Archives for posts with tag: feminism


A Fucked Up Fable

When the Spaniards first recorded their interactions with the indigenous peoples of the Americas, they were amazed at the respect accorded to the women. Since, the criminality of a certain fable that holds women responsible for all of this world’s ills, due to the primal woman’s subversive collusion with a snake, is at the root of a problem, violence against women (and superstitions demonizing female intelligence), that is, these days, hardly unique to any society in the world.

Quoting ‘Church Father’ Tertullian:

“Do you not know you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that forbidden tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert – that is death – even the Son of God had to die.”

This is prime example at the root of your criminal elements subjecting both: Women & Nature; but in mainstream, the so-called ‘women’s’ & ‘human rights’ organizations, they’ll never go there. Catholic theology = impunity in relation to crimes against women, as well, all other ‘religions’ & ‘faiths’, (these are societal sects & cults, actually) that embrace this “Original Sin” fable underlying their proselytizing peoples across the world. It doesn’t matter to what proportion women (or men) might have abandoned and rejected this malignant story at the intellectual level; inter-generational socialization insures the societal structures remain intact. Subliminally, culturally, nothing changes.

Rather ‘feminism’s’ faux solution to ’empower’ women is for women to become the oppressors in the mold of men, but this ain’t your ‘era’ just yet, baby.


^ advertisement recalling the ‘it’s your era, baby!’ 1970s commercials when the ‘Equal Rights Amendment’ was put forward

In the USA model & history of women’s emancipation moving forward or ‘evolving’, where is the ‘equal rights amendment’ in jurisprudence today? Well, neither men nor women wished to see women subjected to compulsory military service (let’s be honest about this), so the amendment never completed its’ ratification process required by the several states. But if we were of a proclivity to be honest as a society, in fact there had been an equal rights amendment already should have been in force because of an 1860s change in the USA’s basic law, known as the 14th Amendment. When women had been subsequently enfranchised by the 19th Amendment (1920) as ‘full citizens’ in the USA per ‘universal suffrage’ (women granted the right to vote), the following (14th Amendment) foundational law should have come into force per women & men’s equality:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

In fact this law has been used (the foundation underlying Roe v Wade) to allow the abortion of fetuses created from consensual sex, never mind any objection of the biological father, not only abortion in cases of rape or incest (is this an equal protection violation?) but aside from that, what the American court of law does not do is apply ‘the equal protection of the laws’ when exempting women from compulsory military service but not the men. So, which sex has the upper hand here? What deception allows men are equal to women in circumstance of exempt from military conscription? Oh my, is it actually possible sexual discrimination can be a two way street in Western culture?

This cultural hypocrisy poses a philosophical dilemma the feminists refuse to face; in the same moment they demand ‘equal rights’ to men within the Western world’s Judeo-Christian patriarchy, they take advantage of that same patriarchy’s perception of them as ‘the weaker sex.’ What’s more is, it is not only this sort of cheat, it is the larger cheat of silence on the source of the problem; the cultural fable demanding women are cursed and the source of all mankind’s woes, that had delivered us the rape culture behind physical abuse. My question for the feminist leadership is, what’s the source of your cowardice in this regard? Not ready for the real emancipation of men in equal status to your own sex, example given, in a matter of exemption from compulsory military service? Yeah, who in the hyper-militarized & conflict prone Western culture is going to protect your skank butts in that case? Why not admit you’re in a Faustian pact with the Western patriarchy and begin again from a factual premise?

Now, let’s contrast this preceding to my (ten years) time of indigenous ceremonial training (by a male) under the supervision of tribal matriarchs. What was a persistently hammered on theme by the matriarchs, throughout, had been a conservatism of behavior based in tribal ethics. It is here I will note one stark difference pointing to the vast chasm between these matriarchs and modern feminism; in the indigenous ‘pre-rape’ culture (matriarchy) where everything in your experience is approached as sacred, there was no concept of ‘fucking for fun’ that should allow for abortion. You made the baby of your own volition and to kill it is murder. In the paradox of today’s world in relation to this, the more culturally intact (pre-Christian mentality) indigenous community would be both; strongly pro-life and in the same moment opposed to any coercive legislating of morality, because people are supposed to figure their mistakes for themselves. In short, socially stupid people are entitled to go to hell in their own way (and the clearly dishonest approach & associated sociopathy of Western feminism would be shunned.)

It was not so long ago that, not only would the indigenous men respect these women in a manner and to a degree unknown in the modern or ‘civilized’ world, as well, these men would lay down their lives for the women at an instants notice, without question. The trade-off? The indigenous women’s law (matriarchy) insisted these males be treated by the women as though they were gods. What’s so wrong with that?

If it were the Spaniards first noted the incredible (contrasted to Western) respect shown in these tribal cultures towards women, would it not be the intelligent route of today’s feminism to explore deeply and discover what had turned these cultures on their heads and ‘converted’ them into modern misogynist communities? To grasp what these communities had been prior to the introduced and now inter-generational violence of Catholic (Christian) origin? Because you aren’t going to get it right coming from a dishonest relationship within your own culture, when mimicking a Western male psychology that is actually an applied feminist caricature of Western chauvinism, while pretending it is something else.


If Sabina Had a Child

You say you are married, you have a nine year old son you are devoted to and you cheat. You say your husband is clueless. In conversation you easily express attractive values as though a mirror unaware of conscious expression.

A person might have the three dimensions of no sense of guilt, no shame and no fear of outcomes and be either psychopath or highly evolved, depending on a peculiar circumstance… the absence or presence of a fourth dimension.

Going to the difference between morality and ethics or, sympathy versus empathy, there exists a typical social lie most of us are unaware of; the idea because we can express values and sympathy, we are doing something right. This does NOT mean we are whole or complete beings. Values are meaningless without ethics or, the applied principles which is the power actually to care for someone other than ourselves, and to be aware of the effects we might have in outcomes in other peoples lives, those responsibilities we incur with making of life choices, when taking decisions impacting others.

Family, and children especially, in order not to become emotional deserts, rather to be strong, require in the beginning, exercising a self-principled stance precluding any emotion of sympathy. Sympathy is a robber, enabling feeling sorry for oneself. People who express sympathy enable themselves and others to feel sorry for themselves and are the ones contributing to the cycle of people dying inside, expressing and enabling sympathy only reinforces behaviors which are self serving and shallow.

Empathy empowers. What is empathy? Empathy is the ability to set aside any self serving emotion or motivation and know in some sense a compassion for the circumstance of another. Empathy, as a capacity to care for another, can only be acquired via the discovery of principled behaviors or, better said, a dimension of ethics which precludes any sense of real guilt, shame or fear, in a positive sense of self that is a positive sense of self-acceptance.

Fear,  guilt and shame, taken together with sympathy, have been used to manipulate and control in the negative sense of shaming, the shaming of children particularly. This teaches feeling sorry for the self, inculcates a blindness to positive outcomes and perversely too often creates a self centeredness numb to morality motivated expectations in behavior. Here is created the emotional desert of no real personality, a seeming wasteland devoid of the fourth dimension of empathy and ethics; equaling what might be the psychopath. A psychopath born of the failed negative motivated morality concept, knows no authentic sense of guilt for harming others. No sense of shame in a shallowness void of any real caring for any person outside their own self-centeredness. No sense of fear of consequences in relationships, and incapable of genuine feeling or taking responsibility for damaging the emotions of people whose lives must rightfully depend on them for example of stability and a future, especially children.

Morality’s combined negative effects absent principled behaviors and sincere empathy, demonstrates a profound lack of caring first; for oneself. This negative self-centeredness only can only come across as a life lived as a lie. No matter how strongly values are expressed with language, the negative motivations of fear, guilt and shame, absent the lessons of principled ethics, only develops a heightened sense of self worthlessness, often to a point of numbness. Without applying a discipline to the self, a practical decision taken without regard to self-pity, to conform oneself to a principled stance, taking responsibility for those whose lives you must impact, absent this, negative reciprocity must be the outcome. I am not expressing any concerns for your many lovers. I am speaking of your relationship to your nine year old son. A child is a sentient being and any child’s awareness is capable of detecting, or absorbing a lie, no matter how one might lie to oneself as realtes to a honest caring for that child..

Can what seems a psychopath become a light, a beacon, a depth, a beauty? I believe so.

No sense of fear to look at the shallowness of the self, can open one to grow inwardly, to initiate overcoming a sense of worthlessness, even nothingness.

No sense of guilt turned on the self rather than projected onto others, might enable a honest self-examination.

No sense of shame turned to the self-examination can enable self-forgiveness in a sense of letting go… AND THEN:

A principled stance applied to the self in relation to ones behavior can open the door to know empathy, to discover caring for another and watering the seed of a healthy emotion; in society where we lose our children most often because of emotional disconnect. Otherwise the spirit of the child must become severed from the parent who may have been there in every superficial aspect but was not there in the most important way; the ability to model caring for the self inside. The self inside that knows to be both kind and principled in example to the child, the self inside that knows to care for a child in the empathy of a relationship of peers that breeds a sense of loving admiration, the self inside that shares with a child the development of self respect. The self inside that empathetically models taking responsibility.

Without these, children can wither and become lost… a child’s spirit knows what a child’s mind cannot; we so often lose these kids because we have provided no healthy love in a principled and practical sense, they are dying inside themselves and suddenly we may not see them again; because they have no sense of being protected, no solid basis within to fall back on, they’ve not learned to care about themselves in any healthy way, they make poor decisions, and consequently meet life tragedies far too often.

I wish to introduce to you the lie your behaviors can only bring demise in your relationships with yourself and family when in actuality you are but a short step away from great ability of knowing what it could mean to discover to be alive inside, to know a sense of being loved such as only a child can bring to you. Your child could give you a life inside, a sense of self respect, an opportunity to grow deeply, to discover and to develop a real personality. It would only require a sustained applied ethics, a simple, new habit you sustain for no other reason than to make a difference for one person with whom you should know the most sacred of all binds, yourself (for the sake of your son.)

Principles which are applied to the self, no longer values superficially espoused, can serve to sustain life for your son who must otherwise despair in ways he cannot know how to express to you, except to one day become lost for having felt cast adrift, the emotional desert of having died inside. If this strikes deep, perhaps you are not a psychopath, not dead at all, and a past altogether lack of guilt, shame or fear can become your great strength with a self examine of behavior and subsequent applied self discipline, because you actually are capable of caring despite any sense of worthlessness that may have been inculcated and manifest in a destructive desire. Because when you cheat, the environment you create is self-perpetrating; a lie of self.

It is a simple, sustained act of self discipline that can lead to your birth inside, to have a genuine personality. And your child will respond to your principled caring for you.

To be a child again, to explore in small and simple ways together the marvels of our existence, to know your child will love you unconditionally because you become open to the idea you are valuable to him beneath the surface of having become numb to real emotion. To know what it means to really be free, to explore the world anew with a friend that desires to know your presence intimately, deeply, truthfully. To give life again, to be a mother in a sense so important, following on the physical birth of your son. To allow your son opportunity to water a seed in yourself for the sake of yourself, to be generous in your new, authentic and positive desire to live for another.

I wish to introduce to you the lie of your worthlessness, shallowness, and incapability of becoming valued and deeply considerate in a reciprocal love knowing the real meaning to care.

I wish to introduce to you to the lie of you are a psychopath.

The preceding inspired by conversations with a married woman with a nine year old son; looking for interesting men (online) to have casual sex. She had been inspired by Anias Nin.

My position is, you cannot cheat your way through life, there must be a principled stance. Related to this, taking responsibility for making choices, setting example, is critical-integral to raising healthy children. If she was not satisfied with her marriage, she should have gotten out with honesty or toughed it out with self-discipline, to set example. Children are like a sponge, they absorb their environment. Dishonest parents will, almost without exception, raise dishonest children. Or worse.


%d bloggers like this: