All My Heroes are Men, most of the people I despise are Women.

 

I know an odd title for an essay, but to give you an idea of what precipitated it, pop over to emma the emo’s blog for a read of this – Women Have no Honour.

“To me it appears that those gender norms are promoted because they are good for society. If men are courageous, they can defend their country. If women are chaste, men feel like being courageous in the first place. I suppose men are still expected to be courageous nowadays (they are drafted), while promiscuity is no big deal for women anymore. In this way, I suppose women really don’t have honor.

 This type of honor is different from the one most people think about when they hear the word. It’s not merely staying true to your principles. It’s society’s way to hold people in check, even when their own principles are lacking or badly developed. Having honor is staying true not to your feelings, but group rules.”

I’ve been doing a lot of research lately, and as I mentioned in the essay about those fruitcakes over at Holy Hormones, and nope, not linking to it again, it was reading random articles about the exploits of men, through the ages that restored my sanity, didn’t prevent me from getting a headache, but made having a headache bearable.

With regard to the title as well, when I think of men, words like nobility, honour, courage, integrity and decency spring to mind, as for women – and being the most likely to make it onto the list of people I despise the most – the feeling is mutual – at this point in my life – it only amuses me – to be honest it never actually bothered me – that women in general tend to dislike me – intensely.  In that extra special “way” that women have of manifesting their “disapproval” fortunately for most of my life, any of the things that women value and attempt to punish you for, by withdrawing or sabotaging, are things that I have never actually valued.

Chief amongst them being admittance to the “girl club” or being “one of the girls” I cannot think of anything that would induce a greater feeling of horror in me that either of those things.

To be fair, I do have, and have had lifelong friends, female friends, who without exception have been women “not like that” I could tell you stories!

So, it has been almost a revelation to me over the last year or so to encounter women like Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat), Janet Bloomfield (Judgybitch), Diana Davison (realityisabitch) and astonishingly, a growing number of other females who are not total and utter wretches. Who think, who can string a sentence together, who can objectively and with great intelligence and humour explore an idea, express a concept that does not begin and end with their bloody vaginas and/or uterus’s

The reason – because those qualities that I mentioned that spring to mind when I think of men, spring to my mind when I think of these women – which can only lead to one conclusion.

These are not male qualities per se, they are human qualities of the highest order, ANY human being can CHOOSE to ascribe, to develop, to enact and to display them.

Nobility, honour, courage, integrity and decency are human qualities that women en masse have CHOSEN to reject, to fail to develop, to strive for – in favour of selfishness, self-absorption, pettiness, spitefulness, vindictiveness, vanity and egotism.

By the way, this is not a NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like that) thing – this is a WHY are most women “like that” – thing, and WHY do they not STOP being “like that”

Much is made of the so-called higher order of female qualities, such as caring and nurturing and compassion, of the sacrifices women apparently make for their children, for their “men” of all the tasks that they perform for and on behalf of others.

In fact, I don’t believe it would be an exaggeration to say that women en masse will, and do beat that drum persistently, continuously and ad nauseum about how caring, nurturing, and compassionate they are. What is derisory is that these things – the caring, the nurturing of children in particular – are what one would expect as a natural pattern of behaviour – normal, having children by default assumes that one DOES these things, not as some extra special effort on your part but because – THATS WHAT YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO DO!  If you are a decent human being, that is.

There is one woman I want add to the three female human beings who I’ve mentioned as worthy of admiration and respect and to be counted among honourable human beings – my mother.

Two of my mother’s oft repeated phrases, whenever she felt someone was getting “a bit above themselves” were these:

“self praise is no praise”

and

“empty vessels make the most noise”

From her perspective, praise for doing or achieving something was a gift, a gift from others, an acknowledgment that you had done or achieved something worthwhile – demanding it, or expecting it, or reciting your supposed achievements to garner it, invalidated and negated the value of your supposed achievement, or in this instance – quality.

Because, the other thing she was adamant about was this – if the only reason you do something is to GET praise – then doing it is a gesture, an empty shallow gesture meant to benefit ONLY you.

Back to My Heroes.

One of the things that marks out these particular men below, both real and fictional, as worthy heroes and role models, not just for boys but for girls too, is that invariably they were flawed human beings, they were not as women like to portray themselves “visions of perfection” they strove and failed, they were beset by doubts and fears, and they did not consider themselves to BE heroes, they were doing what they believed was the right thing to do – and without exception, for and behalf of others with no expectation of “praise” of “personal gain” or even of sometimes surviving their endeavours.

Janet Bloomfield (aka Judgybitch) wrote an excellent piece on one of my modern day heroes – a fictional character – John McClane – of the Die Hard series of films – I have to say the original is my favourite, and will admit to a secret “admiration” for Bruce Willis – but that’s just between me and thee – ok?

John is everyman, he does what does because he cannot in all conscience do otherwise and live with himself – and no-one else will step up – Janet’s article nails it to a tee, much better than I could.

William Wilberforce the nobility, the courage and the relentless persistence of this man in the face of personal struggles, of mockery, of the disdain of his peers is admirably captured in the film Amazing Grace slavery was, until feminism came along, one of the most egregious stains on the history of humanity – slavery is to dehumanise a human being, to reduce a human being to an object, a piece of property. In William Wilberforce’s time – this was “normal” and here we are in the 21st century, and yet again we have a culture where it is “normal” to view human beings as objects of utility, as property, as less than human.

Aragorn (Strider) – One of my all time favourite books, “The Lord of The Rings” – first read it when I was 16, and read it every year for a long long time – then the  films came out and regrettably I haven’t read it since then.  Aragorn displays that other quality that men have and exercise on behalf of, and for others – leadership – leadership in the face of ,and in spite of their own fears and doubts about themselves, about their leadership abilities – he leads because someone must lead – someone must take responsibility – someone must put the mission first, and their own fears and doubts aside – Aragorn is that man, and is every man who has ever walked towards danger, towards the source of their greatest fear, and towards that which would “chill the heart of me” for others, for a cause, for a mission, for others.

Firefighters, rescue workers, soldiers, almost all men, almost all faced with constant danger, constant threat and always walking towards it, facing it, protecting others from it. Protecting women from it.

“If by my life or death I can protect you, I will. ” Aragorn.

― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

Ghenghis Khan – now you all think I’ve completely lost the plot. Read this book – Bones of the Hills by Conn Iggulden published in 2009 by Harper – website www.conniggulden.com for more information.

Ghenghis Khan forged a civilisation, a Nation, a nomadic nation out of innumerable warring tribes – never a builder of roads, of monuments, Ghenghis Khan was a unique and exceptional individual, his exploits by our standards were bloodthirsty, but he was a man in, and of his time.

“In the seventeenth century the Muslim chronicler Abu’l Ghazi wrote:

Under the reign of Ghenghis Khan, all the country between Iran and the land of the Turks enjoyed such a peace that a man might have journeyed from sunrise to sunset with a golden platter on his head without suffering the least violence from anyone.”

From: Bones of The Hills by Conn Iggulden; Historical Note – page 542 (own copy – emphasis added)

Feminism and feminists have corrupted and have poisoned our cultures and our nations, have harnessed the ephemeral grip on honour that women have always had, and to be fair were expected to have, unlike the true hard won honour that men have always strived, struggled and fought for  – has diminished to nothingness that load upon women, till to all intents and purposes women now believe they have no need for honour, or integrity or decency.

Sadly, this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, we worship things, we live in and on the most superficial plane of existence, the banal, the trite, and the asinine have become our touchstones, our standard. The keepers of these things are feminists, they insist, they demand, they blackmail and they coerce so that our cultures remain – dishonourable – superficial – tawdry.

 “A nation lives forever through its concepts, honour, and culture. It is for these reasons that the rulers of nations must judge and act not only on the basis of physical and material interests of the nation but on the basis of the nation’s historical honour, of the nation’s eternal interests. Thus: not bread at all costs, but honour at all costs.”

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries

So, when I say that I despise women, with very few rare exceptions, it is not only because they have no honour, but they CHOSE deliberately to have no honour – because – it IS a choice.

The last word goes to my mother:

“You may chose any course of action you wish, good bad or indifferent, what you don’t get to chose are the consequences”

We are living with the consequences of a culture infected with the poison of dishonourable, corrupt and toxic feminism.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Tammy’s Talk: Part II.

 

An Exercise in Delusion and Arrogance.

Apparently this is a course, and the talk is obviously an introductory talk to this course, the Course Description, at the beginning of this transcript is illuminating.

Course Description

 We hear it all the time: “America is patriarchal!”, “American women are oppressed!”. Well, a lifelong feminist and former National Organization for Women member, Tammy Bruce, is tired of hearing it–and she has a solution laid out in our newest video: Feminism 2.0. One that tells women that they should be proud to act feminine. One that tells them that simply copying men and masculine traits is actually demeaning to women. One that honors all responsible choices, including becoming a wife and mother.”

When she says “we hear it all the time” what she fails to mention is that it was feminists like her, and like her former sista’s in NOW who propagated this myth, this lie of patriarchy. What she also fails to mention is that it is men and non feminist women (like me) who are “tired of hearing it” and that all she is doing is finally copping on that the audience for this pile of crap is now limited to screechy ranty hysterical feminists and vacuous empty-headed  HuffPo baby feminists who can barely write a cogent sentence.

Tammy is doing the kid with jam all over its face, declaring in all sincerity that “nope, wasn’t me who ate all that jam” thing.

Having dodged that bullet, Tammy moves swiftly on with her plan, with her shiny improved and apparently much needed “new feminism for the 21st century”

“I want to talk to you about a new feminism for the 21st century.

 There are three pillars to this new feminism:

 Dignity.

 The word “no.” And men.

 That’s right, men.”

Oh look, after 50 years or so of vilifying men, of declaring men to be the enemy, the oppressors of women, and the source of all evil in the world, feminism is now inviting men to participate in a movement that has STILL as its focus – the needs of women – the clue is in the name – FEMINism.

So, no change there, Tammy obviously forgets, that it was only with the acquiescence of MEN right from the get go, that feminism in any form or flavour ever survived, she seems to think that after 50 or so years, acknowledging that now, will serve to reel back in, all those men who are now no longer prepared to subscribe to a movement that has deliberately, calculatedly and with complete contempt FOR men, stripped them of every Human Right imaginable.

With absolutely no irony she admits to being an integral part of this toxic movement, but now because the stick with which feminism has always used to beat men down with, is now practically ineffective she wants to implement a new method of beating men down.

“But before I expound on these three ideas, you need to know something about me. I was very involved in the feminist movement, including being on the board of directors of the National Organization for Women. For this I feel much pride and some guilt. Pride because feminism has pushed forward some very important and needed changes; and guilt because it also has done a lot of damage. My work now is to reverse that damage.”

What you will notice is that while she mentions “damage” she does not go into any detail about said “damage” as she continues, it will become clear that it is damage to women she means, no mention at all of the damage to the lives of generations of men and boys – nope – women are now being damaged because of feminism, and we can’t have that, can we?

Hence the invitation to men, though that invitation is that of an upper class female directing a person of lesser status to the tradesman’s entrance – and that lesser person or persons? Why men of course.

She then goes on a bit about what women should be able to do, what freedoms they should have, including the freedom to be wives and mothers, and she tut tuts at the feminists who went nuts when a Princeton Grad suggested women should look for husbands while in college – of the right calibre of course.

“In fact any time someone has the temerity to suggest that a woman might want to look for a husband while in college, as a very successful Princeton grad recently did in a letter to the school’s newspaper, feminists go nuts.

 A new feminism will value and respect all responsible choices.”

Still hasn’t mentioned valuing and respecting the choices of men and boys – has she? Men get their first real mention in the next paragraph,

 “And while we’re talking about dignity, I can’t think of anything less dignified for women than the feminist belief that in the sexual arena, women are like, and therefore ought to act like, men. Is this what the truly liberated woman wants? To have casual sex and think nothing of it like men do? That’s what feminism aspires to? Sad to say the answer has too often been yes. So, let’s add this up: Feminism has downplayed the desire for women to have a family while at the same time hyping the rewards of career and casual sex.”

There you go, men as an entire class are characterised as sexual automatons, ever ready to jump into bed with any random female who shows willing. Wonder how she feels about all those slutwalking students, proudly displaying their wares on the public street, and celebrating their sluttishness? Funny, she doesn’t mention that.

She then moves onto her next pillar as she calls it.

 “The second pillar of a new feminism is the word “no.” It’s very much tied in with the first pillar.”

What she is advocating here is that women need to regain the upper hand in sexual relationships, that in effect, they have been literally giving away, free gratis and for nothing – the ONLY thing of value that a woman possesses, as a human being. In one paragraph, with the complete stupidity of the truly delusional she has reduced women to what she previously reduced men to – a set of genitals that happen to be attached to a person, but that this person has no other value or worth as a Human Being than AS that set of genitals.

 “Throughout history women made great use of the word “no.” Of course many times women said “yes” when they should have said no, and that’s the basis of more than a few classic stories and novels. But this was the exception, not the rule. There is great power in that word “no.” And women, for the most part, knew how to wield that power. But in the last few decades they’ve lost it. And the consequences have been catastrophic.”

You know, on one level she is right, it has been catastrophic for women, not in the way she imagines though, it has been catastrophic because it has shattered any illusions about women, it has revealed women to be just as likely to hop from one sexual partner to the next as any man, if he was so inclined.  What Tammy here is missing, is that while she can purse her lips and tut tut at bed-hopping men, that old adage “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” applies. 

In this instance it is men doing the metaphorical tut tutting and rendering judgement on these “empowered” women.  The ones that Tammy and her ilk actively encouraged and practically browbeat into becoming the sluts, the whores, the skanks that they HAVE become. She then goes on to once more do her “kid with jam all over its face” thing.

 “Women, who fought not to be treated as sex objects, have become more objectified than ever. You see it everywhere: in music videos, on billboards, in the hookup culture on campuses. When Madonna becomes the symbol of a generation you know you have a problem. And now we have the tawdry spectacle of teenage girls sexually pursuing teenage boys the way boys pursued girls. How did this happen?”

How did this happen Tammy? Well you should know – you and your fellow feminists applauded and cheered on, the likes of Madonna, the answer my dear Tammy lies in YOUR mirror.

The next paragraph is probably my favourite, the faux innocence, the shifting of the blame onto men, the washing of her hands of the consequences of the actions SHE and her fellow feminists set in motion.

“Because feminism began to advocate that women should behave like men. Whatever men did and however they did it, that’s what women should do. Feminists were angry at men – but they wanted to be like them at the same time. No wonder our society is so confused.”

Oh no Tammy, feminism didn’t advocate that women “behave like men” feminism and feminists – LIKE YOU – advocated that women unleash their true natures, that women “empower” themselves and become “who they really are” and did they ever – they became exactly the kinds of people that they REALLY are. As for your wonderment at societies confusion? 

Society isn’t confused at all, men are NOT confused, men are waking up, and women are realising that men ARE waking up – that men are starting to look at women with their eyes wide open. So, no Tammy, society isn’t confused, women and feminists like you are just panicking.

Tammy then moves onto how she see’s men, she throws men a few bones, acknowledges the “contribution” to the creation of modern civilisation of men

 “This is a good segue to my third pillar of a new feminism – men. It is easy for feminists to forget this, but it was men who gave up their monopoly on political power and gave women the right to vote, men who invented birth control, the refrigerator, the washing machine, and so many other devices that liberated women.”

But, lest any man starts to preen a bit, or bask in the glow of Tammy’s admiration, she throws a spanner into those works – because while men might have created all the devices of modern civilisation “that liberated women” they themselves would have been unable to do any of this without the civilising influence of women – without women apparently, men would be uncouth barbarians and we would still be living in caves or grass huts.

 “And men are different from women. Academics like to speculate that men and women are basically the same, that they’re only socialized differently, but as George Orwell famously noted: that’s an idea that only an intellectual would be foolish enough to believe. Moreover, the sexes need each other. For example, women civilize men. It’s what we are supposed to do. When we accomplish this and help make civilized men, society becomes good and noble.”

This next sentence is very telling, what Tammy is insinuating is that unless men get back into line and once more submit themselves to the civilising influence of women, society will “descend into chaos and the law of the jungle

“And when we fail to do this, we gradually descend into chaos and the law of the jungle. But in order to accomplish this critical task,

 We must preserve our dignity,

 Not be afraid to use the word no,

 And, see men as partners, not as competitors, let alone oppressors.”

 How odd, Tammy has obviously been asleep for the last 50 years, during which time, society has become an entity run by, and for the benefit of women, marriage has been declining steadily for decades, children are invariably being brought by SINGLE mothers, and fathers have been deliberately and callously excised from the lives of their children.  It would seem, that the rising levels of teen violence, of teen pregnancies and of all the myriad social problems that are currently besetting society can be laid firmly at the door of WOMEN.

In fact, it would appear that without the civilising influence of MEN, women are incapable of maintaining a cohesive, functioning and healthy society – at all.

Society is not on its way to chaos and the law of the jungle, society is already there Tammy – thanks to YOU, your sistas’s in NOW, and all your fellow feminists.

“That’s the way to a new feminism. And the way to a better world for both sexes.”

No Tammy, the last thing society needs is more feminism, whether tarted up and gone all fluffy and man friendly or not – it is and was feminism that has brought us to the very brink of chaos. It is a poison, a toxic corrosive social poison that eats away at the very foundations of a healthy and civilised society.

What we need to do is to purge feminism and feminists from every institution, every level and every corner of society, we need to sweep away every last vestige of toxic feminist doctrine from every law, every policy, and every edict, attitude and lie that feminism has perpetuated.

THAT is what will save our cultures and societies.  So, kindly piss off and peddle your toxic poison to those deluded women and unfortunately some men who still want to believe this crap

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Tammy’s Talk: Part 1

 

Contempt, Derision and Scorn.

 These are not “nice” words, nor for that matter are they “nice” feelings or emotions, does anyone wish to have these words used to describe the feelings or emotions that are precipitated by one’s behaviour, actions or demeanour?

Nope. I didn’t think so.

I read with great interest the comments that this article on A Voice for Men generated, and the three words of the title of this essay capture in a nutshell the feelings and emotions that the author of the article Tammy Bruce garnered for her demand, (text of her talk below) and yes, while cloaked in the now familiar sickly sweet pseudo conciliatory language of the nascent next wave of feminism that is struggling to find purchase in the prevailing zeitgeist – it was a demand.

Garnished with more than a soupcon of expectation that said demand would be complied with – by men.

The Myth of Womanhood © has always rested on several illusions, assiduously created by women and almost as equally assiduously championed by men, that women are special creatures by their very nature.  Therefore the words that frame and inform the behaviour of men towards women has been to,

Respect, protect, cherish, value and elevate – in most instances one could add adore to that list, because this was one of the primary expectations.

The fact is though, that while the illusion created of these fragile and special creatures was cultivated, propagated and disseminated by both men and women, it was indeed an illusion. There are too many chronicled instances throughout history when these fragile, delicate special creatures have behaved in ways which, had men not been blinded by the first illusion, would have shattered this faux construct. Women who have killed, who have defrauded and behaved in ways that would get a man hanged or thrashed, put out from “civilised” society and subject to universal approbation.

So, another illusion needed to be created, to add substance to the first one – that because of her delicate fragile and special nature, woman was never the agent of her own actions, she always was and according to feminists, still is, an oppressed creature, a creature who lives her life at the whim, at the behest of not just one man, but all men.

So was born the mythical patriarchy, that ambient pervasive coercive force under which all women live, have lived and no doubt will continue to live.

The final illusion is of course the performance, because yes, being a woman requires that one acts the part of the fragile, delicate, special mythical creature of woman. One must cultivate an attitude, an aura of delicate femaleness, a smokescreen of mannerisms, gestures and ploys that suggest an innate helplessness, a cloak of “femininity”.

An example, one of the most pathetic whines of feminism is that women are forced to dress a certain way to please men, to attract men, to make themselves appealing to men.  Yet throughout history it is women who have always dictated what is or isn’t appropriate “fashion” FOR women.

But, until the advent of the swinging sixties, women’s clothing was created deliberately to restrict women, to create an illusion of helplessness, to deliberately make women appear without too much effort, being physically incapable of……….well too much physical exertion. Of course the other aspect of this camouflage of clothing oneself in layers, was so that unwrapping a woman was akin to unwrapping a precious gift, and not to be done lightly, clothing that restricted access was part of creating the illusion that these fragile, delicate special creatures were only to be revealed in all her wondrous beauty, by he who had won the right to such beneficence.

Then came feminism, or women’s liberation as it was first called way back in those swinging sixties, the first mistake that feminists made was to declare the very things that kept and sustained the Myth of Womanhood © alive “oppressive” and to discard first the restrictive clothing that apparently was imposed upon women by men. Mary Quant, the designer who brought us the mini skirt obviously had some patriarchal swine looming over her as she chopped 24 inches off her skirt patterns.

Now that the oppressive packaging had been discarded, it was time to discard the next illusion, that what was wrapped up in this pretty packaging was no longer a gift to be bestowed upon a worthy champion. This was now repackaged as “a right” the right to give access to whomsoever this now liberated creature wished.  Social approbation, social taboo’s, disapproval and ostracism from polite society were yet another restrictive coercive device of the mythical patriarchy, therefore was to be rejected in favour of liberation. The device by which this new liberation, this new sexual freedom was predicated upon? The Pill.

Over the last 50 years or so, every last semblance of the artefacts that sustained, informed and supported the Myth of Womanhood © have been discarded, no longer do women choose to restrict their behaviours or clothing, no longer the need for a carefully cultivated illusion of fragile and delicate femininity, no longer even a lip service paid to an illusion of a well spoken, softly modulated voice.

All gone – in favour of loud, coarse and unrestricted freedom to say whatever you like, in whatever tone or pitch you like – no longer a subtle or provocation glimpse of a well turned ankle to inflame the passion of a suitable knight errant. One can now stride down the public street naked, carrying a banner declaring oneself proud to be a slut.

So, back to Ms. Bruce and her demand for a return to a state of male female interactions that rested on the carefully and assiduously created illusion of the Myth of Womanhood ©. She appears to want men to once more put on their rose coloured spectacles ,once more  to look upon this now, stripped bare to her essential nature, literally and figuratively, creature, and to buy into the illusions that women once depended on to lure, attract and utilise mates who would protect, provide, cherish and adore this delicate, fragile creature.

Alas Ms. Bruce, an illusion once shattered is gone forever, a paradigm shift once made, cannot be unmade, nor can a person pick up those rose coloured spectacles and view something that has been shown to BE an illusion as anything other than an illusion.

What Ms. Bruce has abysmally failed to comprehend is that not only was it women who created and cultivated the original illusion, in order to garner the requisite responses and protection and provisioning from men, it was women who deliberately tore down those illusions, who dismantled that framework of ploys, and artefacts that sustained the illusion.

Now, she wants men to return to a state of ascribing to an illusion that no longer exists, on the basis that the architects and proponents of that illusion still do, exist that is.  Even as they act and behave in ways that are in direct opposition to a now defunct and shattered illusion?

Really? There is no going back, there can be no going back, there will never be a time when men will en mass subscribe to the notion that women are delicate, fragile, special creatures to whom one owes (if one is a man) unearned respect, that one must cherish, protect and provide for, and perhaps the most laughable of all – adore – simply for existing.

Women like Tammy Bruce, and feminists in general are in a rage, a fever of outrage and anger, some like Bruce express it as a plea for a return to a time when men were still under the spell, some express it with great vitriol and rage, but all are incensed that men now, have no reluctance in expressing their contempt, derision and scorn FOR women.

THAT is what feminists and women in general are outraged about – men NOT playing their parts and continuing to subscribe to an illusion that not only did women create, but women destroyed, and have unmasked themselves as what they really are – human beings with flaws, with negative traits, with not so nice characteristics, just like men.

Except men, and some women, will self reflect, will honestly give themselves an internal audit and make decisions about what they might need to work on, but most of all, will take responsibility for their own actions and behaviours.

Feminists and a lot of women won’t – and it is not a case that they CANNOT – but they WILL NOT. Because of all the illusions that feminism shattered – (and women gleefully took up the mantle of the idea that women are “empowered” are “strong independent” autonomous beings) – being the helpless creature who lives under the coercive power of some man – is and always was the biggest illusion.

Ladies – you ARE on your own – there is nothing stopping you – everything you ever wished for – is yours, including self-determination and accountability.

THAT is what men who hold you in contempt and derision, who pour scorn on your doings, your witterings and spewings are doing.  Giving you what you demanded. Holding you accountable. Treating you as an independent autonomous adult human being.

Welcome to the real world girls.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

I Think I Might Be A………….Misogynist!

 

Apparently hating women “misogyny” is a baaaaaaad thing – thou shalt not hate women.  In fact according to feminists hating women – being a misogynist – is absolutely the worst possible thing you can be.

Must be why it is right up there in their top ten of the “worst things a man can be” Which actually creates a bit of a dilemma……..for me……a woman – when it comes to “hating women” that is.

Let me explain, to all intents and purposes when feminists use the word women, they are talking about ALL women, a collective, not individuals as such, I mean if I said I hated “Jane Doe” up the road because of, this and this and this, I might actually have legitimate grounds for my feelings of antipathy towards the wretch.

So, when feminists use the collective – “women” – one can only surmise that they mean women in general, therefore, one must base one’s own assessment of what women in general are like, to reach a conclusion as to whether one hates them as a collective or not.

Here is where myself and feminists diverge, because feminists start from the default position that ALL women are angelic and special creatures who are incapable of doing wrong, whereas MY experience, in the REAL WORLD, informs me that until proven otherwise MOST women are arseholes.

In fact MOST women are obnoxious, nasty, whiny pains in the arse, it is the exception rather than the rule, that one comes across a female person who does not set ones teeth on edge with her intense stupidity. Or makes one feel like sticking a fork in one’s eyeball to distract one from the pain of listening to her whine and whinge and complain about the most trivial things as if they were epic disasters.  Or brings one to the brink of literally starting to lose the will to live if trapped in “conversation” with one for any sustained length of time – 20 minutes is usually all I personally can endure – in the company of the “average woman” (I am a person of extremely limited patience for inane bullshit)

Ok – do I hate these women? Not really, to be honest couldn’t be bothered hating them AS individuals, but do I hate what they are? What they represent, how they all appear to be moulded from the same asinine material, how they invariably sound like clones of one another?

Oh God – yes!

The thing is when having to endure any 20 minute period of time trapped in “conversation” with one of these creatures I have kind of reached the point where, I can see their lips moving, I am conscious that they must actually be forming words and articulating them, but my brain has usually shut down, and my mind has wandered off somewhere more interesting, and all I actually hear is – blah blah blah blah.

What I actually hate is that I will never get those 20 minutes back – and objectively, that ire is directed at the vacuous fool who stole those minutes from me. I cannot really say that I hate this person as an individual, because first there is very little individuality manifested within that amorphous group known as “women” and secondly an individual human being generally has some features, some aspect of personality that distinguishes them from OTHER individuals – but with “women” there is this clone thing going on, they are interchangeable, can’t tell one from the other, close your eyes and every conversation is the same, every thought is the same, every topic is the same, the same words, the same phrases, the same whines, the same EVERYTHING.

Even when they are different, they are the same, the packaging might be varied, the externals might be slightly varied, but…………within their different “types” from the girly, giggly airheads, to the ranty shrieky in your face feminists, it’s the same song, just played with a different set of instruments and in a different tempo.

Which brings me finally to this, under the above criteria, I must admit, that with very very few exceptions I hate women – ergo I must be a misogynist! Crikey!

What will really piss feminists off is this – I am entitled to – how I feel, to what my opinion of “women” as a collective is, and how I choose to express that feeling or opinion – IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.

If you don’t like it? Tough.

If you want to get your knickers in a knot about it – go ahead, wear yourself out, and by the way, you should invest 50 cents in a phone call – to someone who gives a rat’s arse.

Here’s the thing – “women” are not exempt from being despised, loathed, disliked or even hated simply because they happen to BE women – and if someone has cast an eye over “women” and decided he/she doesn’t like what they see, not only is that none of your damn business, you DON’T get a say – you DON’T get to pitch a fit and assume that you as an individual have been egregiously insulted, have been somehow maligned unfairly, have cause to throw the mother of all tantrums because someone, who you don’t know, have never met, but happens to be also in possession of a uterus and ovaries has experienced some negative opinion or assessment. In essence, apparently if you insult one woman, you insult them all! Boo bloody hoo.

I should say something about misandry here, hatred of men – the difference between accusations of misogyny directed at men and misandry, also directed at men – is that very very few men actually hate women – they hate what women have become, they hate how women behave, they hate how women treat them, as men, but hate them? Nope.

Women and feminists on the other hand come right out and say – I/WE HATE MEN, as men. Not because of anything that men have done (except in their own fevered and over active imaginations) not because of what men are actually like, but simply because they are men.

The evidence for the vile, obnoxious and nasty behaviour of women on the other hand is overwhelming – it spews out of their mouths and from their keyboards in a constant stream, it manifests itself in courts every day in every Western state, it is codified in legislation, in public policy and it saturates our cultures and societies.

The misogyny that women/feminists accuse men of is mostly manufactured from thin air, the misandry is in the very air we breathe.

Odd, isn’t it, that both accusations of misogyny and manifestations of misandry are invariably directed AT men, with one being designed to shame men, and the other………………also being designed to shame men, AS men.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

The Patriarchy Made Me Do it.

 

One of the touchstones of feminism is that it absolves all women from all accountability for their actions and can be summed up in the title of this essay – The Patriarchy made me do it” – from the relatively benign (nagging) to the most lethal (murder).

In any civilised society the murder of innocents should be met with universal approbation and universal condemnation, and there is none more innocent than a newborn infant is there? Herod is oft used as an example of the evil of men; he slaughtered thousands of innocent babes, in an effort to make sure just one died.  When one reads of tyrants and despots who have also killed the innocent, the word slaughter is the one invariably used – because it describes the sheer horror and loathing attached to this most evil of deeds.

The Slaughter of Innocents. The killing of babies.

What one will notice though, is that this most pejorative of terms is only used when men kill babies, when women kill babies, other words are used, words that place a distance between the act and the one who carried out this act. In fact, when women kill, the reluctance to focus blame or condemnation upon the heads of these women culminates in one overarching and all encompassing……..excuse.

The Patriarchy Made me Do it.

Since time immemorial, the patriarchy has been forcing women into committing heinous acts of barbarity, and so therefore when a female commits such an act – yes you’ve guessed it – it is the fault of this all powerful patriarchy. So it is that modern feminism has utilised this powerful coercive force as a catch all overarching alternative culprit for the acts of women that fly in the face of civilised behaviour.

Who are, or what is this all powerful patriarchy? Why it is men, all men, acting in concert, bound together with one overriding purpose – to enslave, to disempower, to oppress, to coerce ALL women into bending to the will of the all powerful patriarchy – the collective power of men over women.

Which is rather odd, when one considers, that with regard to that most abhorrent of all abhorrent acts, the slaughter of babies – newborn infants – that it was this all powerful patriarchy which introduced in 1922 (amended in 1938) in Great Britain, similarly in Canada and Australia and in 1949 in Ireland, these Infanticide Acts, which sought to absolve any woman who killed her newborn infant from full culpability for this act of murder, by making it NOT murder, not slaughter, not really her fault. From The Enactment of an Irish Infanticide Act  by Karen Brennan.

“In 1922, an infanticide statute was enacted in England and Wales. The Infanticide Act 1922 was later amended in 1938 to accommodate the killing of infants up to the age of 12 months, allowing a woman who wilfully killed her infant to be charged with/convicted of infanticide, an offence akin to manslaughter in terms of seriousness and punishment, notwithstanding that she would otherwise be guilty of murder, provided that at the time of killing the balance of her mind was disturbed by the effect of childbirth or lactation.1

The Irish Parliament followed suit in 1949. The Infanticide Act 1949 drew extensively on the English example, allowing a woman who murdered her infant to be tried for/convicted of infanticide where she “by any wilful act or omission caused the death of her child” aged under 12 months while “the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child”.2

Where a woman was sent for trial for or convicted of infanticide she would be tried and punished as if she had been charged with or convicted of manslaughter.3 Importantly, this meant she would be tried at the Circuit Criminal Court, a court of lower criminal jurisdiction, and would be subject to a flexible sentencing regime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Numerous other jurisdictions have adopted similar measures. (4)”

(4) For example Canada, Hong Kong, Fiji, New South Wales and Victoria have all enacted similar measures.

 One of the first things one should note are the years – we are talking about a period in time when according to feminism was the zenith of patriarchal oppression of women, a period of time that precedes that oft quoted period when women were apparently chained in kitchens, enslaved by men, and to all intents and purposes voiceless – the 1950’s. This oppression of course was ongoing, was a historical fact, the 1950’s being that period in time when women started to fight against these oppressive patriarchal chains.

But with regard to the killing of babies by their mothers, surely these acts were so rare that  legislation was unnecessary, surely in the rare instances that a woman killed her newborn the mechanisms for dealing with such acts was already incorporated into the statute books, after all, even a woman who killed her newborn infant was entitled to a defence?

Between the years 1927 – 1949 in Ireland a total of 1,158 babies died, of those, 167 were over I year old, 135 were under 1 year old, and 856 were classified as Concealment of Birth cases (COB) a lesser charge, but nonetheless these babies died. At the hands of their mothers.

Over a period of 22 years, a little over 52 babies died every year – at the hands of their mothers. Approximately one per week, every week, for 22 years.

Figures from Table A page 52 The Enactment of an Irish Infanticide Act.

In her paper Punishing Infanticide in the Irish Free State, Dr Karen Brennan examines how a sample (124) of these women were punished through:

“The impact of patriarchal ideologies and pragmatic considerations on sentencing practice in cases of infanticide is explored, particularly in regard to the use of religious institutions. One of the questions considered is whether the approach to sentencing women convicted of infanticide offences was a unique product of the patriarchal, conservative, catholic, and nationalist philosophies of the Irish Free State, or whether sentencing practice in these cases reflects wider trends in the response to female criminality which have been identified elsewhere.”

Throughout her paper Brennan focuses on not just the prevailing attitudes within Irish society that apparently led to these women killing their babies, but naturally enough presents us with a smokescreen of obfuscation, sleight of academic hand, and deliberate misdirection to emphasis:

“…..that in order to avoid a prison term many women had to abide by a particularly onerous condition which, among other things, involved a deprivation of liberty. Indeed, when convent disposals are taken into consideration, it can be said that 75% of infanticide-related convictions resulted in a form of detention.”

Page 17

In fact, further along in her paper, having expanded on her theme of focusing on the supposed main issues “sexual immorality” relating to the act of women killing their newborn infants, she wraps up with this in relation to these women being sent to convents and religious institutions to:

“…be “doubly oppressive” because their objective is to re-socialise the offender to conform to “traditional female roles”.140”

What she is talking about is that Irish judges were reluctant to send women to prison, in fact both Irish judges and juries, prosecutors were also almost all reluctant to charge women with murder at all. Incorporated into the Infanticide Act was a mechanism for a lesser charges of Manslaughter, Concealment of Birth and child abandonment/child cruelty and the general practice of sending these “offenders” to convents or religious institutions for a maximum of three years, as punishment, for killing their babies: Brennan explores this in her paper. One presumes that part of the re-socialisation process might include some focus on NOT killing your newborn infant?

“This article explores sentencing of women convicted of infanticide offences at the Central Criminal Court between 1922 and 1949. A sample of 124 cases involving women who had been convicted of manslaughter, concealment of birth, or child abandonment/child cruelty, after appearing at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of murdering their newly or recently born infant, is examined.

The sentences imposed in this sample mainly include short prison terms, suspended prison sentences, and conditional discharges/probation. It will be argued that the limited use of imprisonment, particularly in cases involving manslaughter convictions, indicates that Irish judges took a lenient approach to sentencing in cases of maternal infanticide. The court records show that a notable aspect of sentencing practice in these Irish infanticide cases is the use of non-penal religious institutions, mostly convents, as an alternative to traditional custody.”

Introduction.

But what does Brennan really focus on in her paper? What is it that exercises her mind, rather than of course the deaths of newborn infants at the hands of their mothers? or is that one of those “traditional female roles”?

“The focus on traditional standards and the perceived link between public morals and the security of the Irish nation had a particular impact on women.14 Ecclesiastical and political discourse constructed an idealised Irish woman, one who, by being pure, passive, self-sacrificing, and domestic, would support the state’s efforts to develop the fledgingnation and help defend it against the forces of modern influence.15 Particular importance was placed on the virtue of Irish women.

It seems that a view emerged which identified sexual immorality in females as posing a threat, not only to the family, but also to the stability of the new nation.16 One group of women attracted particular attention in the state’s drive towards national purity: the unmarried mother.

These women represented the antithesis of the idealised version of womanhood presented by state and church officials and were thought to pose a particular danger to the nation’s morality.17 Thus, although motherhood was idealised by politicians and church-men alike, “the female body and the maternal body, particularly in its unmarried condition, became a central focus of concern to the state and the Catholic Church”.18”

Page 3

She places a huge amount of emphasis on “increasing disquiet about sexual morality” comes back over and over again to:

“Strong cultural disapproval of illegitimacy and sexual immorality meant unmarried mothers potentially faced familial condemnation and alienation from the community, as well as unemployment and economic hardship. Double standards in sexual morality allowed men to avoid responsibility.19”

Eventually concluding Section II – Gender Ideology of the Irish Free State, with this summary, bearing in mind that the ostensible subject of her paper is Infanticide in Ireland. Without once mentioning the immorality of killing your newborn baby.

“In summary, as a result of cultural and ideological views, unmarried motherhood was largely unacceptable in the Irish Free State. From the state’s point of view, it appears that the solution to the issue of unmarried motherhood was to tacitly support institutionalisation of problematic women, for such periods as would ensure their reform and, in some cases, protect society against moral contagion.”

Indeed, the notion that these “problematic women” who killed their babies should be “institutionalised” is the patriarchy in all its evil action against innocent women.

What is clear though from a reading of both papers is this – the killing of babies at the hands of their mothers is in effect irrelevant, because women only kill because of external factors, and those external factors can be summed up in one word – Patriarchy.  The second thing which is abundantly clear is that the notion that women should be punished for killing their babies is anathema – and even when they are punished – by being sent to convents or religious institutions for a maximum of three years, this is “doubly oppressive” apparently because it results in a “loss of liberty” she also continues to refer to these women as “unmarried mothers” in an obvious attempt to distract the reader from one salient and pertinent fact – they are not, and were not “mothers” or has she forgotten – they killed their babies.

Ironically, while Brennan bewails the “patriarchial gender ideologies” of that period in time – she fails to either notice, or deliberately ignores, that these “patriarchal gender ideologies” are the very reasons why women who killed their babies not just had available to them a legislative device (Infanticide Acts) for avoiding punishment for murder, but a judicial and institutional mechanism for literally allowing them to get away with murder. The theme here in these papers is that women who kill their babies should NOT be punished, at all, it is “inhumane” it is “doubly oppressive” and anyway:

The Patriarchy Made me Do it – 1,158 times – one baby a week, every week for 22 years. Has anything changed at all in the last 70 years? Anything?

Ask the feminists.

 

© Anja Eriud

 

They’re doing it Wrong……feminists that is.

 

I’ve just realised something, or rather something has crystallised, today’s young women are not really feminists, oh of course they call themselves feminists, some even have “certificates” to prove that they are feminists, but in reality, nope, NOT feminists.

In fact as I was pondering on this I took a trip over to the Counterfeminist and read this, posted on Friday, January 24, 2014  A Feminist Confirms that Non-Feminist and Anti-Feminist Amount to the Same which led me to this article, This Is What I Mean When I Say “White Feminism” by one ninjacate which led me to this blog called Battymamzelle.

You may have noticed that I have not posted link to the jezebel article (Fidelbogen has it on his post)

And is she ever – batty that is.

Her post is one long rant about what she characterises as “white feminism” and how “white feminism” does not serve the needs of “women of colour”

She is quite scathing about “white feminism” and basically announces that because she is a “woman of colour” she wins the victim and oppression Olympics – hands down. No contest.

In her post she has constructed a diagram, to graphically illustrate where everybody in the world stands – in relation to feminism, in particular “white feminism” which she dismisses thus:

“White feminism” does not mean every white woman, everywhere, who happens to identify as feminist. It also doesn’t mean that every “white feminist” identifies as white. I see “white feminism” as a specific set of single-issue, non-intersectional, superficial feminist practices. It is the feminism we understand as mainstream; the feminism obsessed with body hair, and high heels and makeup, and changing your married name. It is the feminism you probably first learned. “White feminism” is the feminism that doesn’t understand western privilege, or cultural context. It is the feminism that doesn’t consider race as a factor in the struggle for equality.”

 Ouch! In one fell swoop, Ms, Ninjacate has dismissed decades of feminist agitation, forests of feminist “writings” “studies” and “literature” from Betty Friedan to Cathy Brennan, from Susan B Anthony to Hilary Clinton. Wow! Well done Ms. Ninjacate. The comments on the post in jezebel clearly indicate that, stunned into almost comical paralysis by this, not one of them has the balls to disagree, to criticise, to take issue with this. Deer in headlights time.

This bit she emboldened, because it is IMPORTANT – got that – IMPORTANT.

“White feminism is a set of beliefs that allows for the exclusion of issues that specifically affect women of colour. It is “one size-fits all” feminism, where middle class white women are the mould that others must fit. It is a method of practicing feminism, not an indictment of every individual white feminist, everywhere, always.

 Now, before anyone thinks for single solitary second that I am about to launch into a defence of feminism, white, black green or otherwise – nope.  What I am going to say is this – the one thing that Ms, Ninjacate totally and utterly misses the point of is this.

FEMINISM IS IRRELEVANT.

Her obvious lack of cognitive ability shines through, because in her arrogance, she assumes that feminism IS the only prism, the only lens, the ONLY ideological perspective through which to view the world.

In fact, she compounds her philosophical error by assuming something else, that the world revolves around the perspectives of WOMEN. At all times, in all places, and without exception. Superficially this is true, but only because feminism has imposed itself onto and into the consciousness of the world, and weaselled its way into the fabric of our society and culture.

In reality, a lot of women don’t give a shit about “feminism” what they care about is sustaining a world that endorsees gynocentric policies and laws and a mindset that elevates being female into a superior form of human existence – for now, feminism facilitates that.

Ms. Ninjacate is also completely, totally and blindly obsessed with one thing and one thing only – HERSELF.

In fact, every single aspect of what comprises and contributes to the human being who calls herself battymamzelle, from her skin colour to the size of her ass, from how she feels about beyonce, to how men treat her is fodder for her complete and utter self absorption – all of which confirmsm that when it comes to being the ultimate victim of oppression – not only is batty the universal, cosmic representative pinnacle of oppression and  victimhood, but anyone who says otherwise needs to check their “white privilege” and of course is a racist.

Because you see she has cornered the market on oppression and victim hood, there is no way on God’s good earth that she could be, in any way shape or form, simply just a loudmouthed, arrogant, ridiculous and laughable caricature and a bit of an arsehole, nosirrebob – she has not one, but two magic shields which protect her. She is female and she is black/a woman of colour, whichever one suits you best, and you would choose for yourself – I care not.

I took a quick look at her manifesto – ok – I admit it – I laughed – it is beyond ridiculous – it is bizarre and laughable.

All this is neither here nor there, what is though, is this – feminism is fracturing – within the ranks of feminism there is chaos, there is confusion, there is a sense of chickens with their heads cut off running around desperately trying to find something to latch onto.  Some solid ground, some purpose, some meaning.

This example of but one feminist – though to be fair to batty – she apparently prefers the term “womanist” storming into jezzie, bitch slapping all those mealy mouthed “white feminists” into submission, the superficial, the inane, the banal, the privileged, and declaring herself to be the new face of feminism – excuse me – womanism – had me peeing myself laughing.

Because they all took it, they tippy toed around this harridan, they made obsequious little comments, they massaged her colossal ego, and they agreed! Yes indeed, they were all baaaaaaaaaaaaaadd, feminists.

ALL HAIL THE NEW ORACLE.

Funniest thing I’ve seen so far within the ranks of feminism – first they all dumbly accept the concept that the world is divided up into feminists, and everyone else, then they accept that AS “white feminists” they’ve been doing it all wrong.

She is partly right about one thing though –

“It is the feminism we understand as mainstream; the feminism obsessed with body hair, and high heels and makeup, and changing your married name. It is the feminism you probably first learned. “White feminism” is the feminism that doesn’t understand western privilege, or cultural context.”

Except, while they call it feminism, and might even believe that they are feminists, in actuality they are just gynocentric, hypergamous, self-absorbed, utterly vacuous nitwits, as soon as it is no longer to their advantage as WOMEN to attach the label feminism to themselves, they will find something else – maybe something called “womanism” perhaps?

What she calls “western privilege” is indicative of someone who hasn’t a clue about history, even a notion of how societies developed, and her inference of being a bit of an expert on “cultural context” equally shows her lack of knowledge in – how many areas of study can I think of – let’s see – history – anthropology – sociology – literature – economics – politics – law.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised though, especially when one is convinced that the world begins and ends at your feet, that the world and its history emanates basically from your own arsehole. The notion that the skin you happen to be wrapped up in somehow either privileges you, or oppresses you, with one being universally privileged, and the other being universally oppressed, and never the twain shall either overlap or even be reversed, is not just simplistic, it is arrogant, it is patently ridiculous and it is a load of bollox.

The fact that batty here assigns these categories of privileged – v – oppressed to only one type of human being – women – though one can see that regardless of which colour skin a man is wrapped in he is ALWAYS privileged is par for the course – after all batty IS A “WOMANIST”

Just so you know batty, I don’t think you’re an idiot because you are female, nor do I think you’re an idiot because you are a black/woman of colour female, I think you’re an idiot because – YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

You see, idiots come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, all sorts of colours and in all types of human beings – nothing and I mean nothing shields you from being an idiot, not race, not  gender, not ideology, not the size of your arse, or your mouth for that matter – only an idiot wouldn’t know that.

The ONLY thing that differentiates one from either being, or not being an idiot and an arsehole, is what goes on in that space between your ears, and what comes out of that hole in the middle of your face – or obviously, the method through which you disseminate what emanates from that space between your ears – such as keyboard or pen paper.

As for feminists having a bit of an identity crisis? Bummer!

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Them and Us.

 

What is the most divisive word in the English language? It is feminism.

When I say divisive, I mean in the sense that humanity is linguistically, ideologically, socially and culturally separated into “them” and “us

With “them” always being the lesser, the more troublesome, the ones who cause”us” problems, strain our minds with concerns and worries about what “they” will or won’t do – for “us

They” need to listen to “us” because “they” are not worth listening to. “They” need to accommodate “us”  ALL our wishes, wants, needs and whims.”

Do I really need to explain who comprises “they” and who comprises “us”?

I will anyway “they” are always men and boys – and “us” are always females, women and girls and the spokespersons for all of “us” apparently are feminists.

The underlying tenets of feminism go like this:

How “we “feel about “them” ranges along a spectrum – from outright hatred and vilification of “them” to a benign but rather condescending faux concern – especially if “they” are not fulfilling the functions that “they” have been assigned to fulfil by “us” – stepping outside the parameters of  those functions, that have been laid out by “us” for “them” is not to be tolerated.

Steps will be taken to ensure that “they” comply – that “they” will confine themselves to the roles as defined by “us” as acceptable for “them

What should be noted, is that feminists, never ever feel the need to consult the rest of “us” about their ”leadership”, their “theories” or in fact, if the vast majority of “us” would’ve voted them into these exalted positions of speaking for and behalf of ALL women and girls EVERYWHERE on this planet.

Within the period of a very short number years (historically speaking)– feminists became the defacto arbiters of all things female and male, and feminism became the defacto lens through which to view all things female and male.

I have two things to say about this. The first is obviously rude and ends in “Off” the next being a bit longer and directed at those of “us” who blindly, unthinkingly and without any real analysis of what exactly feminists claim about “us” but simply accept it.

For example, did you realise that according to the “received wisdom” of feminists and interminably repeated doctrine, the vast majority of “us” – females that is – are complete and utter morons, incapable of acting in any manner other than as passive, fragile, dependant, and to be blunt whiney toddlers?

With regard to the “received wisdom” that feminists lay claim to – this would be akin to the receipt of visions, of supernatural revelations, of psychic “feeeeeeeeeelings” that subsequently informs the “writings” the “literature” and the “studies” that have spewed out from the toxic and polluted well of feminism over a period of some 60 years.

Anyways, back to being morons.

Think about this, according to feminists, unless you (a female) get special help, special little boosts, YOU are incapable of achieving………….well anything really, on your own, under your own steam, and completely and totally on MERIT.

You have to be coddled, special arrangements have to be made, standards have to be lowered, you get to skate by on a biological fact over which neither you nor I had any control – being born with a uterus and ovaries.

Because apparently being in possession of said uterus and ovaries, sucks ANY innate intelligence, ability or competence right out of your brains. Ergo – according to feminists – speaking on behalf of “us” ALL women are morons – now, doesn’t THAT make you feel good about yourself.

We haven’t mentioned “them” yet though in relation to all this – yet. Time to look a bit deeper at it now.

In yesterdays post, I said that women are obsessed with men  – go on admit it – even if only to yourself – you know it’s true. In fact, since you were a girl, for a lot of you, finding your “soulmate” or “the one” or “the man of my dreams” was kinda uppermost in your mind.

If it helps – I’m a “girl” or at least I was – a long long time ago – so, yeah, I know.

Here’s the thing – and it’s another big fat hairy lie that feminists and feminism have told you – ALL women are fabulous, angelic, ethereal creatures of sublime beauty, almost saint like demeanour, and without a single flaw or blemish.

I’m going to pause for a minute here – so that you, if you are female, can go and take a good long hard look at yourself in a mirror – go on – I’ll wait.

To continue.

Well? What do you think? Perfection personified? Be honest now – what you saw was a human being, a female human being, no better or worse than MOST female human beings – fair enough if you’re in tip top shape and have buns of steel, but that, in and of itself isn’t really enough to achieve perfection, is it?  That’s just the package you came wrapped up in.

Because here’s the other thing, when “they” look at you, what do you think “they” see? If it is your buns of steel and are attracted to you on that basis, and you’re happy enough with that, then good for you.

Except – it isn’t enough is it? Being just a “pretty face” or a “fabulous body” really isn’t enough – is it? You want one of them to “adore you” to think that you are the “most wonderful woman on the planet

Well, according to feminists, that IS exactly what you all are – except – have you ever considered the possibility that “they” might have an opinion also, on this – on YOU?

To be blunt, absent a small coterie of equally brainwashed guys, (nice guys) the ones that you know in your heart and soul get on your bloody nerves – there is a huge contingent of guys, all over the world – who think that YOU and your fellow “special creatures” are – FULL OF SHIT.

In fact, some of them think that you are nasty, whiny, bitchy, horrible, brainless, slutty, screechy, ridiculous, pathetic, useless, shallow, vain, narcissistic BITCHES. By the way, yeah they’ll shag you, but that won’t change their underlying opinion – of YOU.

Also – there are a growing number of females – just like me – who think exactly the same way about – YOU.

Do I personally blame you?

YES, actually I do – because here’s what I think, unlike feminists, I DON’T believe that you are ALL morons – nope – I believe that you took on board the “I am special message” of your own free will, exercising your own agency because it suits you – because you wanted to, because you CHOSE to.

Go back and look in that mirror again – go on – except this time – look deeper – look beyond the surface – look right into yourself.  What do you see, now?

The big lie that feminists and feminism told you was this, that feminists and feminism gets to dictate not just what women feel, think and believe, but that this applies to men also – eeeeemmm nope – men actually make their own minds up – men look at you and form their own opinion, reach conclusions based on their own observations – MEN will cast an eye over YOU – and find YOU wanting.

Everything feminists and feminism tells you about men is – WRONG – completely and utterly WRONG – a lie, in fact a complete load of bollox.

THEY don’t need feminists or feminism to spin them fairytales, to hand them a line of bullshit, to wait for someone else to tell them what to think, what to believe, what to feel – about women – THEY just have to take a long hard look at what you REALLY are – AND they do.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

I Hate Brussels Sprouts.

 

Does that mean  I am a vegesoginyst?  That I hate ALL vegetables?  Perhaps even worse I just hate green vegetables? Which would make me a greenist as well.

There are about 7 billion people on this planet, give or take a few million, statistically females roughly outnumber males by about 53% – 47%.  So we’re talking about say 420 million (ish) more females than males. On to Misogyny so.

Now, when feminists talk about misogyny, which they hurl as the ultimate put down – of a man – they are saying he HATES ALL WOMEN.

All women? Everywhere? That’s 4 billion females you’ve got to hate. That’s a lot of hating going on.

The other thing to remember is this – hate is a powerful emotion – when I say I hate Brussels sprouts, this means I will NOT eat one. Ever. But, I don’t hunt them down, nor am I engaged in a campaign to have all Brussels sprouts destroyed, to put a stop to the growing of, and selling of Brussels Sprouts to anyone else. Nor do I have a hissy fit if I happen to be in the company of someone enjoying one of these awful vegetables.

How about misogyny? To be a real misogynist, one who really really hates women, all women, wouldn’t that mean you’d spend your entire life avoiding ANY contact, at all, WITH WOMEN – all women, bearing in mind your hatred of all things female.

So, when it comes to feminists and/or women in general, hurling this insult at men, it is an odd thing to say, because allied with the “you just hate women” you’re a misogynist thing – is usually and inevitably, the “you just can’t get laid”  insult.

Excuse me? If someone hates women, why on earth would he ever want to have sex with one? In fact why would this MISOGYIST want to have anything to do with females – AT ALL.

Now before you all start with the whole “but men who hate women rape them, ‘cos hatred, power, dominance….. get a grip – if all the men that all you screechy ranty feminists claim are misogynists AND rapists – which the rantiest, screechiest ones among you do claim– and were raping women right left and centre – wouldn’t it make sense that the world would be divided up into female places, males places, wouldn’t there be an ongoing constantly monitoring system in place preventing all this random raping and hating going on? In effect a society that kept men and women APART.

For an interesting and thought provoking analysis of this, go take a look at emma the emo’s blog post Why do rapists rape? For power or sex? Let’s ask a rapist! Posted on December 20, 2012, on this topic here.

Then when you’ve read that, pop over to AVfM and take a read of this powerful article How some feminist shaming tactics discredit feminist theory, January 20, 2014, By Karen Straughan (aka GirlWritesWhat)

Anyway, moving on, and the “every man on the planet is both a misogynist and a creep who can’t get laid”, thing.

Look around you, in places of work, stores, coffee shops, cinemas, bowling alleys, schools, parks, zoo’s, everywhere you look, men and women, just going about their own business, interacting, talking to one another, laughing together, eating and working together. One would think that none of this would be happening, and in fact, men and women generally just get on with it. Yes, tense situations arise, aggravation happens and unpleasant atmospheres get created, in all sort of situations.

But, the simple fact is, the only people who create any tension, any aggravation, any unpleasant atmosphere, any drama, in most places – the kinds that make most normal people uncomfortable, of the “I wish she would just shut the fuck up” kind, are WOMEN.

It is not an exaggeration to say, that a female entering any space, be it an elevator, or sitting in front of a couple of guys at a conference, immediately raises the social tension level to….”we have just passed uncomfortable, and are now entering the on tenterhooks” phase. Which, if you think about it, is very strange.

Women are obsessed with men, I’m not kidding, women ARE obsessed with men. Take a look at the millions of books, films and TV programmes, at the millions of women’s magazines, blogs and articles – there is one topic that exercises the minds of the vast majority of women. MEN.

Now, I’ve heard all the crap about how women are forced to dress in certain ways, apply make up, diet themselves into starvation, spend thousands of Dollars and Euros and whatever other currency you like, on shoes, as some kind of punishment inflicted upon them BY men.

So, let me see, in lonely one bed apartments and flats, in the privacy of their own homes, women everywhere all over this planet wake up every morning to a man – holding in one hand, the outfit HE demands SHE wear that day, and in the other the shoes SHE MUST  wear, that day – or else.

You are forced into the bathroom, pushed down onto a stool and commanded to slap all sorts of chemicals onto your face, into your hair and then weighed to make sure you have not gone over your allocated weight?

With regard to all this – shops and malls must either be bereft of women, or one only see’s women accompanied by a man who is pointing dictatorially at the items he wishes you to purchase? Hair salons and nail salons are teeming with men, standing over women instructing the hairdresser or nail person which way HE wishes HIS woman’s hair and nails to look?

Even without going and finding and linking to shed loads of references, citations and what not, you all know, in your heart and souls – that this –  “men force women what to wear, what weight to be, how to do their hair and exactly which pair of ridiculous ankle breaking torture devices known as shoes they MUST put on their feet, EVERY DAY”

Is without any qualification, the biggest crock of shit – EVER.

I was in hospital last year, went in as a kind of emergency – I’m grand – so was more or less admitted in the clothes I stood up in – or rather was laying down in.

I needed “stuff” so I asked a male friend to go get me some “stuff” to whit – knickers and pyjamas – he went white, at the thought of having to go into “that part” of the shop – would get me anything else – shampoo, a towel, socks, a good book, but anything with even the slightest girly element to it? Nope. To be fair to him, what he said was “I wouldn’t have a clue what to get, and I would be a bit embarrassed going up to pay for knickers – “women’s knickers” some bloody patriarchal sod he is, you’d think he would KNOW, seeing as how, MEN are the ones who dictate to WOMEN all of the stuff I outlined above?

My female friend, who arrived later on that day, had it all sorted – I had texted – “I need some “stuff” she texted back “no problem. End of text conversation.

Anyways – in relation to misogyny and men hating women – for being women – or alternatively men dictating TO women, how they MUST be, how they must present themselves to the world – I have a theory.

It’s to do with shoes. In my misspent youth, I admit I did wear the kinds of shoes that in no way shape or form were ever designed for actual WALKING. Over a relatively short period of time, I came to the conclusion – sod this – my feet are killing me – I’m bloody crippled – and walking a short distance from there to there is torture – so – I wear shoes that by anybody’s (women’s) standards are boring and unfashionable, and you’ll never guess what?

Never once, in about 25 – 30 years has any member of the patriarchy police hauled me into a cold and scary room, shone a single glaring light in my eyes and interrogated me as to why I am NOT obeying the rules of men, and wearing the “right kind of shoes”?

I haven’t stepped inside a hair salon, in about the same period of time, possibly longer – with one exception – for some reason, about 10 years ago, I decided to get my hair dyed a sort of reddish brown – needless to say it was a disaster. Same as above – no midnight banging on the door, no being hauled in by the patriarchy police.

Ok – this is just between me and thee – the last time I “got my hair done” was in the 1970’s, it was a “perm” – everybody had a “perm” – it WAS the ‘70’s – as my sods of brothers said – and when I say, “said” – I mean in between falling around the place laughing – “you look like one of the Hair Bear Bunch” it WAS the ‘70’s!

So anyways, I’m shocked I have to say – where are ALL these bad men?

The ones who feminists and women bewail and write endlessly, and it must be said boringly about? how society – meaning men – FORCE women to dress in certain ways, look certain ways? Where are they?

My theory? Only WOMEN who think shoes disguised as torture devices, hair crap, and farting about with different “styles” and obsessing about weight, can be called misogynists – because you must really hate women if you can spend so much time, energy and money promoting, gushing about, wittering on about, and dictating to OTHER women that they MUST, positively MUST have the latest, whatever.

You’re all also environmental shits, because by my estimation, it takes the equivalent of a small forest every day to produce all the crap, that women write, about all the crap, that women MUST have.

PS. Sigh – if you are female and you either like or want to dress in the equivalent of a hankie in minus 10 degree weather, wear shoes that are ridiculous, dye your hair in colours that defy genetics, whatever, FINE, do that, but for fucks sake, shut up about it.

NB. Adapted from a really REALLY long rant, (was up to about 6,000 words) about shoes, Brussels Sprouts, women magazines, hairdressers, the ‘70’s, brothers, feminists, Rom Com’s, Sarah Jessica Parker, Sex in the City, Fifty Shades of bullshit, was looooooooooooog.

© Anja Eriud 2014

The Price of Everything, The Value of Nothing.

 

 

Maybe some of you have heard that expression, my mother used to say it as a warning, a warning to guard against seeing the world through the acquisition of things, of measuring or valuing yourself and others by all the shiny stuff you had.  Inevitably those who could afford the latest gadgets, fashions, and had reached all sort of worldly goals, would cloak themselves in the aura of these things as a mark of how much better than others they were.

She did have a less kind way of expressing this – especially in relation to women – “the fur coat and no knickers brigade” The inference, as I’m sure you’ve guessed being that, the fur coat was acquired because of the no knickers fashion statement. The modern late 20th and early 21st century way, and feminism’s way of playing out this scenario, is through the mechanism of “self-esteem”

To esteem something is to hold it, or him/her in high regard, to place a large value on it. If one esteems something, one vests that thing or person with great worth.

The other element of this pertains to the parameters through which one estimates, calculates and quantifies said value or worth. What criteria one uses.  The thing is, if we are talking about a person, then that person must have done or achieved something to EARN such a high worth estimation, to have such a high value placed on them through their achievement(s) or action(s), or perhaps talent(s). 

For example, Leonardo Da Vinci is esteemed among the great painters, because in the opinion of many, among the many great painters he is considered the greatest. Likewise such luminaries as Thomas Edison, Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, even two of my own favourites, William Wilberforce and Bob Geldof.

All these people GAVE something to the world at large, something that bestowed a benefit on OTHERS.  What sets them apart from others in relation to the high esteem in which they are held, is that they EARNED that estimation.  The other thing to note is that without exception, they all had human flaws; they were not perfect people, saints in mortal form, just human beings who did something extraordinary FOR others.

Which brings us to this concept of “self-esteem”

Apparently having low “self-esteem” is a bad thing, it means that you don’t place a high enough value on yourself.  You have weighed yourself in the balance, estimated your own worth, and put too low a price on it. In addition, there is no requirement on your part to DO anything, to achieve anything, to bestow some benefit on others – nope – all one has to do is exist.  Your value, your worth comes just from – being.

Analogous to this of course is, that just from being, from existing – one is entitled, by right to hold yourself in “high esteem” no longer is one required to earn this “high esteem” from others, no longer is one required to wait, to hope, to especially, earn from one’s efforts, in whatever sphere, the result, that others will reward one, with a generous gift of “esteem” as a mark of how highly valued those efforts are viewed.

This too is longer a requirement – in fact – according to received wisdom from our favourite experts (feminists) on all things – temporal, spiritual, animal vegetable and mineral – others OWE you a default estimation of HIGH esteem, especially if you are female – if you enter this world with a uterus and ovaries. In fact, it would be no lie to say, that this ONLY applies to women. Men are exempt from having “self-esteem”.

Is it just me or this seem just a tad…………ridiculous? More than a little…………bizarre?

Not too long ago a feeeemale calling herself……”Hot Piece” (I’m not kidding – go look) took issue with  Matt Forney, who wrote a piece entitled The Case Against Female Self-Esteem: September 16, 2013, which garnered 2,459 Comments.

Matt Forney’s article was a tour de force, and the comments were hilarious – though it was really the Censorbot.

To give you an example of the twisted and frankly deluded thinking (though thinking is a bit of a stretch) that some females employ to justify their right to unlimited buckets of unearned “self-esteem” take a look at this. Her opening salvo.

“The world could not survive on masculinity alone. We need people to teach our children. We need people to support a family emotionally, and that’s just not something that men are traditionally good at. Without women to provide that, we’d be living in an angry, emotionally unstable world — NOT that women can’t have high-powered jobs, or that they have to find themselves in traditionally feminine roles, of course. The point is, traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine roles BOTH need to be fulfilled, regardless by whom, or the world couldn’t work.”

I’m guessing you saw what she did there? Shall I translate – women and their awesomeness, and emotionally healthy and sanctified selves, are absolutely crucial to…….the world, because men are ignorant, angry, emotionally unstable barbarians. Women = good, men BAAAAAAAAAAD.  Worship at the feet of the golden uterus you savages.

I should also point out, that she read the Forney article but she didn’t READ it, hence why, in reply to an article entitled The Case Against Female Self-Esteem, she emmmm didn’t actually “get it” Nope, that quote came  close to the start of her “critique” one does have to establish the proper order of things first, after all.

The problem according to feminists is that if women feel bad about themselves this is – well is a bad thingWomen are exempt from “feeling bad about themselves” excluded from having their value or worth as human beings questioned, criticised, held in anything less than high esteem.  Regardless of what they do, say, or cause to be done. Conversely men are exempt from feeling good about THEMselves.

In fact, if something that a woman does actually causes any other person harm, discomfort, pain, anguish or even to suffer injustice, it the fault of THAT person, especially if it is a man – to do otherwise is to cause a loss of self-esteem in a woman, to make her feel bad about herself – and as we know – making a woman feel bad about herself is a crime against humanity of epic proportions, and NOT to be borne.

Feminists also equate self-confidence as the obverse side of the self-esteem coin – if one has confidence in one’s own abilities, regardless of whether or not that confidence is misplaced or patently ridiculous, due to a lack of talent in said abilities – then others are obliged to reward this self-confidence, misplaced or not – with even more buckets of self –esteem top-ups, also shiny gold stars in the form of positions of authority and responsibility, in the form of gifts, large salaries, and in the form of some “extra” benefits to reward this self-confident woman, for sharing this heady mix of vaunting self-confidence and cosmic self-esteem, on others.

Because you see, yet again, the withholding of these things mentioned above might lead to not just a loss of self-esteem, which we know is a BAD THING – for a woman – but might, almost as egregiously shatter her self-confidence, a very very bad thing. For a woman.

Men do not get any gold stars, for anything – to do so would make some woman, somewhere feel bad about herself.

It is NOT TO BE BORNE.  The pinnacle of achievement for a woman, by right, is to feel GOOD about herself, at all times, in all circumstances, and without any regard whatsoever for the consequences upon others, that reaching this pinnacle of feeling GOOD about herself – might cause.

This next quote lays out why women not just have and deserve to have huge self- esteem, but also buckets of self-confidence, because of their innate awesomeness. Though in this instance, “Hot Piece” might just suffer from that “over confidence I talked about earlier.  The essence of the Forney article was that “you ain’t all that and NO, I don’t want to fuck you, just because you’re there. 

“Confidence doesn’t mean that a woman doesn’t have the capacity to feel that her man enhances her life. It just means that she knows she deserves the positive influences he has over her, and that — more importantly — if he were suddenly not to be in her life any more, she could easily find a different man, if not as good, better, to replace him. If that mindset is a turn-off to you, to know that you’re replaceable, that speaks not to her confidence, but to your own insecurity.”

See what I mean, she doesn’t get it, she is confusing, narcissism, self-absorption, selfishness and overweening egotism and vanity with “self-esteem” and “confidence” one of the things that women believe they are entitled to by right, is the unswerving and automatic adoration of men, at all times. Men who do not automatically subscribe to this worldview are crippled by “insecurity” which is a handy way of keeping your “self-esteem” intact and striding out to go shopping for a new man, to replace the one who just left…..because of his “insecurity” till of course, the shelves seem to be bare and new candidates are thin on the ground.  This is then because ALL men are bastards, and you are still awesome.

 

In a parallel universe populated by persons with the intellectual abilities of sea slugs, and the moral compass of sociopaths THIS would make perfect sense.

Oh. Wait………….damn!

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

The Myth of Womanhood ™

 

Women have some serious fundamental problems,  with….well being women, and it has all to do with the cult of The Myth of Womanhood.™ Collectively known as feminism.

And progress. Technological, cultural, legal, and societal changes that have accelerated exponentially since the dawn of the industrial age.

And knowledge. In essence, almost universal education and the growing availability of information at the click of mouse.

In order to sustain a myth one needs a culture of ignorance and a means to control those who would question that myth – a bit like the child in the fairy tale who exclaimed “the emperor has no clothes!”.  One small lone voice in a sea of silenced and, coerced into submissive acceptance, voices.

One also needs one other thing in order to sustain a myth, a willingness on the part of others to believe this myth.

Perhaps the most well known of people in history who have suffered as a result of questioning  a myth, or in this case a religious belief has been Galileo Galilei 15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642, generally just known as Galileo, and referred to as the father of Modern science.

He challenged a myth/belief, not out of a sense of wanting to be “ornery” but because he discovered that the myth/belief was untrue. So, in a desire to correct an error of belief he shared what he had discovered. This is what happened to him.

“Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy“, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.

 He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.

 His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.”

You will note that Galileo lived a long long time ago. Centuries passed, centuries in which everything that Galileo had said was proved to be true, in fact universally accepted by everyone, not just in the scientific community but in the wider world, one would have thought then, that those, the keepers of the original myth/belief would have conceded the truth he discovered, and made things right? Apologised profusely and redeemed Galileo unequivocally?

Alas, those who proclaim themselves the keepers of myths are not so gracious.

“On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI)

“The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.”

“It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views.

Another keeper of the myth went just a tad further a couple of years later – but just a tad.

“On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei…………………….A month later, however, the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi, revealed that the plan to erect a statue of Galileo in the grounds of the Vatican had been suspended.”

This is all very well and good I hear you thinking, but what has this to do with feminism and the Myth of Womanhood? ™

It illustrates perfectly what feminists believe that their ideology is – an unassailable and almost spiritual belief – in fact a religion – but even more than just a religion, a religion that takes its cue from the dogmatic, infallible and unquestionable doctrines of the 17th century Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who does question, does present evidence of the falsity of its beliefs is, just like Galileo was, be “vehemently suspect of heresy“, and there will be calls and demands and efforts expended to induce those heretics to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.

What Galileo proposed was called heliocentrism, and rejected what was known as geocentrism, (remarkable similar to the word gynocentrism, isn’t it?)

“Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.”

For simplicity’s sake, Geocentrism is the belief that the earth is the cosmic centre of the universe, and heliocentrism is that it isn’t, rather one celestial body in a universe of celestial bodies

“The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy’s geocentric model were used to prepare astrological charts for over 1500 years. The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age, but from the late 16th century onward was gradually superseded by the heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. However, the transition between these two theories met much resistance, not only from Christian theologians, who were reluctant to reject a theory that was in agreement with Bible passages (e.g. “Sun, stand you still upon Gibeon”, Joshua 10:12 – King James 2000 Bible), but also from those who saw geocentrism as an accepted consensus that could not be subverted by a new, unknown theory.”

The Myth of Womanhood ™ is the geocentrism of the modern age, we just need to change one letter, the “e” to a “y” and add a letter, an “n” and we have Gynocentrism, and just as in the passage above, one doesn’t actually need to be a fully paid up member of the cult of The Myth of Womanhood ™ to be a believer, one just has to believe in the myth– while the original tyrannical defenders of geocentrism were Christians, our modern feminists, in fact all cults, all systems of belief based on unfounded assertions, need their useful idiots, their blindly following acolytes, in the cult of The Myth of Womanhood ™ these are just called……..women. There is a dedicated band of male followers, but these are merely those men who accept their lesser status in the human universe. Because you see, the core belief of the cult of The Myth of Womanhood states that.

Women are the centre of the Human Universe – around which all other human beings orbit.

Just as in the 19th century, despite growing knowledge, despite technological advances to further the acquisition of human knowledge, despite the increasing availability and access to human knowledge via education for more and more people– the cult of, The Myth of Womanhood ™ has persisted, has been assiduously cultivated and propagated. By women.

One can reject belief in a God that one cannot see, or prove the existence of, but when one has millions of putative Goddesses (all women) right there in front of you, doing what our naked emperor did in the fairytale I mentioned – exerting coercive methods, either passively or aggressively to ensure your acquiescence in what is patently untrue – it is difficult to be that lone small voice shouting out from the crowd.

“The emperor has no clothes”

I coined the phrase The Myth of Womanhood ™ as the title to a larger piece of work – a historical work – that will look back at the origins, perpetuation, entrenchment and finally demise of a belief system, a cult that infected the race of humans in varying degrees over a long period of time. It is almost time to write the last chapters, because persistent though it was and is – the cult of, The Myth of Womanhood is dying, it is in its final death throes.

Because you see, rather than there being one small childlike voice shouting from the crowd that the “emperor has no clothes”, though in this case, it should be “empresses” – there is a chorus of voices, a veritable full choir of voices, all saying in harmony.

“The empress has no clothes”

It is those who persist in clinging tenaciously to their belief in this cult of, The Myth of Womanhood ™ who are being drowned out, and whose “leaders” are making fools of themselves, laughing stocks of themselves – because they still believe that……………the earth is the centre of the known universe.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries