Since this
book is primarily concerned with the politics and philosophy of
feminism. I start with essays on this subject.
John Wayne Bobbitt had his penis removed by his wife recently,
while asleep. She, according to news reports, stated to the police that
she was never satisfied by her husband's sexual efforts. Later she
was portrayed as a battered wife mainly through the efforts of
feminist organizations, the jury failed to accept this idea, however.
John Wayne had apparently been drinking with a friend and
attempted sexual intercourse with her after returning home.
Another interesting fact is that she took the severed penis with
her. She said she didn't realize she had it, which can be believed of
a person in an extremely emotional state, except that she had to
drive her car which is a two handed job in the beginning.
Attempting it with one hand will surely remind one that one hand is
otherwise occupied. She drove some distance and then threw the
severed penis into the weeds.
This is not a lot of information to go on but perhaps enough to
reach some level of understanding. This is a very unusual case,
none like it has occurred before and also been covered extensively
by the media. It is certainly a result of the modern feminist
movement. In the past it never would have occurred to most
females that they should expect sexual satisfaction. It was not
thought to be ladylike to expect such a thing.
So, Lorena Bobbitt, not only expected it, but was driven to such
a state of frustration by failure in this area that she resorted to the
above described action. One guesses that the most logical meaning
behind this act was Lorena's conclusion that John Wayne, being
unable to fulfill the masculine sexual role, was in no need of the
appendage. One further supposes that she wished to make sure he
didn't get it back and that was the reason for attempting to hide it in
the weeds.
The difficult question that arises from this train of thought is
this: is Bobbitt unusual, or is the feminist movement responsible in
some sense for this event? Of course impotent men are not
uncommon, and there are many reasons for impotence, mostly
physical. In this case, from appearances, we can suspect
psychological reasons because Mr. Bobbitt appears to be young and
in excellent health.
I would like to suggest that feminism is having the unintended
effect of emasculating many men, that this is the main reason for
the failure of men to fulfill there familial responsibilities especially
in the black ghetto, and for the rise of sex crimes against women and
children and for that matter against other men. It is a fact that
aggressive women, when attempting to copulate with some men, will
find that the penis fails to maintain an erection. I guess this is
because the aggression of the female destroys the lust in the man,
that aggression in the woman is not sexually attractive for some men.
However that may be, the result will be that the male will probably
be able to perform well enough to expel fluid, thus removing sexual
tension from himself, but in order to achieve that much success he
will have to move quickly to do it before losing his erection. This
will presumably be completely unsatisfactory to the woman, who,
being aggressive will demand sexual satisfaction for herself, and
destroy the possibility with the demand.
Males in these circumstances will find themselves in the
incomprehensible position of having a highly desirable sexual
partner in terms of physical beauty, with whom, none the less, and
contrary to all prior sexual experiences, they cannot have successful
intercourse. They may at the same time be strongly attracted to the
person for other reasons. In these circumstances, the male may
conclude there is some obstruction, but that it is unlikely to proceed
from him, due to successful prior relationships. On the other hand,
the woman probably has been plagued with this problem from the
beginning, and hasn't a clue as to it's nature. She may though, have
come into contact with the concept of the emasculating woman and
be suspicious, but be in a state of denial and in any case not know
how to go about solving the problem even if she did accept it.
I would also be suspicious that emphasizing aggression in
females will strengthen their sexual desire. It will in a word, have
the effect of bringing their masculinity to the fore. One way to test
this theory would be to look for rising levels of lesbianism among
women.
This sort of woman, will naturally seek out a more passive man
than is common, which will exacerbate the sexual problem since this
is just the sort of man that will find difficulty performing sexually
with an aggressive woman.
We can of course feel sorry for the Bobbitts, but the main issue
here is whether or not this is symptomatic of a societal problem, and
if so, what can be done about it. I conclude that teaching women to
be aggressive is not only unnatural but can perhaps induce a
sexually dysfunctional society.
Emasculation is a well known concept, though it is not known
with any precision just what sorts of acts have this effect and what
the consequences are. Since the concept is known, cases have come
under study, and the consequences are destructive, else why would
professionals come into play. Defeminization is also known, though I
know of no violent acts proceeding from this cause. To know what
constitutes emasculation, one can start from what the attributes of
masculinity are. That would be orderliness and aggression, to name
the most important. And the item of interest here is aggression.
This attribute is the one most maligned in these times as a result of
the rise of feminism and the lack of compassion associated with
aggression. Authoritarianism flows from aggression because
aggression will require a male to be the leader of immature and
feminine members of his group. This can easily be seen from
observing deer or horses. So, any act that tends to damage the male
role as leader within his family will have the effect of emasculating
him.
Such activities will be on the order of denial of sexual relations,
disputing leadership activities such as decision making, ridicule,
especially in front of others, particularly others under the control of
this male, failure to perform assigned duties such as meal
preparation, house cleaning, child care, etc.
One cannot expect a positive outcome to such approaches to the
realization of feminism. On the other hand, if the goal is the
destruction of masculinist institutions, no more effective approach
can be imagined.
The Perversion of the Law in America
Last night on PBS, Frontline presented a documentary on a child
molestation case in North Carolina, beginning in 1990, and resulting
in conviction for several defendants recently.
The documentary makes clear that no molestation ever occurred
and that, in all likelihood, the issue arose because a powerful woman
had her child slapped at a child care center and failed to get an
apology. She then fomented rebellious feelings in the town against
the management of the facility that eventually led to a sexual
hysteria that became convinced that molestation was going on.
This led to the inclusion of social workers in the witchhunt, all of
whom used coercive questioning of children to plant ideas that the
children then obligingly repeated in court.
As one defendant said during the broadcast: in our society, if
one wishes to damage another human, one has only to accuse of
some kind of sexual crime, it matters not which, and the assumption
is that they must be guilty, else why would the allegation arise.
The scary thing here is not that an arrogant and pampered
woman stirred up this hornets nest, that is an old story and one we
must expect and live with. It is also not about a jury that failed in
its duty, such errors will always be with us. The problem is that
government employees with questionable credentials have such
great authority that they can cause miscarriages of justice of such a
magnitude in pursuit of their personal agendas, in this case the
furtherance of feminist policy. What I mean is that social workers,
all female, coerced these confessions from children under the age of
six, and the court accepted what they had to say as if they were
adults and understood the significance of it and the suffering they
were causing.
This is not the first time this has happened, though it is the
worst result thus far. This exact scenario has been played out
several times in the last decade. One hopes that the presentation on
PBS means that the liberals are reexamining it with an eye towards
finding some means of keeping it from happening in the future. The
answer is clear. Of the many flaws in our judicial system, the failure
to distinguish between immature and mature witnesses seems the
most flagrant.
You are subject to this same experience. Consider what it would
feel like if you woke up one day to find yourself engulfed in a social
torrent and powerless to save yourself. To watch powerlessly as
your reputation was associated with the most disgusting kinds of
activities, knowing and unable to prove that you are completely
innocent. Finally winding up in prison for the rest of your life.
Compared to this being blown up in an airliner is a pleasant
prospect.
How to Survive the Rise of Feminism
I am a white anglo/saxon Christian heterosexual male. I am
easy going and quick to be friendly, but when it comes to a fight, I
support white anglo/saxon Christian heterosexual males before all
others. Since I am a male one of the many options available to me
in contentious situations is violence. I reject the Ghandi/King non-violence creed, except insofar as such an approach might be more
efficient to the achievement of my goals than violence or other
means.
Is there a feminist conspiracy to destroy our
culture?
As has been pointed out by the Muslim fundamentalists in Iran,
the West, particularly the United States, after having been
established by fundamentalists itself, has transformed itself into
The Great Satan in the West. The truth of this
characterisation is inescapable. Religion has long concerned itself
with the descrimination of good and evil and has concluded that evil
includes materialism because it neglects the spirit, hedonism
because of its preoccupation with sex for fun and pleasure, and
blasphemy because of its preoccupation with belittling God in favor
of human pride and arrogance. This three-headed monster has been
developed to a high degree in the West, primarily by the pursuit of
money, which requires advertising to develop desire for the
products that industry can produce.
Having identified the source of evil in the modern world, one is
driven to consider the prospects for rectifying the situation and the
identification of what specific acts would be required. The first
requirement is to identify 1) the nature of evil, 2) the reason for
adoption of evil practises over good in the West, and 3) a means of
defeating this particular evil.
Evil, for the purposes of this discussion is taken to be those
attitudes and actions that tend to injure our species and decay our
prospects for survival. This definition proceeds from an analysis of
The Mosaic Law and the conclusion that the effect of adherence to it
by the Jews was to increase their numbers. It is necessary, at this
stage of human history to recognize that the numbers of humans has
increased beyond all bounds and that evil will include those
practises that tend to increase our numbers still further.
From this it can be seen that the nature of evil will change over
time. What was a good philosophy when our numbers were few will
be a bad philosophy when we become too many. From this logic
trail we conclude that our definition of good which proceeds from
identification of what is evil will have to include a reverence for
nature in order to avoid disabling those natural mechanisms that
tend to hold our numbers in check. Many will critisize this approach
as tending towards materialism itself. To which we must reply, look
at the American Indian who, from all reports, was able to maintain a
healthy respect for both the spirit and nature.
This means that we must outlaw preventive forms of medicine
such as for instance innoculation against viral disease. In order to
accomplish such a goal, it will be necessary to first defeat those
institutions that tend to keep the current philosophy in place.
To defeat the current philosophy of life, the primary
requirement is to disable the economic machine which feeds it. It
will then quickly starve to death.
This will not be easy to acomplish. It will require, in its final
stages that the pursuers of this plan get control of the federal
governments themselves. This can be accomplished by offering
giveaway programs for the poor initially and the middle class after
that while at the same time promoting taxation plans that elliminate
the upper class.
Therefore, the following proposals are provided:
1. Induce economic failure directly:
By continuously increasing the federal deficit until the
entire income of the various federal governments is used to pay
interest. This can be done first by including large numbers of social
programs in the budgets and then dramatically expanding the
budget for example by a one time effort to defeat a military enemy.
Population growth will have the effect of constantly increasing the
social burden which will have to be financed by borrowing, once the
utility of tax increases has been fully exploited.
2. Induce runaway disease to further burden the
budget:
By promoting immoral sexual expression. The disease
transmitter, par exelance is the penis. It transfers disease in the
most efficient manner from person to person. To promote
promiscuous sex it is only necessary to advertise the pleasure to be
gained. This can be done with pornography which should be
provided via every possible outlet from TV to movies to magazines.
Any medium capable of transmitting pictures, the most easily
consumed form of pornography. A second method would be
government endorsement of promiscuous sex for example by
endorsing condoms.
3. Induce a rising rate of criminal activity to further burden
the budget:
By outlawing dangerous drugs and firearms to create
black markets. This will provide a large population willing to
commit crimes to get what they want, primarily in the area of
intoxicating drugs, but also guns, a profound source of individual
power.
4. Induce the breakdown of family structure to provide
recruits for criminal organizations which will quickly spring up to
compensate for the loss of family:
The family is a source of strength because two acting in
concert are always stronger than two individuals. To defeat it,
promote activities that degrade the authority of the father by
promoting equality within the family. This will produce people
unable to compete and who will place themselves outside of civilized
society through criminial activity to satisfy their needs and
wishes.
5. Induce decay in the concept of the sanctity of human
life.
By promoting depiction of violence in the media,
abortion, euthanasia. This will lead the criminal class towards
murder in pursuit of their pleasure, due to a perception of the
valuelessness of human life except insofar as it aids them in the
satisfaction of their desire for pleasure.
Negative Feminism
One wonders where the qualities promoted by the feminist
movement come from (aggressive personality, especially towards
men, selfishness, especially about self fulfillment and ownership of
one's body). Are they feminine in nature? Or are they just
politically desirable? Have we decided that feminists (of whatever
sex) should define the values by which we live? Or are we just
accepting it because it is expedient?
I suppose that we just watched in admiration as women
marched and had to agree with their demands for equality because
it seemed right and democratic.
I've noticed of late that every time I am tailgated or passed
when I am doing the speed limit on the way to work, it is a woman.
This leads me to consider the question of the aggressive woman.
Formerly, it was unquestioned that women, as a group, were
naturally passive, and that it was unbecoming to be aggressive.
Lately, in search of equality, women have been encouraged to
develop their latent aggressive qualities, with great success. I think
it has been well demonstrated that where women compete with men,
this method works, and when added to the tactics traditionally used
by women as a result of their enforced passivity, it results in a near
unbeatable competitor.
The question then becomes, is success in one's career enough,
and if not how does it work in marriage, the other large undertaking
of most women? Beyond that, surely it is undoubted that the most
important demand made on any human is provision for the children.
Do children do well in families headed by aggressive women?
It should be clear that females have existed on this planet for
much longer than humans. If one pauses to observe other species, it
appears to be very unusual to see aggressive females in the natural
world. From this, it might be supposed that passivity in the female
gender is the judgment of nature. If so, it seems reasonable to
conclude that female aggression is an historical oddity.
When one goes on to identify feminine qualities as opposed to
masculine ones and looks for cultures that identify them as the most
important, the conclusion will be that many feminist cultures exist
now and have from the beginning of recorded history. How do
women conduct themselves in these cultures? The answer is, in
pretty much the same way as women did in our culture before the
current feminist political movement. They are passive, they take
primary responsibility for the home life, they don't involve
themselves overtly in politics.
What are feminine qualities that transcend politics? Passivity,
compassion, reverence for the natural world. These are important
values that we can ill afford to do without. Passivity is stronger
than aggression. It survives the passions of the moment.
Compassion is necessary to the quality of one's life, though as a
governmental ethic it is among the worst. A reverence for nature is
the most demanding need we now face, and will be the only force
capable of saving us from the despoliation of our planet.
It seems to me very unlikely that we will be able to create a
new species through politics wherein the females and males will
share the same qualities. I think it would be too inefficient and
conflict intensive to survive. The only other possibility that comes
to mind is that females and males will switch roles. If that occurs,
surely the new females will be born as males.
An Inspirational Sermon
The time has now come for a sermon. The subject of this
sermon will be feminism. Not the simple feminism of the past, but a
new feminism. One that will cast off the old corrupt self serving
ideas that now confuse and fragment the movement and replace
them with ideas that can revitalize it and point it towards glory.
The feminism of the past has fallen into the pitfalls of
corruption. It has fallen subject to the devil, ever watchful for his
(not her) chance to pervert even the noblest of objectives. In the
past we had great feminists like Florence Nightingale, dispensing
compassion with no thought for political power, like Rachel Carson,
alerting us to our failure to value the natural world, and Mother
Theresa, passively working to reduce human suffering. Like Ghandi
and King, teaching us about non-violence (passivity). But whom do
we have now? Gloria Steinem, able to see nothing but political
dominance. NOW, interested only in bodily freedom. Is it reasonable
to demand control of one's body? No, our bodies are our inheritance,
our gene pool, the greatest resource for cultural survival that we
possess. It cannot be given over to each individual to do with as he
or she pleases. Most of us lack the maturity to see beyond our own
personal desires. It is a recipe for cultural suicide.
Where are your values feminists? Your inspiring values? You
ask for equal pay. What? You mean you want money? You
demand to be paid off? Like any common adventurer? You ask for
control of your own body. Is this not another scheme to gain
political power? Having your own body you can control men, can't
you. Political power can do nothing but corrupt. Find out what
feminism really is! It has no home in liberalism. Feminism is the
home of conservatism. Liberalism flows from masculinism. Study
the past, there is no end of feminist cultures to observe. Reread
your anthropology, but with a view to distillation of those values
that permeate those ancient cultures. Look to the American Indian,
a sad spectacle now, after 200 years of perversion by masculinism,
but still able to demonstrate the purest form of feminism left in the
world.
Recognize your mother. Save her from the greedy and power
hungry. Turn away from greed and envy. Stop worshipping at the
shrines of masculinism. Stop endorsing the masculine demand that
all should live long lives. It is only a means of creating wealth and
power. Look around you at the machines of wealth, spewing out
poison at ever increasing rates. Look at the dying trees, the oiled
birds, the beached whales, the starving people, the barren lakes,
anticipate the Silent Spring.
Adopt inspirational values. A reverence for nature. Compassion
for the suffering without feeling the need to politicize that
compassion. Feel again the power of passivity. Rethink the
Ghandian/King non-violence ethic. Look at Jesus. Compassion,
Reverence, and Passivity.
Feminism, as with all human enterprises, has a negative side as
well as a positive side. Certainly, self gratification is a feminist
proclivity, and inevitable sometimes. But surely this is no value to
be painted on a banner and used to inspire people. It is all a
question of motive. Are you concerned for the greater good of your
culture, or are you more concerned for your own personal
fulfillment? Personal fulfillment is fine for individuals, but when
we start thinking of mobilizing large numbers, we had better come
up with better motives than those.
NOW is responsible for these goals: freedom to use one's body
for what one wills, aggressive pursuit of success measured in terms
of wealth and power at whatever cost to one's family, and personal
fulfillment again at whatever cost to relationships. These are the
most selfish goals ever devised by the leadership of a mass
movement. Men have certainly been guilty of chasing wealth and
power over the centuries, but never as a cultural ethic. What is
wrong here is a clique of power hungry females have taken over the
feminist movement and sold it a bill of goods. Consult your feelings
and straighten out your ways, feminists. Consider whom they refer
to when Iranians call us "The Great Satan in the West."
Basic Considerations
Since there was such a great response to my last column, I want
to respond before the dust settles. I won't respond to the missiles
thrown, they weren't intended to raise the level of debate. This
column will make use of intellectualism, on the assumption that such
intellectualism as still exists in our culture presumably finds its
natural home in academia.
Perhaps the hallmark of humanity is the ability to reason,
though the quality of the letters written doesn't reflect much of it. I
would say that the most unusual capability of humans is the ability
to abstract, which arises from the development of what Carl Jung
referred to as the ego complex, (the reader is referred to his
Complex Theory, which is beautifully simple despite its name.) The
ego, which roughly corresponds to the personality, gives rise to this
ability because of what is missing. That is, the fact that we don't
know everything, allows us to abstract and generalize. A very
valuable learning tool. Generalizations, however, should never be
confused with fact. Unfortunately, facts are so chaotic, they are
usually impossible in the mass to do anything with.
Next, I think we should distinguish between parroting political
shibboleths and reasoning, they have nothing to do with one another.
The first is similar to the method most students take in mastering
courses at Ole Miss. They memorize the material. The other
approach takes energy, so it is most commonly avoided.
As for feminist cultures, there is only one masculinist culture in
recorded history (since I invented the term masculinism, as far as I
am aware, to signify a culture that identifies itself with a father and
masculine characteristics in preference to feminine ones, I am the
authority here), there may have been others in pre-recorded
history, though I doubt it, since recording history is inherently
masculine. The one to which I refer is the one we belong to. All
others are most committed to feminist values. So, feminism is a
very common societal orientation. In fact, I would go so far as to
say that any culture that does not explicitly develop its philosophy
along other lines, will inevitably fall into, as it were, feminism.
One should also be careful to distinguish between feminism and
female. We are all half male and half female (how could it be
otherwise, since we have both a father and a mother.) So feminism
is not the female gender. Feminism draws its values from female
characteristics that predate human life, in fact any life at all. Since
humans share in the attributes of both their fathers and mothers,
they can develop whichever they wish. So, females can be as
masculine as they wish and males as feminine. Society encourages or
discourages according to its philosophy.
We are discussing feminism now, not politics. Politics, in our
times, concerns itself with who takes what from whom.
By the way, chaos is the home of feminism. Such order as we
maintain will flow from masculinism. Chaos only has a bad name
because masculinism has described it as undesirable.
As has been recognized for millennia, the sun exhibits the
characteristics of masculinity, while the moon and earth exhibit the
reverse (see Von Neuman's The Great Mother.) That is to say the
sun actively burns and thereby impregnates the earth, which
passively accepts its fate and reacts to it. The earth is the mother of
us all and we proceed from its womb. The moon remains perfectly
feminine, while the earth because of its physical attributes generates
life, which exhibits the characteristics of both of its parents.
Feminism may be making America better, that would undoubtedly
be true if we had become overly masculine because of remaining too
long in the grip of masculinism. I happen to hold this point of
view.
I, of course, value the freedom our political forbears have
provided for me, though, judging from the letters, some are now
willing that freedom be abridged, at least in my case. But, freedom
brings with it responsibility, and my view of my responsibility is
that it calls upon me to write a column raising issues that, while
uncomfortable for some, will I trust, lead others to consider
questions that would otherwise remain below the level of
consciousness. I have no wish to dictate the outcome of that debate.
I will passively accept the verdict of my society.
I hope only a very few are "scared" by the prospect of reflecting
on these matters. I trust Mr. Waters will accept the "slings and
arrows of outrageous fortune" and continue to present the views of
his contemporaries in this journal in as courageous a fashion as he
has up to now. (It does take courage to present views that appear to
run counter to the prevailing notions of society, in some cultures it
can be deadly.)
As for the opposition of the sexes, I have counted only two
(sexes), though there are some interesting mixtures close to the
center. In addition, opposites have the interesting characteristic that
enhancing the one must be done at the expense of the other.
Sexuality therefore matches the model of opposition better than it
does sets. Beyond that, all identifiable entities within the cosmos
exist on some set of two ended spectra, so why should sex be
abstracted from that generalization.
Religion in America Thesis: That feminism
is a religion as Christianity is a religion.
Definition: Religion is a value(s) based ideology.
Proof: Christianity is a value based ideology, the value is long
life, which it inherited from its predecessor, Judaism. Christianity is
different than Judaism though, since it postulates that feminist
values are necessary to the fulfillment of the promise of Judaism. It
will be said that Christianity is about salvation and heaven. These
are means to the production of long life. If I adopt this religion and
abide by its rules, I will have been saved and will go to heaven, and
the effect of living by the rules provided will be, long life. The
system in the case of Christianity is to live according to a set of
written rules descended from Judaism. In other words, as the turtle
developed a shell to protect itself and promote long life, we have
developed a religion. Unfortunately, we have had it for so long, we
don't know clearly what it protects us from, whether or not it is as
necessary as was thought. When this realization comes over one,
there is no recourse but to find out.
Islam is a value based ideology with the same goal as
Christianity but a different set of rules. Also, extremely
successful.
Buddhism is a value based ideology with the goal being to reach
the end of life and thereby eliminate the need to live. Much less
successful, but one expects that this is the follow-on period to that
which produced long life there.
Communism as practiced is not a value based ideology since
there is no goal once the government has been established. Some
practice it as a religion with the goal being to eliminate material
suffering. An unrealistic goal, but a goal none-the-less.
Democracy is not a value based ideology. It is another in the
long list of governments ranging from one man government to every
man government. It can be practiced as a religion with the value
being equality.
The value of feminism, as practiced is sexual equality, but one
expects this will lead to feminism replacing masculinism
(Christianity) as the dominant philosophy. Of course feminism has a
much wider agenda as can be seen from their top three issues:
abortion, homosexuality, and equal rights, and their secondary
issues, date rape, child abuse, and wife beating. Beyond that, they
are closely associated with the environmental movement. Most of
these, however, are issues developed to discredit masculine
leadership. The one long term issue is environmentalism. Therefore
the real value of feminism, is to protect the earth from mankind and
thereby reverse the injunction by God that man should subdue the
earth (Genesis 1:28). When one realizes that feminists, when waxing
religious, will view the earth as their real mother, as do the
American Indians, for example, this is no surprise.
A professor of philosophy at the University of Central
Washington (May, 1994) has suggested that to end the exploitation
of women by men, an end will have to be made to the exploitation of
animals by humans.
An Alternative History
Perhaps the time has come to reexamine the Christian
mythology in hopes that some realism might allow one to make some
progress towards self realization. I don't think this should be
published because of severe doubts that the public is ready for
realism in religion, and that the effect might be to further damage
the religious aspect of daily life in our culture. But, for myself, it
might be useful.
From the story of Jesus's birth the realistic conclusion must be
that Mary was illegitimately pregnant. She probably visited her aunt
to tell her of the situation and ask her advice. Her aunt probably
came up with the strategy of identifying her pregnancy as an
immaculate one and used her own pregnancy as reenforcement by
claiming she had also been visited by an angel. If this is true it
seems likely that Mary and her aunt were both feminist radicals and
that fact created the bond between them. This radicalism probably
accounts for Mary allowing herself to be seduced, a very dangerous
activity, but one also suspects that she was lied to by the seducer
about her future if she allowed the seduction to proceed. If the
seducer was offering something in this time, it would be only logical
to conclude that he might well have been a Roman, perhaps an
officer.
Suppose that the two Mary's were cornered by two Roman
officers in a remote olive orchard and the officers, struck by their
beauty, dallied and drank and further suppose that they used
unlikely promises of a future relationship, even marriage to get
their sexual wishes fulfilled and further suppose that this encounter
resulted in pregnancy for one or both. The older Mary, since she
was married didn't have a problem but for the younger, disaster was
at hand. The punishment for this kind of sin was stoning in this
time as can be seen from the Mary Magdelene episode.
With this background it is instructive to ponder the effect of
such a story accepted by many of the superstitious and simple folk
then inhabiting Bethlehem and Nazareth, especially Joseph, who
must have been the particular target of the two Mary's. And then to
consider how this story might have affected the principal characters,
Jesus and John. They, both extremely religious and bright,
confronted with a story about their own divinity and the painful
result of not believing, would have had an intense desire to prove it
correct from the moment of first hearing and understanding,
presumably at a very early age.
No doubt they would have pored over the references to the
coming of the Messiah in Isaiah repeatedly, probably until they
knew every reference in the Bible by heart. Then when moments
arose that reminded them of predictions that they well knew, they
would think it only natural to act in the predicted way.
From this point of view, it can be seen that the most important
prophesies are those that can become reality. In other words it is a
form of creativity. This prediction awaited only a propitious moment
and its fulfillment was inevitable.
Jesus, of course, was full of doubt until the end. He could not
have known for sure Himself. Therefore the confusing answers he
gave when asked directly. Of course it is a question of degree. Of
course we are all the sons of God, but His Sonship was of a particular
sort that implied a profound relationship between Himself and God
not shared by the rest of us. Which is to say that He had a tendency
to philosophy which in conjunction with his intellectual brilliance
produced a personal understanding of what is meant by the term
God that is shared by no one else. Beyond that, He had the power of
communication that allowed Him to transmit His understanding to
those around Him. With these kinds of gifts from God and nature,
one can hardly be remiss in referring to Him as the Son of God and
the Son of Man.
In this sense, one sees the immaculate conception as a
symbolism of the same sort as the awakening of the dead and giving
sight to the blind. Of course, after one has experienced the arrival of
spiritual understanding, suddenly as is often the case due to the
repression of the knowledge of beings superior to us, it is as if one
has been brought to life or one has acquired sight. In the same way,
here is a man with no known father and therefore a man that
arrived in the same way as God must have, since there was no
preexisting father in His case.
Why then, has this myth not been dismissed long since? Most
untruths are eventually discovered and discarded. We must
conclude that this is truth of a high order, but not literal truth. In
fact it is not unrealistic to say it is more true than literal truth. It
has the truth of symbolism. A kind of depth of truth that cannot be
achieved by literalism. In addition, we have too great a stake in it.
For many, this is the only way to establish a relationship with the
unapproachable God. Jesus was, after all a man, and acquainted
with sin in his peers at least. In His own case, there is no reason to
doubt that He came much closer to purity than any man before or
since, though it is unbelievable that He could have avoided sin in
thought, but not impossible. Suppose He was asexual. What
circumstances of genetic chance go into a man of this sort?
Suppose His natural father was a son of upper class Roman
intellectuals and consider mixing that with the depth of knowledge of
the masculine God in the Jews, and by improbable fortuity suppose
this comes with intellectual honesty and a genius intellect and a
tendency towards philosophy, that is a burning desire to understand
the nature of humanity and oneself. These gifts are symbolised by
the gifts of the kings, gold, frankincense and myrrh, the most
valuable natural objects known.
This kind of brilliance is self-consuming, so I don't think He
could have survived if he hadn't been executed. His end was the
best that could have been achieved in his case.
Reflections on Sexual Problems in Society
Feminism has called upon women to assert themselves sexually.
By this it is meant that women should take responsibility for their
own sexual lives and determine when sexual relations should occur
and with whom. This is a very early feature of that form of
feminism now current and starting in the early sixties or late fifties
with the magazine Playboy. This magazine, particularly in its
published philosophy tirelessly described situations in which sexual
encounters were repressed and punished by political authorities
such as the police. The Playboy philosophy recommended the
elimination of laws respecting sexual interactions between
consenting adults. This attitude among young men, called The
Sexual Freedom Movement, was transmitted by them to their female
friends at the same time as the rise of feminism and the abortion
movement urged them to take control of their own bodies.
All of these influences suggested to women generally that they
should take an active role in determining their sexual lives. Now the
question arises: on what basis are these decisions about sex
made?
Sexual expression in the higher primates, including man, is
driven by the masculine need to ejaculate. This is a physical
mechanism whereby two reservoirs in the groin area store seminal
fluid (the carrier of sperm) and when full impose a pressure on the
male psyche interpreted as the need for sexual expression. The
speed with which these reservoirs fill and the degree of the
pressure applied is highly individual. In some men the reservoirs
fill only slowly and the pressure applied is light and easily ignored.
In other men the pressure is profound and makes a demand on the
person that cannot be ignored.
Returning to the question of female definition of the means of
sexual expression. The female will, one presumes, not take into
account sexual pressure in the male when making decisions about
the time and place of satisfaction of this need. In fact, since there is
no corresponding mechanism in the female, she will base her
decision on other factors completely. One could speculate that she
will try to turn this power into a valuable resource. And even if not,
to impress upon herself the nature of her power she will be inclined
to stretch out the time to satisfaction of this need so that she can
observe the discomfort she causes. This will enhance her sense of
her own power. If she does succumb to the chance to channel this
power into fulfillment of her own wishes, one can easily imagine the
male discovering a need to give some gift in order to get
fulfillment.
So, with this background, what can be expected to happen?
Since some percentage of men can be expected to have an intense
need for sexual satisfaction, and some percentage of these will have
uncooperative wives, one must expect a rise in antisocial sexual acts
by men: rape, sexual molestation of children, etc. Those men that
have a less intense need and uncooperative wives will seek
separation and divorce as a solution, in hopes that more care in their
next choice will result in a happier result.
With this prediction in mind it is instructive to look at the
incidence of these kinds of events in our culture. Currently divorce
rates are about 60% of all marriages, rape is running at an all time
high and sexual abuse cases are among the most common stories on
the nightly news. No solutions are offered for the divorce problem
and more strict laws are offered as a solution to the sexual violence.
One can expect these solutions to work about as well as they ever
do, which is not well.
If one assumes that the number of women sympathetic to
feminist ideals is large, (I have never met a woman who didn't
either admit to an admiration for feminist ideals or act as if she did)
then one is driven to the conclusion that a large proportion of males
will decide to act on their sexual discomfort by some means. In
earlier times this problem existed no doubt. There was after all a
very common use of mistresses at one time. This outlet has
however been sent into disrepute, again by the feminists, by the
simple expedient of declaring that what is good for the goose is good
for the gander. So, the only socially acceptable solution is divorce
and the statistics suggest that most men avail themselves of it. One
can also guess that for those who don't wish to be the divorcer, a
power struggle ensues that results in the wife divorcing the
husband.
A further question arises out of the cases of preschool
molestation to arise in recent years. Of those few that have
appeared in the news, no one ever seems to be convicted. The
reason for this is suggested to be that children's evidence is not held
to be credible by the jurors. Another possible interpretation,
however, is that no molestation ever occurs and the evidence
supplied by children is suggested to them by their interrogators. If
so, how is it that they get started? In the case of Hilton Head, NC., it
seems to have been started when a mother reacted violently to the
news that her child had been slapped. One wonders if the
mechanism here is that feminists, using sex for power, and worried
lest it result in violence on their persons, develop a paranoid fear of
all men and when observing their own female children exposed to
males in an environment like a child care center, find themselves
consumed by the resulting fear for their defenseless children?
The Collaboration between Blacks and
Whites
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
After rewatching "The Color Purple", I think it becomes clear
what the connection is between blacks and feminism.
It would appear that the US, established as a masculine culture
by Europeans, then imported a primitive culture which was
necessarily feminine. Eventually, when they were freed, they had
learned that the father ruled in American families and tried to
adapt. But, black men lacked the cultural background of whites and
therefore were not well fitted to function in such an environment. It
was as if we gave power to children and they used it as children,
bluntly.
The result of this was the accumulation of bitterness in the
hearts of black women and a tendency to band together in all female
groups to trade stories of their mistreatment at the hands of the
husbands and fathers.
Then the civil rights movement came along and black women
saw a chance to ally themselves with their white sisters who
harbored similar though much less intense feelings and thereby
acquire political power through the use of the white feminist ethical
measuring stick (compassion). Some residual feminist organization
remained from the suffragette's movement.
Unfortunately, I cannot predict a valuable cultural outcome
from this marriage. The feminist movement in the West is of several
hundred years duration. Adding the motivations and passions of
black women to this movement will have a bad effect because their
expectations grow out of their experience of black feminism in their
recent past and will be inappropriate to that form of feminism that
would naturally arise in a highly cultured and artificial organism
like Western society. We would more reasonably expect that more
primitive and therefore closer to nature and stronger form of
feminism to overpower the cultured form and a regression to
result.
Joe Schiller
The Power Motive Underlying Feminism
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
In response to Dr. Brown's letter debunking the statistics used to
rationalize the choice movement, I would be interested in his opinion
about the motivations behind the choice movement.
He has effectively removed the motivations advertised by those
who promulgate this disinformation, so what is their motivation?
Most people who seek political gain are after power, I believe,
so is that the case here?
Does Roe v. Wade result in more power for feminists?
If a woman has the freedom to accede to or deny sexual favors
to a petitioner, does this produce power for her over him?
It would seem so to me.
Joe Schiller
A New Culture
The difficulty of reintegrating East Germany into the
mainstream German culture is enlightening. They were separated
only 50 years, or two generations, and they have become so
different from their brothers that merging may not be a practical
possibility. Of course, the Easterners were guilty of consuming their
capital (they had no other choice, since the new culture wasn't
capable of feeding the people) as they tried to create a new culture
and when they ran out, they had no choice but to merge. They did,
after all, lose the war. But, did we have to fight a war? Why
couldn't we have said, well, they want to try a different route to
civilization, fine, we will ignore them and see what happens. If in
the highly unlikely case they produce a superior culture, we will
adopt it. But no, this is apparently a live or die choice. Perhaps
because two species would have resulted and they would have had
to fight for supremacy, so that fighting early favors the old
culture.
So, they tried to build a wall between the two cultures, because
they had to. They were playing catch-up, after all. And betting they
could catch up before they went broke. But they didn't count on the
cost of the weapons we Americans would dream up. They had to
draw the iron curtain, since the children wouldn't understand and
they would be seduced by the consumer goods in the West.
So, we must say that, while it was possible to start a new culture
200 years ago and prior to that because you could separate yourself
sufficiently from the old one, it is no longer possible. Because of the
density of population and modern communications, one can not
isolate oneself from infection from the old culture.
So, we must live or die with what we have, or transform it from
within. Thus American feminism. Because we will surely not
survive with what we have.
It would be accurate to say that we have tried the top down
centralized approach to transformation, that seemed likely to save
most of the old culture. It didn't work. We will therefore have to go
to the decentralized bottom up model. This will be traumatic. This
approach leads to revolution again.
The Real
Agenda
Editor,
In response to all of the material on smoking bans: My
question is: What is the real motivation behind this movement?
Personally, while I am a smoker, I don't smoke at work and
don't care what rules relating to smoking in public are implemented,
but I am interested in the motivations underlying these rules. We
are told that innocent bystanders will get cancer. Come on, this
contention is based on some highly questionable statistics developed
from studies conducted to try to buttress the arguments against
smoking. When policy makers make a policy and then ask that a
large force of bean counters find some evidence supporting the
policy, the evidence is found. It probably means nothing. Why has
this become a cause?
One approach to this question is to look at who favors the
policy and who opposes it. What we find is that the academic
community and government policy makers support it, while tobacco
growers and smokers oppose it. We also note that the same people
who favor liberal government favor it. In other words, those people
who feel that cradle to grave government care is a desirable thing
favor it and those that want to take responsibility for their own lives
and live or die based on their own judgments oppose it.
So, this is yet another political question. It has little or nothing
to do with health, life, and death. Those are just supporting
arguments.
This same group tried to implement laws against drinking
earlier in our history, thereby unleashing one of the most violent
crime periods in our history. They also made intoxicating drugs
illegal, which we are now paying for with another outburst of crime.
I suppose, based on this history, that they will eventually make
tobacco illegal, producing yet another black market and the crime
that goes with it. And what about guns? I think that the long term
goal on guns by the liberals will be to outlaw them, which will
produce yet another black market.
In the long term, black markets, since they are criminal, erode
respect for the law and therefore the structure of society. Since
liberals are feminists they of course want to do this so that feminist
institutions can replace the older ones lost in these struggles.
Events as Interpretation
Politics in America today is an exercise in "spin". In fact we
have a new group of experts called spin doctors. Lets be clear on just
what spin is. It is lying to promote your view of what will fix
America. Of course it is a subtle form of lying. Not that sort that can
easily be debunked. Generally the spin doctors are viewed as
experts because they indulge in this form of lying in such an expert
way that opponents can not readily defeat their arguments. The
most common way to do this is to emphasize events that tend to
strengthen your point of view and neglect those that don't. There
are other ways of course. One is to put up a grant to anyone who can
come up with some statistics that support your view. Properly
generated statistics, of course, can be found to support any view.
A recent example of this form of lying are the statistics ginned
up to support the notion that second hand smoke is a deadly
carcinogen. This was easily done. All they had to do was to identify
a significant number of people that died of cancer in homes that also
included smokers. Here is the subtle rub. They ignore the age of the
cancer victims. So, presumably these numbers include people in the
70-100 age range, who will fall victim to the truism: "We will all die
of cancer if we live long enough".
We can be sure that this letter will be followed by one
describing me as a bitter smoker. Not true, I am a smoker, but
never smoke in public, so I don't care what rules they make about
public places.
So, where once we had a political system made up of people
concerned about what was best for the country, now we have one in
which all politicians are afraid of being destroyed by spin doctors.
We could say that our political system has been politicized. This
contrary statement is based on the definition of politicization: To
alter the normal decision making process by injecting irrelevant
arguments designed to change the nature of the debate into one
about a different issue having a decidedly ideological orientation and
against which one cannot debate without suffering some damage to
one's reputation, usually because of the need to transgress some
commonly held value. Example: Rodney King, in which a legal
question was subverted into the racism issue. Dr. Kervorkian, in
which a question in medical ethics declines into a debate about
compassion.
So, where else are the spin doctors at work? Certainly in the
legal system. Look at the trial of the Menendez brothers.
There are three parties to the trial: the prosecution, the defense, and
the spin doctors, who with victimization of women and children in
mind carefully choosing lawyers that express just the right touch of
motherly compassion. Certainly in the school system, where
outcome based education attempts to eradicate competition in the
name of compassion. Certainly in medicine, where the spin
doctors attempt to create yet another right, the right to be cured by
as expensive medicine as possible since it would be unfair to limit
bone marrow transplants to rich people. Certainly in religion
where we have recently discovered that all priests are pedophiles.
When can we expect the media to ask how all these pedophiles
happened to be hired? Could it have been due to liberals reducing
the standards applied to applicants, in the name of compassion? Of
course the media itself has been near completely sucked into
the spin business.
So, every major institution in America has been subverted by
the feminists. Whatever you think of feminism, can you possibly
think that corrupting every debate by adding a feminist referee will
accrue to the health of this country?
These politicos are naive enough to believe that the end justifies
the means. That corrupting the judge by threatening his job in order
to get a decision favoring their political beliefs won't destroy the
legal system itself. Not only are they naive, they are deluded.
The Essential Difference Between Male and
Female
The rise of feminism poses the question: What is the essential
difference between male and female? The minimalists suggest there
is no essential difference, only genital and that difference is to allow
maximum change in procreation. The maximalists say that the
differences are endemic and comprehensive, suggesting that role
reversal is ultimately impossible because roles are tied to these
differences.
I would like to suggest that largeness is masculine. This is the
most obvious difference and therefore should be explained before
moving on to other issues.
As one looks at the sun and the moon, well known male and
female symbols, one is struck by the size differential and by the
realization that were the moon as large as the sun, it would also
glow and in fact become a star too. So, increasing the moon's size
changes its nature in a basic way. Further reflection on the reason
for the Sun's role as masculine symbol leads to the realization that
its radiation is essential, that that radiation is aggressive and
impregnating and therefore creative, so that these attributes must
be those that identify the sun as masculine. The moon is none of
these things, it doesn't radiate of its own accord, but rather reflects
the radiation of the sun. It is, therefore passive and absorbing. The
earth, another feminine symbol is impregnated by the sun's rays.
The reason the sun radiates has to do with its size. It had to
achieve a critical size to develop the gravitational field necessary to
produce a critical nuclear mass and allow for fission and fusion of
atomic nuclei.
Reflecting on this leads to the conclusion that relative size is
sufficient to produce aggressive behavior, since if one is larger than
another, aggressive behavior is possible. So, the question comes
down to the nature of aggression. I guess aggression is a means of
imposing oneself on another to change the object into something
else. That is, to operate in a creative way. It would be difficult to
achieve any success, creatively, were one small relative to the object
in question. The biggest is the leader. The rise of intellectualism
has somewhat muddied the water here, but the effect of counting
intelligence in this equation is to add a spiritual dimension to the
evaluation. So that it's not just a question of physical size anymore,
spiritual size counts too, perhaps more, depending on the
circumstances.
Marriage in America
Marriage is an unnatural state, though monogamy appears to
occur in nature.
As a convenience, for our own comfort, we agree to split the
duties incumbent upon us if we wish to have a home and family and
some chance of calm and success in raising our children.
Those duties include:
* Housekeeping
* Fund raising (a job)
* Child raising
* Home maintenance
* Auto maintenance
* Community social responsibilities
* Family relationships
Some of these duties require organization and we agree that the
family hierarchy should be: father, mother, child.
We live in abnormal times whose main feature is doubt about
the last point, but we accept it as valid.
The problem is that you, from time to time, due to a wish to
have your childish desires fulfilled (no housework, no sex unless
initiated by you, plenty of time to socialize with your friends)
entertain the arguments of the feminists. This leads to discord and
bad vibrations within the family. I, on the other hand, repress my
childish desires (a different 16 year old girl to have sex with each
night).
The proper response by me is unclear. I try to ignore it for as
long as possible in hopes you can overcome it on your own. After
that I try to accurately transmit my feelings to you by my actions.
This usually works after a few days but is hard on both parties.
Sometimes it has to be discussed. Usually discussion results in
complaints about my personality: I'm too cold and never express
my feelings and seem to only care about sexual satisfaction. It is
unfair for me to always be right.
There are only two answers: learn to live with it, divorce. Both
are difficult, though I think the second is the more difficult.
Your response is: why can't I learn to live with it? The answer
is: the hierarchy. In my judgment, if that is not maintained, then the
second answer is inevitable.
There is nothing unusual about this condition.
Oct. 22, 1990
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
In response to Ms. Lambert's column responding to my
column.
Is it possible to be in favor of the first amendment and the
castration of males with a different point of view at the same
time?
Joe Schiller
The goal of feminism and therefore liberalism is to gain control
of all American institutions in order to more effectively pursue its
agenda, which is the defeat of human conflict. This is to be
accomplished by teaching and/or requiring all humans to get along
with one another by practicing non-judgementalism. The motivation
behind this agenda is the defeat of human suffering. This goal is
thought to require a global government, the UN, to mediate all
border disputes, and the imposition of Democracy on all states with
negotiation replacing war as the means of resolving disputes
between members. It is considered that feminism must replace
masculinism as the dominant ideology for this to be achieved since
females are not warlike and are motivated by compassion.
The primary means to the achievement of this end is
propaganda. The form taken by feminist propaganda is established
within the university system. This is accomplished by publishing in
the academic press by feminists within the feminist disciplines
(psychology, anthropology, political science, etc.) This leads to a
debate which is then picked up by and popularized by the media,
first in movies (The Piano, violence against women) and then in talk
shows and situation comedies. Bills are then brought in congress to
reduce these ideas to law. In other cases, the courts are used by
bringing suit against masculinist values based on the Bill of Rights,
e.g. pornography as free speech, death penalty as inhumane, etc.
To maintain
relations with other countries.
To raise and maintain a military force. To maintain relations with other states.
To build, maintain, and police highways. To maintain
relations with other cities and counties.
To maintain order.
To provide utility services, e.g. sewage, street lighting, garbage
disposal. To
establish the values of feminism as the guiding ideal underlying
lawmaking, e.g. compassion (This amounts to using an irrational
emotion to guide a rational process). Continuously expanding.
Absorbing every institution it can in order to pursue the liberal
agenda, which is to resolve human conflict via non-judgementalism.
This means to cripple the critical faculty in humans, which means to
disable creativity, which means to move the human family towards
feminism.
The effect has been loss of cost containment, respect for the
institution, and effectivity in the conduct of foreign policy. To defend the US
from external attack. To change the mission of the military to that of
peacekeeping.
Controlled by the executive branch and congress. Demeaned by the
liberal establishment because of their inability to gain control of it.
It would appear that their hope is to gain control of it through the
UN. The hoped for purpose is to maintain order in conflict intensive
states until standard governmental structures can be imposed. To resolve
disputes between citizens. To use the law to defeat laws enforcing masculinism and to
replace them with laws enshrining feminism. Since the law is a
manifestation of masculinism, the effects of feminism on it will tend
to destroy it. Thus the appearance now of an ineffective institution.
Controlled by the
academic law community, particularly Harvard Law School and it's
Dean, Lawrence Tribe, by controlling the curriculum of the nation's
law schools and advancement within them. The purpose is to control
court decisions in favor of feminist values. This means to eliminate
discrimination against feminists and to minimize effectiveness in
pursuit of masculinst traditions, e.g.. maintenance of order.
The effect has been the loss of effectivity in suppression of
crime, due to the lack of believability of punishment. To make the
citizenry capable of absorbing media productions. To use the schools to
indoctrinate students in feminist ideals. Education has the effect of
building up rationality, a masculine feature, therefore, in the long
term education will be contradictory to feminist values. Controlled by administrators of
teachers unions by their control of hiring and advancement within
the profession.
The goal is to teach people to get along with one another
through non-judgementalism.
The effect has been loss of discipline and declining effectivity in
the propagation of masculinist achievements, e.g. science. To make the
citizenry aware of current issues. To use the media to
propagandize for feminist values. Controlled by the academic
community's schools of journalism through control of hiring and
advancement.
The goal is to use it to propagandize for the liberal agenda.
The method is to propose a not easily debunked argument
against any policy not supportive of that agenda. This can easily be
done since any public policy question involves tradeoffs that, when
fully aired can be relied upon to gain adherents on both sides.
The effect has been polarization of politics, feminists against
conservatives. To facilitate trade.
To defeat the
free market in favor of communism because of the possibility of
eliminating the poor by government mandate. Controlled by the need to
achieve profit to survive and greed. These factors have defeated
liberal academic control despite the growth of schools of business.
Communism as a means of overcoming this difficulty has thus far
failed because of the inability of humans to understand such a vast
mechanism. The prospects for the future are poor since increasing
population will make the machine even more complex. To maintain good
health among the citizens. To use medicine to demonstrate the compassionate nature
of feminism. Controlled
by the academic community through the medical schools, but, due to
the free market nature of the dissemination of medical services,
complete control has not yet been achieved. Nationalizing the health
service would achieve this goal.
The effect has been loss of cost containment. To control hubris
by identifying a higher power than man.
To maintain societal order by establishing the rules of human
conduct and identification of elders as the leaders and holders of
wisdom. To turn
religion to the service of feminism by defeating anti-feminist
traditions (female equality, female priests and ministers, abortion).
Partially absorbed by
feminism by emphasizing the compassionate side of Christianism.
The Bible and traditions of the church work against these
inroads.
The effect has been declining effectivity in transmission of
religious values to the next generation. Feminism is antithetical
to the institutions of religion, education, medicine, and law as
currently constituted because they are based on masculinist values,
primarily that of order. Therefore, since our institutions must be
destroyed if feminism is to be successful, our only reasonable view of
it is as an invading virus. It is out to destroy us and we should
therefore attempt to stop it.
Feminism is responsible for the rise of environmentalism,
which is essential to the eventual control of technology, but which
will inevitably lead to a die-off of humans. This is probably
essential to the survival of the species, since the result of unbridled
population growth may well lead to total destruction.
Sep. 25, 1990
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
University, Ms. 38677
Editor,
On reading an article about the rise of illegitimate births in our
country, and the list of solutions, I noted with no surprise that a
revival of the concept of honor was not included.
30 years ago, most Americans thought that pregnancy among
the unmarried would result in marriage since it was the only
honorable thing for the young man to do. 200 years before that the
same result obtained when a male informed a female of his love for
her.
The concept of honor was discarded in this country in the 60's,
perhaps because this concept also included provision for defense of
females, when endangered, by males. This was justified by the
recognition of the female sex as the weaker sex. Thus, one can
conclude that because of feminist ideals, we have deprived
ourselves of a valuable concept. One that perhaps protected us from
crime in the streets and corruption in the political and financial
worlds.
This tendency (discarding the good with the bad) used to be
known as throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Joe Schiller
Ruth 1:16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to
return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go;
and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people,
and thy God my God:
Ruth 1:17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be
buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part
thee and me.
1 Kings 21:7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now
govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thine
heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the
Jezreelite.
1 Kings 21:8 So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed
them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the
nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth.
1 Kings 21:9 And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a
fast, and set Naboth on high among the people:
1 Kings 21:10 And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to
bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the
king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.
Esther 1:10 On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was
merry with wine, he commanded the seven chamberlains that served
in the presence of Ahasuerus the king,
Esther 1:11 To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the
crown royal, to shew the people and the princes her beauty: for she
was fair to look on.
Esther 1:12 But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king's
commandment by his chamberlains: therefore was the king very
wroth, and his anger burned in him.
Esther 1:15 What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according
to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the
king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains?
Esther 1:16 And Memucan answered before the king and the
princes, Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only, but
also to all the princes, and to all the people that are in all the
provinces of the king Ahasuerus.
Esther 1:17 For this deed of the queen shall come abroad
unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands in
their eyes, when it shall be reported, The king Ahasuerus
commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she
came not.
Esther 1:18 Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say
this day unto all the king's princes, which have heard of the deed of
the queen. Thus shall there arise too much contempt and
wrath.
Esther 1:21 And the saying pleased the king and the princes;
and the king did according to the word of Memucan:
Esther 1:22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into
every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people
after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own
house, and that it should be published according to the language
of every people.
It
Won't Work as a Guide to Government Policy
1. The guiding ethic of feminism is compassion. While
this is a valued human emotion, it doesn't work as a guide for
government policy, unless short term decisions are what is wanted.
A check of individual experience will show to the careful observer
that all decisions that are good for the decision maker in the short
term will be bad in the long term. Thus, spending all one's money
for pleasure will be good until the pleasure is over, but then bad
when one can't pay his rent.
2. It is also true that decisions that are good for the individual
will be bad for the group and vice versa. So, decision making, as is
well known is about tradeoffs.
3. One can't use a generalization like make all decisions for
long term good, since if you don't survive until the payoff, you
can't collect.
4. Since individuals, especially young individuals make short
term decisions, government needs to balance this tendency by
making long term decisions. Social Security, for example, has a long
term orientation.
5. Compassion is an emotion that is called into play when
suffering is observed. The need is to eliminate the suffering as soon
as possible, but this will inevitably lead to long term problems for a
variety of reasons. The law is a generalization aimed at long term
good. Compassion will therefor tend to oppose the decisions of the
law. This is easy to see in the case of capital punishment.
6. Government decisions are implemented with the law and
therefore tend to the long term. Compassionate rulings will therefore
have the force of law and be hard to overcome.
7. The law is a rational instrument because it is modeled on the
cause and effect relationship. Compassion is irrational since the
effect proceeds from a feeling not necessarily shared by all.
November 1, 1987
Editor
The London Times
London, England
Sir,
I think we would do well to consider the following points in
these times:
1. Masculinism is the opposite of feminism and just as a see-saw cannot go up on both sides at the same time, masculinism must
decline if feminism is strengthened.
2. Judaism can be characterized as the institutionalization of
masculinism.
3. Christianity can be characterized as a feminization of Judaism
of modest degree.
4. Masculinism is primarily concerned with the formalization of
the rules of being via thought.
5. Feminism is primarily concerned with the continued well
being of the natural world.
6. All societies begin their existence as feminists.
7. The transition from masculinism to feminism and back is
cyclical (but the cycles are of very long duration.)
8. The Egyptian culture of Moses' time was feminist.
9. The classical Greek and Roman cultures were feminist with a
strong masculine component.
10. Monotheism is masculinist.
11. Multiple deities is a characteristic of feminine cultures.
12. Masculinism is responsible for the development of science
and technology.
13. Too much feminism will be incompatible with Christianity,
science, technology, and thought.
Sincerely,
Joseph J. Schiller
There is an interesting question regarding feminism, as with the
Kennedy assassination. Is this a conspiracy? I think that half of the
human race feels more comfortable if a conspiracy exists and the
other half doesn't.
The argument for a conspiracy is compelling. For example, how
can it be possible for feminism to propagandize for policies of so
destructive a nature, towards the society, as abortion,
homosexuality, equal rights, democracy in the family and the school,
if it is not a conspiracy. Surely, no one can imagine that abortion can
be healthy for a culture, whatever its effect on a human. Or what
about sexual equality in bed, which must needs destroy the family
structure!
This is a powerful argument, that the leaders of the feminist
movement meet periodically at the headquarters of NOW and plot
these ideas and their implementation. Apparently the
implementation amounts to giving orders down the chain of
command in the school/university system.
The argument against conspiracy would have to be that it would
require that the feminists understand the nature of feminism,
something I find impossible to believe.
The second argument against would be, surely it would leak!