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'.
- You shall have no other gods before Me, for I am a jealous God (don't hate on Me)
- You shall not make idols (don't hate on Me).
- You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain (don't hate on Me).
- 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'.
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.
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.