FREEDOM Search Results
These search results are taken from the book FREEDOM only. If you would like to search the entire WTM website, use the ‘Search entire website ’ input box in the top right hand corner.
Showing search results for: ‘’
Download the PDF
Choose your preferred paper size:
For more info see PDF Help and Troubleshooting
Choose your preferred eBook format:
For more info see eBook Help and Troubleshooting
‘FREEDOM’—Chapter 8 The Greatest, Most Heroic Story Ever Told
Chapter 8:11B Men and women’s relationship after the emergence of the human condition
As has been mentioned, the dominant aspect of the transition that took place when humanity matured from childhood to adolescence was that humanity went from being a matriarchal society to a patriarchal one. Since it was this shift that had the most dramatic impact on the lives of men and women during this adventurous adolescence stage, I will now describe how it came about and its repercussions.
Throughout humanity’s infancy and childhood our society was matriarchal or female-role led because the suckling of young and the nurturing of infants it led to provided the basis for the whole love-indoctrination process, and because females had to become sufficiently assertive to rein in the aggressive competition amongst males for mating opportunities. The honest-thinking philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau acknowledged women’s nurturing role when he wrote: ‘The first education is the most important, and this first education belongs incontestably to women; if the Author of nature had wanted it to belong to men, He would have given them milk with which to nurse the children’ (On Education, 1762, p.37 of 501). And when Olive Schreiner wrote that ‘They say women have one great and noble work left them…We bear the world and we make it. The souls of little children are marvellously delicate and tender things, and keep for ever the shadow that first falls on them, and that is the mother’s or at best a woman’s’ (The Story of an African Farm, 1883, p.193 of 300), she too was acknowledging that it has been women’s role to nurture infants. Thus, with women preoccupied nurturing the next generation it made sense that when our instinctive self threatened to stop our conscious mind’s search for knowledge it was men who took on the role of resisting that threat. It also made sense for men to take up this role because historically men had always been the group protector, from marauding leopards, and so on, and since this resistance by our ignorant instinctive self of our mind’s need to search for knowledge was a group threat, namely a threat to humanity, it especially made sense that men went out to meet it. Indeed, since the threat of ignorance that emerged some 2 million years ago was such a serious threat to our species—if it prevailed we would never find understanding and never fulfil our responsibility to master intelligence—winning the battle against it became our species’ priority, which is why our society became patriarchal or male-role led. Of course, this role differentiation where men took up the task of fighting against the ignorance of our instinctive self also made sense because nurturing depends on love, whereas fighting is an aggressive, non-loving behaviour; far better then to leave women out of the upsetting battle to preserve as much upset-free, loving innocence as possible to nurture the next generation. The Bible acknowledges that human society changed from being a matriarchal, soul-centric, nurturing society to a patriarchal, egocentric, embattled society after the upsetting search for knowledge began when, after describing how Adam and Eve took the ‘fruit’ ‘from the tree of…knowledge’ (Gen. 3:3, 2:17), Moses wrote, ‘To the woman he [God] said…Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you’ (3:16). Wives and children in virtually all cultures have not adopted their husband or father’s surname because of some cultural coin toss, but because they were living in a patriarchal world.
So, in keeping with their already established roles as the group protectors, it was men who took up the loathsomely upsetting job of championing the ego over the ignorance of our original instinctive self, leaving women to their loving, nurturing role. The problem this role differentiation gave rise to, however, was that in not being responsible for or participating in the terrible battle to overthrow ignorance women were naive or unaware of the ramifications of fighting the battle, and, as a result, were unsympathetic to both the battle and the frustrated anger and egocentricity it produced in men—a situation that placed men in the awful predicament of being misunderstood and unjustly condemned by women. Women, not responsible for the fight against ignorance, and so not partaking in the battle itself, did not and could not be expected to understand what happened in the battle or the effect it had on men. Women could understand the search for knowledge, but not what the battle involved, as this comment reveals: ‘Shirley MacLaine can’t find a man to love. The 48-year-old actress…[said she] longs for a “close and warm relationship” but hasn’t met a suitable partner. “Most men I meet seem to be too involved in trying to be successful or making a lot of money,” she said. “I feel sorry for all of them. Men have been so brainwashed into thinking they have to be so outrageously successful—to be winners—that life is very difficult for them. And it’s terribly destructive, as far as I am concerned, when you are trying to get a serious relationship going”’ (Sydney’s Daily Mirror, 14 Dec. 1982). The journalist, businesswoman and 2013 ‘Australian of the Year’, Ita Buttrose, acknowledged women’s comparative lack of ego when she said, ‘That’s the difference between men and women. Men have egos and we don’t’ (Enough Rope, ABC-TV, episode 47, 21 Jun. 2004). Yes, contrary to what feminists would have us believe, men and women are different—indeed, as the author Camille Paglia said herself to her feminist sisters, ‘Wake up, men and women are different’ (The Australian, 4-5 Jul. 1992).
Life has certainly been ‘very difficult’ for men; they have had the absolutely horrible job of having to be strong enough to, in effect, kill soul—to search for knowledge and determinedly defy our beautiful, cooperatively orientated, original instinctive self. And since that defiance resulted in becoming angry, egocentric and alienated, which are all divisive, un-Godly traits, men were, in effect, in violation of God, the integrative ideals of life! So from an initial state of upset, men had then to contend with a sense of guilt, which very greatly compounded their insecurity and frustrations and made them even more angry, egocentric and alienated. (As explained in chapter 3:5, this avalanche of criticism is the ‘double and triple whammy’ of condemnation that humans experienced when we searched for knowledge.) How tough were men going to have to be to continue to do their job without receiving any respect or appreciation for why they were having to do what they were having to do! No wonder they have become so incredibly upset—and no wonder nearly all cultures conducted initiation ceremonies for young men, in which they were subjected to brutal physical pain that they had to demonstrate they could endure before they would be considered men!
As for their partners in life, women, what could men do in the face of such a diabolical situation? They couldn’t explain themselves to women because they couldn’t explain the human condition, and not able to explain the human condition, they weren’t able to defend their immensely upset, corrupted state. Indeed, instead of being able to explain that they were, in fact, the heroes of the whole story of life on Earth because they had to succeed (and have now succeeded) in championing the cause of nature’s greatest invention, namely the conscious mind’s battle to establish itself on Earth, men have had to endure being completely misunderstood and misrepresented as the villains of the piece. Yes, there was very significant meaning in the sparse, tightly written prose that the great American novelist Ernest Hemingway used to describe the stoic lives of men; just consider the titles alone of some of his books: Death in the Afternoon, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Winner Take Nothing, To Have and Have Not, The Old Man and the Sea and Islands in the Stream. The following comment about the feminist movement describes the immensely frustrating situation endured by men: ‘One of the reasons that men have been so quiet for the past two decades, as the feminist movement has blossomed, is that we do not have the vocabulary or the concept to defend ourselves as men. We do not know how to define the virtues of being male, but virtues there are’ (Asa Baber, Playboy, Jul. 1983). The truth about men was certainly not as it appeared: they weren’t selfish, world-destroying monsters—quite the reverse. So when the leading feminists Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem said, respectively, ‘As far as I’m concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they’re doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they’re manufacturing sperm’ (The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 Nov. 1991), and ‘A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle’ (TIME, 18 Sep. 2000), they were making two of the most embarrassingly wrong statements in history, and yet, in her secret self, every woman has been making them for 2 million years! (Incidentally, Greer’s assertion that all men are doing is ‘manufacturing sperm’ reflects human-condition-avoiding, psychosis-denying mechanistic science’s dishonest explanation for men’s competitive nature, which is that they are competing to reproduce their genes.)
Yes, most unfortunately, women have not appreciated our species’ battle—they have not been able to empathise with what has been going on, nor respect the corrupting effect it had on men. They tended to be soul-sympathetic, not ego-sympathetic. For example, while the embattled egos of men needed to build towering buildings symbolising their will and determination to defy and defeat the unjustly condemning world that surrounded them, ‘If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts’ (Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae, 1990, p.38 of 718). This famous statement from Paglia can be understood both literally and metaphorically, because the fundamental situation was that if the soul (which women represented) had its way the intellect would never have been allowed to search for knowledge. Our instinctive self or soul’s ignorance of our conscious mind’s need to search for knowledge had to be defied if knowledge, ultimately self-knowledge, understanding of the human condition, was to be found. To give in to soul was to go nowhere, to remain in ‘grass huts’.
The gulf between men and women—acknowledged in the title of John Gray’s bestselling 1992 book, ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus’—is palpably clear in this conversation I once overheard: ‘She: You men are wholly monstrous, foreign bodies, in fact cancers on this planet. He: Yes, well, haven’t you heard that women are so meaningless as to not even exist’—adding, while walking away: ‘The trouble with women is they come with a brain because their brain is missing a cog, they have no idea what’s going on.’ This bitter exchange provides a true measure of the extent of ‘the war between the sexes’. The fact is, women have not understood men at all, as this quote admits: ‘Men are a knot, I’ll never untie, around a box I long to peer into’ (Kate Llewellyn, poem ‘Men’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 Apr. 1996). In his painting The Creation of Adam (shown at the beginning of ch. 4) Michelangelo recognised the fundamental schism between men and women when he depicted a woman siding with God (the personification of integrative idealism) while looking aghast at man.
This cartoon by Michael Leunig, titled Men and Women, War and Peace, recognises the immense gulf that has existed between the situation men and women faced under the duress of the human condition and their subsequent view of the world—with Leunig indicating the lack of empathy women have had for the battle and its corrupting effect on men by the woman’s tears of disappointment and sadness. Women have not been, as it were, ‘mainframed’, as intuitively understanding of the battle as men—in the same way men have never been as mainframed to the role of nurturing as women intuitively are. While humans have not been able to understand and thus explain and talk about the upsetting battle against ignorance in the search for understanding of the human condition (especially unable to understand, explain and talk about the different roles each sex was playing in that battle), being charged with fighting that upsetting battle meant men at least retained an awareness of the battle the human race has been involved in, whereas women were in a blind position when it came to understanding what it all meant. Sir Laurens van der Post described this limitation of women in his 1976 book, Jung and the Story of Our Time, when he related a dream Carl Jung had about a blind woman named Salome. Sir Laurens wrote that ‘Salome was young, beautiful and blind’, explaining the symbolism of Salome’s blindness with the following words, ‘Salome was blind because the anima [the soulful, more feminine side of humans] is incapable of seeing’ (p.169 of 275). And in his classic 1902 novel, Heart of Darkness (which is a metaphorical journey into the heart of the dark horror of what the human condition really is), Joseph Conrad recognised that it made sense to leave women ‘out’ of men’s battle against ignorance when he had a man say, ‘Oh, she is out of it—completely. They—women I mean—are out of it—should be out of it. We must help them to stay in that beautiful world of their own, lest ours gets worse’ (p.84 of 121). Conrad also recognised how this omission left women out of touch with reality by having another man say, ‘It’s queer how out of touch with truth women are. They live in a [idealistic] world of their own…It is too beautiful altogether, and if they were to set it up it would go to pieces before the first sunset’ (p.39). Yes, as Paglia similarly inferred, to give in to soul would be to ‘go’ nowhere! Regarding the caption on Leunig’s cartoon, paradoxically real ‘peace’ could only come by men winning their ‘war’ against the ignorance of our instinctive self or soul.
It was because women lacked empathy with the battle taking place on Earth that they have had to work through men; as it states in the Bible, women were man’s ‘helper’ (Gen. 2:20). Soul helped the intellect; it did not lead it. Not being mainframed to the battle going on in the world has made it very difficult for women to create profound works of literature, music and art, as evidenced by almost all the quotes employed in this book’s analysis of the human condition coming from males, and also by these words on the 1989 feminist ‘Guerrilla Girls’ poster: ‘Do women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum [Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York]? Less than 5% of the artists in the Modern Art Sections are women, but 85% of the nudes are female [the extreme importance of women as sex objects will be explained shortly]’. Christ did not choose 12 men as disciples because of the cultural conditioning of his day, as some have claimed. Christ was never influenced by arbitrary tastes and attitudes. He was only influenced by the truth, and the truth is women have not been in the best position to mediate in a battle they were not directly engaged in, which is why in religions such as Christianity women have been excluded from the priesthood. The poet Charles Baudelaire’s infamous comment that ‘I have always been astonished that women are allowed to enter churches. What conversation can they have with God?’ (My Heart Laid Bare, 1864) was not actually meant to imply that women have no place in the Christian church, only this truth that women don’t wrestle with the human condition like men have had to. Humanity’s 2-million-year adolescent search for its identity, search for understanding of itself, particularly for the reason for its divisive nature, has been a patriarchal journey, just as humanity’s infancy and childhood was a matriarchal stage. The following passage from the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche acknowledges what has just been explained about women—their greater ability to nurture; that they have had to work through men; and that they haven’t been aware of, or mainframed to, the deeper battle that has been waging on Earth: ‘Woman understands children better than a man…The man’s happiness is: I will. The woman’s happiness is: He will. “Behold, now the world has become perfect!”—thus thinks every woman when she obeys with all her love. And woman has to obey and find a depth for her surface. Woman’s nature is surface, a changeable, stormy film upon shallow waters. But a man’s nature is deep, its torrent roars in subterranean caves: woman senses its power but does not comprehend it’ (Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and No One, 1892; tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1961, p.92 of 342).
What now needs to be described is that without the ability to explain the all-important role that men were having to play, and thus defend themselves against women’s lack of appreciation of that role—a situation that led to such unappreciative criticisms as those from Greer and Steinem—what men in their anger, frustration and desperation did, was turn on women and attack their condemning innocence by violating it through sex, as in the ‘fucking’ or destroying of innocence. But before describing that extremely tragic development I first need to explain that women were not the original victims of men’s upset. That unfortunate distinction went to animals because their innocence—in fact, the innocence of all of nature—also criticised men. Nature was a friend of our original instinctive self or soul because we grew up with it—humanity spent all its infancy and childhood alongside nature in the ‘Garden of Eden’ that was Africa—and so by association the natural world, especially the innocent world of animals, also criticised men. Yes, the hunting and killing of animals was the first great expression of men’s upset anger and egocentricity. One of the first adaptions to living in the embattled angry, egocentric and alienated state, ultimately epitomised by Resignation, was that we changed from being a relatively peaceful vegetarian species to a ruthless hunter of animals. It has always been claimed that the hunting in the ‘hunter-forager’ lifestyle that characterised virtually the entire 2-million-year period of humanity’s adolescence was primarily driven by the need for protein-rich food—a mechanistic denial-complying belief that has so far protected upset humans from the condemning truth of the extreme aggression involved in hunting. But, in fact, research shows that 80 percent of the food consumed by existing hunter-foragers, such as the Bushmen of the Kalahari, is supplied by the women’s foraging (Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers, eds Richard B. Lee & Irven DeVore, 1976, p.115 of 408). So if providing food was not the reason, why did men hunt? This obvious question has led to the development of the ‘show-off’ hypothesis by some human-condition-avoiding, psychosis-denying, mechanistic scientists, such as the anthropologist Kristen Hawkes, which suggests that men developed hunting in order to display their worth as potential mates and so increase their reproductive chances. However, the honest, denial-free answer is that hunting was men’s earliest ego outlet: men attacked animals because their innocence, albeit unwittingly, unfairly criticised men’s lack of innocence; it condemned their upset aggressive lives. Also, by attacking, killing and dominating animals, men were demonstrating their power, which was a perverse way of demonstrating their worth as humans. If men could not rebut the accusation that they were bad, they could at least find some relief from that guilt by demonstrating their superiority over their accusers. The exhibition of power was a substitute for explanation. This ‘sport’ of attacking animals, which were once our species’ closest friends, was one of the earliest expressions of our upset. One of the definitions given for ‘sport’ is ‘the pastime of hunting, shooting, or fishing with reference to the pleasure achieved: “we had good sport today”’ (Encylopedic World Dictionary, 1971). The ‘pleasure’ of hunting was of the perverse, sadistic, sick kind, of attacking animals for their innocence and its implied criticism of us.
Yes, the real reason men needed to go hunting was to get even with innocence for its unjust criticism of men’s lack of innocence. I remember seeing a cartoon that depicted two cement truck drivers gleefully dumping their load of concrete over a tiny road-side daisy. Such behaviour is merely an adult version of children burning ants and tormenting pets. The extent of the satisfaction corrupted humans could derive from retaliating against the unjust condemnation that innocence represented was revealed in par. 276 when a ‘legendary’ hunter’s dispatch of ‘966 Rhinos’ over a two year period was cited, but in this comment by W.D.M. Bell, an African big-game hunter of the early 1900s, the pleasure is explicit: ‘There is nothing more satisfactory than the complete flop of a running elephant shot in the brain’ (P. Jay Fetner, African Safari, 1987, p.113 of 678). And in the following passage another sport hunter makes perfectly clear the cathartic satisfaction gained through being able to ‘get even’ with unjustly condemning innocence: ‘Next thing I knew, a large male chimpanzee had hoisted himself up out of the underbrush and was hanging out sideways from the tree trunk, which he was clutching with his left hand and left foot. Looking down my barrel at ten yards was man’s closest relative, an ape, which, when mature, has the intelligence of a three-year-old child. Wouldn’t I feel like a murderer if I shot him? I had some misgivings as my globular front sight rested on the ape’s chest and my finger on the trigger. But then, gradually, insidiously, my thinking took a different turn. I thought of the gorge-lifting sentimentality—most of it commercially inspired—that has come to surround chimpanzees. I thought of the long list of ridiculous anthropomorphic books about the “personalities” of these apes. I thought of that chimp who fingerpainted on TV and sold his “works” for so much money he wound up having to pay income tax. I thought of one ape who was recommended for a knighthood, the ape who was left his master’s yacht, the ape who was elected to parliament in some banana republic; and various other apes who were made astronauts and honorary colonels. Gathering like storm clouds in my mind, these thoughts roused me to such a pitch of indignation that there appeared to be only one honorable course of action. I blasted that ape with downright enthusiasm and have felt clean inside ever since’ (ibid. pp.117-118).
Anthropological evidence supports the notion that hunting is an aspect of fully conscious, upset ‘Adolescentman’, because it was during the time of H. erectus that the first signs of hunting appeared in the fossil record. All the anthropological evidence indicates ‘Childman’ was a vegetarian, but with big game hunting came meat-eating, an adaption that would have revolted our original instinctive self or soul since it involved killing and eating our soul’s friends. Even today, the act of killing animals, or just seeing animals get slaughtered, produces feelings of deep revulsion within us. But we weren’t to be put off and in time, as our increasingly upset and driven (to find ego relief) lifestyle developed, we became somewhat physically dependent on the high energy value of meat. (With respect to whether the lifestyle of ‘Adolescentman’ should be described as hunter-forager or forager-hunter, since the priority was the heroic search for knowledge and hunting provided men with some retaliatory relief from the criticism of the innocent world they had to live in, it should be described as hunter-forager.)
Returning to the overall situation that the human race was faced with, in particular the issue of how the different roles that men and women had taken up played out. As upset increased, so too did humanity’s insecurity about being corrupted—as did, it follows, the need to combat that insecurity with whatever form of relieving reinforcement we humans could find. And since it was men who had to especially take on the responsibility of championing the conscious thinking self or ego over the ignorance of our original instinctive self, it was men who particularly came to need reinforcement of their worth through the acquisition of power, fame, fortune and glory. In the soundtrack to the 1986 African musical Ipi Tombi, the female narrator says, ‘The women had to do all the work because the men were so busy being big, strong and brave’ (Narration: Sesiya Hamba, Drinking Song, lyrics by Thandi Lephelile). This quote acknowledges just how preoccupied men eventually became in trying to prove their worth, in defeating the implication that they weren’t worthy. In the end men became so insecure/ego-embattled that it really did become a case of ‘Give me liberty or give me death’, ‘No retreat, no surrender’, ‘Death before dishonour’, ‘Death or glory’—they wouldn’t do anything that didn’t bring them glory and adulation, which meant someone else (namely women) had to do all the menial work if it was going to get done. The following two photographs from Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore’s Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers (1976), of the relatively innocent Bushmen members of the present Homo sapiens sapiens variety of humans, perfectly illustrate the situation. In the first image, women are shown gathering the aforementioned 80 percent of the food, in addition to nurturing the children—basically doing all the practical work—while the other image, titled Telling the Hunt, shows the men sitting around together with their backs contemptuously shunning innocent nature’s condemning presence as they boast about their heroic conquests over innocent animals. Clearly, the basic adaptions humans made to the human condition are well established in these relatively innocent Bushmen members of the present H. sapiens sapiens variety of humans; these could as easily be photos of women shopping and businessmen discussing a company takeover.
Of course, to properly context hunting, it has to be appreciated that the destruction of innocence has been going on at all levels. After all, in resigning, which became almost universal in its occurrence some 11,000 years ago, humans also destroyed the innocent soul in themselves by repressing it. Yes, our ignorant soul and any innocent representation of it, has been unbearably condemning, especially of men, which is why men, having already turned on and attacked their innocent animal friends, then turned on and attacked the relative innocence of their partners in life, women. Unable to explain their behaviour to women, men were left in an untenable situation: they couldn’t just stand there and accept women’s unjust criticism of their behaviour—they had to do something to defend themselves—but because women reproduced the species, men couldn’t kill women the way they destroyed animals, and so instead men violated women’s innocence or purity or chastity or ‘honour’ through rape. Men perverted sex, as in ‘fucking’ or destroying, making it discrete from the act of procreation. What was being fucked, violated, destroyed, ruined, degraded or sullied was women’s innocence. The feminist Andrea Dworkin recognised this underlying truth when she wrote that ‘All sex is abuse’ (Intercourse, 1987; reported in The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 Jul. 1987; see <>). Also, the fifth century theologian Saint Jerome ‘taught that prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were “virgins in Paradise,” and that therefore “all sexual intercourse is unclean”’ (Richard Heinberg, Memories & Visions of Paradise, 1990, p.190 of 282). If we immerse ourselves in what was really happening with hunting and progress from there we can see something of the truth and horror of what has just been said about sex being a way of attacking the innocence of women. While the hunting (actually murdering) of our instinctive self or soul’s friends, the animals, was shockingly offensive to our all-loving and all-sensitive soul, humans eventually became so upset that the feeling of condemnation from the innocence of animals became greater than our love for them, at which point we started murdering them to relieve ourselves of that condemnation. So when we shoot animals (and this reaction would have also occurred when our ancestors ritually sacrificed the lives of animals) the shock to our soul of what we are doing temporarily relieves the unjust condemnation we feel, which is why some people became addicted to hunting. In fact, in order for professional hunters of wildlife to shoot accurately they first have to learn to overcome the momentary mental ‘blackout’ that is brought about by the shock of what they are about to do. All hunters—indeed, anyone about to kill an animal—are aware, if they are honest, of the momentary ‘blackout’ their mind experiences when they are about to kill an animal. Well, sex as humans have been practising it has similarly been extremely offensive to our instinctive self or soul, and has caused the same ‘emotion-induced’ shock to our soul and thus temporary ‘blackout’ in our mind, as this study found: ‘Research suggests that when shown erotic or gory images, the brain fails to process images seen immediately afterward. This phenomenon is known as “emotion-induced blindness.”…[or] short-vision blackout’ (‘New study: Sexy images can cause temporary blindness’, sourced from New Scientist, 20 Aug. 2005; see <>). The ‘emotion’ referenced here is our soul communicating extreme distress to our mind. Humans don’t remember sexual episodes very well and the reason we don’t is because sex, as currently practised, is a violation of our soul and we don’t want to remember such violation. Incidentally, understanding this psychology also allows us to explain the ritual of human sacrifice, a practice that has been found to have occurred in nearly all cultures. While hunting and later sacrificing (murdering) our soul’s friends, the animals, was shockingly offensive to our soul, sacrificing (actually murdering) a fellow human was astronomically offensive to our soul. However, the upset in humans eventually became so great that only such astronomically shocking acts as murdering our fellow humans could exceed our astronomical levels of upset, and by exceeding the upset temporarily quell it. The feeling of shock and revulsion overrode the feeling of upset and, through that, temporarily eliminated the latter. As will be described later in par. 1289, the terrible bloodletting that took place during the Second World War represented such an immense valving off of upset that it brought forth a period of freedom from upset, a freedom that gave rise to the freshness of the 1960s post-war generation, the irrepressible ‘Baby Boomers’. The ‘valving off of upset’ can be better understood as the souls of those involved being so revolted and shocked by all the bloodletting that the upset in those involved was, for a time, nullified. The extraordinary extent of the innocence of our soul, and the extraordinary extent of the upset in humans now, especially in men, are two immensely confronting truths that we can now at last safely understand and admit. The main point being made here, however, is that sex became a way of attacking the innocence of women, the result of which was that women’s innocence was oppressed and, to a degree, they tragically came to share men’s upset.
The consequences of this horrific development—which will now be looked at—have obviously been immense. Prior to the perversion of sex as a way of attacking the condemning innocence and naivety of women, women weren’t viewed as sex objects and so nudity had none of the problems of attracting lust and so there was no need to conceal our nakedness with clothes. To quote Moses in the Bible, when Adam and Eve took the fruit from the tree of knowledge (set out in search of understanding), ‘the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves’ (Gen. 3:7). Plato similarly described our original ‘state of innocence, before we had any experience of evils to come’ as the time when we were ‘simple and calm and happy’, and lived a ‘blessed and spontaneous life…[where] neither was there any violence, or devouring of one another’ and no ‘possession of women [and we]…dwelt naked, and mostly in the open air’ (see ch. 2:6). Clothing was not originally designed to protect the body from cold as children have been evasively taught at school, but to restrain lust, to the extent that once we became extremely upset even the mere sight of a woman’s ankle or face became dangerously exciting to men, which is why in some cultures that cater for extreme upset women are completely shrouded and persecuted if any part of their body is revealed in public. It was a reverse-of-the-truth lie to say, as it is frequently argued, that this concealment of women was introduced out of ‘respect for women’. The truth is, it was enforced because women were being disrespected.
In the case of the convention of marriage, this institution was invented as one way of containing the spread of upset. By confining sex to one life-long, monogamous relationship, the souls of the couple could gradually make contact and coexist in spite of the sexual destruction involved in their relationship. As stated in the Bible, in marriage ‘a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:7, 8). Brief relationships, on the other hand, kept souls repressed and spread soul repression. However, the more upset, corrupted, insecure and alienated humans became, the more they needed sexual distraction and reinforcement through sexual conquest (in the case of men) and sex-object attention (a development in women that will be explained shortly), and thus the more difficult it became for both sexes to remain content in a single, monogamous relationship. The saying ‘the first cut [the first falling out of love] is the deepest’ is an acknowledgment of the deep and total commitment humans make to their first love. It reveals that the original, relatively innocent relationship between a man and a woman was monogamous. If you want a truly beautiful description of the depth of commitment men especially (because they are more innocent in this regard than women) can make to their first love, watch Jeff Nichols’ 2012 film Mud starring Matthew McConaughey, or read the prophet Kahlil Gibran’s 1957 story The Broken Wings. Since sex killed innocence, ideally (although impractical for the majority of the human race who had to ensure the continuation of the species) if we wanted to free our soul from the soul-destroying hurt sex caused it we needed to be celibate; as Christ explained it, some priests ‘renounce marriage [for] the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 19:12).
BUT, while sex was an attack on innocence, an act of aggression, it was also one of the greatest distractions and releases of frustration and, on a nobler level, it became an inspirational act of love, an act of real affection derived from a shared faith in the ultimate meaning of their lives. A sublime partnership between men and women did develop, for when all the world disowned men for their unavoidable divisiveness, women, in effect, stayed with them, bringing them the only warmth, comfort and support they would know. As Moses says in Genesis, ‘The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him”…Then the Lord God made a woman…and he brought her to the man’ (2:18, 22). Sir Laurens van der Post offered this sensitive attempt by a man to explain to a woman the greater significance of sex; it is a conversation that takes place on the eve of a Second World War battle: ‘Touched by her concern for her honour, in his imagination he would have liked to tell her that he could kneel down before her as a sign of how he respected her and beg her forgiveness for what men had taken so blindly and wilfully from women all the thousand and one years now vanishing so swiftly behind them. But all he hastened to say was: “I would have to be a poet and not a soldier to tell you all that I think and feel about you. I can only say that you are all I imagined a good woman to be. You make me feel inadequate and very humble. Please know that I understand you have turned to me not for yourself, not for me, but on behalf of life. When all reason and the world together seem to proclaim the end of life as we have known it, I know you are asking me to renew with you our pact of faith with life in the only way possible to us”’ (The Seed and the Sower, 1963, p.238 of 246). Friedrich Nietzsche gave an honest description of the roles that developed for men and women in humanity’s heroic journey to overthrow ignorance when he famously wrote that ‘Man should be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly’ (Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and No One, 1892; tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1961, p.91 of 342). The 1960s sex symbol Brigitte Bardot was of a similar view when she said, ‘A women must be a refuge for the warrior. Her job is to make life agreeable’ (The Australian, 11 Oct. 1999); although shortly after making this statement Bardot encapsulated the paradox of life for women when she declared that all men are ‘beasts’ (ibid)—the more usual rendition from women of this misunderstanding of men being that ‘all men are bastards’.
Yes, innocence was two-sided: it condemned and upset men, who, therefore, had to attack it, but it was also an inspirational reminder of the soulful, true world that they were fighting to reinstate by finding the understanding that would stop the upsetting criticism of them and the human race as a whole. So women’s innocence could both condemn and inspire men, which, as will now be explained, is why the image of innocence—that Bardot’s beauty was such a magnificent representation of—was so inspirational. The image of innocence in women could inspire the dream of the human race’s return to living in a cooperative, loving, upset-free, ideal state, a state free of the human condition; it could lead to ‘romance’. Men could dream that the image of innocence in women meant women were actually innocent and that through their partnership with women they could share in that innocent state; and for their part, women could use the fact that men were inspired by their image of innocence to delude themselves that they actually were innocent. Men and women could ‘fall in love’, let go of reality and dream of an ideal, cooperative, loving world. Cole Porter’s 1928 song Let’s Fall In Love contains lyrics that reveal how falling in love is about allowing yourself to dream of the ideal state, of ‘paradise’: ‘Let’s fall in love / Why shouldn’t we fall in love? / Our hearts are made of it / Let’s take a chance / Why be afraid of it / Let’s close our eyes and make our own paradise.’ (It should be pointed out that ‘falling in love’ has been one of the most wonderful experiences we could have during the 2 million years the human race has had to live with the immensely upset and soul-corrupted state of the human condition—because when it happened, we did let ourselves believe we were back in, and thus experience, the all-loving, all-sensitive and completely happy original state of innocence that the human race once lived in. We can also see from that intoxicating experience how extremely soul-dead, love-less, bleak and empty our human-condition-afflicted lives are—and also how fabulous human life is going to be now that we can leave the upset state of the human condition and live in that utterly euphoric and exhilarating state all the time!) Unfortunately, since falling in love was an unreal, artificial dream state it was all too easy to fall out of—as Bob Seger wrote and sang in his 1980 song You’ll Accomp’ny Me, ‘Some people say that love’s a losin’ game, you start with fire but you lose the flame, the ashes smoulder but the warmth’s soon gone, you end up cold and lonely on your own.’
The effect of the ‘attraction’ of innocence—which has been the preserve of youth because the young were innocent, they hadn’t yet been exposed to all the upset in the world—for both dreaming through and for sexual destruction was that through the course of the 2-million-year journey through our species’ adolescence our physical features became increasingly youthful looking or neotenous, as the increasingly child-like features of the skulls of the varieties of our Homo ancestors pictured in ch. 8:2 clearly evidence. The dramatic increase in neoteny from Homo habilis to Homo erectus reflects the dramatic increase in upset that took place once humanity determinedly set out on its search for understanding at the age-equivalent of 21, and the dramatic increase in neoteny from H. erectus to H. sapiens sapiens reflects the dramatic increase in upset that occurred when humanity entered the rapidly dis-integrating stage of the last quarter of the exponential growth of upset’s development. Women were especially selected for their more innocent looking, neotenous, youthful, childlike features of a domed forehead, large eyes, snub nose and hairless body. Just how adapted women have now become to being sex objects can be seen in women’s magazines, which are almost entirely dedicated to instructing women how to be ‘attractive’, which really means just better able to imitate the image of innocence. Women are now habituated and codependent to the reinforcement that men, for over 2 million years, have given their object self rather than their real self—for instance, they love to adorn themselves with beautiful objects, use make-up on their faces to increase their neotenous appearance, and wear high-heel shoes to give themselves the leggy, youthful, ultra-innocent look of pubescents.
What now needs to be explained is how the beauty of women came to be so powerfully attractive and inspirational for men. It was explained in chapters 5 and 6 that throughout humanity’s infancy and childhood we self-selected integrative traits by consciously seeking out love-indoctrinated mates—members of the group who had experienced a long infancy and were closer to their memory of infancy (that is, younger). Since the older we became the more our infancy training in love wore off, we began to recognise that the younger an individual, the more integrative he or she was likely to be. We began to idolise, foster and select for youthfulness—represented as it was by neotenous (infant-like) features such as the aforementioned large eyes, dome forehead, snub nose and a hairless body—because of its association with cooperativeness or integrativeness. But what happened around 2 million years ago when the upset state of the human condition emerged is that instead of selecting for neotenous features because they signalled a cooperative individual, such features began to be selected for because they signalled an innocent individual who was ‘attractive’ for sexual destruction. What this means is that while the motivation behind the selection changed significantly, the neotenous features signifying soundness and innocence have been selected for throughout humanity’s infancy, childhood and adolescence. Also of significance is the fact that while all other forms of innocence were being attacked and destroyed throughout humanity’s adolescence, this image of innocence—‘the beauty of women’—was the only form that was actually being cultivated during that time. So the image of innocence in women has both a very long and, since 2 million years ago, unique history of development, and that is why it is so powerfully attractive.
Women’s representation of innocence, their representation of our now lost pure world, has been the only form of that purity that has been continuously cultivated since we were apes, so it is little wonder men ‘fell in love’ with women. The following quotes reveal just how inspiring women’s image of innocence became for men: ‘we lose our soul, of which woman is the immemorial image’ (Laurens van der Post, The Heart of the Hunter, 1961, p.134 of 233); ‘I believe hers to have been the kind of beauty in which the future of a whole continent sings, exhorting its children to renounce what is out of accord with the grand design of life’ (ibid. p.86); ‘Woman stands before him [man] as the lure and symbol of the world’ (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Let Me Explain, 1966; tr. René Hague et al., 1970, p.67 of 189); ‘Women are all we [men] know of paradise on earth’ (Albert Camus, The Fall, 1956, p.73 of 108); ‘You give me a reason to live’ (Joe Cocker, You Can Leave Your Hat On, 1986); ‘I, I who have nothing / I, I who have no one [because the whole world has hated men’s upset behaviour] / Adore you and want you so’ (Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller, I Who Have Nothing, 1963); ‘Sex is life’ (graffiti on a granite boulder at Meekatharra in Western Australia). In the 1996 film Beautiful Girls, one of the male characters is criticised for plastering pictures of supermodels all over the walls of his room, to which he responds: ‘Look, the supermodels are beautiful girls. A beautiful girl can make you dizzy, like you’ve been drinking bourbon and coke all morning, she can make you feel high for the single greatest commodity known to man—promise. Promise of a better day, promise of a greater hope, promise of a new tomorrow. This particular awe can be found in the gait of a beautiful girl, in her smile and in her soul; in the way she makes every rotten thing about life seem like it’s going to be okay. The supermodels, that’s all they are, bottled promise, scenes from a brand new day, hope dancing in stiletto heels.’ The ever-insightful Nietzsche also recognised the role women played in inspiring the world with their illusion of innocence when he wrote, ‘her great art is the lie, her supreme concern is appearance and beauty. Let us confess it, we men: it is precisely this art and this instinct in woman which we love and honour’ (Beyond Good and Evil, 1886; tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1972, p.145 of 237).
So while it certainly is of little wonder that men fell in love with women, the great ‘mystery of women’ was that it was only the physical image or object of innocence that men were falling in love with. The illusion was that women were psychologically as well as physically innocent. This passage from the writings of Leo Tolstoy captures the whole amazing paradox that this situation gave rise to (the underlining is my emphasis): ‘so [this is how] I lived till I was thirty…I weltered in a mire of debauchery [destroying soulful purity] and at the same time was on the lookout for a girl pure enough to be worthy of me [marrying]. I rejected many just because they were not pure enough to suit me, but at last I found one whom I considered worthy…One evening…I was sitting beside her admiring her curls and her shapely figure in a tight-fitting jersey, I suddenly decided that it was she! It seemed to me that evening that she understood all that I felt and thought, and that what I felt and thought was very lofty. In reality it was only that the jersey and the curls were particularly becoming to her and that after a day spent near her I wanted to be still closer. It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness. A handsome woman talks nonsense, you listen and hear not nonsense but cleverness. She says and does horrid things, and you see only charm…I returned home in rapture, decided that she was the acme of moral perfection, and that therefore she was worthy to be my wife, and I proposed to her next day. What a muddle it is!’ (The Kreutzer Sonata, 1889, ch.V; tr. L. & A. Maude). As intimated in what Tolstoy has written, for their part, women were able to fall in love with the dream of their own ‘perfection’ that men projected—of their being truly innocent. Men have been in love with the image of innocence and women have been in love with the idea of their innocence. As has been pointed out, men and women fell in love, we abandoned the reality in favour of the dream; it really was the one time in our life when we could romance, when we could be transported to how it once was and how it could be again—to heaven. And like with Cole Porter’s song Let’s Fall in Love, it was a dream the composer and lyricist Irving Berlin spoke explicitly of in his classic 1935 song Cheek to Cheek: ‘Heaven, I’m in heaven / And my heart beats so that I can hardly speak / And I seem to find the happiness I seek / When we’re out together dancing cheek to cheek’. The lyrics of the song Somewhere, written by Stephen Sondheim for the 1956 blockbuster musical (and later film) West Side Story, also provide a wonderful description of the dream of the heavenly state of true togetherness that humans allow themselves to be transported to when they fall in love: ‘Somewhere / We’ll find a new way of living / We’ll find a way of forgiving / Somewhere // There’s a place for us / A time and place for us / Hold my hand and we’re halfway there / Hold my hand and I’ll take you there / Somehow / Some day / Somewhere!’ Thank goodness the ‘day’ of reconciliation of the lives of men and women has finally arrived and all the perverse destruction of women’s souls can end, and instead of dreaming of a loving, ideal world, the real loving, ideal world for men and women can emerge.
While different cultures have different perceptions of female beauty, essentially men are ‘attracted’ by innocent looks, which are youthful neotenous features. The popular saying ‘blondes have more fun’ illustrates the tendency in Caucasian cultures to regard blond women as more attractive because many young Caucasians have blond hair, a sign of youth/innocence. The writer Raymond Chandler acknowledged this appeal when he wrote, ‘It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained glass window’ (Farewell, My Lovely, 1940, p.93 of 292). Long, healthy hair is also associated with youth, which is why men find long hair on women attractive. In general, any feature unique to women will be attractive and signal a sex object to men, hence the desirability of breasts, shapely hips and a narrow waist. The different cultural definitions of beauty can also be explained in terms of what has historically signified innocence. For instance, in times when few could afford to eat or live well, fat women were considered beautiful because their appearance generally indicated that they had been well cared for, better nurtured and were thus more innocent. Today, however, the attraction of a long, ultra-thin female shape can be explained by the increase in alienation amongst humans. The duration of innocence now is very brief and, as has been mentioned, what is now deemed attractive is that pubescent age when young girls first start to develop physically and have the slender, long-legged frame of young animals, such as foals. So for women to be perceived as attractive they have to endeavour to look like an innocent pubescent teenager, which explains the long-held obsession with extremely uncomfortable high-heels that elongate women’s legs. This ultra-thin body shape is, of course, completely unnatural for most adult, child-bearing women and to achieve it necessitates a starvation diet, a situation that has led to debilitating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. Moreover, ‘Salons say clients [girls] as young as 14 or less are requesting Brazilians [removal of all their pubic hair]’ (Nikki Gemmell, ‘Going bush’, The Weekend Australian Magazine, 15 Feb. 2014), in order to make themselves look even more nubile, innocent! Such is the level of perversion/sickness that has developed in the human race!
Of course, human-condition-avoiding, psychosis-denying reductionist, mechanistic scientists have been totally committed to avoiding any recognition that sex as men practise it is about attacking the psychologically innocent state of women for its unjust criticism of men. They maintain that the attractiveness of younger women has nothing to do with them being less psychologically corrupted (or at least the appearance of that state), claiming instead that it is due to a genetic reproductive strategy—that men want to ‘mate with women who look like…Barbie—young with small waist, large breasts, long blond hair, and blue eyes…[because] they are healthier and more fertile than other women’ (Alan Miller & Satoshi Kanazawa, ‘Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature’, Psychology Today, 1 Jul. 2007). This is the old Social Darwinist/Evolutionary Psychology strategy of blaming our competitive, selfish and aggressive human condition not on an upset psychosis in humans, which is its real source, but on non-existent savage, aggressive and competitive animal instincts within us! No beautiful, unconditionally loving, altruistic, selfless soul in humans, just brutal, aggressive, make-sure-you-reproduce-your-genes animal instincts! No psychological upset in the human race now! What rubbish. No wonder ‘fuck’ is such a good swear word—everyone actually knows sex as humans practise it is about attacking the psychological innocence of women, that it’s about ‘fucking’, but no one is admitting it, and (as I will explain more fully in par. 870) such extreme dishonesty provides the motivation for swearing; that swearing is a way of tearing through the overburden of dishonesty that we are all being forced to endure, in this case tearing through the dishonesty that ‘sex’ isn’t about destroying innocence. Of course ‘sex’ is about attacking, ‘fucking’, innocence; as Dworkin said, it’s ‘abuse’, it’s psychotic behaviour—but mechanistic scientists weren’t going to admit that. No, as emphasised in par. 217, mechanistic scientists’ human-condition-avoiding attitude was: ‘What psychosis? What inner insecurity? What sense of guilt? What original ‘Golden Age’ of innocence? What ‘fallen’ condition? What alienation? What great elephant in the living room of our lives that we can’t acknowledge? To hell with your psychological garbage!’ Yes, they just blame all the psychological upset that humans very obviously suffer from on savage animal instincts within us—‘Humans kill each other in wars not because of serious philosophical differences but to reproduce their genes in the same way bulls fight and kill other bulls to ensure they win the mating opportunities’! But such ‘explanations’ are completely absurd because our human condition obviously involves our fully conscious mind; humans suffer from a psychological human condition, not a non-psychological, genetic-opportunism-based animal condition. Again, Arthur Koestler summarised mechanistic, reductionist science’s deliberate blindness to the issue of the ‘mental disorder’ of our ‘unique’ human condition when he wrote that ‘symptoms of the mental disorder which appears to be endemic in our species…are specifically and uniquely human, and not found in any other species. Thus it seems only logical that our search for explanations [of human behaviour] should also concentrate primarily on those attributes of homo sapiens which are exclusively human and not shared by the rest of the animal kingdom. But however obvious this conclusion may seem, it runs counter to the prevailing reductionist trend. “Reductionism” is the philosophical belief that all human activities can be “reduced” to – i.e., explained by – the behavioural responses of lower animals – Pavlov’s dogs, Skinner’s rats and pigeons, Lorenz’s greylag geese, Morris’s hairless apes…That is why the scientific establishment has so pitifully failed to define the predicament of man’ (Janus: A Summing Up, 1978, p.19 of 354). Yes, turn on the television and there will be endless programs presenting completely bullshit—‘pitiful’—biological explanations of human behaviour, such as this claim that men prefer younger women because they are better able to reproduce their genes. Just this week on television (3 Jun. 2013, at time of writing) the first program of a National Geographic series titled Ape Man began with these words: ‘In this series I’ll introduce you to your inner ape…to expose our most basic instincts and explore their origins in the ape world. So get ready to learn the laws of the jungle because, like me, you are ape man…I’ve learnt that there’s actually an ape living inside us humans and that inner ape is hungry for power. For our primate cousins being the alpha male gives them the first pick of the three things that matter most: food, territory and of course females. And we humans are just the same: world leaders, celebrities, even your boss—alphas rule the world!’ The truth is 100 percent the opposite of this—our instinctive heritage is of being cooperative, selfless and loving, and then we became psychologically upset and as a result of that we became competitive and aggressive. Yes, it was fucking mechanistic biological crap like this that was leading humanity straight to terminal alienation and extinction!
The very obvious truth is that sex as men practise it has, at base, been all about attacking the innocence of women, and unfortunately this destruction of women’s souls and the cultivation of their image of beauty has been occurring for some 2 million years. As such, men and women have become highly adapted to their roles; while men’s magazines are full of competitive battleground sport and business, women’s magazines are, as has been pointed out, dedicated to enhancing beauty, to becoming more ‘attractive’, and to maintaining that attractive beauty for as long as possible. Just how aware women are of the importance of their sex object self, and how much women’s sense of self-worth and self-esteem is now dependent on their sex appeal, is apparent in the ‘twinning phenomena’, in which you see women walking around together who are virtually identical in their level of sex appeal or lack thereof. Clearly women feel too exposed and confronted if they are with another woman who is even slightly more ‘attractive’, so they end up befriending their sex appeal ‘twin’. It is extremely common to see, and very revealing of what men have done to women! Sex has played a huge role in the lives of men and women.
Indeed, lust and the hope of falling in love have assumed such importance that many people, including the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, have been deceived into believing that sex actually rules our lives. Two of the best examples of this conviction are found in interpretations of Moses’ story of the Garden of Eden, in which Eve is blamed for tempting Adam to take the apple from the tree of knowledge, and in interpretations of Plato’s two-horsed chariot allegory that was described in chapter 2:6, in which the lustful behaviour of the ‘bad’ ‘dark’ horse that is described as eros is seen as a natural response to the object of desire. The truth is that women, and even boys in the case of the homosexual situation that Plato was referring to in his eros description in Phaedrus, were the victims of upset in men, not the cause, but lust became such a strong force that people have been misled into believing it seduced humans into behaving in an upset way. As was explained in chapter 2:6, Moses and Plato were simply using sexual desire as the most obvious indication of our corrupted, upset state, as evidenced by the fact that Moses referred to our original state as being like an innocent ‘Garden of Eden’ where ‘Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame’, while Plato similarly referred to our instincts as ‘innocent’ and ‘pure’ and that in our pre-corrupted state there was no ‘possession of women’, no ‘devouring of one another’, and ‘they dwelt naked’. As just pointed out in par. 792, and as was emphasised in chapter 2:5, what needs to be appreciated is just how determinedly humans have sought to avoid the human condition by blaming our divisive behaviour on savage, we-have-to-reproduce-our-genes instincts—which was so clearly evidenced in all the dishonest biological ‘explanations’ for human behaviour that were described in chapter 2. Blaming our upset behaviour on supposed selfish, survival-of-the-fittest, we-have-to-reproduce-our-genes has been the main lie humans have employed to cope with the horror of our corrupted condition.
The problem for women, of course, is that while their image of innocence was being cultivated throughout those 2 million years, their soul, their actual innocence, was being destroyed—women are only the image of innocence. But without the understanding necessary to explain themselves, men had no choice other than to repress the relative naivety of women, which in turn tied women’s corruption inextricably to men’s. It has been an extremely difficult situation for women. They have had to try to ‘sexually comfort’ men but also preserve as much true innocence in themselves as possible to nurture the next generation. Their situation, like men’s, worsened at an ever-increasing rate, in that the more women ‘comforted’ men, the less innocence they retained and the greater comforting the following generation needed. Had humanity’s battle continued in this exponential pattern for a few centuries more, all women would have eventually become like Marilyn Monroe, complete sacrifices to men. At this point men would have destroyed themselves and the human species, for there would be no soundness left in women to love/nurture future generations. Olive Schreiner emphasised this point in her already referred to amazingly truthful 1883 book, The Story of an African Farm. When talking of men persuading women to have sex, Olive Schreiner’s female character stated that men may say, ‘“Go on; but when you [men] have made women what you wish, and her children inherit her culture, you will defeat yourself. Man will gradually become extinct…” Fools!’ (p.194 of 300). Incidentally, we again see here how calling men ‘fools’ was an expression of women’s lack of understanding of men, and why they were being attacked sexually by men in the first place.
Yes, tragically, across every generation, individual women have had a very brief life in innocence before being soul-destroyed through sex, following which they have had to try to nurture a new generation, all the time trying to conceal the destruction that was all around and within them. Mothers have tried to hide their alienation from their children, but the fact is if a mother knows about reality/upset her children will know about it and will psychologically adapt to it. Alienation is invisible to those alienated, but to the innocent—and children are born innocent—it is clearly visible. For example, Christ’s mother Mary must have been innocent because Christ was. Since women become upset through sex, Mary must have had virtually no exposure to sex. The symbol for women’s innocence/purity is virginity, hence the description of Christ’s mother as the ‘Virgin Mary’ (see Matt. 1:23 & Luke 1:26-34). The renowned writer D.H. Lawrence recognised the essential innocence of the ‘Virgin’ Mary when, in reference to her, he wrote, ‘Oh, oh, all the women in the world are dead, oh there’s just one’ (Lawrence Durrell & Earl Ingersoll, Lawrence Durrell: Conversations, 1998, p.178 of 261).
Having to inspire love when they were no longer loving or innocent, and attempt to nurture a new generation—all the while dominated by men who couldn’t explain why they were dominating, what they were actually doing or why they were so upset and angry—was, in truth, more than extremely difficult, it was an altogether impossible task, and yet women have done it for 2 million years. Indeed, it is because of women’s phenomenally courageous support that men, when civilised, treat them with such chivalry and deference. Men have had an impossible fight on their hands, but at least they had the advantage of intuitively understanding that battle. To be a victim of a victim, as women have been, is an insufferable situation, because while a primary victim knows what the primary source offence is, a victim of a victim does not. This is why, when men became overly upset they became mean, even brutal, but when women became overly upset they became nasty, even venomous. Not knowing what it is they are flailing at, women’s fury is unsourced, untargeted and unbounded. The proverb ‘hell knows no fury like a woman scorned’ recognises this potential extremity in the nature of women. Nietzsche wrote, ‘Let man fear woman when she hates: for man is at the bottom of his soul only wicked, but woman is base’ (Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and No One, 1892; tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1961, p.92 of 342). Women have historically had to carry so much unsourced frustration and hurt that their psychological situation is very fragile; so fragile, in fact, that the hormonal upheaval accompanying menstruation is enough to destabilise this delicate balance, hence pre-menstrual tension (PMT).
So while men’s situation has been horrible, so has women’s; and, just as men have yearned for freedom from their oppressor, ignorance, so women have yearned for freedom from their oppressors, men, as this comment by Olive Schreiner describes: ‘if I might but be one of those born in the future; then, perhaps, to be born a woman will not be to be born branded…It is for love’s sake yet more than for any other that we [women] look for that new time…Then when that time comes…when love is no more bought or sold, when it is not a means of making bread, when each woman’s life is filled with earnest, independent labour, then love will come to her, a strange sudden sweetness breaking in upon her earnest work; not sought for, but found’ (The Story of an African Farm, pp.188, 195). Thank goodness with the battle to defeat the ignorance of our instinctive moral soul now won, the horror of both men’s and women’s existence can end, and this dreamed-of ‘new time’ where society will be neither matriarchal or patriarchal but gender-neutral and at peace can begin.
We can see that with men defying and repressing their own souls, women became representative of soul in their partnership with men. Further, because of men’s unexplained oppression of women and the world of the soul, and women’s own inability to understand this oppression, women put increasing trust and reliance in their soul and instincts, rather than in their ability to understand. As a consequence, women are more intuitive or dependent on their soul’s guidance than men—hence the well-known term, ‘women’s intuition’. Other common sayings are that ‘women feel while men think’ and ‘women are more right-brained than men’ (our left and right brain hemispheres were explained in par. 682). It has also often been said that women talk more than men—indeed, a study has found that ‘women speak some 13,000 more words a day than the average man’ (‘Women really do talk more than men’, Daily Mail Online, 20 Feb. 2013; see <>)—and we can now explain why. Because men have been preoccupied with championing the ego while women were left doing the support duties, women have had less opportunity to develop their own egos—which, while not as developed and embattled as men’s, obviously exists because ego is just humans’ conscious mind trying to understand the world and its place in it. While they were preoccupied with support duties, the one way women could try to understand the world, and justify and measure themselves was through talking to each other; they couldn’t act out their experiments in self-adjustment but they could think their ideas through out aloud, evaluate and try to establish their worth through words.
The following honest description of the different roles of men and women from Sir Laurens van der Post illustrates these very distinct attitudes: ‘The sword was, he would suggest, one of the earliest images accessible to us of the light in man; his inborn weapon for conquering ignorance and darkness without. This, for him, was the meaning of the angel mounted with a flaming sword over the entrance to the Garden of an enchanted childhood to which there could be no return. He hoped he had said enough to give us some idea of what the image of the sword meant to him? But it was infinitely more than he could possibly say about the doll. The doll needed a woman not a man to speak for it, not because the image of the sword was superior to the image of the doll. It was, he believed, as old and went as deep into life. But it was singularly in women’s keeping, entrusted to their own especial care, and unfortunately between a woman’s and man’s awareness there seemed to have been always a tremendous gulf. Hitherto woman’s awareness of her especial values had not been encouraged by the world. Life had been lived predominantly on the male values. To revert to his basic image it had been dominated by the awareness of the sword. The other, the doll, had had to submit and to protect its own special values by blind instinct and intuition’ (The Seed and the Sower, 1963, p.193 of 246).
Note that while men and women are different, sexist notions of men being ‘evil’ or of women being irrelevant have no credibility. While the main device for avoiding prejudice was to deny that there was any difference between men and women, another was to maintain that any difference between men and women was simply a product of cultural conditioning—of girls being given dolls and boys swords as infants, for example. But as Sir Laurens acknowledges, our differences are the product of a very real distinction—‘a tremendous gulf’—between the sexes.
So while at a more noble level sex has become an expression of love, at its fundamental level it is an attack on the innocence of people; it is rape. The more upset and corrupted the human, the more sexually destructive and thus sexually perverted they are inclined to be, and the more innocent (or innocent-looking) the human, the more attracting of that destruction they have been. Understanding this makes it possible to explain homosexuality in men. As the victims of sex, women have historically been more exposed to and thus become, through natural selection over hundreds of thousands of years, more adapted to sex than men. In most cases, if a male was not interested in sex then sex did not occur, whereas women have been exposed to sexual advances regardless of their interest or lack thereof. Teiresias, the prophet mentioned in Homer’s Greek legend, The Odyssey, recognised that women are more sexually aware than men. When asked ‘whether the male or the female has most pleasure in intercourse’, he replied that ‘Of ten parts a man enjoys one only; but a woman’s sense enjoys all ten in full’ (Hesiod, The Melampodia, c. eighth century BC; Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns and Homerica, tr. H.G. Evelyn-White, 1914, p.269 of 657). Evidence that women have been more exposed to sexual attention than men is the fact that they tend to have more neotenous facial features and have far less body hair (they don’t have to shave facial hair, for example). Since neotenous features and loss of body hair are consequences of sexual selection for innocent looking features, to have more neotenous facial features and less body hair means women must have been exposed to more sexual attention than men. (Incidentally, since women are now highly adapted to sex it means a virgin is not truly a virgin, she is not truly an innocent girl and thus completely ‘attractive’, because all women are now instinctively aware of ‘sex’.) Yes, while women have had to hide their sexual awareness in order to present an attractive image of innocence, the fact is they are more sexually aware than men. In the Happy Days television series (set in the 1950s and first broadcast in 1974), girls are much more attracted to the sexually aware Fonzie character than to the naive, relatively innocent Richie Cunningham character. While only fictional characters, the viewing audience would not have responded with such empathy over the years if the characters did not resonate with truth. In the book, Big Bad Wolves: Masculinity in the American Film, by the academic Joan Mellen, the caption accompanying a picture of the 1920s sex symbol actor Rudolph Valentino reads: ‘Rudolph Valentino in the film Son of the Sheik. Rape is the central visual metaphor’ (1977, p.54 of 365).
Yes, as explained, ‘the mystery of women’ is that after 2 million years of having been sexually used by men, women now only represent the physical image or object of innocence. It is this image of innocence that men have been falling in love with; the illusion that women are psychologically as well as physically innocent. A well-known African fable tells of a woman who agrees to marry a man on the condition he never looks inside a precious basket that she keeps. She warns him that if he does she will vanish. He agrees, but some time after they are married and his wife has gone to the river for water he cannot resist and peers in the basket. On his wife’s return she finds the basket open and him laughing. When she accuses him of looking in the basket he says, ‘You silly woman, there was nothing in the basket’, at which point she vanishes into thin air. The basket is symbolic of the mystery of women—they are only the image of innocence; it is an ‘empty basket’ that men are looking at, and once men see through the illusion, women’s attractiveness diminishes. It follows then that the more corrupted a man is, the less naive he is, and thus the more he is aware that women are not innocent. Therefore, if a man is extremely hurt and corrupted in his infancy and childhood, when he becomes sexually mature he will not be naive enough to believe that women are still innocent and will not, therefore, find women sexually attractive. The last bastion of ‘attractive’ innocence for such men is younger men, because they are not as exposed to sexual destruction as women have historically been. To explain the effeminate mannerisms particular to male homosexuality, if you have had your soul, which is your core strength, destroyed in childhood, then taking on the extremely difficult male role of having to fight against the ignorance of the soulful, idealistic world would be an untenable position that would make the female position of not having to fight a much more preferential option. You would rather adopt the female role of being an object of adoration and service than the male role of having to take on the loathsome job of championing ego over soul. The transsexual professional tennis player of the late 1970s, Renée Richards—who went so far as to have a sex change operation to become a woman—alluded to the difficulty of life as a male, and by inference the appeal of being a woman, when she once said, ‘women don’t realize the horror of the strife-torn world that men live in’. Having to live with the condemnation that you are an evil monster, when you know you are not but cannot explain why you are not, has been a living hell for men. To be a man and have to oppress your all-magic soul without being able to explain why has been the most wretched of tasks. The following quote serves to illustrate how pressured men’s lives have become: ‘If women are so oppressed, how come they live much longer than men?’ (Don Peterson, review of The Myth of Male Power by Dr Warren Farrell, The Courier Mail, Jun. 1994). Homosexuality amongst women results from women’s understandable disenchantment with men, some even taking up the male role because it can naively seem preferable to having to be an object of adoration and service. Homosexuality is simply another level of perversion to heterosexuality. They are both psychologically corrupted states of sexuality that developed under the horror of the duress of the human condition.
With regard to whether homosexuals are ‘born’ or ‘made’, even without the ability to explain the human condition and thus defend the corrupted state of humans (that is, explain that humans’ various states of corruption are not ‘bad’ or evil but, in fact, immensely heroic states), a decade-long research project completed at the Institute for Sex Research in Bloomington, Indiana, found that ‘a quarter of the gays interviewed believe [are prepared to acknowledge?] homosexuality is an emotional disorder’ (TIME, 17 Jul. 1978). In his 1992 book, Health & Survival in the 21st Century, Ross Horne referred to studies that show ‘That the highest incidence of homosexuality coincides with the general level of stressful influences in a community and that the lowest incidence coincides with the degree of happiness and health in remote and unstressed populations indicates that, like many conditions of physical disease, it is just as unnatural as the mental breakdowns, depression and neuroses so common in civilization. Studies of primitive natives reveal that while in some populations homosexuality is non-existent or rare, in other populations it is fairly common; but the same pattern still holds—among the placid, happy, untroubled people homosexuality did not occur, while among fighting tribes and headhunters it did’ (p.206). After 25 years of clinical experience helping homosexual men and women, Dr Robert Kronemeyer of New York concluded that ‘Homosexuality is a symptom of neurosis and of a grievous personality disorder. It is an outgrowth of deeply rooted emotional deprivations and disturbances that had their origins in infancy’ (Overcoming Homosexuality, 1980, p.7). While ‘Researchers now openly admit that after searching for more than 20 years, they are still unable to find the “gay gene”’ (Dr Nathaniel Lehrman, ‘Homosexuality: Some Neglected Considerations’, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 2005, Vol. 10, No. 3), the need to avoid blame has resulted in the irresistibility of the ‘born gay’ argument—as John D’Emilio, a professor of history and gay activist concedes, ‘The idea that people are born gay—or lesbian or bisexual—is appealing for lots of reasons…If we’re born gay, then it’s not our fault…What’s most amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible’ (‘LGBT liberation: Built a broad movement’, International Socialist Review, 2009, Issue No. 65). Yes, as Camille Paglia, herself a lesbian, famously stated, ‘Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction…No one is “born gay.” The idea is ridiculous…homosexuality, in my view, is an adaptation, not an inborn trait’ (Vamps & Tramps, 1994, pp. 71, 72, 76 of 560).
While women are instinctively more sexually aware than men this does not exclude the fact that a woman can be more innocent and less sexually aware than a man. Girls who are nurtured and sheltered in their upbringing can be very innocent. However, because there has been no honesty about the existence of the different levels of upset and alienation amongst humans, they can be deceived by men who are much more upset and, therefore, much more sexually advanced down ‘the rungs of the perversion ladder’ (where one is holding hands, two is kissing, three is touching her breast, etc, etc, etc, to the extent that some people became so horribly psychologically sick and perverted that they derived sexual excitement from watching ‘snuff movies’ of people being killed—yes, sexual depravity is an accurate measure of alienation). Men who are more upset can be very attentive to women because sex for them is a distraction and a way of gaining reinforcement, and innocent women can be deceived—seduced—by this attention into a relationship. In her 1981 book, African Saga, the African photographer, and remarkably beautiful woman, Mirella Ricciardi gives an extraordinarily honest account of a relationship between a more innocent woman and a less innocent man. She wrote: ‘We went to live in Rome, where I quickly began to taste the bitter-sweet agony of life with Lorenzo. I was young, unaware of the world, and ignorant of people and their behaviour. I married Lorenzo as easily as I had switched lovers. It was probably the most foolish, irresponsible, exciting thing I have ever done. Years later, I came to the conclusion that most of the men I had met fell into three categories—those prompted by their heads [presumably, upset men], those by their heart [presumably, less upset, more soulful, relatively innocent men] and those by their sex [presumably, extremely upset men]. Some—not many—were a combination of all three. Lorenzo belonged to the last category—these I have found are the most attractive. They are sexy, amusing, fun-loving, careless, irresponsible and lazy—they dress well and have a lot of style. Most people like them. They are excellent lovers and lousy husbands. Women usually find them irresistible or are terrified by them. Men either envy or despise them. No one can remain indifferent to them…“Lorenzo’s mother died when he was seven,” Cesarino [Lorenzo’s father] told me one day. “You will have to be more of a mother than a wife to him; do you realise this?” Then he laughed. “The only pleasure he ever gave me was nine months before he was born.” But when his father died sixteen years later, Lorenzo’s grief was immeasurable and I began then to understand the meaning of these words’ (p.136 of 300). Because women have lived through men, and because their means of healing the world is through nurturing, relatively innocent women involved in relationships with more upset men have often tried to change their partner, make him sounder and stronger through nurturing love, inspiration and motivation. BUT, since it is only understanding of hurt that can heal hurt, these efforts often only serve to further confront and criticise the man. Ricciardi’s dedication in her book ‘to Lorenzo, my magnificent obsession’ is an acknowledgment of her frustrated efforts to change Lorenzo. She wrote: ‘When I married Lorenzo I had created an image of a giant in whose shadow I would live. I clung stoically to my belief in our union and waited patiently for ten years for him to cast his shadow, but he never did’ (ibid. p.138). Similarly, in the 1950 Broadway musical, Guys and Dolls, the Salvation Army innocent, Sarah, desperately protests about her upset gambler boyfriend Sky to her more upset-world aware nightclub singer friend, Adelaide, saying, ‘Can’t men like Sky ever change?’, to which Adelaide says, ‘They just can’t change’; and later Sky himself says, ‘Change, change. Why is it the minute you dolls get a guy that you like, you take him right in for alterations?’ In a world of lies, the basis for relationships has often been unhealthy. Women have been seduced by men in so many ways and their innocence has been the casualty—another reason why women have historically become more sexually aware than men. Indeed, growing up in the countryside in Australia in the 1960s I saw many sheltered, relatively innocent country girls go off to Europe for a few years in their early 20s—it was considered the thing to do in those days, as it still is—only to return with ‘knowing eyes’, a different more sophisticated way of looking at the world. At the time, I could never understand the point of sheltering and nurturing young women if they were simply going to go off to Europe and, as I saw it then, ‘cash in their innocence’. It was inevitable, of course, that with innocent women throughout the ages exposing themselves to upset by being attracted to upset men to try to rehabilitate them that there would not be much innocence left in women. Thank goodness that with reconciling understanding of the human condition now available, everyone can help everyone in an effective and constructive—not destructive—way.
Given then that sex is an attack on innocence as well as an act of love the recent generations of humans who have been treating sex cheaply have been contributing significantly to the death of soul in the world, and thus contributing significantly to the level of alienation in the world. Queen Victoria was right to espouse the ‘Victorian morality’ of her era, a moral code that strongly encouraged people to treat sex with care and restraint.
In light of this whole reality, during the 2 million years that women have endured the wretched situation of being unable to understand men’s oppression of them, many must have found it impossible to accept and, as a result, there must have been a great deal of natural selection and thus genetic adaption to the role that women have had to play in the human journey to enlightenment. Olive Schreiner described women’s resignation to their role in the following passage, again in her extraordinarily honest book, The Story of an African Farm. It is a dialogue between her young female character and that character’s male friend, Waldo: ‘“I know it is foolish. Wisdom never kicks at the iron walls it can’t bring down,” she said. “But we are cursed, Waldo, born cursed from the time our mothers bring us into the world till the shrouds are put on us. Do not look at me as though I were talking nonsense. Everything has two sides—the outside that is ridiculous, and the inside which is solemn.” “I am not laughing,” said the boy sedately enough; “but what curses you?” He thought she would not reply to him, she waited so long. “It is not what is done to us, but what is made of us,” she said at last, “that wrongs us. No man can be really injured but by what modifies himself. We all enter the world as little plastic beings, with so much natural force, perhaps, but for the rest—blank; and the world tells us what we are to be, and shapes us by the ends it sets before us. To you it says—Work! and to us it says—Seem! To you it says—As you approximate to man’s highest ideal of God, as your arm is strong and your knowledge great, and the power to labour is with you, so you shall gain all that the human heart desires. To us it says—Strength shall not help you, nor knowledge, nor labour. You shall gain what men gain, but by other means. And so the world makes men and women. Look at this little chin of mine, Waldo, with the dimple in it. It is but a small part of my person; but though I had a knowledge of all things under the sun, and the wisdom to use it, and the deep loving heart of an angel, it would not stead me through life like this little chin. I can win money with it, I can win love; I can win power with it, I can win fame. What would knowledge help me? The less a woman has in her head the lighter she is for climbing. I once heard an old man say, that he never saw an intellect help a woman so much as a pretty ankle; and it was the truth. They begin to shape us to the cursed end,” she said, with her lips drawn in to look as though they smiled, “when we are tiny things in shoes and socks. We sit with our little feet drawn up under us in the window, and look out at the boys in their happy play. We want to go. Then a loving hand is laid upon us: ‘Little one, you cannot go,’ they say; ‘your face will burn, and your nice white dress be spoiled.’ We feel it must be for our good, it is so lovingly said; but we cannot understand; and we kneel still with one little cheek wistfully pressed against the pane. Afterwards we go and thread blue beads, and make a string for our neck; and we go and stand before the glass. We see the complexion we were not to spoil, and the white frock, and we look into our own great eyes. Then the curse begins to act on us. It finishes its work when we are grown women, who no more look out wistfully at a more healthy life; we are contented. We fit our sphere as a Chinese woman’s foot fits her shoe, exactly, as though God had made both—and yet He knows nothing of either. In some of us the shaping to our end has been quite completed. The parts we are not to use have been quite atrophied, and have even dropped off; but in others, and we are not less to be pitied, they have been weakened and left. We wear bandages, but our limbs have not grown to them; we know that we are compressed, and chafe against them. But what does it help? A little bitterness, a little longing when we are young, a little futile searching for work, a little passionate striving for room for the exercise of our powers,—and then we go with the drove. A woman must march with her regiment. In the end she must be trodden down or go with it; and if she is wise she goes”’ (pp.188-189). Incidentally, note again here women’s naivety; Schreiner believes men’s sexualisation of women is un-Godly, basically that men are evil, which is again why women were ‘fucked’ in the first place.
With regard to women resisting ‘march[ing] with her regiment’, in the sense of accepting their role of inspiring men, it should be mentioned that it’s not commonly acknowledged that suits were invented for men so they could hide their big guts, while dresses were invented for women so they could accentuate their waists and breasts and conceal their big bottoms and thighs, but, while men still wear coats, everywhere in Western society now women have forsaken skirts for trousers, and even tights, as if their role of inspiring men with their beauty no longer matters; as if they no longer care about being ‘the lure and symbol of the world’, as de Chardin described it in par. 789. This is, in truth, yet another illustration of women’s lack of awareness of the nature of the struggle that the human race has been involved in—and of the irresponsibility of feminism, which encouraged women not to ‘march with her regiment’. Women’s role has understandably become unbearable for them but the battle to find understanding still had to be won.
Yes, while the feminist movement has improved ‘a woman’s lot’ superficially, there has, in fact, been no real change to the situation that Schreiner so honestly described, as these quotes confirm: ‘Nirvana hasn’t happened. Although men are speaking about understanding [the need for women’s liberation from men’s oppression] on the surface, they’re not doing anything about it’ (Carmel Dwyer, The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 Sep. 1993); and, ‘What happened was that the so-called Battle of the Sexes became a contest in which only one side turned up. Men listened, in many cases sympathetically but, by the millions, were turned off’ (Don Peterson, review of The Myth of Male Power by Dr Warren Farrell, The Courier Mail, Jun. 1994). Until men could explain to women why they have had to be so egocentric, competitive and aggressive—explain the human condition—there could be no fundamental change to the situation where men found themselves with no choice other than to oppress women.
It should be pointed out here that women resisted men’s oppression, and resisted it for a long time. Yes, having said that humanity has been patriarchal for some 2 million years, it has to be explained why women were still so powerful, even seemingly treated as goddesses, in central Europe during the Upper Paleolithic (50,000 to 10,000 ) and Neolithic (10,000 to c.4,000 ) periods, as evidenced by the many so-called ‘Goddess’ or ‘Venus’ figurines, such as the one pictured, that have been found in this region from this period. In this typical example, we can see from the extremely regal stature of the very well-nourished figure seated on her throne of cheetahs just how powerful and in control of their societies such women must have been. In chapter 5:11, ‘The importance of strong-willed females in developing integration’, it was explained just how powerfully self-assured, secure-in-self, strong-willed and assertive females had to be during the development of love-indoctrination in order to rein in male aggression from competing for mating opportunities. Yes, what greatly contributed to the defeat of the historical patriarchal animal-condition situation where males relentlessly competed for dominance was the selection for strong-willed, authoritative females who would no longer tolerate male aggression; indeed, females became downright contemptuous of divisive behaviour in males. It simply would not be tolerated. Quotes were included to illustrate this situation, such as: ‘An impressively stern [bonobo] female enters and snaps a young sapling. Once she picks herself up she does something [that would be] entirely surprising for a female chimp, she displays, and the males give her sway. For this is the confident stride of the group’s leader, its alpha female, whom Kano has named Harloo’; and, ‘She [Peggy] was the highest-ranking female in the [baboon] troop, and her presence often turned the tide in favor of the animal she sponsored. While every adult male outranked her by sheer size and physical strength, she exerted considerable social pressure on each member of the troop…another reason for the contentment in this particular family was Peggy’s personality. She was a strong, calm, social animal, self-assured yet not pushy, forceful yet not tyrannical.’ As has been explained, the problem that emerged when our ancestors became fully conscious and men had to take up the task of defeating the ignorance of our instinctive self and champion our conscious thinking self or ego, was that women tended to be unsympathetic towards the angry, aggressive and egocentric upset that it unavoidably produced in men. In fact, this situation was made so much more difficult for men because women were so immensely strong-willed and authoritative as a result of this very powerful matriarchal heritage. It makes sense, then, that while humanity had become fundamentally patriarchal, the old matriarchy hung on. In fact, even today there are still many women who are so strong-willed and contemptuous of non-ideal behaviour that men find it almost impossible to cope with them, with some even going to great lengths to try to break their strong-willed, but ignorant, resolve. If you watch WTM Founding Member Stacy Rodger’s affirmation at you will hear about just such a tragic situation—where Stacy was psychologically traumatised because, she said, ‘every time I lived out my strength and said what I really thought, especially about the insincerity of men’s treatment of women—basically of men being self-centred, totally, seemingly unaware and insensitive towards others and even seemingly unaware and insensitive towards the whole world—it would always end up with men side-lining me and freezing me out’ in an effort to ‘shut me out and shut me down’. Unable to explain why they are so upset, embattled and egocentric, men have truly struggled to do their job of championing the ego over our ignorant instinctive self or soul in the midst of women who have been as strong-willed and yet as naive as Greer and Steinem have been. In hindsight (because understanding of the human condition finally brings to an end the horrible ‘battle between the sexes’), it can be seen that it was an act of great generosity (actually not generosity but weakness, which I will talk more about in a moment) on the part of men to give women the vote! So this situation where women were seemingly in power in prehistoric times was a case of ‘delayed ownership’—of situations where the new owner, patriarchy, wasn’t able to take over because the old owner, matriarchy, refused to relinquish power.
A 1999 BBC documentary titled Ancient Voices: Tracking the First Americans presents convincing evidence that some Australian Aborigines managed to reach South America long ago, and that the Fuegian Indians of Tierra del Fuego are their descendants. To prove that such immensely long sea journeys are possible the program referred to the fact that recently ‘five African fishermen were caught in a storm and a few weeks later were washed up on the shores of South America’ with three still alive (‘First Americans were Australian’, BBC News Online Network, 26 Aug. 1999; see <>). In terms of what is being explained here about women resisting male dominance, some of the commentary in this documentary is particularly enlightening (the underlinings are my emphasis): ‘Narrator: The tribal wisdom taught to the Fuegian initiates was secret. It was only revealed to the men, the women were kept in the dark. Any speculation about it was, and still is, strictly taboo. Christina, one of the last of the Fuegian tribe, then says: They said it was a very secret ritual, that’s why we never talked about it. Only the men were supposed to know about it. Narrator: What was so secret that had to be kept from the women? Some of the chiefs confiding to ethnographers explained that there was a time in the very distant past when women ruled society. The women must never know lest the men lose their grip on power…Extraordinarily, similar legends have been recorded amongst aborigine tribes in Australia. It seems the traditions of the first peoples of Australia have been preserved here at the utmost end of the Earth by a small band of their descendants. But after surviving 50,000 years, the memory of those traditions is now at risk of being lost forever.’
This narration provides powerful evidence of the aforementioned ‘delayed ownership’ analogy, of situations where the ‘old order’ is slow to relinquish its position, for it demonstrates that even though humanity had become patriarchal, male-role led, in so many ways—such as by women being treated as sex objects (fucked for being ignorant of the goodness of men) and having become highly adapted to this situation, and men leaving women to do the gathering and other practical work while they conducted the innocence-dominating task of killing (hunting) animals—such was women’s strength of character that for a long time ‘women ruled society’. It took a great deal of effort, determination and time for men to finally gain a ‘grip on power’.
The question this raises is, if women have been so unmainframed, and so duped by soul, how do we explain such effective right-wing-supporting, ego-sympathetic females like the political leaders Margaret Thatcher, Madeleine Albright and Golda Meir, and authors like Ayn Rand, and political commentators like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham in the USA and Janet Albrechtsen in Australia? To explain this phenomenon I need to first point out that feminism hasn’t been entirely unfounded. The more men fought to defeat ignorance and protect the group (humanity), the more embattled, upset and corrupted they became and thus the more they appeared to worsen the situation. The harder men tried to do their job of protecting humanity, the more they appeared to endanger humanity! As a result, they have become almost completely ineffective or inoperable, paralysed by this paradox; made cowards by the extent of their self-corruption and its effects. At this point, women have had to step in and usurp some of the day-to-day running of affairs as well as attempt to nurture a new generation of soundness. Women, not oppressed by the overwhelming responsibility and extreme frustration that men felt, could remain effective. Further, when men crumpled, women had to take over, otherwise the family, group or community involved would fall apart. A return to matriarchy, such as we have recently seen in some parts of society, is a sign that men in general have become almost completely exhausted. However, it is important to understand that total matriarchy has not emerged because men could not afford to stand aside completely while the fundamental battle still existed. They needed to stay in control and remain vigilant against the threat of ignorance. So while some elements in the recent feminist movement have seized the opportunity to avenge men’s oppression, the movement was, to a degree, borne out of necessity. The tragedy is that like all pseudo idealistic, politically correct movements, feminism is based on a lie: in this case, that there is no real difference in the roles of men and women.
To address the question then of how are we to explain the existence of such right-wing, ego-sympathetic women as Baroness Thatcher and the others mentioned, what needs to be considered is the important sentence that was included in the previous paragraph: ‘Women, not oppressed by the overwhelming responsibility and extreme frustration that men felt, could remain effective.’ Men have been overly corrupted for at least half a million years and, as such, have lived with extreme frustration, even self-loathing, of the immense destruction they have inflicted upon the planet. After such a long time, it can be expected that women now have a strong instinct for an opportunity to participate up-front in the battle and even—in situations where men became totally destructive, disdainful of themselves, paralysed by their predicament and inoperable—take control from men. We can now expect women to anticipate the opportunity for greater power within personal relationships, and in larger economic and political spheres, and to some degree be adapted to and thus appreciative of what is required to effectively take up the male role of championing the ego. After all, if men had not been available to take on the battle to champion ego over ignorance, women would have had to take it on fully and become as aware as men now are of what happens when you fight that battle. Camille Paglia once wrote that ‘It is woman’s destiny to rule men’ (Vamps & Tramps, 1994, p.80 of 560). This comment is an expression of the expectation that now exists in women that men eventually crumple, at which point women have the opportunity to take over. The truth is, many sensitive ‘New Age’ guys (so-called SNAGs) and ‘metrosexuals’ are actually crumpled men. Women’s nagging of their menfolk is also a case of women chiselling away at, attempting to break, men’s ability to keep fighting and defying the ignorance of the world of the soul—a situation made much of in the BBC sitcom Keeping Up Appearances, where the character of poor old Richard is constantly hen-pecked by his wife Hyacinth.
But while women have learnt that men often lose the ability to keep persevering with their job of defying soul, and eventually ‘crumple’ giving women the opportunity to gain power, for the most part women have learnt to, as Schreiner said, ‘march with…[their] regiment’—resign themselves to a life of being a sex object and accepting the subjugation to men that entails. This is because women haven’t been ‘mainframed’ to the battle of the human condition, they couldn’t ‘read the play’ of what was really going on; as Stacy Rodger said in her affirmation, ‘every time I lived out my strength and said what I really thought…it would always end up with men side-lining me’. This limited existence left women very frustrated—so it is no wonder they ended up throwing up their arms in despair and resorting to the saying, ‘girls just want to have fun’! As I said earlier, the sooner the reconciling understanding of the human condition is found, as it now is, and all this horror can end, the better.
So, yes, while dogmatically imposing an ideal situation where men and women treat each other as though there is no difference between them—as the politically correct culture has attempted to do—could disguise and contain upset to a degree, it could not remove or resolve it. Only understanding the world of men, and why they have been so divisively behaved, could subside the anger, alienation and egocentricity that caused them to victimise virtually everyone and everything they encountered. The boot that was screwing men into the dirt had to be lifted for the horrible war between men and women to end. And an all-out war it has been, lived to the full extent of what was possible under the limitation that men and women were forced to coexist if they were to reproduce and nurture a new generation. Yes, as men have long lamented about women, ‘You can’t live with them and you can’t live without them!’
And, as has been emphasised, in finding the liberating understanding of why men have been divisively behaved, what it reveals is that men are the heroes of the story of life on Earth. From being thought of as the villains one day, they become the absolute heroes the next—a turn of events that is long overdue. Everywhere men have become wretchedly oppressed by the politically correct dogma that denies them any real meaning in the world. It has reached the point where there are now books being published like Are Men Obsolete?, which has on its cover the label ‘TERMINATION PENDING’ stamped across the face of a man. Like the aforementioned comments from the feminists Greer and Steinem, an article about this book contains this comment from one of its authors, the Pulitzer Prize-winning commentator Maureen Dowd: ‘Norman Mailer used to be terrified that women were going to take over the world as a punishment for being bad to them over the centuries…All women needed, he said, were about a hundred semen slaves that they could milk every day…Dream on, Norman! All women need is a few cells in the freezer next to the cherry-flavoured vodka and we’re all set’ (‘Are men obsolete in the modern world?’, The Telegraph, 2 Jun. 2014). Indeed, men have become so intimidated by pseudo idealism that many have come to believe they are useless. The science writer Bob Beale wrote that while the concession pained him, he was prepared to concede that, except for ‘the baby business [reproduction]’, ‘males are largely useless’ (Men: From Stone Age to Clone Age, 2001, p.vii of 369). Showing less remorse, however, was the anthropologist Melvin Konner, who completely turned on men, writing in his 2015 book, Women After All: Sex, Evolution, and the End of Male Supremacy, that ‘maleness’ was a ‘syndrome’, ‘a birth defect’, ‘a disorder’, and the result of ‘androgen poisoning’ (p.8 of 400), and that ‘Humans in a future world, could perhaps stay all female, designating one of them to become male only when collectively wanted or needed’ (p.66). No wonder there has been a proliferation of men’s movements that aim to counter men’s horrific situation of being totally misunderstood!!
It follows that boys growing up in this current, men-are-worthless world are having their self-esteem destroyed even before they have a chance to enter manhood. A 2014 article titled ‘The Sexodus’ about ‘a large-scale exit from mainstream society by males’ reports that ‘among men of about 15 to 30 years old, ever-increasing numbers are checking out of society altogether, giving up on women, sex and relationships and retreating into pornography, sexual fetishes, chemical addictions, video games…all of which insulate them from a hostile debilitating social environment’. ‘Rupert, a young German video game enthusiast…says…“My generation of boys are f**cked…Marriage is dead. Divorce means you’re screwed for life. Women have given up on monogamy, which makes them uninteresting to us for any serious relationship or raising a family”…In schools today across Britain and America, boys are relentlessly pathologised…Boyishness and boisterousness have come to be seen as “problematic”, with girls’ behaviour a gold standard against which these defective boys are measured. When they are found wanting, the solution is often drugs…Millions will be prescribed a powerful mood stabiliser, such as Ritalin, for the crime of being born male. The side effects of these drugs can be hideous and include sudden death. Meanwhile, boys are falling behind girls academically…Never before in history have relations between the sexes been so fraught with anxiety, animosity and misunderstanding…One professional researcher…puts it spicily: “For the past, at least, 25 years, I’ve been told to do more and more to keep a woman. But nobody’s told me what they’re doing to keep me…the message from the chicks is: ‘It’s not just preferable that you should fuck off, but imperative. You must pay for everything and make everything work; but you yourself and your preferences and needs can fuck off and die’.”…The media now allows radical feminists to frame all debates…Women can basically say anything about men, no matter how denigrating, to a mix of cheers and jeers…modern feminists…[are] parading around in t-shirts that read: “I BATHE IN MEN’S TEARS.”…Men created most of what is good about the world. The excesses of masculinity are also, to be sure, responsible for much of what is bad. But if we are to avoid…a world in which men are actively discriminated against, we must arrest the decline in social attitudes towards them before so many victims are claimed that all hope of reconciliation between the sexes is lost’ (Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart.com, 4 Dec. 2014; see <>).
Yes, a very real concern for the future was that there would be a dearth of men psychologically strong enough to fight ignorance, and indeed, if the human condition had not been solved the human race would be facing very dark times. As will be talked more about in ch. 8:16, that is how dangerous the politically correct, postmodernist culture has become.
The reason for the just mentioned phenomena of school boys not performing as well in their studies as girls is not only because they have had their immense relevance in the world denied, but also because they are not as duped by the historical denial of the issue of the human condition as women. Women tend to believe the world we are living in is the real world, whereas men, being mainframed, are intuitively aware that it is a fraudulent existence, and as a result don’t take our current artificial, fabricated world too seriously. In the television series, The Simpsons, the young boy, Bart, has little respect for school whereas his sister Lisa applies herself completely and excels. Nietzsche was alluding to the trusting naivety of women when, as mentioned earlier, he said, ‘“Behold, now the world has become perfect!”—thus thinks every woman when she obeys with all her love.’
While on Nietzsche, his much debated and misunderstood concept ‘the will to power’ (the title of his last work before his psychological breakdown—which, since he was such an honest thinker, would have happened when he eventually tried to confront more truth than his level of soundness of self could cope with) can now be interpreted as man’s will to achieve power over humans’ idealistic instinctive self or soul’s ignorance of the true goodness of corrupted humans. In his now much acclaimed (and rightly so) book Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and No One, Nietzsche recognised that, unlike other animals, humans have had to fight a psychological demon, the human condition: ‘Man, however, is the most courageous animal: with his courage he has overcome every animal. With a triumphant shout he has even overcome every pain; human pain, however, is the deepest pain’ (p.177 of 342). Yes, humans, especially men, had to have the courage to triumph over their deepest pain, the pain of not being able to know whether they were fundamentally evil beings or not. Humans have had to learn to love themselves—and now they truly can.
Incidentally Nietzsche’s subtitle to Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ‘A Book for Everyone and No One’, was an open acknowledgment that to speak the truth to people who are resigned and living in denial of the human condition was to court total rejection—what I call the ‘deaf effect’. ‘No One’ would hear, understand and accept his words. What Nietzsche knew, however, was that only the truth could liberate humans and that, in time, people would hear and understand his words, and that eventually his book would be for ‘Everyone’. Denial-free thinkers or prophets such as Nietzsche have historically not been appreciated in their own lifetime, but their honesty has always led the way to a better world for humans. In fact, their honesty is the purest form of love the human race has ever known. The ultimate example of this is Christ, whose words were also not understood in his lifetime, or indeed in the ensuing years; as he said, ‘Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say…The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God [you live in denial of such fundamental truths as Integrative Meaning]’ (Bible, John 8:43-47), and ‘The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness [the resigned] has not understood it’ (John 1:5)—and yet he gave humanity a home to live safely in while the corrupting search for knowledge had still to be completed. I will come to the role that religions such as Christianity have played shortly (in ch. 8:15).
In summary, for 2 million years women have stood by their men, just as for some 10 million years prior to that, men supported their women. With understanding of the human condition now found, men and women can at last stand side by side—the ‘war of the sexes’ can finally be resolved. Yes, the human journey can have the happy ending we always hoped it would.
(A note to the reader: I have taken the description of what happened in the relationship between men and women much further than the adventurous Adolescentman stage because it made practical sense to follow this very important relationship through to its resolution. Given how many subjects have to be looked at, the presentation in this chapter is bound to be somewhat disjointed; the intention can only be to convey a general appreciation of the sequence of events that have occurred in humanity’s incredible journey from ignorance to enlightenment. More is said later in pars 897-901 about the horrifically difficult situation women have had to endure under the duress of the human condition, while more can be read about the relationship between men and women at .)