05 October 2006
This is an old post from Sixteen Volts, which was recently shut down in a blizzard of metaphorically severed dicks by a man in fear of his job with a load of fat lezzers metaphorically (and probably literally as well) sitting on his back and waving castration-scissors in the air.
It’s interesting reading, albeit a little abstract. I take no credit for it obviously, and I think it may have even been copied and pasted by the former host of the former Sixteen Volts anyway from fuck knows where. Either way, whoever wrote it, it’s insightful stuff. Hopefully it’ll annoy a few of the hardcore fembots and manginas who’ve recently started hanging around my blog.
Let the commencement of wisdom…beginulate!
The Religion of Women
I recently read some of the more human-centered material of the blogosphere, especially blogs about divorces and marital crises. I thought that I recognized an underlying similarity between them, a doctrine that show through under diverse manifestations. I shall present this observation here as a kind of a myth or a story, and in this post, aim for clarity and easy of understanding instead of accuracy and wide applicability.
Under these posts there seems to be a whole doctrine of ethics and ontology that I shall name “the religion of women”. I noticed three components in it: ontology, devotion and heroism.
The relevant universe consists of two things: Me and World. The World is considered to have a soul and is anthropomorphic: it has thoughts, preferences and motives behind its actions, just like humans do. (Let the World here be one thing for simplicity. It could also be understood, the way it usually is understood, as a complex that consists of many individual actors, but this has no effect on the basic idea.)
The most essential part of both Me and World is the personal experience, that is, emotions. In other words, the subjective experiences of the first person. The basic attitude towards the emotional sphere is utilitarian: negative emotions have a negative sign and the positive ones have a positive sign. The quality of your life is then measured as the sum of these emotions.
The emotions of Me and World have a mirror-image relationship. The emotions felt by Me result from the actions by the World. If my emotions are good, the World is friendly, and if they are bad, this is due to active malice of the World. The normal relationship between two people is a prototype of the relationship between Me and World. Therefore similarly from perceived malice comes a responsibility to make things better.
The success of My emotional life is the World’s responsibility. If I don’t have a good time, the World is evil and guilty. More precisely, it is mean i.e. hostile. Let me call this the Basic Rule of the ethics of the religion of women.
Here we can see why anthropomorphizing the World is so very important. The basic duty of the World is not to be a mindless slave of Me and do exactly as I wants. In the long run that would be boring and altogether depressing. World is not a soulless mass that, in the ideal case, you could perfectly manipulate, but an active actor whose responsibility is to guarantee the happiness of Me.
This ontology is also the most important reason why women oppose using economic thinking to examine and analyse how relationships form and function in the real world. The imaginary “cheapening” connotations that the technical terms tend to have and the threat to the sense of security that comes from the metaphor of “competition” are only secondary issues. The most important issue here is that the economic approach to examining the reality of dating and relationships by itself implies that other people also have motives and emotions, and you can’t just force the others under your will without giving them something of equal value in return. Such thinking is as totally against the soliptistic Me-World-dialectic as can possibly be. For the same reason, women also oppose materialistic thinking, in which the strong subjective emotions of individuals are totally irrelevant to what reality chooses to do.
For most men, women’s writings and discussions seem quite repetitive and tedious. Assuming the ontology of the previous section, these writings are the devotional material of the religion of women. The task of devotional literature is to assure the faithful by supporting her faith.
The most common technique of support is repetition. When you repeat something often enough and when certain assumptions are included in a large portion of the daily information that you receive, these doctrines start to seep in past your conscious mind. This is why an ordinary junior high schoolgirl can easily produce in her blog twice as many words each day than a professional writer with his decades of experience.
Stories and parables flesh out the otherwise dry doctrines and add meat to them. Expressing the same ideas in a different fashion also has intellectual significance. The faithful person feels that she gets closer to the doctrine when it is explained to her in some equivalent but previously unheard fashion. On the other hand, a surprising explanation can also strengthen the belief that behind the texts, pictures and symbols there really is an independent spiritual reality that there human works refer to.
Strengthening the faith also has a social component. Women often enthusiastically comment each others’ blogs. Their comments are mostly assurances that the belong to the same side (That’s right! That was well said! You wrote it just like it is!) or straightforward motivation to guide the writer into the ontology of the previous section (You are a good writer! It is not your fault! You have a right to have something better! It would be great to get to know such an interesting writer!) Possible criticism also exists in the same space, but takes a different direction. It always mocks the writer, her talent and her significance.
Heroes are an essential but often ignored factor in every religion. Heroes can be divided in three categories.
The swordsmen spread the religion, fight the opponents with either weapons or words and spread the knowledge of the true doctrine to new peoples or mow them down to make room for the faithful. You can find as many examples of these as you want in, for example, the Old Testament.
Altruistic heroes sacrifice themselves for God or other people. They serve as examples for the others and convince them of the enormous power of God and faith that you can use to easily and coolly withstand torments that are each more horrible than the previous one.
The third category of heroes consists of the chosen ones. They have special gifts from God and God speaks to people through them. Although in most religions this would seem to be only the starting point for heroes: the chosen one either uses his gift to wage war to advance the kingdom of God or becomes an even more efficient altruistic hero such as Buddha, who refused to jump out of the circle of life and returned to the world because of his compassion towards those who were not yet enlightened.
In the heroism of the religion of women, the essential part is passivity and being focused on emotions. Almost all of their heroic deeds belong to the third category. Some heroic acts are, for example, finding yourself in a violent marriage, falling seriously ill or giving birth a disabled child.
In other words, the important thing is getting a strong emotional jolt, and it is totally irrelevant whether the role was actively chosen or not. The traditional idea of courage requires that the courageous actions are voluntarily chosen and morally justified. Courage can also be considered heroism if it benefits God or other people.
In the religion of women, the only important thing is your emotional life and its dialectical relationship to the antropomorphized World. This way even their heroic epics end up supporting the solipsistic ontology that I described earlier. Heroism does not come from actions that are done to benefit others of God. The only thing that matters is your subjective emotional life.
Allow me to point out that this is not a scientific explanation but merely a story, but at least I believe that it explains pretty well what I have seen. The essential thing here is that this religion of women seems to lurk behind the women’s texts, and the diversity of topics, attitudes and the ways of expression hides this underlying religion. On purpose, I think.
(Thanks to he-knows-who for directing my attention towards this text.)
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:21 PM
At 9:55 PM, Anonymous said…
Superb take and parallels what I’ve always said about the fundamental principles of feminism, namely:
1) Life must be all bliss, all the time.
2) I have a right to whatever I want.
3) The truth is whatever I believe it to be.
4) It is the responsibility of government (i.e. in your terms, “The World” or “everyone else” in my terms) to make 1-3 so.
At 10:16 PM, Lord Feverstone said…
I think I have read at least something very similar to that on a web forum before, but I cannot recall which. Anyway, it makes for an interesting read.
At 12:13 AM, ditchthebitch said…
You know, like so many men, I have never really understand the psychosis of the female mind state-I understanding alot of HOW women think, but not WHY. This is the closest to an intelligent, comprehensive explanation I’ve ever ran across. It’s so bizarre- women claim there is no ‘difference’ between men and women, yet I cannot think of ANYTHING I have in common with the modern female AT ALL… and not just ‘opposite’ viewpoints- no, that would imply that women have a way of thinking that is somehow indigenous to God and Earth- no I’m talking down-right, outer space fucking ALIEN!!!! I had a 76 year-old tell me something interesting the other day- she said, “I have found in my life most women do most of what they do purely out of spite- and nothing more, that is why I don’t befriend women anymore.”
At 7:56 AM, Misogynic_Gent said…
Thanks for sharing that Duncan. I’d like to see more insightful material like that. It reminded me of something I read from Thee Holy Woman Document a long while back. Below you’ll find an excerpt from that document, which popped into my mind after reading Goddesses for real.
“When philosophic striving ceases, the worship of the feminine begins. The philosophic implications of science are simply unacceptable to our egos, so we worship the pleasant dream of the feminine instead. Then, as if to rationalize this behavior, we try to find fault with the faculty of reason! We say that science has failed to find ultimate meaning, that it has destroyed all that we previously found meaningful – therefore reason is faulty, limited and incomplete. Yet it is not reason, but our lack of courage which is to blame.
Nor are academic or professional philosophers doing anything to help reason along. People look to them to shed light on their confusions, but find cold sterile arguments which weave all about in an enormously complex manner, only to finish in a confession of ignorance. People naturally conclude that reason is useless, and the only alternative they see is the emotions.
Science has brought about the technological revolution. Life is now softer, easier, warmer, less painful, more pampered. We have lost that ability to bear up under hardship. We are thoroughly addicted to both physical and mental comfort, and because femininity is the most pleasant of all things we want it most of all.
Technology has flooded us with entertainment for distraction. Now more than ever, there is no end of ways to immerse ourselves in superficiality. This has the consequence of destroying all the conditions necessary for the growth of real thought. And femininity flourishes superbly in such a soil.
Television deserves a special mention. I am told that Australians watch an average of five hours a day. This is five hours of feminine indoctrination passing freely each day into the subconscious minds of our fellow humans. The chief pleasure in watching television is the effortlessness of sitting vacantly and absorbing oneself in fantasy. As we all know, the television networks are interested in ratings and thus to put on programs which draw the biggest audiences. They do this by appeal to what is basest and most common in our society – emotional dreams. And dreams are what the feminine is made of.
Technology has also given rise to the devastating modern weapons of war. Many people put the blame for this on science, on male reason. This is obviously wrong but it does not stop them from advocating the return to the “civilized” ways of femininity.”
Indeed, femininity flourishes superbly in superficial soil. I would extend that notion and contend that feminism only flourishes under superficial environments and pretense. Further, the feminist movement owes their “success” not to the self-sacrifice of women but to technological advances pioneered by men like Charles Babbage (not Ada Lovelace like some ignorant feminists feel) and the genius bachelor Nikola Tesla!
Of course, this is probably nothing new to most of you but I seldom observe this point so well carried as in Thee Holy Woman Document.
If that doesn’t annoy the myrmidons or as you prefer fembots, start a headline Favorite Anti-Feminist Adages and my contributions surely will garner an interesting response.
For the record, I’m not a misogynist but misogynic, as in “having a deep-seated distrust of women.” I see a distinction between mistrust and hatred.
PS: What happened to NYmom? I expected her to defend her stance on single mothers but she didn’t. . . Was she banned or leave by her own free will? At any rate, if other feminists would like to defend NYmom’s position go right ahead on the appropriate forum. Well, it isn’t exactly on topic but it can be found under Archives – August 2006 entitled She Deserved More.
At 11:47 AM, Anonymous said…
Lord Feverstone said…
“I think I have read at least something very similar to that on a web forum before”
You might, because it is a description of the worldview of a six-year old.
At 3:19 PM, voloohaar said…
“Hopefully it’ll annoy a few of the hardcore fembots and manginas who’ve recently started hanging around my blog.”
Of course they are! 217022 hits and counting… (The first) million is not that far away, hehehe 😉
You’re getting dangerous, Duncan! You just might contaminate too many minds of too many young men with your thoughts, and the fems just wouldn’t like that, now, would they? The bigger you get, the more you bother them – especially since they’re accustomed so well not to see dissenting views getting exposure.
At 9:48 PM, pete said…
voloohar makes a good point. Better make an offline archive of your posts and spread it on P2P.
At 9:51 PM, Duncan Idaho said…
PS: What happened to NYmom? I expected her to defend her stance on single mothers but she didn’t. . . Was she banned or leave by her own free will?
She just left. I never ban anyone from here, not even feminists. I guess she realised shaming language and insults weren’t going to work on us.
At 3:58 PM, pete said…
Last I saw her, she was on a couple other blogs, pleading with those bloggers to kick the father’s rights activists to the curb and join feminists because the father’s rights groups consist of 50 year old washed up losers and the younger bloggers haven’t had the life wrung out of them by women yet.
Never mind that she herself is a 50 year washed up cunt.
At 11:50 AM, NYMOM said…
“PS: what happened to Nymom…”
Nothing happened to me John. I just got bored with this blog. Initially I got a kick out of the writing style of the Eternal Bachelor and some of the more humourous stories he commented upon. It was almost like a British internet version of the Jerry Springer show. Like many Americans I am a classical mutt with an Angelo/Irish/Scottish background and thus, am often overly impressed with everything British…including their humour.
However the constant whining got old. Nothing is this bad anywhere in the western world, so it’s ridiculous to keep carrying on as if it were…
I have my own blog and I’ve recently been posting on Lord Feverstone’s blog and some feminists ones such as Pandagon and such…
Thanks for asking…
At 11:54 AM, NYMOM said…
Sorry to disappoint you but I’m not a feminist.
At 5:58 PM, Anonymous said…
Of course “nothing is as bad in the western world”. You’re a single mom, the creature that feminism has given birth to and loved and cherished the most. Of course it won’t be bad for you, hell I’m guessing it’s much better for you than anyone else!
At 10:24 PM, NYMOM said…
First of all I was NOT a single mom but a married one. My ex-husband filed for divorce and stipulated custody to me…and we just arranged between ourselves visitation and whatnot.
That, of course, happened back in the day before the entrance of high child support and custody wars…probably around the time dinosaurs freely roamed the earth actually…
Let’s get serious however.
I follow the news a little more then the average person and knowing all the mini-wars that are going on all across Africa and a lot of Asia, for instance, the brutal farming and living conditions in central and South America (leading to the vast problem the US has with illegal immigration from these places) the conditions that the average man and woman has to live under in MOST other parts of the world and you seriously think that ANYONE in the west has it so bad.
You must be kidding me….