conspire to hold women down? Is it true that businessmen would secretly conspire to throw away their profits by paying men 30% more wages than women, simply to keep women from reaching their true potential? Is it true that 1 in 4 women will really be raped in university, and therefore by extension that 1 in 4 men are rapists? Do you really believe that 25% of the men you know are secretly raping women? Really?

Click Pic for "A Guide to Birdwatching"

None of this rings true for me. In fact, what I see are enormous amounts of men tripping over themselves to praise women. I see men worshiping women as some sort of goddesses. I see men apologizing for the most nonsensical and trivial things simply out of fear of offending women. I see our world leaders praising women while shaming men in order to win votes. I see men trying to one up other men, proving to women that not a smidgeon of misogyny exists in their souls. I see men constantly believing that it is other men who are treating women badly, but certainly not his enlightened, sensitive and equitable self. And those other men? Well, they also believe they are more enlightened than the rest of those misogynist men out there!  

A few years back Dr. Helen did a couple of interviews with Richard Driscoll, author of You Still Don't Understand. During the interviews, Dr. Drisoll cited a survey which illustrated that 14% of men were resentful or almost always resentful of women. However, the same survey also illustrated that 34% of women were resentful or almost always resentful of men. That is nearly two and a half times more women that are resentful towards men than is conversely true of men being resentful of women. 
.

Yup, it's definitely Dworkin reincarnated!!!

Misogyny, as men are routinely accused of, simply is not as rampant as society claims. In fact, the hatred of men is far more prevalent than the hatred of women. "Misandry" still gets underlined by my spell-checker because it is a concept that hardly exists, even though the evidence of it is all around us - if we only cared enough to look.

It is not in men's nature to be harmful towards females. Just the opposite. Men work like slaves to provide for them and often will even sacrifice their lives for them. Does that seem consistent with some inherent misogyny found within males to you? 

One of the most significant things I learned in studying this subject was about "all-female" populations in the Animal Kingdom and "the reason" why males exist. For example, there are certain species of lizards where there are females, but they have somewhere in the past stopped producing males (or have never produced males to begin with). Females "are" the species (in all living things) because they are the ones who control reproduction. If there is only one sex, it must be female or the species will die out. Further, the reason why a species either creates or stops creating males, is in relation to what the females want. They create males to do things they cannot do or are unwilling to do themselves. In other words, on a very basic level in nature, the entire purpose of the male is to serve "the species," which is by default female. 

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

And this goes even deeper yet, down to our genetic and evolutionary level. These all-female populations can only exist and thrive in ecological niches. As soon as they have to compete with a species that has both males and females, they get run over and die out because they have little ability to adapt. It is the male that mostly evolves the species, because the male has far more variability. What happens is that mutations in the species mostly happen to the males, and when a positive mutation happens, the female breeds with him and "saves" the evolution. So even on that level, you can see that the male serves the female. 

What is really amazing is how this exists in every living thing on earth, and a biologist will confirm it is so except that the same biologist will deny it exists in humans as he or she reflexively believes that it is men who hold all the power rather than women. Although, in their defense, it is somewhat true, because while we are of the animal kingdom, we are not animals. We are humans and we have the ability to live at a higher level than animals. What we did somewhere in the past was we re-ordered this, the only creatures on earth to have done so, and we rose up from being beasts in the field. But even so, on a very deep level of our existence, males are still serving the needs of the females. The question becomes (or was in the past), are we going to serve women as animals, including all the harshness that comes with that brutal world, or will we do it as humans, and enjoy all the benefits that civilization bestows upon us?

Misogyny in Religion, Myth and History

Click Pic for Atlan.org's Free Articles about the Legend of Atlantis

A long time ago now, I found myself reading a website about the Legend of Atlantis. This was not a wierd, way-out-there site, but rather it argued that Atlantis and the Garden of Eden were one in the same. In fact, it argued that all religious paradises and many of our ancient myths and legends were essentially about the same story: that all of our human ancestors had experienced a global, cataclysmic flood at the end of the Pleistoscene Ice Age, some 13,000 years ago, and all of our religions and mythical stories about paradise lost and a flood (or sinking land) are a "twinkling remembrance" of what happened to the humans who lived through that time. Thus, it explored many of the similarities between various religions and myths that existed around the globe. There used to be a nice forum there where the author of the articles (and book) hung out and discussed various theories of "The Fall of Man" and how it related to the earth's history geologically. It was a fascinating place, but unfortunately, Prof. Santos - who had spent over twenty years studying this subject as a hobby - passed away suddenly from a heart attack, and the forum kinda fell apart after that.  

But it was one of those experiences that just "clicked" in my mind, and I began to see things in a different way after reading it. For example, I started thinking, "If I were the last adult alive amongst 100 children and given the responsibility of passing on 'what I know today' to them - while also recognizing the human trait of wishing away inconvenient Truths - how would I go about this so it would last them for centuries into the future?" Well, I would write it down in an unchangeable religion. 

Shortly after, I watched a video of a university lecture which had a fellow who had studied the ancient Hebrew language and texts, and as he was interpreting parts of them, he noted the misogyny that was found in them. In fact, he was so embarassed by it that he offered an apology to those in the lecture hall. Some of the things he pointed out were that Sodom and Gomorrah, the two most wicked cities in the Bible, are the only two cities from the entire region which are referred to in the feminine. (As in, how French has masculine and feminine in their language). He further mentioned that the most evil of demons were always portrayed as female.

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

There is also the story of Adam's first wife, Lilith. (Not all of the Ancient Hebrew Texts are in the Bible). There are two accounts of how humankind was created. In the first, man and woman were created at the same time, on the sixth day:

27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. -- Genesis 1:27

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' -- Matthew 19:4 

In the Hebrew texts, Adam and Lilith were equals and as such, she often challenged Adam's authority and rebelled against him. She would even complain to him during sex that she had to lie beneath him - which she didn't think fair because they were equals. Eventually Lilith left Adam, but from her sexual union with him she spawned many demons which went forth to plague mankind. 

When we get to the second story, that of Adam and Eve in the Garden, Eve was created after Adam - from his rib - and when God ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden, he told her when he cursed her that her desire will be for her husband and he will rule over her, thus, completely the opposite of the equality that Adam and Lilith had shared. 

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

"...But for Adam no suitable helper was found. ²¹ So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. ²² Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

²³ The man said,“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

²⁴ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.²⁵ Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." -- Genesis 2: 20-25

These things were, of course, all very interesting. But what I found most interesting were the professor's profuse apologies for "misogyny." It made me step back and ask, "But why is that misogyny in there? Doesn't anyone ever ask that question?" And apparently, no-one does! We just continue writing it off to men's innately evil, misogynistic character - even though, as I pointed out earlier, if we opened our eyes and actually looked at the world around us, we would see that men are far more prone to practice irrational and blind love of women than misogyny (Known as the equally obscure term to Misandry, as "Philogyny"). And, just as the men of the modern day always think it is other men who harbour misogynist attitudes towards women, we also believe our modern, enlightened selves are better than those other misogynistic men who existed in the past.  

But, what do you do when Greece and Rome arise as two of the premier civilizations in history? And yes, you can point out their "misogyny," but you can't deny their excellence. It is said that when Alexander the Great was handing King Darius III of Persia his ass, Darius lamented, "My men have become women and my women have become men." In other words, they embraced androgyny - and this is true, if you examine how their customs changed over time. 

And look at what comes from Rome but the same warning we find about Adam and Lilith's equality: 

Click Pic for "Testing, Testing... 1,2,3... Testing"

"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment they become your fellows, they will become your masters." -- Cato the Censor (There's a story similar to modern "Slut Walks" found in that link, by the way).     

I have also read of the effects of hypergamy and Briffault's law in Rome, as it related to a woman's dowry and how it changed over the course of history in relation to divorce laws. At first, when a divorce occurred, the husband would keep the dowry, and divorce was low. Then the laws changed and after divorce, the bride's father would have the dowry returned to him - and divorce rose. Finally, after divorce, the wife kept possession of the dowry herself, and from there we find that in Rome they said, "Women marry intending to divorce, and divorce intending to remarry." (Sound familiar? Ever heard of "starter-marriages?"). Thus, they had to pass draconian laws trying to force men to take them on as wives because the men wanted nothing to do with them and their birthrates declined to a point where it was a jeopardy to the state. 

We find the same tale in Aristotle's Spartan Women, except in Sparta they further undermined hypergamy and Briffault's law through their inheritance laws:

.

Click Pic for "Feminizing the Decline"

And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin.
.
We see the same thing over and over again. In fact, some eight decades ago, "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin, chronicled the rise and fall of over 80 cultures and in each case he found that "misogyny" was present at the beginning and rise of the culture, while equality and the feminine principle dominated the decline and the eventual collapse. 

I believe one of the reasons we only find this sort of "misogyny" in religion and myth is because, first of all, books like the Bible are unchangeable because they are philosophically based in Absolute Truth. They are further found in myths and legends because men, somewhere in the past, must have figured out that women will never allow the Truth about them to be openly discussed, so they pass it on in different ways - through the "twinkling remembrance" of our ancestors. 
.

Click Pic for "A Guide to Birdwatching"

“Men are not troubled to hear a man dispraised, because they know, though he be naught, there's worth in others; but women are mightily troubled to hear any of them spoken against, as if the sex itself were guilty of some unworthiness.” – John Seldon (1584-1654) 
.
After all, when looking at the concept of All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom, which we discussed further up, can't you see its relationship to the legend of the Amazon Women?

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

And can you see it further in some of our great feminist "thinkers?"

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." -- Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future - If There Is One - Is Female
.
What happens throughout history is that women censor all of the negative observations about them into oblivion, and men, in their desire to serve and please them, will enable them. The only way to get things "through" and passed the burning desire of the male to please the female is to enshrine it in something absolute like the Bible, or hide it in myth or legend.

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Truth"

Is the Truth Misogynist?
 
The term "misogynist" is one that indicates emotion. It means a hatred or dislike of women. The academtards with subversive social agendas have been trying to rejig the English language by insinuating that misogyny means someone who doesn't believe in equality, or voting rights, or whatever other feminist jargon they tack onto it - basically insinuating that anyone who doesn't support their political and social agenda is misogynist. But this is nonsense. Just because someone doesn't believe children should have equal say as their parents does not mean they hate children.

The "misogynists" of old, such as Otto Weininger or Arthur Schopenhauer or Aristotle or the Bible don't hate women. They disagree with the feminist agenda, for sure, but there is no "hatred" in what they say. They are merely trying to reveal the Truth.

Click Pic for "The Masculine Principle"

The Truth has no feelings. It does not feel love or hatred.

The Truth has no agenda - unlike the multi-billion dollar feminist industry.

The Truth does not assign blame, nor does it concern itself with hurt feelings.  

The Truth just is.

Often in the following pages you will see me refer to a "hierarchy" that goes like this: 

God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children.

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

This "hierarchy" exists on many levels and does not indicate any particular superiority, although those who believe in the religion of equality are instantly incensed by it. It also works backwards in much the same way that it works forward. For example, children are considered more valuable than adults, and women are considered more valuable than men. Further, children are at war with their parents, but parents are not at war with their children. Women are at war with men, but men are not at war with women. Men are at war with God/Truth, but God/Truth is not at war with men. And it descends from here as well. Only when man is in proper relation to the Truth, can he expect woman to be in proper relation to him. This is something hard-wired into our biology and it has been with us from the beginning.

Our civilization is a "machine" that harnesses our sex drives and life forces for the good of us all. I don't really believe that men are any more superior than women, but I don't believe we are "equal" in all things either. I believe we both have strengths and weaknesses. I believe that men and women possess different kinds of power. I believe that men make very poor women and women make very poor men. I think androgyny is the most destructive notion we've ever unleashed on our great civilization, and I don't support the feminist movement's agenda to further destroy us by brainwashing more of this androgyny into society.

If the Truth is misogynist by modern definition, so be it. I'll stand with the Truth proudly.
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Related:
Lilith - Demon and First Wife of Adam (Video - 10min)
.

The Myth of Tiresias and the Ten Pleasures of Sex

.
Tiresias was a blind prophet of Thebes who told the truth about the past, present and future, although those for whom he prophesied rarely took what he said seriously. Aside from his clairvoyant powers, Tiresias was also famous for being changed into a woman for seven years.

There are several tellings of the myth of Tiresias, many of them contradicting each other. The gist of the story is as follows:  

One day, the young Tiresias was walking along a path on Mount Kyllene, in the Peloponnese countryside, when he came across a pair of serpents engaged in unashamed copulation. Condemning them for their lust-fulness, he struck them with his walking stick.
. 

The sensuous goddess Hera, wife of Zeus, was angered by Tiresias' actions, as she heartily approved of sexual pleasures, even for animals. She punished Tiresias in the worst possible way: by transforming him into a woman, in both body and mind.

After seven years as a woman, ranging in roles from prostitute to wife & mother, Tiresias again came across the serpents, but this time allowed them their carnal pleasure. Hera was pleased and rewarded Tiresias by restoring his masculinity. 

Some time later, Hera and Zeus were arguing about who had more pleasure in sex, the man or the woman? Hera, the great seductress, had always led Zeus to believe the man was superior in sex, as well as in all other things. To settle their disagreement, they summoned Tiresias, as he knew what it was like to be in both roles. As a man who spoke the truth, he revealed womankind's greatest secret: on a scale of ten, she gets nine parts of pleasure to his one. Hera was furious at Tiresias and, despite Zeus’ protests, she struck him blind for betraying womankind with the truth.
.

***

.
I have spent the last few days studying and pondering on the story of Tiresias. One of the things I have been trying to find the answer to is what Tiresias considered "the ten pleasures" (or parts) of sex, of which he said man enjoys only one, while woman enjoys three times three, or nine pleasures, although some versions say woman enjoys all ten.

Click Pic for "The Truth About Misogyny"

There seems to be no answer to this question. So far as I can tell, there is no listing of the pleasures anywhere in the texts, just the mention that there are ten. When surfing around the web to try and find the answer, all I see are people claiming that it is literal sexual orgasmic pleasure.

Then the modern feminist narrative comes out claiming that this was all from 'misogynist' Greece where they were oppressing women. So it is all just nonsense in an attempt by the Greeks to hold women down - everyone knows men enjoy sex far more than women.

But is this true?

Having a look at the myth itself, we may find a clue.

The reason Tiresias is blinded is because he angered Hera for revealing womankind's greatest secret: that she gains more pleasure from sex than men. Hera, Zeus' wife and seductress, had led Zeus to believe that he was superior to her in sex, as well as in all other things - it was part of her seduction of him. This seems to be the theme that comes forth, not whether the woman orgasms more than the man.

"Woman does not betray her secret." -- Immanuel Kant

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

It seems to me, that either through subconscious deception or unconscious ignorance, the women who join in this debate are coming from the same position as Hera herself - denying that women benefit more from sex than men. "Woman does not betray her secret" is something that many "misogynist" men throughout history have pointed out, so, we should not dismiss them lightly simply because women say we should. That is exactly what Hera, the priestess of womankind and marriage herself, wanted to happen - and the reason she was angered at Tiresias was for betraying her with the truth!

"From woman you can learn nothing of women." -- Nietzsche

What is woman's greatest secret then? And what was it about sexuality that Tiresias was inferring women enjoyed, if it were not literal orgasmic pleasure?

So, I spent some time pondering what the ten pleasures (or benefits) could be, and here are the things I suspect Tiresias was referring to:

1 - Use of Sex for Survival/Procurement of Goods from the Man - Even today, 85% of the homeless are men. Women "somehow" manage to not fall through the cracks as easily as men when they fail at life. What, oh what, could it possibly be that prevents this from happening to women in the same degree as men, even though, as feminist academics continually remind us, "women only receive $0.76 for every $1.00 that a man earns"? When Tiresias was a woman, he was portrayed as both a prostitute and as a wife and mother. (More on motherhood later in point six).

Also, women gain instant status upon marriage. While a man has to work for 10-15 years to become a doctor, the woman he marries instantly becomes part of his social class, no matter her education or past efforts - which is pretty nice for her, eh? 

2 - Sexual Gate-keeper - A woman's sexuality is in demand and she can easily replace a man - women have "orbiters' or "men in reserve" who are waiting in the wings, hoping she will call on them - when women leave a man, there is no shortage of men vying for her attention, trying to replace the previous man. She plays the passive role, the male is the motive, or active agent. There is enormous power that is conferred upon her simply for being in this role.     

3 - Sexual Power to Manipulate Man for Woman's Own Purposes - Power by Proxy - "Let's You and Him Fight"

"Who cares whether women rule, or if they rule the rulers? The result is the same."-- Aristotle.

Ask yourself, exactly how powerless is that woman on the side of the road with a flat tire? Her "helplessness" inspires countless men to pull over and change the tire for her, thus, her "helplessness" is actually her power, and since it controls the power of those "with more power," her power is greater. After all, her batting eyelashes accomplish the same task as a grunting and sweating man does - they both change the tire! 
.

4 - Social Power as a Gender - Shaming and social manipulation is an enormous part of female power. It derives from womankind's sexuality and is not just expressed individually, but also in the aggregate, from women as a whole in society. Everywhere in nature, the male serves the female. (See point 6) "Nature has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them little" -- Samuel Johnson

5 - Male Protection & Sacrifice - Helen of Troy's beauty was powerful enough to launch a thousand ships, remember! Men will readily risk their lives to save women. It does not occur nearly so frequently the other way around. Think of the Titanic.

"Nobody's a feminist when the lifeboats are being lowered."

6 - Fulfillment of Biological Clock/motherhood -  Tiresias has three daughters: Manto, Historis & Daphne - While it is true that men also enjoy fatherhood, the parental instinct is different between men and women. In women, the parental instinct is due to her biological clock - it happens to her before having children, and comes from somewhere within. With men, they do not have a biological clock, or at least not one so strong as in women. Men's parental instinct kicks in after the child has been born, and they fall in love with it and will protect and provide their brains out to ensure the child's survival. The only thing that could really be said to be a "biological clock" in men would be their acknowledgement of "time." What I mean is, a man who is 45 and has never had children thinks of it in terms of raising a child to 18 years old (plus four to six years of post-secondary education in, heh, institutions that don't adhere to the truth) which places him into his mid-sixties before it is all over.

This is much different than the way women's biological clock works, which is much more like a flower, where the entire existence of the plant's energy ultimately culminates in a bloom, demanding reproduction takes place when it is ready. And, when she is ready, she demands the fulfillment of her readiness immediately, thus the female is the passive cell, while the male is the motile cell - always at the ready to do her bidding.

"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. 
.

7 - The Pleasure of Letting Someone Else Lead - The woman no longer has to worry about making money, providing food and shelter and so forth (or, at least not as much as when she is alone), allowing her to focus her time and energy on the children she bears. Many people reminisce of how good things were back at Mom & Dad's after they have become adults. As children they might have resented it, but as adults, they realize how fortunate they were, both in a literal/physical sense, and also in a psychological sense. It was nice to not have to worry where the food was coming from or if the heat will still be working next month, wasn't it?

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy"

8 - The Tyranny of Weakness (can shirk responsible and claim victim-hood) - The Buck Stops Here. As man's subordinate in "misogynist" cultures, any time that something goes wrong, all the blame ultimately turns back upon the man. For example, if a man cheats on his wife, he is a lout for doing so. And if a woman cheats on her husband, he is a lout for not keeping her happy. "Heads she wins, tails he loses," or,

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

This is still happening today, where everything in society that is not to women's liking is blamed upon men, even though we are decidedly not living in a patriarchy, but rather a matriarchy. (Over half of all children go to bed at night without a biological father in the house. Maria Shriver reports that America is "A Woman's Nation" because after the 08/09 Great Recession, women now outnumber men in both university degrees and in the workforce. Hannah Rosin of The Atlantic further rubbed salt in men's wound by declaring "The End of Men." And yet, heh, men are still to blame for everything wrong in the world rather than women.)  
.

Click for "Testing, Testing, 1,2,3, Testing"

9 - Sexual Pleasure - for man and woman - the one pleasure the man gets from sex. I hope this is self-explanatory enough for me to not have to discuss the birds and the bees - this is not an X-rated site, after all. However, if you're a beautiful, available young woman, send me an e-mail along with several photos, and I'd be willing to discuss it privately with you in greater depth.

10 - Duality - Everything in regard to Tiresias is about duality, or the completion of the Yin

Click Pic for "The Masculine Principle"

and Yang, of the two opposites becoming one.

Tiresias was both man and woman. He was rewarded with long life (either seven generations or seven lifetimes), but starts his knowledge when he was young - thus the duality of young and old is connected through him. He was also granted the full memory of his life on earth after he died and went to the underworld, thus connecting the duality of life and death.

Click for "Rites of Passage: Making Boys into Men"

I suspect that of the ten pleasures, where man receives one pleasure to woman's nine, the pleasure that neither receives is duality - That is something that can only be achieved by embracing the opposites within themselves; by the man embracing his masculinity and the woman embracing her femininity. If men try to behave like women and women try to behave like men, they become competitors rather than a synergistic force that is greater than the sum of the two parts.

Some stories, however, do say that woman enjoys all ten pleasures, and if we take that tack on duality, I have read before about the concept of duality existing in women when they have a son. The woman creates the son, who becomes the man who takes care of the woman. This is why the mother & son, represented so often with the Virgin Mary, is such a powerful and recurring theme in various artwork throughout history. (The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world).

Well, these are my suspicions of what the Tiresias Myth is about. Of course, there is no way to prove it, and these are just my ponderings. But I think this is a much better interpretation than thinking he meant women get nine times the orgasmic pleasures which men do.
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"It is pathetic to note that in today's society, when a woman marries a doctor or a lawyer or a corporation executive, she automatically procures the same status and income which took her husband years of hard work to attain. No exertion is needed on her part, outside of buying the right clothes and applying cosmetics-in other words, slipping on the right mask. So a brainless bimbo who drapes herself on the arm of a movie star is accorded greater respect than a female librarian or scientist." -- Matthew Fitzgerald, Sex-Ploytation (p.11)
.