To whom does she belong?

A belated Happy Easter to all.

I wish I could say I was absent from the blog because I wanted to concentrate on Lent, bla bla bla.
:-)

But that wouldn't be true. In fact I could say that unusually for me this year, my spiritual approach to Lent was far from ideal. But, and I think my Guardian angel must have had something to do with this (thank you, Guardian Angel!) it was a Grace-filled end to the Lenten season for me.

Isn't it interesting that when we need it the most, we get Grace?

Speaking of Guardian angels, I was at a wedding recently, and the celebrant priest made this joke:

A man was walking through his neighbourhood when he came to a bridge over a river. Suddenly, a voice said to him: 'Stop! Don't step onto the bridge!' He looked around - no-one was there. But he stopped.  All of a sudden, the bridge collapsed. He breathed a sigh of relief as he realised his life had just been saved.
He carried on walking. When he got to the foot of a mountain still with snow on it, again a voice said to him, 'Stop! Don't take another step!' He stood still. Then a mighty avalanche came crashing down just ahead of him. Again he breathed a sigh of relief as he realised that once again, his life had been saved. He carried on walking through the woods. Again the voice warned him just as he was walking under a particular tree. Seconds later, the tree fell down missing him by inches.

At this point, he wondered who was talking to him and saving his life. He said out loud, 'who are you? Identify yourself!'

The voice replied, 'I am your Guardian angel. I am always here for you.'

The man replied, 'You are my Guardian angel? Always here for me? Where were you when I got married?'

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Very drole :-)

Not quite sure why men feel that marriage/relationship is such a  trial for them only. Where did they get that idea?
:)

Just heard this morning that Percy Sledge died. May he rest in peace.

Percy Sledge is of course famous for this song - all about how men suffer when in love:
:)

Aw, poor Darlings/lovable rogues :-)



Today's post is about a curious phenomenon I have been thinking about for a while. The impetus for this come from two separate incidents. The first is a commenter on another blog who linked to a Heartiste post about a black man (this is relevant) who when confronted and indeed inappropriately and unjustifiably assaulted by a woman (she happened to be white - not relevant), exclaimed, 'Who bitch dis is?!'

Translation into normal English: Whose woman is this?

Now, for many modern women, this display of 'territorialism' may be unpalatable, but I have to say that I am very familiar with this phenomenon - more than is usual for a woman of my era and location.

The notion that every woman belongs to a man is something I have been immersed in from childhood, and I very much took it for granted. But I am surprised to learn that it is not necessarily a positive concept in our western culture.

This is undoubtedly a problem when it comes to male-female interaction.

It is significant that the man in question in this scenario is black. I have many links to West Africa, and I know that this is very much the mindset there. Actually, this is the mindset any where in the world other than Caucasian America. Even in Europe - especially in Europe.

A girl belongs to her father until she marries, at which point she belongs to her husband.

But in our present culture where a father is not around/has been removed from the household, this sense of belonging is not imprinted in a girl's mind from birth. What a shame!
For she will seek this, by hook or by crook, in much the same way some boys seek a father-figure through gang culture.

All sorts of psychological complications ensue when a girl does not get her fair share of this 'sense of belonging', I have discovered. This leads to potential mayhem in her life. Not only is this sequence of events well documented, but also more and more of us are witnessing this in front of our very eyes, are we not?

And yet, Africans and other 'backward people', including southern Europeans have had this covered, for literally ages.

I have seen this play out in hilarious encounters when I have witnessed old African women try to work out who a stranger female is by linking her to some man that they themselves know. This is how they compute that this stranger female is 'welcome' into the herd. :-)

I live in the mountains of Eastern Switzerland. Where I live is a mainly German-speaking area, but there are many old Italian mountain families here too.

Their customs are delightful to behold, especially when seen 'in the wild', untainted by feminism. It is wonderful to see.

I was hanging out with a friend of mine when we bumped into an old lady she knows from her village in another mountainous region of Switzerland which is exclusively Italian-speaking. The old lady was curious about me, as I am relatively newly-established here.

She regarded my friend with a curious look, and regarding me sideways, she asked my friend who I was.
My friend answered with my first name, stating I was a friend.

The old lady was far from satisfied with the answer my friend had given. In a move reminiscent of similarly aged women in any african country, she asked the heavily-loaded question:
To whom does she belong?
Meaning, to which man does she belong? My first name on its own was meaningless to this woman.
:-)

I silently stood there as my friend gave the necessary genealogy to finally satisfy this old lady. In a hilarious five minutes where I felt like I was in a court for some wrong-doing, my friend first tried giving my surname.
Nope, this woman did not know the particular family to which I belonged, although she knew several other families with the same surname, which happens to be a common surname round here.

She didn't know my husband, although she came from his village.

With the skills of someone used to this sort of interrogation, my friend name-dropped my brother-in-law , who is a generally well-known figure.

Nope, didn't know him either.

My chances of acceptance into the 'clan' were looking bleak.

My friend, in an expert move normally associated with Russian chess players, finally made the link that gave the winning strike.

It turns out that Old Lady was friends with the wife of the brother of the wife of  the brother of my husband.

Hallelujah, I was IN!!!
It took many links to finally 'place' me, but finally, I was IN!!!
;-)

Now she had a 'box' in her mind in which to categorise me. I was now officially 'recognised'.
:)

It was an interesting experience for me, in that I felt like I had come through some sort of 'initiation' ceremony.
I (I regret this, lol) relayed this story to a friend, who doesn't hold the rigidly traditional values I hold, and she was absolutely horrified.

I did not and do not understand her horror. She saw this incident as 'oppression' for me (for had I been a man, I wouldn't have been scrutinised so much. My surname would have been enough, for a man is valued on his own name only), but I disagree with her.

What my friend fails to realise is that a man must make his name (read: reputation) on which he and his family rely, to advance in society. A woman need only associate herself with a good family, and she is safe. Her own reputation is judged differently, and in a traditional society like this, a woman is mainly judged on her sexual reputation.
If 'so-and-so' was caught in a compromising position with a man to whom she was not married, the gossip alone would drive her out of town and three generations later, they would still be talking about her - that sort of thing.

The relevance of all this for me, is that fatherhood (and therefore this 'sense of belonging' felt by young unmarried women) is indeed sacred. And the relevance specifically to the SMP is that indeed it is impossible to 'belong' to a husband when one never experienced the 'belonging' to a father. The latter is 'practice' for the former.
In many such traditional entities, it is said that a father is the source of the soul of his child, and the mother is the source of the heart.

A fatherless child is therefore akin to a soul-less person.

Harsh? Oh yes. Which is why deliberately denying fatherhood to a child, by his own mother is indeed a cruel thing. A man who also denies his child access to his mother is also creating a child who is missing his heart. That can't be good either.

It is also why I think in these same traditional societies, the 'taking on of the name of the father' (in the event of a child's parents not being married) is so important. It is a great insult to the child if his father does not give him his name in many african cultures, for example.

Similarly, the taking on of the name of a husband is fundamental to marriage, in my opinion. This is why I am dead against wives not taking on their husband's surname. It screams 'division' as opposed to 'harmony' from the get-go and is a signal this will not be a fulfilled/constructive union. It also signifies an absence of 'belonging'. In the example above with the old lady, my maiden name would have been just as useless to Old Lady as my first name. A woman's maiden name is no longer relevant, except in rare circumstances where it needs to be 'dug' out for a specific purpose, eg. a paternal legacy that wasn't dealt with pre-marriage.

What an eye-opening experience for me. Old Lady taught me a big lesson which I think is getting lost more and more in our modern culture. A shame, because it is quite a beautiful lesson.
I think those who adhere to these general principles are more 'settled' in their skins than those who choose to reinvent the wheel at every opportunity.

I have said many times before. I am not fussy from whence cometh my lessons. 'To whom does she belong?' is so much more refined than 'Who bitch dis is?' but to me, the lesson is more important than the grammar.

Interesting that shortly after I came across that blog post by Heartiste, I actually came face -to-face with the phenomenon he described. Art imitating life, or the other way round. :-)
Interesting indeed.

The tragedy of St.Valentine's Day

It is not really clear to me why this is, but it seems to be very much the case:
Introverted people are often perceived not to have feelings. To be devoid of emotion.


So when once in a blue moon, an introverted person shows some emotion, everyone gets a surprise. :-)
Yes, the problem is, when Mr.or Ms. Introversion decides to let rip, it is usually akin to a volcanic eruption. :-)


I remember when I was a child, a teacher at school asked me, 'why are you Catholic?'
Given that it was a Catholic school, I felt justified in answering, 'cos everyone around me is'.
Looking back, that was quite a lame answer.


Why a religion?
Nowadays, in accordance with my new-found Red Pill faith, I would answer differently:


'Religion provides a good infrastructure for 'reframing'.'
'Cos this is one of the skills of life. One we all badly need in this modern world, I believe.


Over the course of blogging, I have come to notice that some commenters take on certain personas which is unique to them, and forge a relationship with the blogger based on this unique persona. It is quite an entertaining phenomenon. :-)
I notice this sort of interaction between blogger and commenter on almost every blog I visit, so I know this is of course not unique to this blog.


Speaking of commenters, I would just like to say that newcomer Mortan has brought me many great insights via his visit to the MGTOW post. In particular, his words about the phenomenon that is 'contentment' has prompted me to look into this further. I was going to post about this...


But as is usual with me, I got distraced by a comment from someone else.
This someone else is 'Live Free or Die'.


LFOD has, I think, assumed the role of 'court jester' here. My reaction to his comments tend to range from something between 'yeah, whatever, mate' in response to his boundary-pushing hyperbole, to 'oh no, he didn't just say that!' in response to his more outlandishly outrageous posts (Answer being, of course, yes he did just say that). :-)


Exchanging friendly fire is good for the soul, or something to that effect. :-)
I welcome commenters like LFOD, because I realise that I learn a lot from them. Not to talk of incredibly entertaining.


This latest comment, however, from LFOD, unleashed an emotion in me that I did not really expect to feel.


"Happy MGTOW Day everyone!

No dinners bought today.
No jewelry bought today.
No flowers bought today.
No chocolate bought today.
No wine bought today.
No cards bought today.

No obligations to anyone or anything.

Live Free or Die!"


I was just about to (robot-style) respond (with my usual attitude) to him:
'Happy MGTOW Day to you too, LFOD. Enjoy.'
But something stopped me.
I thought, not this time.


This whole post is of course unsolicited.
But that's just it. No-one wants to ask for this sort of rant from a stranger. :-)


This is not personal to LFOD. In fact, from this point onwards, let's all have a frank discussion about this, only referring to LFOD where absolutely necessary.


Back to childhood...
Back to the playground:
Boy A has a scuffle with Boy B and ends up 'winning' Boy B's shirt. Boy A tries on Boy B's shirt and finds it doesn't fit. Boy A then sulks off to another child, let's say, a girl, and complains to her that Boy B's shirt doesn't fit.
She doesn't get it. To his constant reminders that he won the shirt 'fair and square', all she can say is, 'but it's not yours! Wouldn't it be better if you returned Boy B's shirt to Boy B and you just wear your own shirt?'
The girl does not get it because perhaps she is not meant to. She doesn't understand the complex rules by which Boy A and Boy B are playing.


But this girl does. Which is why she feels the raw emotion of deep sadness. In typical exaggerated hyperbole (to resort to tautology!) she would call it a tragedy.


Yes, Boy B is analogous to mainsteam media/current culture/feminism/whatever. Boy A and the girl need no introduction, I hope.


Why would anyone take on the views of someone else and whine to a third party that it does not sit well with them?
Who told LFOD that Valentine's Day is all about wining and dining a lady and bringing her flowers, chocolate and diamonds?


And more importantly, why did he buy into this harmful piece of information?
To conform?
To comply?
Because he had no other solution?


But there is always another solution.


Some people know when the are being taken for a ride. They shrug their shoulders and go along for the ride anyway. Others in the same boat have no idea what's happening...until...they finally wake up... when the vehicle they are in...crashes.


Someone won the booby prize (considering it was won from Mama Feminism, this is not a bad pun!) and now doesn't like his winnings.
Someone should give back the shirt that doesn't fit. It is not his. It will never fit.




St. Valentine's Day is a religious festival. Like Christmas, or Easter, or the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul.
It was never meant to be hijacked by our materialistic society for the gains of chocolate makers or florists.


If we buy that lie, that it is a day to give women cards or seven course meals, it is our fault for absorbing bad information.


St. Valentine was a Catholic priest who sought to take a stance against a cruel emperor who was so keen to win wars that he made it a law that no man should marry in order not to 'distract' them from fighting. Emperor Caludias wanted to make every man a MGTOW whether he liked it or not. :-)


St. Valentine knew there were men and women in his diocese who wanted to marry. So he married them, in secret. For this cime, he was imprisoned, tortured and eventually decapitated.
But before dying, he healed the (blind) daughter of one of his jailors, and his very last words were to her, in a note he signed off with the words, 'from your Valentine'.
Cue the association with romantic love. :-)




St. Valentine, much like St. Jerome must be turning over in his grave by now. He made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that the young people of his era received one of the most enriching sacraments of life. St. Jerome warned against marriage, of course - but only for those who were not ready for it, I conclude. These two saints teach us a lot about real love, and not the 'fairies in a cloud' variety that is sold to the general public in bucket-loads on one day in mid-February.




Instead of absorbing what is routinely sold to us in the mainstream media, and then moan about it, why don't we see things for what they really are? Why don't we 're-frame'?


Why don't we stop this rot by re-framing in our own minds what is right?


What is wrong with going to a lecture on St. Valentine, on St. Valentine's Day?
What is wrong with going to Mass on St. Valentine's Day and praying that the love which St. Valentine had for his fellow man would be bestowed on us too?
What is wrong with asking a girl to 'be your Valentine' without giving her a truckload of shiny objects?
What is wrong with a woman giving a man something, no matter how small, on St. Valentine's Day?
What is wrong with a kind act towards a stranger because it is for the love of St. Valentine, on St. Valentine's Day?


Answer: nothing.




Gentlemen, feminism may have taken over in a big way, but it is still your duty to...
Civilise us!


Honestly, we implore you...
You show the way, you decide how an important feast day is to be celebrated, you lead the way.
I promise you, we women will follow.


If you fail to take the lead, we ladies are left scratching our heads and wondering where all the good men went...
:-)


Important note:
This post is not, I hope the violation of Nature that one might conclude it is. I am not telling you men what to do, really...and certainly not how to do it...I am just throwing a favourite catch-phrase of mine around...:-)
My hamster spins it thus: I am reacting emotionally to what LFOD may see as a triumphant 'throwing down of the gauntlet', but which I (being of the feminine persuasion) see oh so very differently.


I mean well though. I hope that much is clear.
Sometimes, (I think), it is better to show someone why he is not a victim, than to commiserate with his perceived victimhood. I hope this post achieves the former and not the latter.

Don't cha wish your girlfriend was…

Hot like this?
Cool like this?
Freak like this?
Fun like this?
Fly like this?
Fine like this?
Raw like this?




The pussycat dolls ask an important question…(I added some of my own adjectives by the way:-)
(May be NSFW)

Modest like this?

Chaste like this?

Feminine like this?

Huh?

This post will be a short one, and is really a 'film review'.


I came across this delightful film recently, and liked it very much. In the aftermath of the 'Charlie Hebdo' massacres, it is a very important confirmation to me that it is one of the tasks of women (not men) to 'socialize' the world.

If two women from very different (and indeed opposing) cultures can get together like this, and unite just two families, imagine what could happen when larger groups of women form friendships like this.

But alas, it could be a more complicated issue than I make it out to be…

The full movie is here.

I like these two young women. They make my heart sing :-)

Each is beautiful in her own way, but neither feels the need to flaunt her beauty. It is there for all to see despite the modest clothing.

The pussy cat dolls are also beautiful. But their beauty seems to be 'in yer face'. I am sure men don't mind this :-) but this aggressive display of one's assets detracts from femininity somewhat, in my opinion.

In my search for examples of young women who 'make my heart sing', it seems a shame that I am yet to find a Catholic/Christian one who ain't already a nun...or a Duggan :-).

I shall keep looking, and in the meantime delight in my Jewish and Muslim sisters doing a good job of upholding the feminine standard. :-)

(If anyone has good examples of Christian girls behaving well, please send them my way. Go on, make my heart sing!)



The other point about this movie is that it shows my idea of 'hypergamy' to a tee. These two young ladies are from cultures where a marriage has to be approved by Dad, as a rule. Often arranged by Dad, (and Mum and the jenta, with the input of various aunties, lol) with some (read: only a little!) choice on the part of the girl.
And yet, neither of these two was going to settle for just anyone :-)
Poor old Nasira was sickened to come to the realisation that that old guy from Syria who had come to dinner was actually a suitor...for her. He was even older than her father!
I sympathise...Sure, that man would have been a good provider and all...but is provision all there is to marriage?

In the case of Rochel, it really was getting to the point where her parents were beginning to think it would be impossible to get her married off. Fussy? Understatement. This girl was the queen of fastidiousness :-)

Both girls wanted the best for themselves. Perfectly normal. As indeed should any person, male or female.

But…this 'quest for the best' stopped when they got married. This is how it should be.





Ceer came to my rescue in this post when I was trying to sell Game to a (latent) Game practitioner. Kind of like selling ice to an eskimo who doesn't see the value of ice :-)



Ceer said this:
When a woman says "I want a nice man", what she is really saying is:
"I want a man I find attractive who might also be nice from time to time." 




I had previously said this:
[Re 'wanting a 'nice man'] What this means is, when she no longer has anything worthy to offer, she'll settle for the 'nice man' who has waited his turn patiently for years.





The reason we are both right is that, it depends on the woman who is talking.

If it is a woman like these two in the video above, then Ceer's statement applies.

If it is a woman like the woman below, then my statement applies, and even then, she won't treat him (nice man) well, as this video shows. I therefore agree with men who advise other men thus: Never ever be the 'nice man' for this type of woman.
It is of course perfectly OK to be a 'nice man' for the first type of woman, to whom Ceer's statement applies. Because you know she is already truly attracted to you, as opposed to 'settling' for you.



I shall let the narrator explain below just how unbelievably spoilt, and silly, the woman below is…

The mind truly boggles, as the judge demonstrates…

Heavens above, some people just do not know they are born.

Incredible...to the nth degree!

Misogyny, I tell you!

Edit: Happy New Year, everyone!
I had this post ready well before Christmas, but decided it was way too dark for the spirit of 'yuletide' which officially ended yesterday with the celebration of 'Epiphany'.
So now I feel comfortable discussing this rather unpleasant topic.




A long time ago, I wondered why it never says anywhere in the The Good Book , "Thou shalt not hate".
Now, I am no bible scholar. I don't actually know if it doesn't say "Thou shalt not hate", but I am pretty sure those exact words are not stated anywhere in the Bible.
But what I do know, is that we are invited not to hate, in many instances in the Bible.
From the Fifth Commandment on, we are an invited not to hate.


5. Honor your father and your mother (don't hate on your parents).
6.You shall not murder (don't hate on your fellow man).
7.You shall not commit adultery (don't hate on your spouse).
8.You shall not steal (don't hate on your fellow man).
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (don't hate on your neighbour).
10.You shall not covet (don't hate on your neighbour).


And the first 4 commandments?
All about 'don't hate God'.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me, for I am a jealous God (don't hate on Me)
2. You shall not make idols (don't hate on Me).
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain (don't hate on Me).
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (don't hate on My special day).

:-)
In other words, you better not de-friend Him on Facebook. Or else!


And the greatest commandment of all?
"Love thy neighour as yourself".
Read: don't hate on your neighbour=don't hate on yourself.


With the above in mind, I have come to the conclusion that any hate is all about a degree of self-hate.
Yes, there are indeed people who truly hate themselves, with all the gravity that this serious affliction comes with.
But they are rare.


I hereby postulate that any word that begins with 'mis-' is actually a rarity, and includes a measure of self-hate, or at least an absence of self-love.


Nothing below can be proved. But with my own pitiful level of reasoning (as much as I can muster anyway!), I believe this makes sense.


Misogyny is rare (and certainly it is not as prevalent that feminists would have us believe).
And while I am about it, I shall touch on why I think it is in the interests of certain people (cough, cough, feminists) to give women the impression that misogyny is rampant in our culture, and worse, that it is on the rise. Other than to feed the 'victim culture' troll, that is.


My first task in this post is to be clear what I mean by 'misogyny'.


As I hope will become clearer and clearer, I do not use the common definition of 'hatred of women' because I think it is a deeper matter than that.


For me, misogyny is really about an absence of love, or hate, of the feminine.


This is crucially important, and is the clue as to why 1) Misogyny is rare, and 2) it makes perfect sense to me as to why this agenda has to be pushed in order to annihilate male-female relations.
So, throughout this post, even when I say 'woman' or 'women', I still mean the feminine.
(Female logic for you! :-)








1. To hate women, (which is what true misogynists do) you have to hate women. So, Man X who hates a particular woman Y, is not a misogynist. It is the plurality of it that counts.


So I disagree that, for example, men who have 'complaints' about particular women in their lives are necessarily misogynistic. Sure, they have the potential to become misogynistic, but that's a story of 'further down the road'.




2. Consider the following two scenarios:


a. The good-looking and rich young man looked on as the lovebirds shared a smooch in the open-top sportscar by the beach. He felt it again, this annoying feat of Nature that always reminded him that he was a failure. This physiological reaction beyond his control that always ensured that his yearning for feminine comforts will never be sated unless he literally takes things into his own hands. He thought once again, and surely, this would be the last time: 'what is it that that guy has and I don't? Why am I a virgin and he is clearly not?'


The next day he drove around town shooting anyone who crossed his path. Then he shot himself in the head.


b. A man in his 40s looked around him. Material things abound, he thought. He looked at his bank statement. Not bad at all. He could feed a family of six on what he earned, no problem. He stood up and went to the mirror, shirt off. A tall,  toned physique looked back at him. He shook his head. What had he done wrong in his life? Or more to the point, 'what is it with these stupid b*tches that none of them would take up the incredibly good deal that he had to offer?'


The next day he walked into a female-only gym and fatally wounded as many women as he could. Then he fatally wounded himself.


The life-stories of both of these men were plastered all over the press after they committed their heinous acts of hate. Both of these men demonstrated a high level of self-hate, yes. They lacked a basic level of self-love required to stay alive, sure.
But, I ask you: were they misogynists?
I say no.


But they killed women! (And men, in the case of the former).


I take you on a little diversion...


There are many things that make feminism deplorable to me. And for this reason, it annoys me no end when I find myself agreeing with things feminists say, even if for different reasons from them.


For instance, I am in favour of education for women, and yes, even college education (but for entirely different reasons from why feminists want the same thing).
I agree entirely with feminists that rape is worse than death (but for entirely different reasons from why feminists say this).
In this vein, (and now my Catholic head comes up for air, lol), I have also always believed that divorce is also worse than death (hmm, strangley enough, I am yet to lock horns with a feminist on this issue - interesting!).


It wasn't until I saw the following video (the first 15 minutes or so) that I was able to see why my initial hunch was the right one.
This pastor goes into the etymology of the word 'divorce' in military terms. This man is after my own heart! for it is surely no secret that etymology is a guilty pleasure of mine :-).
May he rest in peace. He died (along with his dear wife of thirty years) in a helicopter crash a couple of months ago.

The point I am trying so hard to make is that in the context of 'hate', there are things much much worse than death. No innocent bystander should lose their life because Mr. X can't get laid, of course, don't get me wrong.


The reason the above two men are not misogynists are two-fold. And both of these points are based around 'knowledge'.


To be a misogynist, one must know women. It is for this reason that I think a virginal man cannot be a misogynist. It is not enough to know a woman 'from a distance'. The men who can say for sure that they know women are those men who have spent a lot of time in close proximity with women. These men are usually not virgins :-)
The Don Juans and Casanovas of this world are much more capable of truly hurting women than the average 'beta' man on the street. And these men (and frankly the rest of us come to think of it) know that living life when you would rather be dead is worse than dying. That our collective fear of death is negligible compared with our collective fear of living a living death. That for years, victims of heinous crimes have petitioned against the death penalty for a reason.
Death (depending on the context, of course) is not the 'bad guy' it is billed to be. This is precisely why the two men above had to end their lives. Dying is easier when you have a pain that won't go away. Inflicting death on the objects of their displeasure was an opportunistic by-product that they must have known would not eliminate their own feelings of torment. Death, to them, was a way out for themselves. Death could not have been a suitable 'punishment' for someone innocent who doesn't even know the cause for which they lose their life.
People who die in this way, at the hands of others, so innocently, actually die in a state of grace, in the 'Catholic' sense. This means, they die blessed. It is said that whatever sins they may stand judgment for, are erased, such that their murderer takes on these sins.
(This is what I have heard in this context - if someone in the know on such doctrine wants to elaborate on this, they are very welcome to do so).
So, these men, although tragically prematurely ended the lives of others, in the grand scheme of things, if what I heard is correct, have done them (personally) an eternal favour rather than 'punish' them in any way. In this way, they both resemble petulant children (I will do 'X' even though I know that 'X' won't make me feel better, won't solve my problem or make things whole again, but I will do 'X' because I can't or won't find a better solution').


A true misogynist wants his victim alive. So these two unfortunate men were not misogynists. They were gravely misguided in their thinking. As in fatally misguided. Their crime was not misogyny because they were not in a position to know women. And in fact, both sought this, with no success. That was the problem. One could say that they died of ignorance. Literally.


Am I saying that it follows that a knowledge of women (which in effect is really what 'Game' is) could (at least in theory) increase the chances of a man becoming truly misogynistic?


But yes, of course!


But I have two thoughts on this:
i. Having 'plurality' and 'knowledge' does not a sandwich make, or something to that effect.
There is a third element necessary to create a misogynist.


ii. It is a risk we have to take. Everyone is endowed with free will, courtesy of God. It is up to us what we do with our 'knowledge'. It is for this reason that I a still an advocate of Game even though I know what the (unintended or undesirable) consequences could be. (I see you, Metak, stop rolling your eyes :-)


Before I embark on the final element required for misogyny, I hope it is already all-too-clear that the best candidate for misogyny therefore is....women!


I know you know this, but as it is part of the topic at hand, I shall mention it nonetheless. The average woman is more capable of being a misogynist than the average man.
This is not to say of course that she will. Element number three needs to be in place before she will.


As men relate well to one another's experiences, and therefore to one another, so women relate to one another. As I alluded to 'M' here, two women (even strangers) can immediately 'see into each other's souls'. It's not that difficult. It's a human thing. In particular, every woman can see the dark side of another woman very well.
This, by the way is why I assert that 'Spacetraveller's law' must be true:
In general, men don't listen to what a woman has to say.
*Shrug*. There are sound reasons for this. Admittedly...
But there is one huge exception: if you, as a man, bring home a woman and your mother/sister/female cousin/ aunt/ any woman who has your best interests at heart says to you: 'I have a bad feeling about this one...' she is almost certainly right. She is not nearly so accurate if she is saying 'Ah, this one is a good one, marry her immediately!' Here, the chances of her being right are exactly the same as if left to chance alone - around 50-50.
But if this woman who cares about you says, 'watch out, there is something about this one I can't put my finger on, but things ain't right with her'... this is the best warning you will ever get. This is one occasion your ears (and eyes) must be wide open.
Women know each other well, especially each other's dark side.


And every woman knows what's good for her fellow woman. Or at least, should know.
So what is good for a woman?
The preacher above, in one of his videos describes this beautifully. He made my heart sing :-).


He said that women are 'incubators' by nature.
Huh? Isn't that what they put premature babies in for a few weeks until they can breathe unaided?
:-)


Absolutely. A device that gives life/nourishes/nurtures/develops another.
Beautiful description of the essence of femininity, if you ask me...


The preacher went on to give examples.
"You give her ingredients, she gives you back a meal".
"You give her a house, she gives you back a home".
You give her your seed, she gives you back a baby".
:-)


Most women want to have a chance to be incubators, with all of the above functions, in a safe and secure environment, which a man provides.
There are several ways she can be deflected from this end-point.
A true misogynist will make sure that as many women as possible are deflected from the end-point that God intended for them.
A true female misogynist was likely a bad 'incubator' herself. And now she wants younger women to be the same.
Bad incubators got a house - they trashed it literally and metaphorically.
Instead of a (life-giving) meal, they will feed you poison. (Another small digression here, but I kid you not when I say that I once watched a documentary about divorced people wreaking 'cold revenge' havoc on their ex-souses. Some were somewhat funny, like the woman who cut off the sleeves off her ex-husband's exclusive collection of high-end suits, and this man.
But the one that left me cold was the woman who invited her ex-husband to a dinner-party for one, and served him one of her special pies, which he had apparently loved throughout their fairly long marriage. Except on this occasion, it was full of dog excrement. The man ate it all and thanked his ex-wife profusely for what he called 'a lovely trip down memory lane'.
No.
If you cannot give food to someone you have come to hate so much, don't offer them food.
Food is supposed to be life-giving.
The whole point about an incubator is that it helps you to 'get back on your feet'. It is life-giving.




 'Knowledge' is important here.
This is why I think young, enthusiastically vigorous feminists are so much less harmless than their older counterparts.
Young Germaine Greer wannabe, harmless troublemaker.
Old Germaine Greer has-been, dangerous woman.


Why?
Because the young one doesn't yet know the ill-effects of feminism. She bought the by-line and is mindlessly following suit.
By the time she is old and finds out that all her campaigning has led to nothing more than a regretable situation for herself personally, and for society at large, if she continues to peddle what she is now regretting, she is a true misogynist.
There are good women out there who warn others:
"I had an abortion and I live to regret it every day. Don't do what I did."
"I divorced my (good) husband for frivolous reasons, and now I see the error of my ways."
"I was very promiscuous as a young woman, and now I feel shame every time I look at the man I married (who 'waited')."
I have actually read stories like these. No joke.


These women are good souls, and are doing a good thing. Long may they continue.


Element three is, in addition to having plurality and knowledge under one's belt, one also has the wilful intent to hurt.


So, in this sense, even if old Germaine Greer does not intend to cause harm by spreading harmful rubbish around, even she is not a misogynist.


Seasoned woman-haters know what they are doing. And they can be extremely effective at what they do. They are to be feared.


And at the same time they are to be pitied.


Because they show an appalling level of self-hate.
Remember that I insist that misogyny really means 'hatred of 'the feminine'?


In each of us, there is masculine and feminine, the 'anima' or 'energy' or 'ying and yang'. Normal women have much more of the feminine than the masculine. Normal men have much more of the masculine than the feminine.


True misogynists hate everything that reminds them of 'the feminine', including the part of themselves that they recognise as 'the feminine'.
I hereby postulate (by this logic) that a true misogynist would not be able to abide phenomena that we all recognise as 'feminine' for sustained periods of time, if at all.
For instance, Nature is widely believed to have feminine qualities (and not just because Nature tends to be cyclical, eg. in the sense of The Seasons, lol), hence 'Mother Nature'.
For this reason, everything about these people must be 'artificial'. They are heavily invested in 'Science and Technology' and have an unreasonable and unhealthy desire to overrule Nature at all cost.
True misogynists, I postulate, do not like other men, for to destroy women is to destroy what other men might find pleasurable/useful/enjoyable/likeable - potentially.
(Yes, I know that this last statement is laughable without the last key word - potentially).




Thankfully, (I believe) that the numbers of these people are low, and will remain low because their lives are literally not compatible with life.




Misandry? That's another post, but I feel unqualified to discuss it somehow. But I will ponder that subject and post my thoughts on it if there is enough interest.