My dear sister, it is some years since last I heard from you now. I am worried, my dear. There you are, far away, outside the loving matriarchy, where you would be safe and never oppressed. I don’t even know if you receive my messages, but again, as I do every year at this time, I write to you, womyn to womyn.
Today, things are very different from what you had become used to in the years BM (Before Matriarchy). You were used to the not-womyn roaming freely and oppressing womyn at every turn. You were used to them having the vote and a political voice. But the problem was that allowing them a political voice also allowed them to exercise their masculinity and through that their violence. Society could not progress as long as we allowed not-womyn to influence it.
To combat this, it became necessary to strip the not-womyn of executive power and to replace them with womyn. This was always the purpose of the Feminist movement, following the words of the Great Prophet Karl Marx (PBUH) and his Holy Priestess Gloria Steinem.
It’s clear that there is a deal of brouhaha about the extent to which transsexualism is impacting on the lesbian and gay, and to a lesser extent bisexual, lifestyle and political hegemony in the West. This is contributing to an increasingly bitter spat about young transitioners — people transitioning gender before they reach their majority.
There is no doubt that political activists are operating on this body of young people, some with laudable motives, others not so; but why is the lesbian and gay community so exercised?
For many years now, the New Gay Man, speaking through activists from Jim Fouratt to Peter Tatchell have claimed that HomoSexual TransSexuals (HSTS) are a form of ‘failed gay man’. But is this true or even a reasonable position to take?
In a recent Twitter conversation a correspondent proposed an alteration to the conventional understanding that placed homosexual men as a subset of HSTS. In other words, she suggested that, far from transitioned HSTS being ‘failures’, all homosexuals are in fact also transsexual but for various reasons some repress or deny this.
It might seem surprising, but I had never considered this inversion, or the implications of it, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it made.
Autogynephilia is ‘a man’s propensity to be sexually aroused at the thought or image of himself as a woman’. For many practical purposes we might restate that as ‘a man’s overwhelming desire to be a woman’, to ‘become that which he loves’ and so on. It is a man’s deeply-felt identification with the object of his desire. So what might social autogynephilia be?
Why is it that matriarchy, which is so successful at the micro-social scale, as we see in traditional communities across the world, is not de facto the governing system at a global level? If the reason were simply that ‘men use violence to impose control’ as feminists would have it, then matriarchy simply would not work on the micro scale, any more than it does on the global one. So what is happening? How is it that gynocracy, which is the matriarchy scaled up to national or global level, is not ruling us now?
When I wrote ‘Why Men Made God’ I investigated thoroughly the way that Western culture had evolved. It was clear to me then and now that the impetus first towards sedentary living, then to settlement and ultimately to civilisation (city-based culture) came from women. Women need to protect and provide for their children and this becomes progressively easier as populations become more settled. That this is a highly successful strategy is clear from the population figures: 10,000 years ago, the point at which it is generally taken that widespread settlement began to occur in human populations, there were between 1 and 10 million humans. (A) Today there are over seven billion of us.
Humans are a peculiar species, because it takes so long for our children to reach sexual maturity. This is because of the size of our brains. The overall development of human children is slowed in order for our brains, which are not only big but highly sophisticated, to grow and for us to learn enough to survive. And why do we need to learn? Because human society is massively complex and navigating it takes great skill and knowledge.
Even animals with similar omnivorous diets to ours like chimps, our near relatives, mature much more quickly. And the issue is not one of body mass; a bovine will grow to adulthood, five times the mass of a human, in 30 months. We are special in this regard.
The long time that human children are dependent produces a conundrum for males. On the one hand, the replication of our genes is well served by impregnating as many fertile females as we can. This is in line with behaviours readily observed in other species. On the other hand,
Prostitution is, they say, ‘the oldest profession in the world’ and, as far as the historical record goes, it’s at least close to being so. The first mention of prostitution that we know of was 5,500 years ago, in the city of Uruk, in Sumer in Mesopotamia, where priestesses in the Temple of Inanna performed this service.
The religious connection with prostitution, of course, is one that has long since been lost — though we might discuss it in another piece; yet of course, the practice continues. Until recently, in fact, the major push to suppress prostitution was itself religious, coming from, in particular the Protestant Christian traditions and notably the Anglican one, which has always been a pillar of sex-negativity and repression.
Of recent decades, however, the attempt to prevent women from engaging in prostitution has come from other women. Indeed, it has become a bastion of modern feminism. But this throws up a thorny moral question: do we or do we not have the right to do as we will with our own bodies?
Pornography has always exercised the Puritanical, anti-freedom elements of society. Porn and prostitution are of course, intimately related to each other; pornography is defined as ‘images depicting the activities of prostitutes’, after all. so we should not be surprised to see that, as the current attempts to restrict porn gain ground, this is happening alongside an attempt to ban all forms of sex work.
Women always think in terms of power. When they decorate a home they are showing their power within their space. When they outlaw masculinity and masculine behaviour, they are exercising power.
Men think in terms of targets and things. That is why a man gets irritated when his wife interferes with his prized model collection. It’s also why men ‘objectify’ women. Men objectify everything, there is no need to feel it’s special treatment.
Men, innately, seek to achieve targets and to acquire things as measures of status with which they can persuade women to give up what they want, which is sex. Women see their power over that sex as the means by which they can control the individual man they might be partnered with, but also the broader society.
Feminism is not about equality and has not been since the 1960s. So-called ‘second wave’ feminists abandoned all pretence of that. Instead it became about women having power; not just equal power but total power. Specifically, power over men.
Feminism is fundamentally anti-democratic, because it is rooted in Marxism, which is against democracy. However, this form of Marxism is not identical to the original materialist one; it has been modified because women rank social power more highly than material wealth. So the original economic form of Marxism was modified using another philosophical system, this time called Postmodernism. This ranks everything and everyone in terms of social power.