This is another article from The Masculine Principle. (This, by the way, is a must-read site and you can spend hours going through it.) Most of the rest of the Manosphere is a wasteland compared to it.
“For a man to pretend to understand women is bad manners; for him really to understand them is bad morals.” – Henry James
Many people who read the following pages within "The Masculine Principle" will reflexively be uncomfortable with what they find. "Why, it's misogynist! The author must be living in his parents' basement and has probably never been laid in his life! He must have a small penis! He must be a dead-beat dad! He's just bitter! He certainly doesn't understand women very much!"
Well, no, no, no, no, no and no. I live in a nice little one bedroom condo. I have slept with the mid-double digits of women and even lived with a few of them, so while I am no stud, I am no virgin either. My penis is average sized. I have luckily never been married and I have no children. The only thing I am bitter about is how the Truth has been hidden and manipulated to bring harm to men, women and children, and I understand women and sexuality well enough to have compiled this "book," rather than just fling about emotionally charged insults.
I started studying this subject back in 2004 and when I fell ill in 2005, I found myself with a lot of free time while I was going through treatments. I decided that I could either watch TV, or I could put the time to use and learn something instead. At that point I started reading and researching in earnest, often spending eight to ten hours a day on it. Originally my doctors figured it would take around six to eight months to get through the treatments and to the other side... but it took much longer. Three and a half years, to be exact. So I got much deeper into this than I had originally intended, and afterwards, well, I just kept at it. It had become a habit, I suppose. Or perhaps it is better described as being unable to look away from a horrific train wreck. I am now well over a decade into my studies on this subject.
"It takes a man a lifetime to find out about one particular woman; but if he puts in, say ten years, industrious and curious, he can acquire the general rudiments of the sex.” – O. Henry, Heart of the West (1907)
There's a difference between how a married man knows women and how a bachelor comes to know them. The married man, through the course of spending his life with the same woman, will naturally come to know her individual quirks and personality flaws. We all have them, and so does his wife. The married man therefore believes that Not All Women Are Like That.
The bachelor starts out from the same place as the married man. He falls in love with a woman, discovers her quirks and flaws, and as the relationship spirals out of control he thinks to himself, "I must have just been unlucky and ended up with a faulty one." And so off he goes and finds another, thinking that she will be different. When the second love ends the same way as the first, he starts to doubt himself. Maybe he is the problem. After all, he is the constant factor in this equation. And so, off he goes through life until he loves yet another, and this time he focuses on changing his behaviour. Then he loves another, and another, and still, they all end up being remarkably similar experiences - often even down to the very words she says when in the same situation.
Finally, he comes to the amazing conclusion that yes, something is wrong with them! All of them! And thus, with enough notes to compare from various women he has known intimately, a pattern begins to emerge, and once he begins to identify it and map it out, he starts to see it everywhere. Further, as he ages and his old friends disappear into the void of marriage, he begins to hang out with more and more bachelors, and as they compare stories he discovers they've had similar experiences as him throughout their lifetime too, which begins to solidify his conclusions.
Marriage hides the nature of women while bachelorhood exposes it as life goes on. I've read before that if a man reaches the age of 38 without having married, the likelihood of him ever marrying is negligible. This is why. He's figured out "the game" in ways that not even men who have been married multiple times ever will, and he knows it is all an illusion - one that does not operate in his best interests. Marriage hides the true nature of women as a sex from men, while bachelorhood exposes it. The feminists have indeed destroyed "The Feminine Mystique" in their bid to free women from men by destroying marriage. The more men that remain bachelors, the more women will fall from the pedestal they've traditionally been placed upon by men.
It is not hatred to recognize the true nature of woman any more than recognizing that tigers are carnivores instead of herbivores means that I hate tigers. It merely means that I recognize the Truth and will act accordingly. What will make me hate tigers however, is thinking they are playful little kittens and getting my arm chewed off every time I dangle a piece of yarn in front of one because I don't understand their nature and why they behave that way.
Misogyny versus Misandry
Much of feminist theory is based on the belief that misogyny is inherent in men, and thus the dreaded Patriarchy is a natural extension of this inbuilt negative attitude towards women which men possess.
But ask yourself, is this really true? Is it true that men are naturally misogynistic towards women? Is it true that most of the men you meet think negatively of women? Is it true that when in the locker-room the men conspire to hold women down? Is it true that businessmen would secretly conspire to throw away their profits by paying men 30% more wages than women, simply to keep women from reaching their true potential? Is it true that 1 in 4 women will really be raped in university, and therefore by extension that 1 in 4 men are rapists? Do you really believe that 25% of the men you know are secretly raping women? Really?
None of this rings true for me. In fact, what I see are enormous amounts of men tripping over themselves to praise women. I see men worshiping women as some sort of goddesses. I see men apologizing for the most nonsensical and trivial things simply out of fear of offending women. I see our world leaders praising women while shaming men in order to win votes. I see men trying to one up other men, proving to women that not a smidgen of misogyny exists in their souls. I see men constantly believing that it is other men who are treating women badly, but certainly not his enlightened, sensitive and equitable self. And those other men? Well, they also believe they are more enlightened than the rest of those misogynist men out there!
A few years back Dr. Helen did a couple of interviews with Richard Driscoll, author of You Still Don't Understand. During the interviews, Dr. Drisoll cited a survey which illustrated that 14% of men were resentful or almost always resentful of women. However, the same survey also illustrated that 34% of women were resentful or almost always resentful of men. That is nearly two and a half times more women that are resentful towards men than is conversely true of men being resentful of women.
Misogyny, as men are routinely accused of, simply is not as rampant as society claims. In fact, the hatred of men is far more prevalent than the hatred of women. "Misandry" still gets underlined by my spell-checker because it is a concept that hardly exists, even though the evidence of it is all around us - if we only cared enough to look.
It is not in men's nature to be harmful towards females. Just the opposite. Men work like slaves to provide for them and often will even sacrifice their lives for them. Does that seem consistent with some inherent misogyny found within males to you?
One of the most significant things I learned in studying this subject was about "all-female" populations in the Animal Kingdom and "the reason" why males exist. For example, there are certain species of lizards where there are females, but they have somewhere in the past stopped producing males (or have never produced males to begin with). Females "are" the species (in all living things) because they are the ones who control reproduction. If there is only one sex, it must be female or the species will die out. Further, the reason why a species either creates or stops creating males, is in relation to what the females want. They create males to do things they cannot do or are unwilling to do themselves. In other words, on a very basic level in nature, the entire purpose of the male is to serve "the species," which is by default female.
And this goes even deeper yet, down to our genetic and evolutionary level. These all-female populations can only exist and thrive in ecological niches. As soon as they have to compete with a species that has both males and females, they get run over and die out because they have little ability to adapt. It is the male that mostly evolves the species, because the male has far more variability. What happens is that mutations in the species mostly happen to the males, and when a positive mutation happens, the female breeds with him and "saves" the evolution. So even on that level, you can see that the male serves the female.
What is really amazing is how this exists in every living thing on earth, and a biologist will confirm it is so except that the same biologist will deny it exists in humans as he or she reflexively believes that it is men who hold all the power rather than women. Although, in their defense, it is somewhat true, because while we are of the animal kingdom, we are not animals. We are humans and we have the ability to live at a higher level than animals. What we did somewhere in the past was we re-ordered this, the only creatures on earth to have done so, and we rose up from being beasts in the field. But even so, on a very deep level of our existence, males are still serving the needs of the females. The question becomes (or was in the past), are we going to serve women as animals, including all the harshness that comes with that brutal world, or will we do it as humans, and enjoy all the benefits that civilization bestows upon us?
Misogyny in Religion, Myth and History
A long time ago now, I found myself reading a website about the Legend of Atlantis. This was not a weird, way-out-there site, but rather it argued that Atlantis and the Garden of Eden were one in the same. In fact, it argued that all religious paradises and many of our ancient myths and legends were essentially about the same story: that all of our human ancestors had experienced a global, cataclysmic flood at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age, some 13,000 years ago, and all of our religions and mythical stories about paradise lost and a flood (or sinking land) are a "twinkling remembrance" of what happened to the humans who lived through that time. Thus, it explored many of the similarities between various religions and myths that existed around the globe. There used to be a nice forum there where the author of the articles (and book) hung out and discussed various theories of "The Fall of Man" and how it related to the earth's history geologically. It was a fascinating place, but unfortunately, Prof. Santos - who had spent over twenty years studying this subject as a hobby - passed away suddenly from a heart attack, and the forum kinda fell apart after that.
But it was one of those experiences that just "clicked" in my mind, and I began to see things in a different way after reading it. For example, I started thinking, "If I were the last adult alive amongst 100 children and given the responsibility of passing on 'what I know today' to them - while also recognizing the human trait of wishing away inconvenient Truths - how would I go about this so it would last them for centuries into the future?" Well, I would write it down in an unchangeable religion.
Shortly after, I watched a video of a university lecture which had a fellow who had studied the ancient Hebrew language and texts, and as he was interpreting parts of them, he noted the misogyny that was found in them. In fact, he was so embarrassed by it that he offered an apology to those in the lecture hall. Some of the things he pointed out were that Sodom and Gomorrah, the two most wicked cities in the Bible, are the only two cities from the entire region which are referred to in the feminine. (As in, how French has masculine and feminine in their language). He further mentioned that the most evil of demons were always portrayed as female.
There is also the story of Adam's first wife, Lilith. (Not all of the Ancient Hebrew Texts are in the Bible). There are two accounts of how humankind was created. In the first, man and woman were created at the same time, on the sixth day:
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. -- Genesis 1:27
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' -- Matthew 19:4
In the Hebrew texts, Adam and Lilith were equals and as such, she often challenged Adam's authority and rebelled against him. She would even complain to him during sex that she had to lie beneath him - which she didn't think fair because they were equals. Eventually Lilith left Adam, but from her sexual union with him she spawned many demons which went forth to plague mankind.
When we get to the second story, that of Adam and Eve in the Garden, Eve was created after Adam - from his rib - and when God ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden, he told her when he cursed her that her desire will be for her husband and he will rule over her, thus, completely the opposite of the equality that Adam and Lilith had shared.
"...But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." -- Genesis 2: 20-25
These things were, of course, all very interesting. But what I found most interesting were the professor's profuse apologies for "misogyny." It made me step back and ask, "But why is that misogyny in there? Doesn't anyone ever ask that question?" And apparently, no one does! We just continue writing it off to men's innately evil, misogynistic character - even though, as I pointed out earlier, if we opened our eyes and actually looked at the world around us, we would see that men are far more prone to practice irrational and blind love of women than misogyny (Known as the equally obscure term to Misandry, as "Philogyny"). And, just as the men of the modern day always think it is other men who harbor misogynist attitudes towards women, we also believe our modern, enlightened selves are better than those other misogynistic men who existed in the past.
But, what do you do when Greece and Rome arise as two of the premier civilizations in history? And yes, you can point out their "misogyny," but you can't deny their excellence. It is said that when Alexander the Great was handing King Darius III of Persia his ass, Darius lamented, "My men have become women and my women have become men." In other words, they embraced androgyny - and this is true, if you examine how their customs changed over time.
And look at what comes from Rome but the same warning we find about Adam and Lilith's equality:
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment they become your fellows, they will become your masters." -- Cato the Censor (There's a story similar to modern "Slut Walks" found in that link, by the way).
I have also read of the effects of hypergamy and Briffault's law in Rome, as it related to a woman's dowry and how it changed over the course of history in relation to divorce laws. At first, when a divorce occurred, the husband would keep the dowry, and divorce was low. Then the laws changed and after divorce, the bride's father would have the dowry returned to him - and divorce rose. Finally, after divorce, the wife kept possession of the dowry herself, and from there we find that in Rome they said, "Women marry intending to divorce, and divorce intending to remarry." (Sound familiar? Ever heard of "starter-marriages?"). Thus, they had to pass draconian laws trying to force men to take them on as wives because the men wanted nothing to do with them and their birthrates declined to a point where it was a jeopardy to the state.
We find the same tale in Aristotle's Spartan Women, except in Sparta they further undermined hypergamy and Briffault's law through their inheritance laws:
And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin.
We see the same thing over and over again. In fact, some eight decades ago, "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin, chronicled the rise and fall of over 80 cultures and in each case he found that "misogyny" was present at the beginning and rise of the culture, while equality and the feminine principle dominated the decline and the eventual collapse.
I believe one of the reasons we only find this sort of "misogyny" in religion and myth is because, first of all, books like the Bible are unchangeable because they are philosophically based in Absolute Truth. They are further found in myths and legends because men, somewhere in the past, must have figured out that women will never allow the Truth about them to be openly discussed, so they pass it on in different ways - through the "twinkling remembrance" of our ancestors.
“Men are not troubled to hear a man dispraised, because they know, though he be naught, there's worth in others; but women are mightily troubled to hear any of them spoken against, as if the sex itself were guilty of some unworthiness.” – John Seldon (1584-1654)
After all, when looking at the concept of All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom, which we discussed further up, can't you see its relationship to the legend of the Amazon Women?
"There has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons, who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males to whom they gave birth." -- Spinoza
And can you see it further in some of our great feminist "thinkers?"
"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." -- Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future - If There Is One - Is Female
What happens throughout history is that women censor all of the negative observations about them into oblivion, and men, in their desire to serve and please them, will enable them. The only way to get things "through" and passed the burning desire of the male to please the female is to enshrine it in something absolute like the Bible, or hide it in myth or legend.
Is the Truth Misogynist?
The term "misogynist" is one that indicates emotion. It means a hatred or dislike of women. The academtards with subversive social agendas have been trying to rejig the English language by insinuating that misogyny means someone who doesn't believe in equality, or voting rights, or whatever other feminist jargon they tack onto it - basically insinuating that anyone who doesn't support their political and social agenda is misogynist. But this is nonsense. Just because someone doesn't believe children should have equal say as their parents does not mean they hate children.
The "misogynists" of old, such as Otto Weininger or Arthur Schopenhauer or Aristotle or the Bible don't hate women. They disagree with the feminist agenda, for sure, but there is no "hatred" in what they say. They are merely trying to reveal the Truth.
The Truth has no feelings. It does not feel love or hatred.
The Truth has no agenda - unlike the multi-billion dollar feminist industry.
The Truth does not assign blame, nor does it concern itself with hurt feelings.
The Truth just is.
Often in the following pages you will see me refer to a "hierarchy" that goes like this:
God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children.
This "hierarchy" exists on many levels and does not indicate any particular superiority, although those who believe in the religion of equality are instantly incensed by it. It also works backwards in much the same way that it works forward. For example, children are considered more valuable than adults, and women are considered more valuable than men. Further, children are at war with their parents, but parents are not at war with their children. Women are at war with men, but men are not at war with women. Men are at war with God/Truth, but God/Truth is not at war with men. And it descends from here as well. Only when man is in proper relation to the Truth, can he expect woman to be in proper relation to him. This is something hard-wired into our biology and it has been with us from the beginning.
Our civilization is a "machine" that harnesses our sex drives and life forces for the good of us all. I don't really believe that men are any more superior than women, but I don't believe we are "equal" in all things either. I believe we both have strengths and weaknesses. I believe that men and women possess different kinds of power. I believe that men make very poor women and women make very poor men. I think androgyny is the most destructive notion we've ever unleashed on our great civilization, and I don't support the feminist movement's agenda to further destroy us by brainwashing more of this androgyny into society.
If the Truth is misogynist by modern definition, so be it. I'll stand with the Truth proudly.