THEE HOLY WOMEN DOCUMENT The Ultimate Woman understanding Document. Remember, to Pretend to understand women is bad manners, to really understand them is bad morals...prepare yourself. By: Darrel Logan Forward: Women; The double standard that I refuse to uphold. ‘That guy has a nice butt,’ ‘He’s so carved,’ ‘he’s so buff’ ‘sooo fine and sexy body’ and they could go on and on with more and more expletives, more and more graphic, to the everyday comments anyone within earshot observes listening to women conversations. We’ve all heard them, everyone of us. So what’s the problem? Disrespect? Of men. True, men disrespect women, and that’s no news, and everyone knows it. But women are much much worse. If we were to say the exact same comments, (gender roles reversed) We would be, (and are) labeled pigs, "typical male", scum of the earth, etc... If 90% of us hung up pictures of topless girls, and scantily clad girls in our highschool lockers, like 90% of all highschool girls do, but male pictures, we would again be labeled again as a chauvinistic pigs, we were disrespecting women, we only wanted one thing, etc... Yet women do this, with no reproach. Basically if we treated, and spoke openly exactly like women do about guys, we would be labeled as we are, yet thousands times worse. Double standard. So, to counter it, we should do exactly what you’ve been claiming you demand. Equal rights. We will now judge you (girls) like you would judge us, if we made similar comments. A significant percentage of us guys will NEVER will falter to the derogatory level that women speak of men. Much, much higher than the percentage that one will ever find, of women refusing to make comments of such about out gender. But we should and will point out the inequality, the double standard, and our personal disappointment upon someone that is so focused on equal rights, and yet refuses participate. Women truly want to have their cake and eat it to. Yet, if men do try to uphold equal rights and point out these belittling comments, women will loath and us. WHY??? Because we tried to treat women the same as they treat men, if we made similar comments! Equal Rights? You (girls) claim you want to be treated equally, but that's just not true. You want special treatment, and to do anything you want to, and not be responsible for it. Women want the rights, but not the responsibility. You want the ability to disrespect guys, but not suffer the labels that you yourself would put on other guys, who would make similar, yet not as graphic comments. It’s true when it says, Some guys are different, but all women are alike. DEL. - Some men are different. All women are alike. - A man gets what he wants by acting smart; a woman, by playing dumb. - Woman submits to her fate; man makes his. - God made woman beautiful and foolish; beautiful, that man might love her; and foolish, that she might love him. - There are two kinds of women: those who wish to marry, and those who haven't the slightest intention not to. - To a single woman men are either dates, potential dates, or date substitutes. - Women: an infinity of cosmetics. - Men say knowledge is power; women think dress is power. - Women who are not vain about their clothes are often vain about not being vain about their clothes. - Women are the decorative sex. They never have anything to say, but they say it charmingly. - Woman's first duty is to her dressmaker. What the second duty is no one has yet discovered. - There are few women whose worth lasts longer than their beauty. - Woman strives for loveliness, man for dignity. - Beauty is the wisdom of women. Wisdom is the beauty of men. - Many women would swap brains for beauty and think they were getting the best of the bargain. - The average girl would rather have beauty than brains because she knows that the average man can see much better than he can think. - "After men, monkeys have the most intelligence," says an author. Others will argue that women do. - Smart men are smarter than they look; smart women look smarter than they are. - To find fault with a woman's intellect you must first find her intellect. - Women have simple tastes. They can get pleasure out of the conversation of children in arms and men in love. - A man, conceivably, could adjust to the knowledge that he was at a higher level than those around him, although no rational man could possibly enjoy that perspective; but to a woman it would be unbearable. - Essentially feminine, she was able to chatter but say nothing, ask questions and require no reply. - Women can write more interestingly than men on the really important topics of civilization: dress, food and furniture. - She wavers, she hesitates; in a word, she is a woman. - Woman's one notable invention: Perpetual emotion. - Women are always eagerly on the lookout for any emotion. - Women: picturesque protests against the mere existence of common sense. - No wonder women live longer than men - look how long they remain girls. - You bring up your girls to be ornaments and then complain of their frivolity. - When he has a thorn in his side, she has to have a sword through her heart. - Of what use is independence to a woman, if she is - all alone? - To be a woman is something so strange, so confusing and so complicated that only a woman could put up with it and, what is worse, feel happy about it. - Woman: a biped with two hands, two feet, two eyes and two faces. - A woman has three reasons for everything she does: the reason she says she has, the reason she thinks she has, and the reason she really has. - I will not say that women have no character, rather, they have a new one every day. - I've never met a man of good character who has had anything to do with a woman. - Between a woman's "yes" and "no" there is no room for the point of a needle. -*Even a fickle woman is loyal to one man - until she prefers another. - Her husband's funeral Is often where a widow looks for the next man. - A woman sometimes feels pity for the sorrows that she causes without remorse. - No matter how much a woman loved a man, it would still give her a glow to see him commit suicide for her. - A woman rarely discards one lover until she is sure of another. - The formation of a young lady's mind and character usually consists in telling her lies. - With a man, a lie is a last resort; with women, it's First Aid. - Women always speak the truth, but not the whole truth. - Most women think that truth is an irrelevant triviality whose only role in life is as a stumbling block for men. - A man with a bad heart has been sometimes saved by a strong head; but a corrupt woman is lost forever. - The one thing that man never gives to a woman is spiritual help. - The souls of women are so small, that some believe they've none at all. - It has often been claimed that God is a woman, but to my knowledge no-one has ever claimed that the Devil is a woman and really meant it. So I will. - Men are women's playthings; woman is the Devil's. - Women give themselves to God when the Devil wants nothing more to do with them. - Women are not necessarily evil - but evil is necessarily feminine. - Where the Devil cannot go himself he sends an old woman. - Women learn how to hate in the degree that they forget how to charm. - Friendship among women is but a suspension of hostilities. - Misogynist: a man who hates women as much as women hate one another. - No man is as anti-feminist as the really feminine woman. - When men and women agree, it is only in their conclusions; their reasons are always different. - Man's conclusions are reached by toil. Woman arrives at the same by sympathy. - A woman can believe anything in the world if there's no good reason for it. - Can you recall a woman who ever showed you with pride her library? - Women never reason, and therefore are (comparatively) seldom wrong. - Womens' intuition is the result of millions of years of not thinking. - Women have a wonderful instinct about things. They can discover everything except the obvious. - No woman, plain or pretty, has any common sense at all. Common sense is the privilege of our sex and we men are so self-sacrificing that we never use it. - Women would rather be right than reasonable. - It took a million years to develop man's ability to reason, but it takes only a few minutes of feminine logic to destroy it. - It is only rarely than one can see in a little boy the promise of a man, but one can almost always see in a little girl the threat of a woman. - If God considered woman a fit helpmate for man, he must have had a very poor opinion of man. - God created man, and finding him not sufficiently alone, gave him a companion to make him feel his solitude more fully. - Self-pity is one of the last things that any woman surrenders. - If all men told the truth the tears of women would create another flood. - It is sometimes argued that women have a hard enough time in this world, without telling them the truth. - A man who won't lie to a woman has very little consideration for her feelings. - Consistency: the only jewel found among more men than women. - Women's words are as light as doomed autumn leaves. - The easiest way to change a woman's mind is by agreeing, disagreeing, or saying nothing. - The reason women usually win arguments with men is that only dumb men are foolish enough to argue with women. - Cunning: life is a battle of wits, and women have to fight it unarmed. - Some women are so clever that you can't talk to them for ten minutes without beginning to realize how brilliant you are. - There is something about cats and women that is viewed with distrust by mice and men. - On one issue at least, men and women agree; they both distrust women. - When they are going to be flagrantly brutally selfish, women love to talk of being fair. - A woman weeps with one eye and laughs with the other. - Man says what he knows, woman what she pleases. - To be slow in words is a woman's only virtue. - When a man dies, the last thing that moves is his heart, in a woman her tongue. - The greatest problem with women is how to contrive that they should seem our equals. - Women are neither equal nor different to men - they are inferior. Women rarely if ever organize themselves effectively because they are unable to think logically. - He knows little who will tell his wife all he knows. - He seldom errs -Who thinks the worst he can of womankind. - I expect that woman will be the last thing civilized by man. - There is only one real tragedy in a woman's life. The fact that her past is always her lover, and her future is invariably her husband. - A boy expands into a man; a girl contracts into a woman. - Women chat and men converse, - Men are worried about how many years they have left, women how many they have had. - Love of flattery, in most men, proceeds from the mean opinion they have of themselves; in women from the contrary. - A man likes you for what he thinks you are; a woman for what you think she is. -Time and circumstance, which enlarge the views of most men, narrow the views of women almost invariably. - Women's styles may change but their designs remain the same. - Women try their luck; men risk theirs. -We have emancipated women, but they remain slaves looking for their masters all the same. - The mystery of women is the product of the romantic imagination of men. -For a man to pretend to understand women is bad manners; for him really to understand them is bad morals. -Even when a man understands a woman, he can't believe it. -Men dislike women who don't understand them, and women dislike men who do. -As a woman's womb fills, her head empties. -There will continue to be a vast gulf between the sexes for as long as men and women are attracted to opposite things - namely each other. -The worst mistake a man can ever make is to presume that a woman thinks like a man. -The reason I think women are inferior is that I judge them by the same criteria as I judge men. -A woman will only trust a man who lies to her. -Man is evil because he is conscious of the thought that he is lying; but women are worse because they cannot be conscious of that thought. -Man hates with his mind and body, woman with her heart and soul. -Sadly, a woman's virtue and depth of character disappears during the third hour spent getting to know her. -Women are good at trivial things because women think trivial things are important. Women are bad at important things because women do not realize how much harm they can do to the larger world outside of the small world of their immediate surrounds. -Woman: infinite to see, finite to hear. -Women: from goddesses to grannies. -It is not enough to educate women, they must not be loved. -NEVER marry a girl whose father calls her 'little princess.' -The best thing a woman can do for a man is to marry somebody else. The best thing a man can do for a woman is to make a man of her, which usually necessitates just leaving her alone. -At the age of six, boys and girls are essentially the same. The difference is that boys tend to remain at the mental age of six throughout life, while girls seem to regress. -Women need to feel compassion for others because weakness in others justifies their own weakness. - A woman wears her tears like jewelry. -Feminists would make great advances if they were not so bothered about sexist men; that is, if they were not so womanish. -To be popular with women, be sure never mention the fact that women as a class are less rational and hence inferior to men. -A man should aim to think as much as a woman feels. -Woman believes man's lies because she cares only about feelings, not future. She cannot realistically appreciate an honest man because honesty is superfluous to feelings. -Many women are convinced that the reason Jesus never got married was that he never met the right girl. -Anyone who criticizes women is a misogynist. -Women are mysterious creatures; they sometimes appear superficially deep and at other times deeply superficial. -The horrifying thing about the mystery of woman is that there isn't one. -A woman thinks a man is unethical if he tries to measure her by ethical standards, for the reason that a woman cannot comprehend ethics. -A woman, like a child, has only the shallowest and most insubstantial of thoughts. If you were to try to paddle your feet in her oceans, you wouldn't even get your feet wet. -A man may become wise, If he really tries. But all women are born wise, In their own eyes. -It is good to condemn the feminine, but beware that in so doing you do not immortalize it in yourself. -You can always find another girl, but a game lost is a game lost forever. -She's pretty, when her mouth is closed. <- From "MEN, WOMEN, AND GOD" -> <by Carl Jung> - A woman is at her best only when she loves a man. Personal relationship is her basic need, and when that falters she grows dissatisfied and argumentative in a way that often leads to divorce. But this certainly doesn't mean that men and women should remain placid. On the contrary, some tension must prevail in their daily lives, for otherwise there cannot be the ideal relationship in sex - and this is a "must" between husband and wife. Mentally, morally, physically - in all these ways Nature has created an extreme difference between man and woman, so that he finds his opposite in her and she in him. That creates tension. <- FROM KIERKEGAARD'S JOURNALS -> <WOMAN/MAN> - The more a body is organically developed, the more dreadful is the decay. When grass rots, there is as fragrance. When an animal rots, it stinks. A man's perdition is dreadful, more dreadful even than a woman's. Is this a proof that man is superior to woman? - . . . she is more sensate than man; for were she more spiritual she could never have her culmination point in another. Spirit is the true independent. Of course every religious view, like every more profound philosophical view, sees woman, despite this difference, as essentially identical with man; but it is not foolish enough to forget for that reason the truth of the difference, aesthetically and ethically understood. - The whole plan of "A Thousand and One Nights" is very profound. This battle between masculinity and femininity, the fact that femininity conquers by means of her storytelling, her persuasiveness. In the future the Sultan, who has discovered the basic unfaithfulness of all women, intends to have every woman put to death after one single night. Then Scheherazade offers to save the sex (since the Sultan demands one every night it must end rather soon with the eradication of the women) and she saves the sex by telling stories, which means: go with her and you can never get rid of her. Fundamentally there is a terrible tenacity: No man could go on living this way for three years facing the possibility of death - but a woman can - if only she gets permission to tell stories. A woman does not have the strength for a break or finds it difficult to make such a decision, but she is able to conquer by means of your not being able to get rid of her. - Woman's reflection is almost overpowering to her; this is why it is so dangerous for a woman to reflect. A woman's reflection usually goes like this: if she has won on one point or another, she is so overcome herself that she cannot avoid gazing at her victory - and then she stumbles. The man is more essentially character; and character consists not so much in winning as in continuing after having won, keeping in character. The woman endures something and counts on the approaching moment when she can take a deep breath. This moment is precisely the danger. Character is essentially continuity. - It was Eve who seduced the man - in compensation there is no undertaking more appealing to a woman than to become loved by someone who has gone astray and who now, in loving her, will let himself be led along the right path. This appeals to a woman so much that she is not infrequently deceived, because such a person puts everything over on her - and she believes everything - perhaps also because the thought of being the man's savior is so very satisfying to her. - For woman the temptation to misuse cunning (for example, to deceive) corresponds to man's temptation to misuse power. The fact that the woman's guilt is always more strongly emphasized than the man's is basically an indirect compliment to the woman, an admission of the degree to which she is the stronger sex in cunning. - In the New Testament the matter is put this way: "Let all those trivialities, those egotistical trivialities with which men generally fill their lives - job, marriage, having children, getting to be somebody in the world - let them all go, break with them completely, and let your life be dedicated to loving God, to being sacrificed for the human race. Be salt!" This is what our Lord Jesus Christ calls Christianity. When a man is intending to get married, the invitation (see the Gospel) comes to him: Let it go - and become a Christian, etc. Now Christianity has become the very opposite. It has become a divine blessing upon all the trivialities and putterings of finitude and the temporal enjoyment of life. The lovers summon the clergymen - he blesses them - this is Christianity, in spite of Luke 20:34-35 (which is a suitable text for a wedding). If the buyer of the six pairs of oxen were to summon a clergyman and pay him ten dollars to bless him and the oxen before he went out to test them, he would be considered an extraordinary, incomparable Christian worthy of adoration. Of course it is Protestantism in particular which is total nonsense. This is why Protestantism has elevated woman so high, more accurately, to first place. Everything revolves around woman. Charming, but then one can also be sure that everything revolves around chatter, trivialities, and in a refined way, around sexual relations. To some extent woman may be said to have ennobled social life in that we do not fight any more or drink and swear as did the old heroes - but refined lust or a carefully concealed, refined allusion to sexual relations - that is what has ennobled social life - Christianity!! This is how some of my pseudonyms have portrayed it and which I now also find Schopenhauer rages against in his own way. Woman is not to blame, but she is determined to humble man and to make him mediocre. Existence is also a sovereign and like every sovereign knows very well how to best maintain its regime - specifically by humbling and breaking those over whom they rule. A woman is proficient along this line when a man gets involved with her too seriously. She contributes the first and the most to his humbling. Generally it can be assumed that every married man is secretly mortified because he feels that he has been made a fool of when all this ravishing talk from the courting days, all this about Julie being the paragon of loveliness and beauty, and getting to possess her is the highest bliss turns out to be - a false alarm. This is the first knock the husband gets, but this in itself is not insignificant, because it is hard for a man to admit that he has been fooled, that both he and Julie must have been crazy. The next undermining is that the husband and Julie (who incidentally has had the same experience on her side) agree to keep a stiff upper lip and to hide things from others; they agree to tell the lie that marriage is the true happiness and that they especially are happy. When we have settled this, providence knows that this fellow is easy to control, that he is one of those who will make no conquests in the world of ideas. Constantly lying like this is extremely degrading to the man. It is different for a woman; she is once and for all a born virtuoso in lying, is really never happy without a little lying, just as it is <a priori> certain that wherever a woman is there is a little lying. In a sense she is innocent in this; she cannot help it. It is not possible to get angry about it: on the contrary, we find it very attractive. She is in the power of a natural disposition which uses her with extreme cunning to weaken the man. Thus in the forward march of history - I mean marriage - there come along with woman all the follies of finitude, this puttering around, and an egotism peculiar to woman. As wife, as mother - well, here is an egotism of which the man has no intimation. Society has licensed it under the name of love - good heavens, no, it is the most powerful egotism in which woman most certainly does not love herself foremost but through (egotistically) loving her own she loves herself. From then on ideas, and every higher infinite striving likewise, whistle in vain for the man - yes, even if our Lord and his angels tried to move him, it would do no good, because the egotism of the mother is such an enormous power that she can hold him fast. Woman has a dangerous rapport with finitude in a way quite different from man. She is, as The Seducer says, a mystification; there is a moment in her life when she deceptively appears to be infinitude itself - and that is when man is captured. And as a wife she is quite simply - finitude. - What the judge in the second part of "Either/Or" says in his way about women is to be expected from a married man who, ethically inspired, champions marriage. Woman could be called "the lust for life." There is undoubtedly lust for life in man, but essentially he is structured to be spirit, and if he were alone, left all alone to himself, he would not know (here the judge is right) how to begin, and he would never really get around to beginning. But then "the lust for life," which is within him indefinitely, becomes manifest to him externally in another form, in the form of woman, who is the lust for life: and now the lust for life awakens. Likewise, what is said in by The Seducer about woman being bait is very true. And strange as it may seem, it is nevertheless a fact that the very thing which makes the seducer so demonic and makes it hard for any poet to contrive such a character is that in the form of knowledge he has at his disposal the whole Christian ascetic view of woman - except that he employs it in his own way. He has knowledge in common with the ascetic, the hermit, but they take off from this knowledge in a completely different direction. - Woman is personified egotism. Her fervent, burning devotion to man is neither more nor less than her egotism. But His Honor, Man, has no inkling of this; he considers himself very lucky and feels highly flattered to be the object of such fervent devotion, which always takes the form of submission perhaps because woman has a bad conscience about it, wondering if it is not really egotism; man, however, as mentioned, does not see this but feels enhanced by the devotion of this other I. Woman herself does not know that it is egotism; she is always a riddle to herself, and by a subtlety of nature the whole mystification of egotism manifesting itself as devotion is concealed from her. If woman could understand what an enormous egotist she is, she would not be that, for in another sense she is too good to be an egotist. This whole business of man and woman is a very intricate plot or a practical joke intended to destroy man <qua> spirit. Man is not originally an egotist; not until he is lucky enough to be united with a woman does he become that, and then completely. In contrast to a loose-jointed framework egotism, this union, commonly known as marriage, could be called a stone-wall egotism, egotism's proper enterprise. Having once entered this company enterprise, egotism really begins to hum - and this is also why there are two, a company, in order to have someone to blame and to share the telling of lies (just as in the practical world it is recommended to have an associate who can be blamed for everything). And it follows as a matter of course that once man enters this company he is essentially lost for everything higher. This is the reason that Christianity and all more profound views of life take a dim view of the relation to the other sex, for they assume that getting involved with the other sex is the demotion of man. And this is precisely why it is said (in the thieves' slang we humans use) that everyone is duty-bound to marry and that marriage is the genuinely ennobling life. In this context it is distressing to me that an eminent person like Luther came to such an erroneous position. He should have understood that his marriage was an exceptional act, a corrective; therefore, as I have pointed out somewhere in my journal, he should rather have taken pains to stress the fact: Although I am a monk, I have married - the woman is not at all the important factor here; what was needed was an awakening, and it would have been just as awakening if it had been an ironing board, which naturally would have had to be kept secret. This would have been a way of being salt! But instead Luther became the commander-in-chief of that whole swarm of prolific people or breeders who, inspired by Luther, assume that getting married belongs to true Christianity. As far as I am concerned, I will not claim to have understood everything at first as I later came to understand it; if I had not once and for all run aground on the exceptional. I too would have been married. Something very exceptional held me back - and now at long last I see that the exceptional for me is what Christianity would call the universal, the normal, that Christianity insists on the single state and rather makes marriage the exception. Here again a Governance has been with me. But it really had to be done this way, for how could a man born and brought up in this Danish-Protestant eudaemonism have his eyes opened to what is essentially Christian if a Governance, through exceptional collisions, did not help him by always having him first experience formally the essentially Christian, even though he did not perceive this to be Christianity but believed it to be something quite uncommon - and subsequently let him see that it is in fact the essentially Christian, the truly Christian - which, incidentally, has come to be something very uncommon, particularly in Protestantism, particularly in Denmark. - Intellectually, in the realm of ideas, thought, etc., woman as compared to man is usually pictured as being something of a little goose. But in the realm of what could be called instinctive sagacity, man is a big clod compared to woman. In an idle moment as I walked today it occurred to me that if for the sake of curiosity one were to imagine momentarily that the man could bear children - I am convinced that the births would be extremely difficult, and why? Among other reasons because he would not scream. He would say to himself: You are a man; it is inappropriate to scream - and would force back the scream. The woman, on the other hand, screams immediately - and it is well known that this screaming assists the birth. There is something of genius about this instinctive sagacity in every woman; with a stroke of genius she takes a radical shortcut, whereas the man, who is weighed down by a thousand reflections, is also weighed down by an occasional but all too pompous idea of his own dignity in being a man. - The weaker sex can wail and scream etc.; this is perhaps why the woman suffers much less than the silent, enclosed man. In this context one could be tempted to say that woman is the stronger sex, for if it is strength to defend oneself against suffering, then woman defends herself far better than man. But the main point is this: it is strength to be able to accept suffering, to be able to enter into suffering, to bear up under it; and it is weakness to ward off suffering by every means possible. Woman's weakness lies in the very fact that she immediately has entreaties, tears, and sighs at her disposal to ward off suffering; her weakness is simply her propensity to wail and scream and thus mitigate her suffering. Man's strength is that he has no means of defense, no way to mitigate suffering; therefore his strength - yes, it is a paradox - his strength makes him suffer more than the weaker sex. It is paradoxical, but no more paradoxical than something equally true, that it takes health to become ill; there are sickly people who lack the health to become ill. - When a youth or young man goes astray in his passions, there are two powers alert to save him: a loving woman - and God in heaven. If he is saved by the former, he will still be finitized. If, however, he is not saved by woman's love, if he does not find a harbor here - but he is saved nevertheless, consequently by God, then his life becomes meaningful. - Woman was taken from the man's side - but Christianly understood, may not man's relation to woman be compared to what is called making a side remark. Man was structured for eternity; woman leads him into a side remark. In this world man without woman is weaker; he has a weak side which woman protects, and united they have strength for this life. But Christianly this weakness, the weakness of the solitary, weakness for this life, is a part of being strong for eternity. - Basically it is terrible but true, and it expresses the dreadful extent to which it is true - Christianity simply does not exit. This is the real situation in Christendom, especially in Protestantism. The men - and that means the miserable weaklings and clods that are called men these days, compared to the Oriental idea of what it is to be a man - men turn away from religion with a certain pride and egotism and say: Religion (Christianity) is something for women and children. But the truth of the matter is that Christianity as it is found in the New Testament has such prodigious aims that, strictly speaking, it cannot be a religion for women, at most secondhand, and is impossible for children. As a psychologist I maintain that no woman can endure a dialectical redoubling, and everything that is essentially Christian is intrinsically dialectical. The essentially Christian task requires a man, it takes a man's toughness and strength simply to be able to bear the pressure of the task. A good which is identified by its hurting, a deliverance which is identified by its making me unhappy, a grace which is identified by suffering, etc. - all this, and everything essentially Christian is like this, no woman can bear, she will lose her mind if she is to be put under the tension of this strenuousness. As far as children are concerned, it is sheer nonsense that they are supposed to be Christians. A woman and, above all, a child relate to things directly and breathe the air of directness and immediacy. If something is a good, well then it must be recognizable by its doing good; there is no use in forcing a woman (I will not even mention the child) into a good that hurts - it would break her. Just notice why it is that a woman cannot tolerate irony, that as far as her emotions are concerned irony is fatal. Is this not because she cannot bear the dialectical? In this respect I have really taken the comprehensive philosophy examination. Try it: make a girl unhappy, and then tell her: I did it all out of love for you - and you break her, her mind snaps. Adapt yourself to her and say: I am a thoughtless scoundrel - that she will be able to bear, and she will heartily forgive you. But then she also escapes the dialectical redoubling. So it is with everything essentially Christian. Only man has from the hand of Governance the toughness to be able to endure the dialectical. Having to endure the dialectical is the most intense agony there is. A child, the little rascal, is completely safeguarded against it; he can never even get close enough to lose his mind over it, even if you were to pour as much of it into him as you can. A woman can come so close that she collapses under it, or her mind, in order to get her out of this, slips away - that is, she loses her mind. To have to endure the dialectical is the most intense agony possible. It is also easy to see that far more intense than, for example, becoming unhappy, is the suffering of becoming unhappy and in addition having to take this as one's very happiness - and in every respect. Thus anyone who comprehends this (if there is such a person), when he thinks of the figure of speech, a dialectical redoubling, and imagines a woman in such a situation, will (just as when one sees the instruments of torture for the martyrs, he involuntarily hears, as it were, a martyr's shriek) involuntarily hear this scream: O, save me, save my sanity! What has really happened in Christianity, then, is that this sublimity, which is the essentially Christian position, this sublimity which no man has reached, not even when to be man was an ideal and not even one of those with highest ideality even attempted it or felt its weight without its bringing him to his knees, this sublimity under which (to put it as strongly as possible) even the Savior of the world sinks - that God who is love yet can abandon him and do it out of love - this sublimity Christendom has so flatly and heartily jabbered down into the vulgar gossip which is characteristic of the ordinary human mentality, that this sublimity has even become too light and easy for the kind of creatures dressed up to look like and whom we nowadays call men, and it is turned over to women and children, for whom religion really is intended, after all. The New Testament is aimed at the man, religion is related to the man; woman participates in religion at second hand, through the man; she cannot herself endure a dialectic, but by seeing how the man feels the weight of the task she gets an impression of something more than the immediate pure and simple; the child shifts for himself until his time comes. To want to pour true Christianity into a child (if it were at all possible, for the child's nature makes it impossible to appropriate this) is just as crude as wanting to pour brandy into a child (which happens too often), because the parents themselves drink brandy, and the sweet lassie has to have it as well as her parents. And in the name of Christianity to want to pour something into the child which is not Christianity is, after all, indefensible. But, as stated, Christendom has gotten everything transposed over into the immediate and direct - and therefore, quite right, "the child" has become the measure of what it is to be Christian! Christendom does not seem to be at all aware that all this about "the child" has raised an ironic problem, a question which has been kindly answered, the problem of what shall we do with the child, can the child become a Christian - a question to which the New Testament gives no answer since it assumed that the Christian does not get married. Have a third-party relationship to a child, and you will see that everything is just as the New Testament presents it. But then the nice Christians hit upon the very thing Christianity put a stop to, even wanting to start all over afresh - so children got another significance. And thus, quite logically, by means of the child Christianity was turned upside-down, became exactly the opposite of what it is in the New Testament, got to be sugar candy for children, even to the point that the kind of men we have nowadays were right in turning away from it and regarding it as something that was only for women and children, something which disgusts a man just like gossip, chit-chat, and the temperature in the nursery. No, let it become again what it once was, let it bring the man to his knees to pick up and carry the task, let woman shudder to see how heavy it is. And the child? Yes, let it become as it once was, let us be free from this child-begetting by Christians: then it is possible that Christianity may be seen again. Otherwise it is impossible, and I for my part cannot see how it is possible that anyone with an impression of Christ's life and what the evangelists understood it was to be Christian and with an idea of Christ's demand for discipleship and imitation can think of getting married. - To say that Christianity makes man and woman equal, and therefore the woman must relate to Christianity the same way as man, is baseless talk. Christianity does indeed make man and woman equal, but it still does not change their natural qualifications; otherwise by the same logic one could conclude that Christianity must cause women to grow just as tall and muscular as men, or even (if Christianity normally had this result) have the effect of making the business of childbirth in Christendom so confusing and indescriminating that sometimes it would be the woman, sometimes the man, who bore the child. To say that women relate to Christianity even more essentially then men is a fraudulent trick to get Christianity redrafted in terms of the immediate and direct. No, on the scale of the immediate and direct women certainly have the advantage both in delicacy and depth and inwardness, but as soon as there is a dialectic, women are in the same situation as people in the southern countries when they have to pronounce a Slavic word with five or six consonants before a vowel. <- From "THE JOYFUL WISDOM" -> <by Friedrich Nietzsche> When a man stands in the midst of his own noise, in the midst of his own surf of plans and projects, then he is apt also to see quiet, magical beings gliding past him and to long for their happiness and seclusion: <women>. He almost thinks that his better self dwells there among the women, and that in these quiet regions even the loudest surf turns into deathly quiet, and life itself into a dream about life. Yet! Yet! Noble enthusiast, even on the most beautiful sailboat there is a lot of noise, and unfortunately much small and petty noise. The magic and the most powerful effect of women is, in philosophical language, action at a distance, <actio in distans>: but this requires first of all and above all - <distance>. Woman and music: Why is it that warm, rainy winds inspire a musical mood and the inventive pleasure of melodies? Are they not the same winds that fill the churches and arouse thoughts of love in women? Skeptics: I am afraid that old women are more skeptical in their most secret heart of hearts than any man: they consider the superficiality of existence its essence, and all virtue and profundity is to them a veil over this "truth," a very welcome veil over a pendulum - in other words, a matter of decency and shame, and no more than that. The strength of the weak: All women are subtle in exaggerating their weaknesses; they are inventive when it comes to weaknesses in order to appear as utterly fragile ornaments who are hurt even by a speck of dust. Their existence is supposed to make men feel clumsy, and guilty on that score. Thus they defend themselves against the strong and "the law of the jungle." Simulating - oneself Now she loves him and looks ahead with quiet confidence - like a cow. Alas, what bewitched him was precisely that she seemed utterly changeable and unfathomable. Of steady weather he found too much in himself. Wouldn't she do well to simulate her old character? To simulate a lack of love? Is this not the counsel of - love? <Vivat comoedia> (Long live comedy!). On female chastity: There is something quite amazing and monstrous about the education of upper-class women. What could be more paradoxical? All the world is agreed that they are to be brought up as ignorant as possible of erotic matters, and that one has to imbue their souls with a profound sense of shame in such matters until the merest suggestion of such things triggers the most extreme impatience and flight. The "honor" of women really comes into play only here: what else would one not forgive them? But here they are supposed to remain ignorant even in their hearts; they are supposed to have neither eyes nor ears, nor words, nor thoughts for this - their "evil"; and mere knowledge is considered evil. And then to be hurled, as by a gruesome lightning bolt, into reality and knowledge, by marriage - precisely by the man they love and esteem most! To catch love and shame in a contradiction and to be forced to experience at the same time delight, surrender, duty, pity, terror, and who knows what else, in the face of the unexpected neighborliness of god and beast! Thus a psychic knot has been tied that may have no equal. Even the compassionate curiosity of the wisest student of humanity is inadequate for guessing how this or that woman manages to accomodate herself to this solution of the riddle, and to the riddle of a solution, and what dreadful, far-reaching suspicions must stir in her poor, unhinged soul - and how the ultimate philosophy and skepsis of woman casts anchor at this point! Afterward, the same deep silence as before. Often a silence directed at herself, too. She closes her eyes to herself. Young women try hard to appear superficial and thoughtless. The most refined simulate a kind of impertinence. Women easily experience their husbands as a question mark concerning their honor, and their children as an apology or atonement. They need children and wish for them in a way that is altogether different from that in which a man may wish for children. In sum, one cannot be too kind about women. <<Mothers>> Mothers find in their children satisfaction for their desire to dominate, a possession, an occupation, something that is wholly intelligible to them and can be chattered with: the sum of all this is what mother love is; it is to be compared with an artist's love for his work. Pregnancy has made women kinder, more patient, more timid, more pleased to submit; and just so does spiritual pregnancy produce the character of the contemplative type, which is closely related to the feminine character: it consists of male mothers. <<Vita femina>> The Greeks, to be sure, prayed: "Everything beautiful twice and even three times!" They implored the gods with good reason, for ungodly reality gives us the beautiful either not at all or once only. I mean to say that the world is overfull of beautiful things but nevertheless poor, very poor when it comes to beautiful moments and unveilings of these things. But perhaps this is the most powerful magic of life: it is covered by a veil interwoven with gold, a veil of beautiful possibilities, sparkling with promise, resistance, bashfulness, mockery, pity, and seduction. Yes, life is a woman. <- From LAWS VI -> <by Plato> - Women are accustomed to creep into dark places, and when dragged out into the light they will exert their utmost powers of resistance, and be far too much for the legislator. And therefore, as I said before, in most places they will not endure to have the truth spoken without raising a tremendous outcry. - WOMAN - *- WOMAN -* *- An Exposition for the Developing Mind -* *by David Quinn* * December, 1990 * - An Exposition for the Developing Mind - Someone took a youth to a sage and said: "Look, he is being corrupted by women." The sage shook his head and smiled. "It is men," said he, "that corrupt women; and all the failings of women should be atoned and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman, and woman forms herself according to this image." "You are too kindhearted about women," said one of those present; "you do not know them." The sage replied: "Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes - truly, a hard law for women. All of humanity is innocent of its existence; but women are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and kindness enough for them?" "Damn oil! Damn kindness!" Someone else shouted out of the crowd; "women need to be educated better!" - "Men need to be educated better," said the sage and beckoned to the youth to follow him. - The youth, however, did not follow him. From Nietzsche, 1882 - CONTENTS - Introduction Part I. Woman at a glance. Part II. Upon closer examination. Part III. Observations on the modern situation. An epilogue - INTRODUCTION - The essence of woman is divinity - simple, pure, spontaneous, and Natural. She is the embodiment of selflessness, the giver, the carer, the bringer of warmth and joy; rarely does she cease devoting her time to others. All the troubles of the world are caused by men and their patriarchal domination of it. All such ills would cease if only everyone were to cultivate love and peace and generally return to the innocence of <femininity>. No judging, no discrimination, no intolerance, no conquering, no striving - such is the formula for the woman's utopia. For all his supposed achievements and fine words, man's stupidity is best expressed in his inability to express himself. And while women have been subordinated throughout history, their openness with their feelings and honesty with themselves has made them more mature than men. Yes, women are more broad-minded than men, more "spiritual"; they respect the complexity of the individual, while men treat others as mere cyphers. Thus sayeth conventional wisdom. Naturally, these beliefs find their most ardent support amongst women themselves. Indeed, the whole woman's movement is based upon them. Yet while the woman's movement is new, the beliefs concerning the divinity of woman are ancient, and go to the very core of society and the ego living within it. Woman is the essence of society. Her very nature acts as an efficient preserver of humanity's values. So important is, and was, her function in this regard that she has remained unchanged throughout much of our evolution. The so-called changes brought about by the woman's movement are merely superficial - she is still woman. And while woman has been important for our evolutionary survival in the past, yet now we ask: Is she valid in herself? Is she more "spiritual", more "divine"? Is she truthful? Is there anything about her true at all? In a world full of violence and confusion, it is the duty of every thinking individual to develop his or her reasoning in an all-out search for Truth. This must be done - if not for one's own enlightenment, then at least for the survival of humanity. One must take rational open-mindedness to extremes, never resting in one belief or another, but always attacking, forever attacking. The more one believes something to be true, the more one must assault it from every angle with the powerful weaponry of reason. And why? Because one does not want to deceive oneself! Only in this way will the Supreme Certainty be reached. I present woman here in a very different light to the accepted dogma. It is woman naked, as it were, stripped of her bright colours and finery. It is a more truthful view <precisely> <because> it is woman without her finery. Is she allowed to protest against such scrutiny? She will, of course - for she welcomes only those truths which overlook her. Inevitably, these essays will be misunderstood by all but a few individuals. History does not treat kindly those who are honest in their dealings with woman. To most, these essays will constitute sure proof that there is something horribly wrong with my nature. In anticipation of this, let it be known that there is not the slightest trace of misogyny in me. I offer these essays as a guide to those who wish to be free of woman in their attempt to live a philosophic life - a life of thought and truth. Woman is a plethora of contradictions, an infinity of finitudes, which must be understood if one is to succeed in relinquishing the ego. For the study of woman (and man) is really the study of the ego and how it manifests in the world. This work is <not> a scientific or philosophical thesis aimed at converting all and sundry with irrefutable evidence. Neither is it a doctrine of social change, or an exercise in moralizing. It is written only for those few individuals who have cultivated a serious interest in matters of the Infinite - all else are advised to read no further. It will be these few precious individuals, male or female, who upon reading these lines will clasp their hands with a joy of having met a long-lost friend. Yes, it is to you I write, and my thoughts are always with you. PART I - WOMAN AT A GLANCE - Most valuable for an understanding of male and female psychology is the study of evolution. The essentials of our evolution are well known: broke away from the apes; grew taller and became upright; became hunter and tool-maker; a rapid development of the brain and an enormous increase in complex social behaviour. Most important was the way our ancestors learned to work together to form a functional unit. This was essential to our survival considering that we were in competition with highly equipped hunters like the cats and the dogs. Indeed, the tribe became an organism unto itself - a super-organism - which had a great advantage over its rivals. Being composed of 10, 20, or 50 subunits, this superorganism could break apart, with some of the fragments staying at a home base while others went off to surround the wildebeest - subunits which organised themselves intelligently and purposively, "joined" together by communication and emotion. Combined with artificial weapons and strategic planning, the tribe's rivals could prove no match. So natural selection acts upon the tribe rather than on the individual person, and the survival of the individual depends upon the survival of the tribe. Now, natural selection does not necessarily favour the most truthful species, nor the most divine, but only those which can sufficiently adapt to changing conditions in order to pass on their genes. The survival of our species depended upon the tribe's ability to work as a cohesive unit. Any clumsiness here would have quickly been selected out, as the tribe would have been unable to survive. Such cohesion was made possible by the emotions. Emotional cohesion between individuals to form a functional unit had the added effect of preserving stability and increasing the flexibility of our species. This dynamic cohesion was central to our excellent ability to adapt to changing conditions. The division of sex roles and the emotional interplay between the sexes helped to maintain this dynamic cohesion. So we see that while cultures may change, and even emotional values may change, the essence of woman does not. The males, through their inquisitiveness, courage, and rationality, open up the possibilities of great change, but it is woman who ensures that all change be kept to a minimum, and that which she does allow be kept firmly towards the "common good". I should add at this point that although there are genetic differences between man and woman, the essential <psychological> <differences> between them are a result of upbringing, and not genetics. That the natures of woman and man have remained basically unchanged throughout much of our evolution is a testimony to the power of culture - and not genetics. * It is no accident that history is a story dominated by male characters. However, this is not due to the subordination of woman by a "patriarchal society", as is often claimed, but is due rather to the inevitable consequences of the evolution of the sexes. Males have evolved to be physically and mentally stonger, to be (relatively) fearless warriors, risk-takers, and adventurers. Attack and defence was absolutely essential for the tribe's survival. The males were reared to perform this function and it was thus inevitable that they would come to dominate the making of important decisions within the tribe. How could history have been otherwise - considering that politics is rooted in the art of attack and defence? But this does not mean that women were thereby subordinated. I cannot believe that women are completely ignorant of the vast power they actually possess in society. Indeed, they have played an enormous part in history. The role of woman was not only one of reproduction, the rearing of offspring, and the gathering of foods - equally important was the <emotional power> the females possessed over the males. Women were the preservers of the social organism; the men were tools to this end. Thus, history is as much a women's story, even though as an individual she is very much out of the limelight. Let us not be mistaken here. Woman's emotional power over man does not come from the individual woman herself, but from the social fiction she embodies - that is, WOMAN! It is this abstract, ethereal entity that we all worship, not the bags of blood and guts themselves. Of course, one look at the modern specimen with its lipstick, earrings, dresses and bubbly personalities is enough to make the above statement seem unnecessary. Every woman is trained for one purpose only: to emulate WOMAN as closely as possible. And though the details of this social fiction may change from age to age, and from culture to culture, the essentials do not. She must be seen to be utterly distinct from the male - transcendent or otherworldly. Everything about her, from looks to personality, must emanate purity and godliness. Note, if you will, how the concept "she" finds no place in the world of natural things. Thus, today, as in all history, the socially ordained lot for women is for them to shed their individuality and merge into the homogeneous mass of WOMAN - an entity as featureless as it is abstract. So strong is the pull towards this fiction, and so terrible the consequences for any who dare resist it, that the possibility of there arising a woman with any genuine individuality is slim. Rather, fashions, trivia, and bubbly personalities are as essentially feminine today as they were ever. Teenage females are identical to each other and the same as they were in all history, middle-aged women even more so, no matter how much they try to distract us from this fact. Women themselves are generally not aware of their sameness but are all too aware of their differentness. This is because they have a sharpened eye for small detail which excludes the larger picture, and precisely this provides for much of the conditions for their sex's fundamental sameness. Women are certainly not the unselfish and non-competitive creatures we are so often led to believe. On the contrary, their competitive nature would do any man proud. Their selfishness is merely concealed, and their competitiveness manifests indirectly. To be sure, the world of the female is distinct and utterly different from that of the male, thus her different response. Woman's prime concern, if not her only concern, is that of <status>. Her only real happiness lies in the experience of power - the gaining of status over other women. Marriage, children, houses, lovers, looks, clothes, wealth - all are means to an end: to succeed in a game which never ends. At the very pinnacle of the status tree, where the greatest happiness is, there lies the woman in love. She has, as it were, transcended the game. There is nothing above her. The world is transformed and she feels so special. Although she lavishes all her attention upon her man, doting on him constantly, never wearying of observing him in all kinds of intimate detail, her happiness ultimately lies not in him but in being in love. The man himself is of secondary importance, a means to a higher end. The woman in love does not even have to give thought to other women in order to enjoy her position in the hierarchy. Rather, her whole being reeks of the knowledge of her own superiority. In any case, if things get a little jaded, she has only to descend a little way in order to compare herself again. This alone will cause her to transcend once more. Because of the competitive nature of the status game, women are obliged to invest a great deal of time and energy in it. Indeed, virtually all women become thoroughly obsessed with it, being involved with the game in thought and deed at every waking moment. When two women meet on the street, what lies behind their smiles and gossip? - two thoroughly alert creatures, each anxiously investigating the other: how good-looking is the man perched on the end of the other's arm?; whose children are brighter, cleaner, happier?; what about clothes, hair, wrinkles, and fat?; how are the renovations to the house coming along? - generally, the looking for any sign that the other woman might have something over her. Here is the root of her injustice and disposition for envy as is well known in psychology. Her morals and concerns are but tools for the game, and if they prove a hindrance she will discard them as easily as she took them up - without batting an eyelash. Also, her total submission to the status game does not favour her making rational decisions. Indeed, the lack of responsibility and conscience in most women can, in part, be traced to this. And because of her deep involvement with the status game woman is an habitual worrier. She feels that her world is continually on the verge of falling apart. Her hair tends to keep falling from the desired shape. Her clothes always seem crooked, her house untidy, her children hungry. There are a thousand little things for her to attend to. Accordingly, she has an eye for detail that the man does not. And because her brain has to incorporate this continual flux of detail and process it into a manageable shape the woman's mind generally thinks at a much faster rate than the man's. Behind her composure, her mind is alight with thousands of tiny flashes of thought. In contrast, the male mind entertains fewer thoughts that come through less quickly and less urgently, but are capable of <penetration> as a result. Women's gossip, then, is a natural consequence of her constant worry over status. As well as receiving continuous input from others concerning the do's and dont's of successful feminine strategy, gossip provides the further advantage of strengthening the belief that the whole woman's world is somehow extremely important. * The backbone of the woman's world is the social fiction, WOMAN. It is the game wherein each and every female competes for status, thus preserving and furthering the fiction. This in turn preserves and furthers the herd values of society. It is not necessary for the individual female to consciously preserve this fiction. It is true that her bones may tell her "all's right in the world" when WOMAN is seen to be in its rightful place . . . but it is enough to train her to believe that ultimate happiness lies in succeeding in the status game. She is blinkered and unaware of all but the road ahead. She knows little of her own motives, believing herself to be a loving and caring individual. Well known in anthropology is the fact that the inhabitants of a particular culture are ignorant of the real reasons why they esteem the cultural values and belief-systems that they do - reasons which can only be determined by taking a broader evolutionary perspective. A people's myths and religion may seem to be expressions of divinity to the consciousness of the inhabitants, but they are unaware that the reality behind them lies in the more mundane spheres of economics and survival. A famous example is the Indian worship of the cow. The Indians themselves believe the cow to have intrinsic spiritual value and consequently do not kill it. But studies have revealed that the belief evolved because the cow has come to be an integral part of India's complex economic system. The cow has become essential to farmers, not only for by-products such as milk and dung, but more importantly for the mechanics of agriculture (ie, for their ability to do work). The sacredness of the cow is a most useful belief in times of drought and great hardship when the temptation to kill it for food becomes great, but which would be fatal for the farmer's future to do so. And we too, in the West, have our sacred cows. I mean the sacred cows of love, compassion, family, and woman. For although they appear divine to us, their real (and only) value has lain in humankind's ceaseless battle to survive the rigors of the Natural world. We worship the false, believing it sacred. This is called preserving the ego. Who has the faith to believe in reason? Who has the desire to be freed from all false gods? We must let go of our mother's skirt at some stage. How can we walk in the infinite if we cling to the gods of the finite? Just observing the way women present themselves is enough to convince one that something's afoot. Their otherworldliness positively reeks out of the light frilly dresses, the lipstick and eyeshadow, the diamonds and ornaments, the flowing movements, the happiness on tap. They seem to have no place in Nature's realm of blood and guts and faeces. The closest they come to tangibility is by way of abstraction - thought-stuff is what they are made of and nothing more. Yet how on earth did the relentless unforgiving process of natural selection produce such daintiness? The answer lies in the structure of the tribal unit upon which natural selection operates. The "superorganism" of the tribe had specialized parts, just as our body has specialized parts. Women became unworldly abstractions to the degree that men became big and fearless. Thus the species became a peculiar mix of big hairy beasts and barely tangible god incarnates. The tribe was like a many-pronged sphere. The men were the outer prongs, who did the killing and defending, while the women were coccooned within, free to refine their magical illusion of otherworldliness. * And to this day she continues to cast her magic spell in her contrived and artificial world. There is no substance here - what matters most to her is <appearance>. Hence, each woman must necessarily be the actor (note: not actress). Her training is deep and began before she can remember, so that by the age of seven she thoroughly knows the attitude and behaviourisms of the mother. The little girl learns and imitates the mother during the years when her brain is at its freshest and most responsive. For the rest of her life she will feel most comfortable in the role of mother, and will find the maternal attitude to be most satisfying. Upon reaching her teens, however, she faces the traumatic task of learning the role of seducer/woman. She has already learnt many of woman's tricks, but now it becomes a serious business to perfect the role. These are years of constant practice - indeed, she is in direct competition with her peers who are themselves constantly working at it. No wonder the teenage girl has no time for anything but fashion and boys. She <must> succeed in this artificially constructed world; it is the only world in which she can survive. Failure here can mean only one thing: to endure the most horrible of all punishments - that of being unwanted. Seduction is the frontline of her being. With skill and confidence it can prove a most effective weapon. Yet it is fragile, and works only in a narrow range of conditions. Woman needs a role and a stage in order to function. Fortunately for her, theatre rules the world and there is little else in our culture apart from seduction. Outside of these necessary conditions, the bubble of woman is easily burst. Yet, paradoxically, she is always infinitely secure. She possesses an impregnable line of defense which can be called upon at any time, under any circumstance: that of caving-in completely. By thrusting her mind into the chaos of her emotions she can escape into a realm in which nothing exists. Deep in her heart, woman knows this; indeed, it almost seems a source of inspiration to her. "Smug" is the adjective that first comes to mind when one observes woman. The most determined of feminists and the most pathetic of waifs are both equally - smug. Behind the glitter and dazzle of woman lies an emptiness which goes nowhere. Little wonder that man so easily comes to despise her - reason and philosophical purpose have no place in her world. Yet how can she stop being the actor if she cannot reason? And of the few women who <are> capable of reason, how can they possibly follow through with it? A life of reason must inevitably lead away from WOMAN. Heaven knows, all society is absolutely against such a direction! Women themselves become the most outraged when one of their sisters ceases to play the game . . . Every reasoning mind which desires to realize Truth comes face-to-face with the problem of WOMAN. This monster of a fiction is extremely effective in deterring any thought from probing into fundamental values too deeply. Anyone, be it male or female, who wanders off the well-trodden path in search of Truth immediately feels the acute pressure to re-conform and knows at first hand how effective a deterrent WOMAN can be. And well it might! Where Truth is, woman is not! The real reason why so few people come to know Truth is not because the human brain is too limited, or because Truth it is inherently unknowable, but because - women won't allow it! PART II- UPON CLOSER EXAMINATION - We humans spend our lives attempting to crawl back to the womb. The ego is fundamentally motivated to find the supreme happiness and security of infancy and early childhood. The infant bliss - a timeless sea of meaningless joy - perhaps felt most acutely between the time when the conceptual faculty becomes developed enough to give consciousness any meaning and the time when we begin to fully appreciate the terrifying vastness of the world we live in. Once driven out into the whirling chaos of the outside world, we rarely experience such dream-like bliss. Ignorance is bliss, and the infant bliss is an ignorant bliss. As infants we know nothing of the outside world, nor are we able to comprehend our own actions. We have yet to form strong emotional attachments, so we know nothing of loss. We are ignorant of change and impermanence and have no fear of the future. Initially, the infant's attachment to the mother is primarily a physiological one based on familiar sounds, odours, and visual patterns. But as the child develops intellectually, with increasing awareness of the world, the infant begins to suffer the contrast between cold hard reality and the dream-like bliss of its former existence. The latter comes to be increasingly rekindled only through the mother's presence, which causes the infant to become increasingly attached to her. In the infant's eyes, the mother becomes a supreme, all-powerful God, the embodiment of all goodness and perfection. Through her, the infant/child can re-experience the heavenly realms of infancy and thus comes to view the mother as being the guardian of this realm. She is the gatekeeper, as it were, the gate being the entrance to supreme happiness; a gate through which the young child may be able to enter, if it so pleases her. This picture, and these forces, form the core and soul of the egotistical mind. It forms the basis of the thought-patterning and emotional make-up which will persist throughout life, and express itself in the search for happiness. As the child grows the mind hardens, and, under a storm of adult conceptions, the mind soon forgets the infant bliss which it had so loved. This leaves a void in the child's mind, inhabited by hungry infantile emotions which are continually driving the child towards an unseen goal. Such is the ego, constantly engaged in the search, with every thought and deed judged in terms of gain and loss, the ego will struggle throughout its life for something it knows not what. It will necessarily come to see Nature as the enemy to be conquered and destroyed. An unfailing faith will spring forth in the belief that worldly skills and success will surely beat a path back to the heavens. Innocently accepting society for what it is not, the ego will throw itself into love, business, friendship and status in an effort to fulfill its hidden agenda. Or else it will be forced away into the fantasies of religion and mysticism, believing that its Holy Grail lies elsewhere, in some other world or dimension. Or else it will simply give up in cynicism and while away its time in the forgetfulness of chemicals, television, books, music and sex. And so it goes on, and all the while Wisdom sits forgotten in the corner, waiting patiently for some madman to follow his reason and to experience the supreme bliss of this world. We have seen that the young child, be it male or female, comes to regard the mother as the supreme God, protector, and provider of eternal happiness. A point is reached, however, when the paths of the young male and female diverge and go their separate ways. The male child gets rejected from his mother, as it were. That is, he is made to realize that he cannot grow up to be a mother, but must become that altogether shadowy and complex figure in the background, the father. Indeed, the mother herself encourages him in this, rewarding him if he performs the conventional "manly" acts. Thus, he is pushed firmly, gradually, further and further out into the cold, away from her warmth of old. A process gradual enough to continually reaffirm his addiction to her, yet strong enough to shatter forever his complete trust in woman. He will never again be entirely comfortable in her presence. Even when in later life he becomes intimately involved with a woman, he remains uneasy - unless she continuously displays her unfailing devotion to him. The smallest of signs that she is not wholeheartedly interested in him is enough to cause a man fear. Rejection is but a whisker away! Now it is at this tender age that the boy is expected to perform acts of independence. His uncertainty with regard to his mother leads him to value the male world more highly than her - it becomes a substitute mother, <a more certain mother>. Success and fame become her embrace, male comradeship her affection. To put it another way, the young boy ceases to see his mother as being perfection, the gatekeeper to eternal happiness, but comes to regard this divinity as being somewhere out in the world. He is made to strive, conquer, and succeed in the world, to succeed enough to be deemed "worthy" by this hidden divinity. Perfection has rejected him - and he spends the rest of his life seeking its favour and acceptance. So at a very young age a boy comes to know the suffering of solitude. He learns to depend on himself, his mind, his wit, and his reason. He learns to introspect in an effort to understand what crime he has committed to deserve such a fate. <Perfection has rejected him> - does this mean that he is therefore evil? Or worse, <uninteresting?> Little girls go through no such trauma - they are far too busy happily being mothers themselves. For it is a fact that "girls mature faster than boys", and they are brought up steadfast in the belief that they are perfect in their own purity. The young girl also comes to associate the idea of perfection with mother. She too comes to see her mother as being the gatekeeper to eternal happiness. Realizing that she herself will become such an entity, the little girl begins to formulate an ideal based the concept. She creates the Dream - the ideal of the perfect woman - to which she will, even now, begin to conform herself, only to develop it into an earnest pursuit later in life. Here we can see an essential difference in the psychology of the two sexes. The female is brought up to believe that she herself will become the divine gatekeeper, whereas the male will see his task as one of conquering her. The female creates the image of the ideal woman before immediately creating a dream-man to compliment this ideal. The male, on the other hand, must learn to manipulate himself so as to resemble <her> image of the dream-man. He is essentially lost, spending his time, as he does, groping blindly in the dark, not having the benefit of a concrete clear ideal as she has. The female is constantly in close involvement with her ideal. It is essentially a static image and it is merely a matter of growing in conformity with it. The content is such that she herself is seen to be the embodiment of perfection, innocence, and love - with the entire Universe worshipping her as such. It is an ideal she unquestioningly believes to be utterly right. Her deepest desire is for it to be actualized and thus for her to be able to submit entirely to it. The image of the early mother, which forms the essence of her Dream, begins to take on a structure and shape through the various influences of her childhood. She reads fairytales and stories, studies her elders, and practices with her peers. By the time she reaches her teens she will have become thoroughly obsessed with the Dream and with the art of making it real. It is a time of trauma for her while she is subjected to real pressure for the first time in her life. The pleasant dreams of childhood no longer suffice and she must now learn all the tricks of a trade in which she must become a master. During this period the young girl will come to reject her mother as being the embodiment of the ideal. The "later" mother is no longer seen to be the "early" one. Her mother has fallen from grace, as it were, and becomes for the young girl an object of pity or disgust. The ideal is detached and placed elsewhere, on to other women. Now, the Dream inevitably involves a man, and the female becomes intimately concerned with finding one who somewhat resembles her dream-man. It need not be a particularly close fit. If she can find a man that has some semblance of the right character- istics she will craft him into an even better likeness - making up the shortfall with fantasy. The more the man comes to resemble her dream-man, in her eyes at least, the more she is able to submit to the Dream. All men feel, deep down, that they are failures. From an early age perfection has cast them aside, and from an early age they are made to feel responsible for their failure. They feel they must now prove their worth and are thus driven out into the world to try to assuage the pain. That man is a failure is concealed, for what man fears most is to have his failure, as a human, <exposed> - either to himself or to others. He fears having his deepest belief about himself confirmed. And as the man grows older this is compounded by the possibility that his entire past life, a life spent in trying to redress the whole situation, is also to be one of failure. Hence, a man does his best to conceal such matters. Just as the female creates an ideal of perfection in her mind, the male too attempts to create one - but at a much later age. Whereas the female's ideal is inexorably directed to the common fiction, WOMAN, and hence is static, the male ideal is far more flexible and open to change. All he knows is that he must conquer and succeed in something. These two contrasting ideals provide the necessary conditions for a dynamic cohesion of the species, so important for evolutionary survival. The man creates an image of himself succeeding in something and fantasizes about the subsequent fame and adulation. If this image gains credibility through some success in the external world then, egotistically speaking, so much the better for him. His joy in conquest lies in this: the distancing of himself from his feeling of failure. It is not true that man fears "re-engulfment in the mother", or that he fears to lose his individuality in submission. No, indeed, it is in fact deepest desire - to dissolve himself in a sea of absolute happiness and security. Nor is it strictly true that he fears the feminine. What he does fear is WOMAN'S judgement and her rejection of him. In the mind of every person, and consequently reinforced in social myth, is the belief that woman is closer to perfection than man. This is no mere accident, for such a belief is the base upon which society was built. 1. Man is given the faculty of will, but the price he pays for it is guilt. The more woman is regarded to be the embodiment of perfection, the more a man will appear lost, despicable, and worthless. That is to say, woman's perfection is emphasized at the price of male dignity. Thus he spends his energies in an effort to gain her approval, and in a most effective way, the wilder, more independent nature of the male is restrained in conformity with the "common good". 2 If the art of winning lies in the ability to conceal one's tactics and intentions, then it is no wonder that woman is so good at conquering man. She has honed to perfection the skilled use of contradiction and disguise. Just look at how she presents herself, with her elaborate attire, make-up, ornaments, shapely dresses, tight-fitting clothes, together with her childlike personality - what is the meaning of all this? Is it simply a desire to be attractive? Yes indeed, but the purpose is always to conquer and control man. Firstly, her manner must <advertise> her sexuality. Whatever form this may take - from the subtle shapes to the more revealing, from the raunchy to the sophisticated, from ornamentation to facial expression - whatever form this may take, she must be able to grab man's attention and provoke his arousal. Men must come to desire her, to want to get involved with her. But wait! The interested man immediately stumbles into a contradiction. Where he sees sexuality, he also sees innocence. Where he sees assertiveness, he also sees helplessness. Her childlike manner - the spontaneous laughing in the present, the seeming naivety, naturalness and unaffectedness - this seems to both at once heighten and diminish her sexuality, and to throw him into confusion. Here is woman in perfect stride. She has deliberately presented herself sexually, indeed has spent many hours planning and pruning herself thus - all for the purpose of manipulating the man. However, it is vitally important for this intention to be disguised. So she appears innocent, carefree, spontaneous, and submissive. The male is now at the end of his wits wondering how to approach her, and woman exploits this to the full. She is cast into the position of power, to use the authoritative Yes or No. But this is not all, for a third factor immediately comes into play, one that provides real bite to her authority - the factor of otherworldliness. Essentially, the otherworldliness of woman is related to mother. In appearance woman does not resemble mother, nor does she need to. Rather, she gains her transcendental power by analogy. This is the purpose of make-up and ornamentation: to appear utterly distinct from man's own earthiness. This distinction, this barrier between her and all things earthy, along with the physical triggers of odour and soft curves, is enough to revive the old infant emotions associated with mother. Thus is man is aroused, confused, and cautious. He aches for her with all his being, but now it is up to her to judge him worthy or not. In an instant, if he should make as much as one false move, she can make him believe himself to be a wickedly evil, ugly monster. Or, in an instant, she can cause him to soar into the heavens with her glance, her smile, her touch. These three factors - sexuality, innocence, and otherworldliness - comprise the arsenal which the female unhesitatingly utilizes in her attempts to bring man under her control. Her body is her hidden treasure, a gift reserved for the most select; from her innocence and naivety pour forth movements of pure clean melodies unsullied by cares and concerns; her otherworldliness bathes her in a sea of mystery, of mysteries eternally elusive to mere mortals. Three factors that create the powerful illusion of <completeness>. The dense atmosphere of contradictions which surrounds the female issues from the complex interplay between these three factors. Being in full control of this interplay is the woman's art. It is what femininity is. 3. Lovers foolishly believe that they become one in a unity of love. Both lovers might experience emotional highs and altered states of consciousness in each other's company, but the woman's bliss is firmly rooted in a different soil to the man's. For the male and female have had entirely different upbringings, have dreamt different dreams, and thought different thoughts. For the woman, falling in love is the start of <real life>. Her past life is nought but a preparation for this. Like the person who strives to imitate his favourite fictional character, the woman in love blissfully performs the expected actions and experiences the expected emotions. She knows the plot through and through - her joy is to live it out. Here, in love, she is in her natural element. Just like the stage performer, who, having rehearsed long and hard so as to become highly skilled, and come performance night rises to the occasion, intoxicated, revelling in the power of his coordination and spontaneity, so too the woman in love never has to say: I am at a loss to know what to do. Similarly, the man in love feels he has entered a higher realm of being, but his joy is different in kind to the woman's. In flirtation and sex it is obvious that his joy lies in conquering her - most obviously in the latter when his emotions often approach hate and destructiveness. However, I strongly submit that in <every> type of interaction with a woman his sole pleasure lies in conquering her. I include here every type of relationship imaginable, from the rawest to the most tender and innocent. In all matters pertaining to woman, the man's joy is that of conquest. What are the traditional roles of marriage but expressions of this? What greater pleasure is there for the man, knowing that he can come home from work and there will be his slave, whore, and mother patiently waiting to lick his wounds and revitalize him for his next day's adventure? Far more subtle though, and consequently harder to detect, are the pleasures of conquest in the so-called modern open relationship - I mean that relationship possessed by the artist, poet, and intellectual; a relationship much sought after by the liberated woman, where equality claims to be reigning. This type of relationship involves the more fragile, the introverted, the wounded - where the male, skilled in the art of <holding> <back>, in subtle manoeuverings, in prolonging the conquest, gains his pleasures in exploring emotional territories, in deepening her acceptance of him, in "overcoming his inhibitions" through an increasing openness towards her - all forms of conquering. Spiritualized sex, as it were. And what more of love? What more of loves evils? No, I shan't even mention that indestructible worm-eaten poverty-stricken tramp, that master of disguises: status! But I will expose that most insidious of all pleasures - insidious because of its brilliant disguises of innocence and goodness - where the male lovingly looks upon her as "soul mate". Or, should I say, as the duplication of his own ego? Ah, ha! <Complete conquest!> 4 The understanding WOMAN more fully, and to understand how it came be, it can help to focus on certain peculiar aspects of human evolution. We shall see that WOMAN was essential in the formation of the human animal, and indeed, without it the development of rational intelligence would have been impossible. The evidence suggests that our nearest living relative is the chimpanzee. I will assume that in the early days, as the hominids brached out from the rest of the primates, our ancestors were organized along similar lines to those of the present-day chimp: fluid informal groupings, stable mother-offspring units, and a modest division of labour between the sexes. Foodsites act as magnets attracting nearby chimps - forming a temporary group - but who later drift apart when the food is gone. While both sexes look for food, it is the males who are slightly bolder. The females, with offspring in their care, are inclined to keep more concealed. Amongst the general flux there is stable social structure in which the chimps remain in close affectionate contact with their siblings and mother throughout their lives. When changing environmental pressures drove us out of old comfortable niches and into new territories, we had to find new methods of survival. As always, a species has to adapt to environmental changes or become extinct. Nature pushed us in the direction of relying more heavily on meat - to scavenging and then to hunting. But it seemed at first that Nature didn't equip us properly for the new demands. We had no rippling muscles, sharp claws, powerful jaws, nor great speed. The only thing inherited from our primate ancestory that could possibly be of use was primitive cunning. So it was this quality that natural selection favoured, built up, and perfected. Nature gave us the greatest of gifts, one that would prove to be more than adequate for the times ahead - the gift of <flexibility>. With an increasing intelligence, hand-eye coordination, tool use, and social complexity, our species adapted by becoming expert at adapting. This growing flexibility of behaviour meant that the normal strict kind of genetic determinism was having its power eroded. Our forefathers were becoming increasingly independent of traditional genetic forces, and if this trend were to have continued unchecked it would have posed a serious threat to the species' survival. Simply, intelligence was not yet enough to allow individuals to unite under a rational purpose, yet was certainly enough to destroy social cohesion. It was essential that the individual's concept of "self" be identified with the group and not become restricted to the individual himself. Here lies the key to understanding the essence of our species. Some mechanism was needed to foster the growth of both intelligence and social cohesion. This dual purpose could not be met by crude genetic change, as a genetically determined social cohesion would mean a sacrifice in intelligence, and in the all-important flexibility. So Nature fashioned a solution by increasing the complexity of the central nervous system combined with neoteny. Neoteny refers to changes in the rate of development of a particular characteristic in the embryonic process. In our species, the rate of brain development was slowed so that the infant came to be born with its brain still in the middle stages of development. This caused an increasingly longer childhood which, as we shall see, was to become essential for the growth of culture. Equally importantly, the prolonged juvenility served to ensure that our increasing intelligence and flexibility was kept firmly under control - not genetic control, but emotional. The newborn infant was becoming increasingly helpless and for longer periods of time . . . helpless while the necessary elements for the formation of personality were being put together. This gave the mother an immense emotional power over her children. The fresh inexperienced brain of the child would construct fantastic images of her, becomes attached to her power, and develop models of the world based on her. Such a mother-centred psychology would create even further differences in the way men and women are expected to behave, and would thus serve to widen the differences between male and female behaviour and psychology. Importantly, along with the increased intelligence and imagination came an increased sensitivity to fears, anxieties and stresses. One way to alleviate these burdens, and allow the continued growth of intelligence, was conformity to sex roles. Sex roles provided an element of stability and predictability in an uncertain world. Also, natural selection rewarded a more aggressive and courageous mode of behaviour, which further widened the gap between the sexes. By having half of the population able to confront great dangers, with the other half acting as supporters and soothers, the species could deal with its new challenges more effectively. So, with time both the emotional and physical well-being of the species came to depend on the differences between the sexes. The evolution of WOMAN was by now well under way. Sex was no longer the sole attraction the male had for the female - he required female companionship for the sake of his emotional health. This need increased to the point where nothing less than the complete possession of a female was satisfactory. The pair-bond had begun. Through cultural selection, which promoted contrast between the sexes, the female became slighter of build and developed more delicate features. Spurred-on by the men, she became more otherworldly, more ethereal, and to conquer such perfection was very satisfying to a man. Yet she perplexed him. For example, she was seen to be the <creator> of the species, the connection between copulation and pregnancy not being made. Further, she bled in menstration but did not die! Surely, he thought, this creature is not of this world! He was spellbound. The sexes became increasingly attracted to each another on an emotional level. Each provided the means for the other to escape the boredom and stress of the everyday. The male found that one of the charms of the female was her ability to bring out the child in him, providing an attractive dreamworld in which he could relax. The female in turn worshipped his strength and virility; she loved to submit to his power. Her happiness depended on being desirable to male strength. It seems plausible that the emotions of "love" arose early in our evolution, certainly before the emergence of the formal tribe and subsequent cultural take-off. Love between the sexes is the product of their differing but complementary egotism. Indeed, it is the very expression of the gap between. In turn, love fosters these differences. Each gives rise to the other, feed off each other, fertilize each other, and develop each other. The pair-bond may seem to be everything to the two people concerned, but it actually serves a deeper purpose - in tightening social cohesion. Social cohesion was further enhanced with the further development of language, which saw the formation of formal tribes. The old pair-bond was transformed into the institution of marriage, which served the same function as the pair-bond and was used as a political tool to forge alliances between neighbouring tribes. Equally importantly, marriage insured that <all> males remained faithful to the tribe. Not only was social division lessened by allowing every male access to a female, but marriage also kept the number of anti-social ideas to a minimum. The institution of marriage became a highly visible feature of culture. Its traditions and rituals underpinned all the customs and laws that ruled conscious life, and was highly esteemed. But even deeper than this, the tribal worship of marriage was in reality the worship of the male's commitment to the values of the tribe; the wedding feast was the celebration of the herd's victory over the individual. The institution of marriage was so successful that it continues to serve its purpose even now. Although I have written profusely on women, it should be noted that I have been writing about primitive myth and its descendent, religion. I talk about woman because I believe she is the deeper basis upon which the human world is constructed. I do not want to tangle with the countless myths and religions, for they are only <later intellectualizations of her>. Yes, all the elaborate myths, legends, traditions, spirits, gods, and other such invisible entities which surrounded and infused the tribe - all were manifestations of the power of WOMAN in the tribe, and shaped the behaviour of the individuals to fit the purpose of the collective. 5 Have you smelt Christianity amongst these lines? For indeed, Christianity is little more than a sophisticated version of the common mother-worship performed by infants. How else could those masked men, I mean the priests, have managed to have fool us for so long, conning us into believing in some invisible supernatural entity - if not by appeal to infant emotions! Look at the paralells: both infant and Christian worship an all-powerful, loving, caring, forgiving God; a smiling face which compassionately looks down at the struggles of Her/His creation; both infant and Christian equate maternal feelings with the highest good; both perform actions and rituals to win the favour of their God; both believe that the greatest happiness lies in their God's presence, and both are coerced into certain patterns of behaviours through reward and punishment. And too, just as the infant-become-child soon acquires skill in the art of manipulating its parent for self-gain, so the Christian approaches his God in order to - <trick Him!> Tears are used to wound Him, for the Christian knows all too well how to gain control over an Almighty God . . . by appealing to His compassion! PART III - OBSERVATIONS ON THE MODERN SITUATION - The glorification of love, so prevalent this century, highlights our spiritual bankruptcy. While the world has never exactly overflowed with spiritual wisdom, at least in times gone by there was the occasional whisper of a higher ideal - skyward shots of passion to attract the eye of Wisdom. Nowadays, however, such restlessness has all but vanished. Where have the thinkers gone? Where are the barbarians who grabbed life by the scruff of the neck and shook it to pieces? Why is everyone so timid? Last century, Nietzsche lifted his head and spewed his ugly truths on a flat world - and the world has bolted for cover ever since. No one since has even remotely approached his love and honesty, and it looks less and less likely that such giants will ever appear again. Was Nietzsche the very last representative of a dying species? No doubt, if our passion for Truth could be converted to sound and broadcast through giant amplifiers, then the twentieth century would boom out a thundering silence. The personality of modern society is that of a teenage drug addict who writes a little poetry on the side. Frivolity rules. Philosophic seriousness is ridiculed - considered an aberration of character. People want mobility, not nobility. 1 Religion has always been the best weapon against truth, but the modern glorification of love has surpassed even religion. O, love is a poison which insidiously croons its way through the mind, wreaking untold damage as it goes. Yet the men of today are so weak that even the most rational of men succumb to it. Witness the pathetic spectacle of the hords of grown men whimpering over their love like lost little boys! Only in this century could the womens movement have flourished - for it is really a mens movement in disguise. That is to say, it is desired by men. Men desire a retrogressive movement from the healthy heights of rationality to the stagnant valleys of emotion below. But what of women? - the only change in woman through all of this has been the lowering of her chin. Now she feeds off this stagnation in her own attempts at will to power, which is sinking humanity even deeper into the mire. 2 Am I dissatisfied with the way male values are being expressed in the world today? Yes. Am I then in favour of the women's movement in its attempt to change the situation? No, because the woman's movement is based upon, and is in its entirety, a pack of lies. 3 The history of the sexes has been one of mutual tyranny. The evolution of patriarchal institutions was the male response to the oppression he suffered under woman. An equilibrium was reached, with power being spread evenly between the sexes. Now woman has no intention of giving up her own power but is requiring man to shed his. The result will be a tyranny so complete it would have Stalin turning in his grave, cursing that he had been born both a male and a century too soon. 4 It is said that the male characteristics of reason and conquering are responsible for the world's ills. Yet who could seriously believe this? It is precisely <unreason> which causes the wars, violence, and injustice. Emotional attachment is ever the culprit. Yet, nowadays, women and holy men unite in extolling the virtues of emotion. I am struck dumb by their belief that modern Western civilization is a product of <too much reason!> What gall! They have <no conception> of what it means to live naturally, yet see fit to denounce such living anyway. Likewise, conquering itself does not cause the world's problems, but rather the <conquering towards deluded ends> which always does. And why does man conquer? - he conquers to please women! Man may pull the trigger but there is always woman behind him, nodding approval. He has not been allowed to conquer toward rational ends, for Truth, but has been persuaded to squander his energy in petty ideals. At root, the cause of all war, violence, hatred, and injustice is not nationalism, economics, religion, racism, or male aggression, but <egotism>. Egotism is in man, and in woman. Male egotism is obvious for all to see, whereas female egotism is disguised, concealed, hard to perceive - but then, the art of concealment is part of woman's egotism. Now because male and female egotism compliment one another, and have evolved together, the valuing of the one automatically means the valuing of the other. Male egotism, as expressed in the world, is dependent upon female egotism, and vice versa. If women were really concerned with the state of the world, if they were in the least bit serious about the task of eliminating the causes of our problems, if they were to possess even the merest speck of genuineness in their "movement", then they would be attacking their own egotism at least as much as they so enthusiastically attack the male's. But woman are as far from this as they can possibly be. Their only concern is to increase the satisfaction and pleasure of their own egotism. 5 The inherent <ungratefulness> of woman is most obvious in her "movement". Acknowledge, if you will, that the world we live in is, and always has been, a woman's world. 6 For most of our history, society was structured such that women did most of the mind-numbing work. This allowed space for men to achieve great things. Women were bred to find satisfaction in drudgery and even encouraged to make it a feminine virtue. In the upper classes, the female was brought up to be childlike. Man wanted her to be a blessed relief from his more serious concerns - a holiday. He loved her naivity, her innocence and self-deception. In short, woman was harmless - charming but harmless. At its best, this allowed man to concentrate his thoughts upon the great problems of existence, while woman soothed and supported him when required. Though she might not understand the weight of his profundity, she could at least appreciate its existence, and the suffering involved with it. But things have changed. With woman's escalating influence in the world of thought, this old doting view of her is no longer acceptable. Alas, she has lost her innocence - or her harmlessness at the very least. Now she plunges into the male mind with her childlike abandon, only to grasp superficially at its contents. Her own lack of depth blinds her to the existence of all depth. She gaily concludes that men worry about nothing at all. Men are lost fools who stupidly think about nothing. She then goes further to say that <she herself is the profound> <one>. Oh supreme irony! Yes, the most terrifying thing about the modern woman is her total lack of awareness of true profundity. With her ever-increasing influence, she is even able to persuade the male that such depth does not exist, and that he should return to the immediacy of her own femininity. Consequently, men are being robbed of their very souls! Her self-deceit, once relatively harmless, is now destroying all quality of mind. I therefore consider it to be one of my duties to expose the truth about woman - the truth that her real nature is far other than what it seems; the truth that her innocence and purity is nothing but a seething broth of lies, schemings, and manipulations! In times past, it was perhaps enough for the seeker of Truth to renounce woman. It is now his or her duty to <denounce> her. But who is capable of this? And what is it, exactly, that is to be denounced? Most certainly not woman's strivings in the intellectual sphere, nor her attempts to become independent of mind and to give full development to her character. What should be denounced, firmly and uncompromisingly, is the feminine. The feminine is a quagmire of delusion which draws both man and woman into its stagnation. For this reason I urge both men and women to never cease increasing the depth of their honesty, so as to destroy once and for all that monster of a fiction called femininity. 7 It cannot be denied that some good has come from the woman's movement. The challenging of traditional modes of thought is always a worthy enterprise, and women are quite capable of this - at least on a social level. Today's world provides men with great freedom, but restricts women to a support role. Women are fully justified in questioning and challenging this state of affairs. But it must be emphasized that whatever the value of the woman's movement, it is only in its being a corrective, <and not a solution>. It is like a medicine which may cure one form of sickness (and not necessarily others), but which produces the need for further treatment of its many side- effects. Feminine philosophy never be a solution but, at best, only a response. The woman's movement only has to go a little distance before encountering an impenetrable barrier. This is a barrier created by their lack of the appropriate skill and courage necessary to eliminate the <true causes> of what women perceive to be wrong in the world. Indeed, it is hard to know if women will ever realize that their very dreams and aspirations contribute enormously to the growth of all that they perceive to be wrong with the world. 8 Depth, as I define it, concerns the degree of relationship one has with one's thought. A developing reason directed at the fundamentals of existence, so as to penetrate the universal illusion, does not of itself constitute genuine depth, important though this is. Enlightenment itself is only the first step to Perfection. The rest of the journey consists of <transforming> oneself in the light of such knowledge. It is precisely one's actions and lifestyle that determine the depth of one's thought. A superficial person, then, is one who does not enter his self into his thought. He has no faith in thought, using it only to serve his baser desires. And because his thought is compromised, the entire content of his thought, no matter to what heights it may soar, is therefore meaningless, empty, and superficial. All intellectual activity for such a person is only simulated, enabling them to hold contradictory beliefs without conscience. Yet this does not necessarily make the superficial person a hypocrite. True hypocrisy is rare, for it depends on a degree of self-awareness and rationality. Superficiality is an effect of ignorance, whereas hypocrisy is conscious of itself. Indeed, being a hypocrite is not necessarily a slur on one's character. Any individual who strives for genuine ideals will sometimes enter into hypocrisy, for human weaknesses are highly vulnerable to exposure in the bright light of such ideals. But it is good to expose faults, so hypocrisy is better than superficiality. The great skill of woman - her art <par excellence!> - is her ability to point beyond herself. All her movements suggest a source hidden deep within her. Man looks and looks - but finds nothing. He exclaims, "Woman is a mystery!" And no wonder! Nothing exists there to be found! Woman is purely the superficial, whose superficiality so skilfully persuades to the contrary. For she has no depth - there is not one bit, not one tiniest fraction, not even one slither of this fraction of anything other than the superficial. 9 In the end, the great difference between man and woman is the quality of self-reflection. Woman claims to be self aware, but deceives herself. Or rather she <is> very aware of herself - as <woman!> Rarely, if ever, does she reflect enough to see beneath woman. She hasn't the courage and strength to make such movements. How far she is from discovering her True Nature! Her mind is made for the purpose of succeeding in the game of womanhood. Thus she is self-conscious, not self-reflective. Of what use is Truth to a woman if it brings her no status. 10 What does the modern woman want? An egalitarian society? A society of individuals, each of unique worth, where gender is irrelevant? I, for one, would whole-heartedly welcome such a society. But - and this is no mere trifle - there needs to be <individuals> to comprise it. 11 Women do not want to be individuals, they want to be - women! In fact, the role of woman to minimize any genuine individuality. Conflict, a something fundamentally different from the norm, an intense and sustained suffering, a conquering and striving for lofty ideals - these are the qualities of an individual, qualities which woman regards as aberrations of character. She hates the individual, who necessarily undermines her world. She strives to make everyone like herself - open-minded, happy, tolerant, caring, sensitive to others, cooperative - that is, a <non-entity>. 12 Woman claims to desire real substance, yet the values she holds dear - her "living for others" - necessarily implies her lack of it. She desires substance but it is impossible for her to create something out of nothing. Therefore, she does the next best thing: she continually strives to weaken others, to reduce them to her own level of nothingness. In this way, she gains a feeling of substance. 13 If a woman truly desired substance, then she would do well to throw off all that which makes her appear more substantial than she really is: the relinquishing of the roles of seducer and mother; a ceasing to be the actor; a refusal to use illusions to emotionally manipulate others to her own ends. Can a woman do this? Does a woman want to do this? I fear she does not desire genuine substance, but only an imitation of it. I fear she only desires the increased status involved in appearing substantial. I fear she finds femininity all too pleasurable to give serious consideration to such matters. 14 And so, the "new woman" strives to appear more substantial. How does she go about this, remembering that she is first and foremost an actor? By way of increasing her own complexity!; by becoming more adept at muddying her own waters; by becoming more unpredictable. A revamping of her old teenage brashness and precociousness. In short, she aims to inspire confusion in all who dare look at her. 15 Of what use is independence to a woman if she is - all alone? I suspect that what she means by independence is not emotional non-attachment, but being in the position of having more options for the fulfillment of her dreams. Her independence is the freedom to become dependent upon another man. 16 The new woman is far better off than her predecessor, for now she can explore her fantasies to the full. She creates the "new man" to play with. This man is sensitive to her needs as a woman, but remains harsh to himself. And he must not display weakness; the last thing the new woman wants is to have a weak man to tie her down. She could not possibly submit to such an entity. The new man, for his part, is bedazzled by this new species of female. She is wild and unpredictable, uncontainable. His pleasure consists in simply being involved. He regards her as the most desirable of women and is flattered by her acceptance of him - feeling affirmed, like some naive teenager, that he is successfully well-adjusted. Since the new woman is a woman of means, a career woman, out and about mixing with people, she produces anxious feelings in her man's mind over the possibility that she could leave him at any moment. He must strive like never before to develop his "new man" skills in order to keep on winning her. The new man is forever on the verge of jealousy, yet he must never let this show because jealousy implies weakness, and his new woman expects him to be mature and independent. Thus, his skills include disguising his jealousy. He performs to please - he buys flowers, takes her to dinner, indulges in her fantasy for romance, gives her space, allows her to see other men. He fulfills her fantasies by continually changing his personality and values so as to keep on winning her. 17 In a sense, woman is more single-minded than man, but it is a concentration upon details. She lives in a world of a thousand tiny details which she must attend to. Her skill, as woman, is in manipulating them to her own ends. She is an expert in subtlety. Tinkering and prodding, using an apparent minimum of effort, is her art. She specializes in the subtlest of facial expressions and bodily movements, and the shaded nuances of emotion underlying her speech - so subtle, so natural, so effective at manipulating others. Man, by comparison, is a clumsy and cloddish brute whom one can only feel sorry for. He can hide nothing. Woman is brought up to exist in the world of human relation- ships. She tends to consider the non-human world as trivial, empty and meaningless. Man, however, is brought up to delve into science, engineering, philosophy, sports, and so on - all of which take him outside the human world. Although he depends very much on the human world, part of him exists outside of it, so he is nearer the Truth. 18 Woman is now more educated, and increasingly participates in the world of the intellect. Yet this is nothing more than a lovely new dress. What she lacks is true penetration of thought, that is, the ability to think something all the way through. Although it is claimed that she does this, it is simply not true. This is because real penetrative thought would inevitably take her outside the world of womanhood, which she cannot bear. She thinks about a problem only until an answer pops up to her egotistical satisfaction. That is, her criterion for truth is based on the amount of happiness received and not on whether something is true or not. That is why woman never attempts to discover the <principle> <which explains all>. For it would amount to questioning the validity of femininity, which would taint her perfection and make her sad. To seek ultimates would drag womanhood from the realms of divinity down to the mundane sphere of natural causes. Hence, her intellectual activity is confined to merely <responding> to existing theories and ideas. More specifically, she seeks to uncover that which represses her femininity. Hence her obsession with the "patriarchal domination" and the like. 19 She thinks the Universe was created for her, and that all existence must serve the feminine. According to her, reality acts, or should act, with only this purpose in mind. She divides existence into two neat categories - femininity, and the rest of reality, which includes man. And when it acts against her, as it must, then reality itself is judged to be in error. Her dream is what counts. If it is shattered or remains unfulfilled then reality/man is to blame. The woman's movement represents an effort to give her dream victory, a victory over reality. Or rather, it is a type of revenge on reality - reality being man - because it has the affront to shatter her dream. Her goal is supreme power over reality. Femininity should flourish unimpeded. Yes, she <deserves> such power precisely because - she is a woman! Femininity is perfection; reality is the beast, the animal, the obstruction, the enemy. Complete and utter control of reality - an ideal of power of which man has yet no conception. Many an old woman is bitter and cynical about life, her dreams defeated, in tatters, because life itself was at fault - not her. Only her dream counts, and it matters little to her whether the methods she employs toward realizing it are ethical or not. She lives by <cunning>, but is innocent in this because much of her cunning is habitualized and beneath her awareness. Yet even that of which she is aware produces no conscience in her. For woman doesn't regard her cunning as being cunning but rather as her right, as woman, to use whatever means necessary to be happy. This is her innocence. 20 Many women seek to increase their appearance of substance through "spirituality". The New Age is yet another case of plain old woman playing her usual games - woman decked out in spiritual colours, as it were. The whole idea is to convince themselves, and others, that woman's nature really is divine. It is also an attempt to convince themselves that the feminine dream <can> be actualized, if not in this world, then in some other world or plane of existence. For my part, they are quite welcome to all their beliefs in fairies, elves, crystals, reincarnation, spirits, spiritual planes, altered states, healings, mantras, and workshops. They can have all the divinity they like. Just as long as I am able to state that all this has nothing whatsoever to do with Truth. 21 The New Age philosophy - her living in the present - her emotional love of submission is taken to extremes and is sanctified. 22 Woman sees far more in a person than does the man. For a man treats others as units or cyphers, while to a woman each person is a complex of conflicting emotions, a bottomless source of goodness, an individual struggling with the burden of life's cares. Yet this statement must be qualified by the fact that her understanding and "compassion" for others is always conditional on the other displaying innocence and vulnerability. It boils down to whether she can be in control or not, and she has only two weapons at her disposal - sexuality and motherliness. If she encounters too powerful a person, one who shows no signs of weakness (that is, of needing her), she becomes hostile. She will hurl her childlike black-and-white categories at the other without remorse, who is deemed a kind of monster. She regards all weak people as being special, or even spiritual. She feels that each person is unique and has something valid to say. No matter that one person be totally dedicated to the Truth, constantly directing an ever-developing reason upon the fundamental issues of life, and that another be an unthinking slave to television, fashion, and sex - no, according to her each person's opinion is of equal worth. "Everybody has their truths; no-one is right or wrong" she says with infinite tolerance. O infinite tolerance! You are so pleasant! Yet you are only only another scheme for self-preservation, a means to overcome threats to one's comfort. Woman's "equality" disarms the power of reason, protecting her from the one thing which can destroy her world. Although this type of tolerance is typically feminine, it is especially emphasized in the New Age. Conflict is minimized and she can concentrate on her own growth in the resulting void, safe in the knowledge that nothing can harm her. The flipside to her tolerance is an <unconditional intolerance> to anything which opposes her. She is armed with a barrage of categories for any who dare reason and therefore disagree with her: "out of touch with his/her feelings"; "ignorant of the true self within"; "too intellectual"; "chauvinist"; "cold and inhuman"; "a sad anachronism", etc, - all of which she says in a maternal tone. At root is an unfailing faith in the perfection of her own femininity, in the utter rightness of feminine values. Personal growth - a la New Age - is the process of becoming more womanly. Never are these values seriously examined. To do so would be unthinkable and she will not tolerate anyone else doing it either. 23 Just as a woman's joy with a man lies in intimacy, the New Age woman extends this intimacy to all others. For intimacy is a woman's will to power! She loves to be in the company of others who openly show their feelings - provided these are feelings of love and happiness. She loves the New Age rituals of chanting, singing, and dancing together, telling each other how much they love each other. Indeed, she feels that barriers have been torn down, and in her heart she feels responsible for this. She feels great bliss in such circumstances, intoxicated with the feelings of her own goodness. For goodness, her goodness, has conquered evil - evil being <conflict>. An innermost desire of her's has thus been realized: that of turning everyone around into <infants> - featureless identical entities which hold no real opinions of their own but which gurgle and babble instead. 24 Modern Spiritual Wisdom preaches: trust your emotions, allow them to be expressed spontaneously; free yourself from the rigidity of logic; listen to your deeper feelings and desires; reach out to somebody and make contact; let yourself go. Modern Neo-Nazis preach: trust your emotions, allow them to be expressed spontaneously; free yourself from the rigidity of logic; listen to your deeper feelings and desires; reach out to somebody and make contact; let yourself go. 25 Well, my friends, are you still with me? Is there a smile on your face and a lightness in your mind? Yes? For you see the overwhelmingly <positive> nature of these essays, while others see only negativity. Others grapple with the ridiculousness of my words, while you to dance on to higher things. Others try to fathom my psychology, while you see through to the Infinite. A sure sign of the genuine philosopher is his uncompromising attitude with respect to the feminine. But this does not mean that he hates women. Indeed, he cannot hate women, for that would be to hate Nature, which would be sheer stupidity. The philosopher is fully aware that all things have causes and hence that both woman and man are innocent in every aspect of their existence - how could he hate what is blameless? What he does hate is delusion. For it is delusion which robs us of what we truly are. How can we discover our true nature if we cling to what is false? All spiritual progress must necessarily be a process of firstly exposing what is false and secondly eliminating it from one's being. The first is <reason>; the second is <faith>. It must be emphasized that these essays are <not> frivolous exercises in generalization, out to make fun of women. Rather, they constitute a study of the fundamentals of our psychology and the place of Truth in that psychology. And I must be make it plain that the fundamental characteristics of womanhood affect <all> women to greater or lesser degree. It is true that there is a certain overlap between the sexes, so that, for example, some women are more intelligent and stronger than many men. Unfortunately, it is evident that most women conform to stereotypical womanhood to a very high degree. In any case, the thrust of these essays is aimed at the <feminine mind>, and not necessarily at women. Yet as women embody it to such a very high degree, studying the behaviour and motivations of women can give us insight into the feminine mind at play. Of course, there is a great deal of the feminine in man also, inasmuch these essays apply to him also. The racist thinks there are vast differences between people of different colours. The scientist looks at genetic structures and announces that all humans are virtually identical. Now who is right? I am the scientist of the ego whose field of study is the fundamental sameness of all egos. It is pleasurable to study the endless variety and detail of human behaviour, but utterly useless if one is interested in fundamental change. I openly admit that I care little for women's typical interests and concerns. At best, I find them banal - at worst, depraved. I realize this view will not make me the most popular person - but I have a conscience. 26 Given the banality of femininity, there will always be a few intelligent, strong-willed women who will find little satisfaction in it. Unfortunately femininity provides no help for genius, so that even these rare women are unable to grow. Out of desperation they take hold of the feminine dream and push it so far and high that it disappears, and they end up being crushed by meaninglessness. So, a step down from genius are the leaders of the feminist movement. Worshipped and revered by the masses, these few women, unencumbered by genius, are clever and strong enough to manipulate femininity to their own ends. The entire feminist movement just this: strong-willed energetic women claiming the highest status of womanhood by virtue of changing and extending the very definition of femininity. Yet they could never have done this alone. Had they not gained the for the support of at least a few women, they would have been dismissed as freakish upstarts. They gained this support through skilfully manipulating the emotional dissatisfactions of the common woman. At any given moment a significant number of women will be dissatisfied with their lives. However, this dissatisfaction is only temporary; woman's basic belief in femininity remains intact. In the meantime, women express their dissatisfaction in the form of <revenge>, which is moulded by those few strong- minded feminist leaders into a woman's movement. Like sheep, the masses of women swallow whatever their gurus tell them, revelling in indignation. Yet when this becomes boring, as it must, or if a new dream offers more appeal, then these women drift away to become ordinary women again. Thus the feminist movement has an extremely high turnover. It has the appearance of stability, a steady voice for women, but is no more than the noise of an extreme minority in constant flux. These few strong feminist leaders are never in short supply of admirers. Supremely happy are they, intoxicated with power and status. They force the concept of femininity to be extended to so high as to make gods of themselves. This severely wounds the common woman, who has her own status reduced and her feminine happiness tainted by feelings of failure. 27 If one needed no other proof that the feminist movement is <not> concerned with equality with men, nor even with so-called oppression by men, but that it is nothing other than a process performed by a few women in search of feminine happiness, then one need only look at the fundamental assumption of their philosophy. Women, they argue, are oppressed and restricted into a feminine ideal designed by men. This implies that woman is the powerless victim. This serves to relieve women of all responsibility and to perpetuate the belief that femininity itself is blameless and pure. Such a belief only serves to preserve the submissive/dominant emotional interplay between woman and man, and consequently creates the conditions for all the things that women profess to hate. 28 The credibility of the woman's movement suffers greatly from the fact that it wants to have its cake and eat it too. Take sexual harassment for example. Women keep on complaining about it, men keep on feeling guilty about it - but really, there is never any genuine attempt to eradicate it. For example, it is said that women should have the right to dress as they please and that men should be able to control themselves. This is a classic illustration of feminine logic, designed to avoid all responsibility and consequences. Does not woman dress <in order> to affect the male mind? Of course she does! How she loves to arouse a man's passions! How she loves to transform a robust man into putty with a single glance of her eye. Small wonder when her plans backfire! However, woman wants to be in control of man's loss of control. When this is the case then all of the things that are usually labelled "harassment" - the stares, sexual innuendoes, sly touches, and even rape - magically cease to be harassment and instead become the foundations of a new romance. Hence, woman really does not want the "sexual abuse" to stop. Indeed, what could she despise more than a man who is completely indifferent to her? Rather, her complaint is: "Man should know <when> it is right to harass me, and when it is not." Poor man! Women seem to have no consistency in their intentions and desires. One minute he is an exciting and courageous hero, the next a monster intent on tyranny and abuse. In her heart of hearts, woman <loves> man the way he is. So her attempts to change man's behaviour will be superficial at best. 29 What is sexism? Sexism is to make judgements purely on the basis of sex, while ignoring other relevant factors. Woman is sexist. Her whole manner of life says: "Man, you are so despicably low that even just a little thing like my appearance causes your mind to wilt." She dismantles man, not by reason, but by seduction. It is out of the depths of contempt that woman approaches man. She sees man only in terms of his relationship to her. She is like the child who thinks the sun exists only to keep us warm. She lives purely in the domains of emotions and sex; consequently, she thinks man does also. She finds him incomprehensible when he acts to the contrary. "Man is stupid", she says at one time; "Man is lost", she says at another . . . and smirks. In truth, man is never seen by her at all! Instead she interacts with a construction of her desires. "Why else does man exist, if not for me?", thinks every woman. Thus is woman sexist. 30 The blame, if blame there be for the status of woman, rests squarely on the shoulders of both men and women - <though men> <should know better!> In the end, men and women simply enjoy each other too much to ever give serious consideration to changing matters between them. It is precisely this submission to emotional pleasure which causes the sexes to be as they are. If there is to be true equality of the sexes then there must be equality in upbringing. But to bring this about the adults themselves must set the example by making all-out efforts to eliminate the emotional games played between the sexes. I cannot see this happening, so all this talk of equality of the sexes is sheer nonsense. Yet if there were ever to be some degree of seriousness over this issue, then the questions to be asked are: Would equality of upbringing be in the best interest of the species? Would it destroy the precious male qualities of striving and conquering, so necessary for change, thus propelling the species even further into the stagnancy of a uniformity of mediocrity. 31 Woman looks for the appearance of a foothold; man looks to create one. Behold the interplay between woman and man! 32 Love between the older, the mature, deeper more sensitive people - the artists and intellectuals - is in the end a process of self-pity. They can no longer believe in the fulfillment of their childhood dreams and have become unhappy with life. Their very love is indeed an unhappiness with life. It is a political truism that nothing brings a nation together more effectively than the presence of an external enemy. Similarly, the perception of a mutual enemy forms the very essence of the bond between two people. This is where self-pity becomes essential, for self-pity creates an enemy out of - life itself! And since the nature of this enemy is one of ever- presence, a long and loving relationship is ensured. Love is a drug, as the song goes - and so it is. Although it appears to point beyond itself to some grand cosmic goal, love is but a drug. A powerful, more addictive drug than heroin, love is purely the satisfaction of childhood yearnings (or withdrawals). As addicts we spare no effort in blocking out this shameful truth. Instead, we glorify love, equating the drug with perfection itself! This phenomenon beautifully illustrates the widespread <nihilism> that forms the basis of society. For love flourishes in proportion to hatred of reality. Love is an attempt to reduce reality to naught. 33 Nothing brings greater suffering than love - it opens up a jungle of sharp corners and bottomless abysses. Nothing weakens the mind more thoroughly than love - it acts like a poison to dissolve all resolve, sap all strength, and paralyse all purpose. Nothing separates the paths of men more effectively than love - it brings into sharp relief the opposing directions of honesty and egotism, of courage and cowardice, of genuineness and deception. Nothing grinds a person into conformity more thoroughly than love - it corrodes all individuality, reduces the human being to a zombie. Love causes the soul to evaporate, leaving behind an empty shell fit for the purposes of the herd. That modern society expresses no shame over the giving up of one's soul - nay, it even considers it the highest of virtues, to actively shed one's soul in the name of love - that it has no shame over this is the surest indication of how base and corrupt our civilization is. 34 A man looks deeply into woman, into love, in anticipation of a supreme happiness lying in a beyond; he inches himself down into the well eagerly hoping for the fulfilment promised to him - he looks deeper and deeper into it, searching for the elusive "oneness with woman", submitting himself entirely to the expectation and - nothing happens! Rather, he is further entangled in the same old games of withdrawal/satisfaction/with- drawal. Suspicions seep into his mind. He realizes that he no longer sees the female as being a god, but as insecure and as animal as he. He has been tricked! Before, he saw her as the exquisite holder of all power, now he sees her as weak, emotional and scatter-brained. Now he detests her, loathes the many little ways in which she uses him, despises her trivial outlook on life, her sheer emptiness of her mind. And he despises the knowledge that he is so weak as to require her association. How sad! Before, he loved her more than life! Now he relegates her to the position of slave - as he did with his own mother back in his youth. A kind of revengeful pleasure permeates his mind whenever he is around her. He experiences a base satisfaction in seeing her cook, clean and look after him - a pleasure thick and sweet, which reaches its maximum pitch in the act of copulation in which, like some demented animal obsessed with the petty victories of the imagination, he crushes the life out of her. He becomes the good family man, revelling in the submissive worship of his family. All ideality has left him and he has given up on life. He counts his pennies and quietly waits for death. Perhaps he turns to religion, hoping for the next life. A fantastic or ridiculous anticipation thus keeps him from becoming insane with boredom and despair. Or perhaps he turns to alcohol, or indulges in a variety of hobbies - to distract himself from the gnawing awareness that either he, or life itself, has somewhere failed. 35 Ultimately, all human love is an iron-clad obstruction to progress in spirituality, to developing a genuine love of Truth. Love of Truth requires faith, whereas human love is a process of clinging and hiding and yearning for the womb. To love Truth one needs to be adult, whereas human love is forever the child in us. No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money, or God and Emotional Satisfaction. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight. No one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of Truth will fail to find the Truth. 36 By definition, a woman cannot develop a conscience. If she were ever to do so, then she would, by definition, cease to be a woman. She would be an individual instead. What is usually called conscience is nothing other than guilt. And what is commonly called guilt is but a type of emotional warning signal designed to alert the person that he has stepped over the boundaries of his cultural personality. Guilt arises when a person feels that he or she has acted selfishly, or in conflict with what is determined to be the "common good". A man experiences this when he sees that his actions have brought harm to others more innocent than himself. This is far less the case for a woman. She is regarded by society to be lacking in will, and therefore innocent. For her, guilt arises when she feels that she is approaching the outer boundaries of femininity - if she is seen to be <overtly> manipulating someone, for example. Such obviousness is unbecoming in a woman, clashing as it does with the subtlety expected of her. That is, she feels that she is becoming willful in a non- feminine manner, which taints the innocence of her perfection and threatens to cast her out from womanhood. Such fear, however, is short-lived, for she instinctively plunges back into the warm embrace of femininity, an embrace which eliminates all feelings of responsibility. Indeed, the more a woman conforms to femininity, the less chance there is for guilt to arise. The man, on the other hand, does not have the benefit of a pure and blameless fiction to submit to, so his guilt is often prolonged and painful. He will try to submit to the herd and to a belief-system to save himself. True conscience is the rarest of things and is essentially related to <spirit>. Whereas guilt arises in concern over one's relationship with others, conscience arises in concern over one's relationship with the Truth. To submit oneself to the herd may eliminate guilt, but it also eliminates conscience. To know what a lie is, one must be able to see it. Hence, the development of conscience grows in proportion to the development of reason. The deeper one looks into life the more one uncovers the lies upon which humanity, including oneself, lives. The clash between one's falseness and Truth is the substance of conscience and is the necessary condition for <faith>. Conscience - once we have it - can be eliminated either by ridding oneself of all falseness and thus become perfectly truthful, or else by doing away with the whole concept of Truth altogether. Yes, conscience can properly be called one's soul. 37 The last few decades has seen a significant increase in the worship of the feminine, especially in the areas of philosophy and religion. The male qualities of striving and conquering, of rationality, are being devalued or else are put to use toward feminine ends. Why so? It will be of some benefit to highlight some of the main factors that have contributed to this development. <The growth of the cosmopolitan world>. Modern technology has revolutionized communication and travel, resulting in the mixing of previously isolated and distinct cultures, and the subsequent erosion of their cultural identity. The world is fast becoming one vast homogeneous culture, a Western culture. This is giving rise to a form of tolerance whereby those values <shared> by the different cultures are emphasized and the differences ignored. This is unfortunate, for it can only be that the values shared by all cultures are the <basest> - namely the feminine values. Thus we get, for example, the spectacle of theistic Christianity and atheistic Buddhism trying to embrace each other via the shared values of "compassion". Their intellectual differences, so vitally important spiritually, are being swept away under the homogeneity of emotion. Such tolerance may in part be a corrective to racism and other forms of inter-cultural friction, and as such is of some benefit. Yet it is enormously harmful if spiritual discrimination is sacrificed to attain it. Such tolerance is superficial and sorely needs a corrective itself. Also, with the growth of huge metropolises there has been a breakdown of the powerful kinship structures. Consequently people are suffering from loneliness and insecurity as never before. In an attempt to offset these feelings, people are submitting to the feminine - for by so doing, one transforms the entire species into one's "family". <Science>. It is ironic that the male-dominated pursuit of science has been a major player in the rise of the feminine. Science has, for many people, made the belief in a Christian God totally unacceptable. This has had the apparent consequence of destroying ultimate meaning in life. Though this is certainly a better philosophical position than Christianity, it is deluded none the less. Instead of <entering into> the purposelessness of existence and discovering its infinite significance, we turn away from it in despair and seek refuge in the emotions. Purposelessness deeply threatens the ego - it provides no security, no dreams and hopes for the future. In contrast, the ups and downs of emotional life provide a steady stream of rewards and it is here we find our meaning, in the growth of our emotional power and happiness. Having made the firm decision not to explore what purposelessness really means, we strive to turn the universe into as cold and dark and alien a place as possible - so as to enjoy our cuddling one another all the more. When philosophic striving ceases, the worship of the feminine begins. The philosophic implications of science are simply unacceptable to our egos, so we worship the pleasant dream of the feminine instead. Then, as if to rationalize this behaviour, we try to find fault with the faculty of reason! We say that science has failed to find ultimate meaning, that it has destroyed all that we previously found meaningful - <therefore> reason is faulty, limited and incomplete. Yet it is not reason, but our lack of courage which is to blame. Nor are academic or professional philosophers doing anything to help reason along. People look to them to shed light on their confusions, but find cold sterile arguments which weave all about in an enormously complex manner, only to finish in a confession of ignorance. People naturally conclude that reason is useless, and the only alternative they see is the emotions. Science has brought about the technological revolution. Life is now softer, easier, warmer, less painful, more pampered. We have lost that ability to bear up under hardship. We are thoroughly addicted to both physical and mental comfort, and because femininity is the most pleasant of all things we want it most of all. Technology has flooded us with entertainment for distraction. Now more than ever, there is no end of ways to immerse ourselves in superficiality. This has the consequence of destroying all the conditions necessary for the growth of real thought. And femininity flourishes superbly in such a soil. Television deserves a special mention. I am told that Australians watch an average of five hours a day. This is five hours of feminine indoctrination passing freely each day into the subconscious minds of our fellow humans. The chief pleasure in watching television is the effortlessness of sitting vacantly and absorbing oneself in fantasy. As we all know, the television networks are interested in ratings and thus to put on programs which draw the biggest audiences. They do this by appeal to what is basest and most common in our society - emotional dreams. And dreams are what the feminine is made of. Technology has also given rise to the devastating modern weapons of war. Many people put the blame for this on science, on male reason. This is obviously wrong but it does not stop them from advocating the return to the "civilized" ways of femininity. <Altered states of consciousness>. Over the last few decades such experiences have been attracting increasing attention and have underlined the growth of interest in Eastern thought. By altered states I mean those blissful realms which seem to pulsate of profundity - the so-called religious experience. In it, one feels that one has come upon something eternally significant; everyday things appear somehow different, they seem to exude the sacred; tears well up as one contemplates a mysterious answer to an equally mysterious question; the psyche is awash with feelings of both familiarity and anxiety, clarity and mystery, fulfilment and alienation. People experience these "heavenly realms" and naturally, but erroneously, interpret them to be God or Nirvana. Then they busy themselves seeking a belief-system to support this view. These experiences awaken the deep-seated emotions of the ego. They powerfully revive the old infant yearnings for supreme egotistical happiness. Sometimes, these experiences are accompanied by vivid memories of childhood, especially of long-forgotten mental outlooks on life. All this persuades people to the view that spirituality is in the direction of the womb, which consequently strengthens the belief in the feminine. For the feminine has its roots in childhood. If the mind which experiences these powerful and blissful altered states lacks <discrimination>, then there is grave danger. If one has a poor understanding of the way delusion builds up the ego, then one will take these "glimpses" for what they are not. If one is not committed to rational consistency, to the desire to fully understand ultimate truth, then there will be no stopping the imagination from constructing the most fantastic interpretations of the world. If one's reason is not grounded in the concept of cause and effect then altered states of consciousness are worthless. Indeed, if your mind lacks all these qualities, and if you speak out on the virtues of compassion often enough, then you can be sure the world will hail you as a man of great wisdom. Altered states <can> be of benefit in that they powerfully bring home to one that there is definitely something more to life than meets the eye. These experiences <can> be an excellent progressive stage on the way towards the beginning of spirituality. These experiences themselves do not relate to spirituality, but can help send one to its gates. This stage of development can properly be called the aesthetic stage. Upon experiencing a deep altered state, the ego naturally becomes extremely interested in exploring the matter further, and does so through books, art, music, drugs, meditation, etc. However, the mind which is <developing> will soon see the stagnant nature of this path. It will say farewell to the aesthetic stage, perhaps painful, and will embark earnestly on the true spiritual path, the path of reason. The one obstacle preventing people from entering into the beginnings of genuine spirituality is the lack of intellectual discernment. Absolutely vital is a good intellectual understanding of what Truth is, combined with a deep understanding of what the ego is. If this does not exist, then a person will travel down all paths except the true one. He will think that he is developing spiritually when in fact he is developing egotistically. Clarity as to what the path is, is necessary before one can travel along it. It is impossible to stumble along it by virtue of blind chance. Altered states are but the tip of the iceberg. If one touches them without the sharp sword of discrimination, then an infinite chasm will immediately arise between oneself and Truth. Just look at how one person converts to Buddhism, another to Christianity, and yet another to atheism - all on the strength of an altered state! This farce alone should give one pause for thought. Clearly, at least two of these converts have absolutely no idea of what they have experienced! Yet all three will swan about the place, certain they know the truth and, God forbid, even go out and preach it to others! This is the great danger of altered states. Being so seductive, they can empower the mind to believe in the most narrow-minded and irrational of concepts. They so easily capture the soul and place it in a cosy little room situated in an impregnable fortress. Such a soul is safe and happy, and lost forever. "I know" - this is all it can say for itself. <Dishonesty>. This underlines the above factors and forms the very substance of the feminine. The ego has no trouble snuggling up to a few thousand lies in the great bed of pleasure. Indeed, dishonesty has always been of paramount importance. Mankind cannot stand an individual taking honesty to extremes. Even in the supposedly male-oriented rational society of ancient Greece, Socrates was put to death for having a well-developed conscience. These are just some of the factors which have given rise to the increasing stature of the feminine in the world of thought. There are others, such as the rise of modern democracy, with its large middle-class, and the increase in the number of women participating in activities of the intellect. These many factors have served to create perfect conditions for the rise of the feminine, just as certain atmospheric conditions give rise to the formation of clouds. Having said all this, all is not lost. The above developments have also contributed to the rise of the wide variety of conflicting beliefs, opinions and philosophies now existing in our awareness. Today, more than ever, a person looks to the world for guidance and a never-ending stream of contradictions come back at him. Out of this confusion can grow the beginnings of real thought. 38 How difficult it is for the spiritual man to make an appearance in a society dedicated to eliminating him. Celia Green recognized this collective lust and called it <the human> <evasion>. Give up the development of individual honesty and society will shower you honours and wealth. She also say that the twentieth century is in the grip of a second dark age; sociology has replaced Christianity as the superstition to which we submit. It is difficult to say whether the current state of the human race is tragic or comical. I experience this same ambivalence when I watch a moth repeatedly burn itself in the candle flame in its pursuit of light. "Everyone meeds their dreams" the world shouts - but how terrible the consequences when Nature smashes our dreams! And how She loves to smash them! How else can She share her glorious wisdom? Is it not astonishing that there seems to exist millions upon millions of people who value love, compassion and peace, yet we live in a world filled with hate, violence and destruction? How can this be? Could it not be that all these creatures of peace, who trip over themselves worshipping the tears of love and compassion, are the <major cause> of this hate and destruction? It is not difficult to see that love and compassion are completely selfish. Nor is it difficult to see how they provide a perfect escape from the demands of spiritual living. Thus the human race worships the cuddling of one another to block out the terrors of reality - and its magnificent truth. The motivations which cause people to seek refuge in these warm dreams are the very same ones which cause violence and tyranny. In both cases the ego is seeking to preserve and promote itself. As long as the ego continues such, then <blind circumstance> will be the sole dictator of what is to be expressed. Love one moment, hate the next; peace today, war tomorrow; the crest of compassion giving way to the crest of violence, crest upon crest along the wave of egotism. History provides a wealth of evidence, if one looks. But the terrible thing is, and I hate to say it, the human race is <totally in love> with its joys and sufferings, its loves and hates, its wars, violence, peace and contentment. They diminish boredom. People call this the stuff of life; I call it madness. It is obvious that if the Devil wanted to win souls over to his side then he could do no better than to disguise himself as an angel. Love, compassion and religion are perfect examples of this. They prove so enticing to the ego's craving for bliss and security that people are more than willing to believe them the gift of God. Hence my warning: Happiness is no guide to Truth. 39 Christianity is the worship of all things womanly. Indeed, we see the ideal of woman pushed to extremes and idolized with Mother Theresa painted as the ideal of perfection, to which all Christians (and many secular people) bow down in reverence. I hope that the arguments set forth in these essays explain how such a thing can happen. She fits our <preconceived> ideas of perfection, so in praising her we praise ourselves. Mother Theresa - or should I say <Supermum> - panders to our cowardly weak egos. No encouragement is given to weed out delusions here, but rather a <strengthening> of them. Though she may ease the sufferings of dying people, it is unfortunately done with the use of fantasies and pleasant dreams which only serve to compound the problems of humanity. In actuality Mother Theresa is far more evil than Hitler was. Hitler was obviously very deluded. No sane person could ever mistake him for being perfect or good. No one could ever mistake him for a witness to Truth. The same however, cannot be said for Mother Theresa. She <appears> good, yet is untruthful. She naively submits to a dream, calls it "God" or "Jesus", and thereby actively snuffs Truth out of existence. Dear reader, do not misunderstood me here! - for this is a most important point. I am not glibly and flippantly spouting these words, nor do I play troublemaking games. I know very well the weight of what I say - and I am eternally correct in saying it. It is my love of Truth which speaks here. Blessed is he who is not offended! The worship of Mother Theresa is essentially the worship of the feminine. She herself exists in an envelope of feminine happiness. Like a teenager who lives in blissful expectation of a successful future, Mother Theresa lives a simple life in obsessive anticipation. Like every women, she believes her dream to be utterly right, a belief which is strengthened in this case by attaching the word "God" or "Jesus" to it. How easy it is to give oneself up to a pleasant dream, one that gives the ego much happiness. And how difficult it is to submit to the Truth which causes the ego to suffer. Mother Theresa is, in the end, a social worker and nothing more. If she were to present herself purely as such, then I would be the first to commend her efforts. God knows we need social workers. However, the minute she presents herself as a follower of Jesus (which she unfortunately does) then I will put my foot down and shout: blasphemy! Jesus warned his followers that they would be hated by all men, that they would be persecuted, whipped, thrown out of the churches, and even put to death. Contrast this to Mother Theresa, who is worshipped and revered by millions upon millions, yet claims to be a follower of Jesus! 40 It has been said that science has brought about two great revolutions in man's outlook, and is on the verge of bringing about a third. The first revolution involved the realization that the earth was not situated in the centre of the universe but is an object of astronomical insignificance. Next came the theory of evolution which forced man to realize that he isn't a divine creature, but is merely another animal occupying a twiglet on the evolutionary tree. The third revolution, one that is yet to occur, is the realization that man is but a machine, and that there is no soul or self. Whilst I might agree with this in principle, the truth is that the second revolution <has yet to really occur>, let alone the third. For the implications of evolution have yet to sink in. Although it has been over a century since the theory appeared, our cowardice makes us shy away from the full brunt of its implications. Natural selection does not favour the most truthful species, nor the most divine, but only those which can adapt to changing conditions. Thus our emotions have a purely practical value, and have nothing to do with God. While it is true that many traditions are being questioned, really, this is only the Beginning. Many gods remain untouched! Despite the scientific evidence, we still believe that our happiness has some connection with the Absolute, and a cosmic significance. We say "This feels good, <therefore> it must be true". Or else we do away with the concept of truth altogether so as to enjoy our emotional satisfactions all the more. We laugh at our ancestors for their obvious narrow-mindedness. Will our descendents likewise laugh at us? I sincerely hope they will! 41 Granted, emotion has been indispensable for our evolutionary survival in the past, but now it is asked: Is emotion still an asset for our survival? Has not mankind crippled itself with its constant preoccupation with emotional satisfaction? It has often been observed that despite our intellectual endeavours, mankind has not <grown> at all in the last two thousand years. We are a stunted and stagnating species. All our intellectual endeavours, our science and philosophy, of which we are so proud, has in the end been no more than an exercise in entertainment. Man's use of reason has always been kept firmly towards emotional ends. And when this path leads to a dead-end, we have the arrogance to blame reason - <and not> <the emotions!> If the species is to survive it needs strong and rational creatures who value Truth above all. It needs male rationality to be exercised to its fullest extent. What the species definitely does not need is for women to assume more and more influence in the world of thought, in their hitherto carefree and unthinking manner with which they extol their own values - to the subsequent detriment of reason. 42 Do not think that Western science and philosophy have anything to do with reason in its fullest and healthiest sense. Rather, these "disciplines" use a crippled form of reason which avoids the fundamental issues of life, issues which reside in the <personal>. They concern themselves with objective categories and exercises in the imagination, whilst studiously avoiding the subjective, the ego. If they claim to study the ego, it is only another exercise of the imagination - subjective becomes objective - thus they avoid the subjective, and the ego. Furthermore, the many elaborate structures of both science and philosophy rest on assumptions that have no real existence. Yet never is encouragement given to develop a self-reflection powerful enough to pierce through these assumptions, into the eternal Reality beyond. Science and philosophy can never discover ultimate truth. And why? Because all such movements towards truth could only be made at the <expense> of these beloved "disciples". Yes, science and philosophy are indeed beautiful young women - should we not protect them, no matter how nonsensical they be? Science is probably the greatest of our <collective> achievements. How much it has done to eliminate the supernatural! Look how it has relegated our species to near infinite insignificance! The victory of the scientific method has been the victory over the imagination - at least to a certain extent. Unfortunately, the very success of science is dependent upon individuals giving up their Great Reason in favour of the collective ventures of the scientific method. This means that highly developed intellects are made to specialize in little nooks and crannies, preventing them from utilizing the scientific method to its fullest potential. It prevents them from discovering the significance of the most important thing of all - <the infinite>. The honesty of the scientific method is in the complete willingness to reject theories and hypotheses which conflict with observed phenomena. But the scientific method can equally be applied to <concepts and categories>. There are so many categories in our minds, inherited from culture, that have yet to be sufficiently scrutinized by the scientific method. Indeed, science itself rests firmly on unchallenged categories, and these categories must remain unchallenged if science is to continue to exist in its current form. The same can be said for professional philosophy, whose many systems require assumptions that have no basis. Assumptions like "existence", "thing", "event", "infinite", "real", "change", "beginning", "cause and effect", etc. Even when philosophy does turn its attention to these things, it tends to suffer from its own love of logic. Indeed, the whole history of academic philosophy has been a process of continually reviving past irrationality - in order to give substance to its own love of rationality. <Philosophy cannot see the significance of the> <realization that all categories are false.> Hence, professional philosophers tend to see life as meaningless. They tend toward atheism/agnosticism, stating that the mind cannot understand ultimates, and claim that this is the most reasonable position to adopt. Here, their ignorance is not blindness; <it> <is cowardice>. What is life? What is death? What is happiness? What is honesty? Is it ethical to submit to a lie for the sake of happiness? That is, is it ethical to enter into love? Or to tolerate religion? Is it ethical to value humanity over Truth? To value oneself over Truth? How much truth can a spirit bear? How much truth can a spirit dare? These are questions of the highest importance - they are <existential questions>. Truth becomes a reality only when <the individual> directs the scientific method fully, deeply and openly, without hindrance, upon his own mind and upon the beliefs and assumptions it clings to. Accordingly, the march to Truth can never be a collective venture. Mankind is not progressing to any greater <understanding> of reality. Always, true knowledge is for the individual. Do not think that the great spiritual men of the past - Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, the authentic Zen masters of old - were anything but the most rational of men, far more so than our modern intellectuals. Individuals, they travelled to the <end> of reason, and never did they reject it. 43 Woman is the embodiment of delusion; consequently she is the enemy of Truth. When the sage renounces the world, he does not go off to live on a mountain top, but rather stays within the world - <and renounces woman>. More specifically he seeks to eliminate the feminine from himself. The philosophic path is the most difficult and the most serious: it can be tread only by giving one's life over to it entirely. It is a growing away from the womb in the will to conquer death. It is the dismantling of all false conceptions so as to let our eternal perfection shine unhindered. This is True Love - open and without reserve, the opposite of the gunky syrup we humans call love. Those few individuals who partake in this noble task are like explorers who go straight forward, boring into their own minds with unbroken effort, never letting go or retreating. Then the breakthrough suddenly comes, and with that they penetrate their own nature, the nature of others, the nature of consciousness, the nature of evil, emotions and enlightenment, the nature of perception, the nature of non-perception, the nature of time and of change, of desire and suffering, the nature of reality - all of them seamed in a single instant of thought. The great matter of their philosophical quest is completely and utterly resolved. There is nothing left. They are free from birth and death. What a thrilling moment it is! <An Epilogue> To know the truth is one thing. To love it, quite another. So go through intellect to love And avoid a lot of bother. To see the truth is no attainment, But to have faith is the goal. Climbing your way to the very top, It is time to let go of the pole! To plunge into the inky blackness; To apply the truth to oneself; To enter oneself into the equation - Is to cross the infinite gulf. This cannot be learnt from words, Nor teachers, gurus, and priests. Friends and family cannot help you here, It is time to attack the beast! Then one becomes an individual, Never again to share. Alone in the world, without friend or foe - This is indeed hard to bear. But have faith and believe In the earth, and the sea. Be confident, ruthless, and strong. If you want to be free, then make everything "Me". Penetrating that tiny space between heaven and earth With the strength of a mind that is sure. One by one, all things will fall quietly away, And you will pass through that door. <- From "THE GOSPEL OF RAMAKRISHNA" -> - One cannot obtain Knowledge of Brahman unless one is extremely cautious about women. Therefore it is very difficult for those who live in the world to get such Knowledge. However clever you may be, you will stain your body if you live in a sooty room. The company of a young woman evokes lust even in a lustless man. You must not look even at the portrait of a woman. A monk enjoying a woman is like a man swallowing the spittle he has already spat out. A sannyasi must not sit near a woman and talk to her, even if she is intensely pious. No, he must not talk to a woman even though he may have controlled his passion. - Men do not realize how far they are dragged down by women. Once I went to the Fort in a carriage, feeling all the while that I was going along a level road. At last I found that I had gone four storeys down. It was a sloping road. - Woman is the embodiment of maya. In the course of his hymn to Rama, Narada said: "O Rama, all men are parts of Thee. All women are parts of Sita, the personification of Thy maya. Please deign to grant that I may have pure love for Thy Lotus Feet and that I may not be deluded by Thy world-bewitching maya. I do not want any other favour than that." - I forbid the youngsters to spend a long time with women or visit them too frequently. Haripada has fallen into the clutches of a woman of the Goshpara sect. She shows maternal feelings for him; but Haripada is a child and doesn't understand its real meaning. The women of that sect act that way when they see young boys. I understand that Haripada lies on her lap and that she feeds him with her own two hands. I shall tell him that this is not good. This maternal feeling leads to a downfall. The women of that sect practice spiritual discipline in the company of men; they regard men as Krishna. A teacher of that sect asks a woman devotee, "Have you found your Krishna?" and she says "Yes, I have found my Krishna." - A sannyasi must not look even at the portrait of a woman. I say to them: "Don't sit beside a woman and talk to her, even if she is a devotee. You may say a word or two to her, standing." Even a perfect soul must follow this precept for his own protection and also to set an example to others. When women come to me, I too say to them after a few minutes, "Go and visit the temples." If they don't get up, I myself leave the room. Others will learn from my example. - I am very much afraid of women. When I look at one I feel as if a tigress were coming to devour me. Besides, I find that their bodies, their limbs, and even the pores are very large. This makes me look upon them as she-monsters. I used to be much more afraid of women than I am at present. I wouldn't allow one to come near me. Now I persuade my mind in various ways to look upon women as forms of the Blissful Mother. - If a man lives with a woman, he cannot help coming under her control. Worldly men get up and sit down at the bidding of women. They all speak highly of their wives. - You should keep far away from woman; then you may realize God. It is extremely harmful to have much to do with women who have bad motives. They rob a man of his spirituality. - Those who develop dispassion from early youth, those who roam about yearning for God from boyhood, those who refuse all worldly life, belong to a different class. They belong to an unsullied aristocracy. If they develop true renunciation they keep themselves at least fifty cubits away from women lest their spiritual mood should be destroyed. Once falling into the clutches of women, they no longer remain on the level of unsullied aristocracy. - A man must be extremely careful during the early stages of spiritual discipline. Then he must live far away from any woman. He must not go too close to one even if she is a great devotee of God. You see, a man must not sway his body while climbing to the roof; he may fall. Weak people should hold on to a support while going up the stairs. But it is quite different when one reaches perfection. After the realization of God there is not much for a man to fear; he has become to a great extent secure. The important thing is for a man somehow to climb to the roof. After that he can even dance there. But he cannot dance on the steps. Again, after climbing to the roof, you need no longer discard what you discarded before. You find that the stairs are made of the same materials - bricks, lime, and brick-dust - as the roof. The woman you have to be so careful about at the beginning will appear to you, after the realization of God, as the Divine Mother Herself. Then you will worship her as the Divine Mother. - To sit with a woman or talk to her for a long time has been described as a kind of sexual intercourse. There are eight kinds. To listen to a woman and enjoy her conversation is one kind; to speak about a woman is another kind; to whisper to her privately is a third kind; to keep something belonging to a woman and enjoy it is a fourth kind; to touch her is a fifth. - Just see the bewitching power of women! I mean the women who are the embodiment of avidya, the power of delusion. They fool men, as it were. They take away their inner substance. When I see a man and woman sitting together, I say to myself, "Alas, they are done for!" - If I touch a woman my hand becomes numb; it aches. If in a friendly spirit I approach a woman and begin to talk to her, I feel as if a barrier had been placed between us. It is impossible for me to cross that barrier. If a woman enters my room when I am alone, at once I become like a child and regard her as my mother. <- ON WOMEN ->For as nature has armed the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant and the wild boar with tusks, the bull with horns, and the sepia with ink which blackens water, so has nature armed woman with power of deception for her protection, and all the force with which she has endowed the man, in the shape of corporeal strength and reason, has been diverted in the woman into the form of the above gift. <Deception> is therefore born in her, and is almost as much the property of the stupid as of the clever woman. To make use of it on every occasion is hence as natural to her as it is to the animals in question when attacked to employ their weapons, and she feels it, to a certain extent, as making use of her right. For this reason a perfectly true, unsophisticated woman is almost impossible. For the same reason they see through deception in others so easily, that it is not advisable to attempt it as regards them. But from the fundamental failing indicated and its accessories, arises falseness, disloyalty, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are much more often guilty of judicial perjury than men, indeed it may be fairly questioned whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath. The case has repeated itself everywhere, from time to time, of ladies who wanted for nothing, going into a shop and secretly pocketing and stealing something. ON WOMAN AND MAN <(From "Poison for the Heart")> <Understand woman, and you will understand the highest.> <Transcend woman, and you will transcend the highest.> <Reject woman, and you will reject the highest - the <ego>!> What is Sexism? Is it "sexist" to be realistic about the immense psychological differences between man and woman? Is it "sexist" to recognize that some qualities of personality are superior to others, and that these qualities are not equally distributed between the sexes? If so, then I am proud to be known as sexist, for my aim is to be honest and not popular. I've had enough of the lies spoken about women. I've had enough of what has become "female worship", not only among women, but also among men whose adoration of woman has proceeded far beyond mere gallantry. I am certainly not in favour of unfair discrimination against women. And I am not in favour of the lesser role that Nature (and man) has inflicted upon women throughout the evolution of our species. I'm all for equality . . . that is, I'm all for changing the way women are brought up in our society. I'm all for making women more equal to men. But I will never <pretend> equality of the sexes, whether that be equality of psychology (and values) or equality of rights, when it is unrealistic and dishonest to do so. We could classify man and woman as different species, were it not that the combination of the two seem to produce offspring - so little is there in common between us. We are mentally distinct, if not genetically. Though I hasten to add that we differ mainly because of our upbringing, which can be changed, and not because of any genetic or God-ordained determinism. Yet what use is talking about sexism until we have at least determined what it actually is to be a man, or a woman. Therefore, I will do here what very few would dare: I will outline the major differences between man and woman. In the process I will hopefully impress upon you that if things are not the same they cannot hope to be automatically equal and demand equal rights. Kierkegaard, the great Christian philosopher, says that "Woman is personified egotism," but that she can never know it because of her lack of penetrating thought. Nietzsche observes that "woman is first and foremost an actress.", and describes an actor as "a person who is skilled at combining falseness with a good conscience." Schopenhauer, in his renowned essay "On Woman" states that women . . . "are their whole life - grown-up children . . . She is an intellectual myope whose intuitive understanding sees distinctly what is near, but has a narrow range of vision, which does not embrace the distant." Schopenhauer finds that her basic tools of trade are a subconscious and automatic tendency towards "cunning and deception," and that the woman's basic failing lies in her injustice. Others agree on this point. Freud says that "the poor sense of justice in women is connected to the preponderance of envy in their mental life." And Plato makes his view clearly known when he says that "Woman's nature is inferior to that of men in capacity for virtue." Women are singled out for special attention in the philosophic religions. In Hinduism, women are known as the embodiment of maya (illusion), and avidya (the power of delusion). Buddhism regards women to be so far away from the requirements for spirituality that the task is especially difficult for them. One famous Buddhist leader, Nichiren, said that "women can no more attain Buddhahood than can a dried-up seed sprout." And finally, Carl Jung points out that "Nature has created an extreme difference between man and woman, so that he finds his opposite in her, and she in him." Is all this pointing towards equality of the sexes? I say not. Are all the men referred to above ordinary and ignorant cloddish males? Are they so insecure that they cannot think clearly, and are disparaging women to reinforce their own possibly fragile male egos? I think it would be naive to conclude such, no matter how inviting. They are simply facing reality. But let us put things back in perspective before you get too angry. Ultimately, woman and man are equal, in that we have evolved in Nature together and to be dependent on one another. We are equal in the eyes of God if you please, but we are certainly not equal in everyday things. For example, woman does not have the physical strength of man, due to her genetic inheritance. In the same way she is less qualified for the rigours of life as an independently thinking person, though as a result of her upbringing. While women are brought-up in our society to be submissive and emotional, men are reared to be competitive, more courageous, and to be risk-takers. While submissiveness and emotionality are ideal skills for avoiding suffering, they are useless for living in reality. They prevent women from having any stomach at all for hardship. In contrast, man is constantly exposed to hardship, worry, and stress, as they are an integral part of the competitive male world. Therefore, woman's strength is that she is expert at avoiding suffering, while the strength of man is that he can bear-up under it. It is not of his own doing, but man thereby gains what qualifies him for a life of thinking, and for a life of spirit. He has the ability to withstand the mental hardship necessary for real thought. In this respect then, man and woman are worlds apart. A woman is severely restricted in her thinking. She has no mind for irony, contradictions and paradoxes. She has no mind for the dialectic. There is no use in forcing a woman into a good that hurts - it would break her. Only men, true men at least, have the toughness, born out of their egotistic competitiveness, to endure the intense agonies of the true philosophic life. A life of honesty. "Now she loves him, and looks ahead with quiet confidence - like a cow" reflects Nietzsche. Woman's greatest love is when she possesses one man, or when she possesses a child. Relationship is her basic need. This is why women are so very much under the control of such vanities as fashion, fun, and friends. Willingness is woman, she lives only for the crowd, and finds her identity only with them. For her, to be alone, without a man, without child, without family, is the most terrible plight imaginable. She would perhaps rather be dead than live in this wretched condition. But one must be alone if one is to follow the path of reason. Only alone can one truly live. When a man becomes entangled with a woman he immediately becomes like her, and lives through her - childhood revisited. He becomes possessed by her, completely and utterly bewitched. She embodies the most powerful cunning and deception - but it is subtle, and herein lies her strength. She is a startling effect that hypnotizes the man before devouring him. Then he loses that precious thing which qualified him for life as an individual, and he becomes like a sheep. He is lost forever. A great fighter can kill many in battle with his bare hands, but a woman can slay a hundred men with her eyes. Yet in conquering her man she not only destroys him, but hammers the final nail in her own coffin. Do I hate women? I can excuse you for thinking I do. But I cannot hate women. I know far too much about women to be able to hate them. Rather, I hate what they embody. I hate the way they make life soft and easy, distracting attention away from the important, cold, hard realities of life. I hate the way they give the appearance of being selfless and kind, concealing their true nature. No, I do not hate woman, but I hate the society that created the monster that is "womanliness". And I hate myself for being a part of that misguided society and unable to correct it. I do not want women to feel discouraged. My intention is only to make clear our situation as it stands, and the task that stretches out before us. If we do not learn to see clearly the difference between what I call "female values" (most common in genetic females) and "male values" (most common in genetic males) then we will never know where we stand in relation to these extreme opposite sets of values. If we are unaware of where we stand in relation to these extremes then we will be disorientated, and in no position to judge between good and bad values. Thus we will be in no position to improve ourselves, for what is self improvement other than the abandoning of bad or false values and the cultivation of good ones? Only male objectivity enables one to stand back from the closeness of the world and find perspective and orientation. Woman needs encouragement here. It is essential that she break away from the conditioning of society. She must learn to be alone, and seek the truth. Indeed, it is a rare man who can stand alone with his thought, but fewer women even attempt it. While some men are more "womanly" than others, and some women more "masculine" than other women, the traditional male and female roles are so deeply entrenched in our society, that even in these modern times they remain at the core of our being. When Nature divided the human race into two, She did not simply draw the line through the middle - the divisions are polar and opposed to each other, and the difference between them is not merely qualitative, it is also quantitative. Despite occasional and fanciful forays into "equality of the sexes" and the like, our conditioning stands firm. Our conditioning is very deeply rooted. We must be more realistic in our approach to the problem. Our goal should not be "equality" but <humanity>. If women become more like men, and men more like women, the result will be a society of spineless weaklings. This will only compound the problems for our species. We must go beyond such petty thinking, to a life of rationality and truth. We must become <Supermen>, taking male rationality to its ultimate conclusion and not stopping short. We must recognize the enormity of the task that lies before us, and passionately set to work on it. Two creatures as remotely different as man and woman cannot realistically expect equal rights. Thus I heartily join Schopenhauer when he says that when women were given equal rights, they should have been endowed with male reason also. Even so, I doggedly maintain the hope that women will grow to deserve the rights they have been given. If one treats children as children, they will remain as children; but treat them as adults and they grow up. When will men learn to treat women as adults? When will men learn to respect a woman's independence? When will men learn to be real men and <leave> <women alone!> So, am I then sexist? No, I am not sexist: I am against women of <both sexes>. <- References -> Freud - "New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis", Lecture 23. Great Books of the Western World, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago. Jung - "C.G Jung Speaking", Princeton, Princeton University Press. 1977, P244 Kierkegaard - "Journals and Papers", Vol 4, Ontario, Fitzhenry & Whiteside Ltd. 1976, P572-585 Nichiren - "Nichiren, Selected Writings", Honolulu, University Press of Hawaii. 1980, P89 Nietzsche - "The Gay Science", New York, Random House. 1974, P125-130, P271, P316-319 Plato - "Dialogues of Plato", Laws VI, 1985 Schopenhauer - Essay "On Women" from "Parerga and Paralipomena". My words against women: I know that my concentrated attention on the faults of the feminine persona will be taken badly by women. This is unfortunate, for it is not my intention to hurt and divide. These consequences, though undesirable, are inevitable - <for I> <must make my point!> And my point, while of vital importance to all, must be addressed mainly to men: I tell you, <beware female values!> I express this same warning to women, but when there is an emergency, with thousands of people seriously ill and only one doctor, then the healthiest must receive the best attention, in the hope of saving at least a few. Woman is no mystery: The mystery of woman must be how she is so attractive to man. What is this magic spell she weaves that brings a man to his knees? Her dominance is the trick. Her complete and secure dominance. For while she is weak, does she not have dominance over suffering? Unfortunately, man sees only her power, which he loves to feel as his own; he doesn't look so far as to see the <source> of her power, which lies in her submitting so easily. He is duped. For her's is not a masculine power, but a power that exists only within her sphere of submission. Man is not happy with submission, so is under constant threat from a world which would love to crush his hopes. He rarely feels the easy-going and open confidence of woman, which is so very much like that of a child. He is a stranger to her security, which bows down before all things. Man has to give the appearance of being secure; woman actually <is> secure. For this reason, in his weaker moments, he sees her as a super-male, or a god, who is what he desires most deeply. He projects woman in his own image, making himself blind to her true form. <" . . . there is a moment in her life when she deceptively> <appears to be infinitude itself - and that is when man is> <captured. And as a wife she is quite simply - finitude." > Kierkegaard Man doesn't see his mistake till it is too late. Now he sees her puttering around in finitude, and all the time he has been following her lead. He has been dreaming, and she has been encouraging his dreams. For woman sees nothing wrong with dreaming. She even pities man because of his fear of fantasy, and wants to teach him (who is now her own little child) how it is done and how to avoid a bad conscience about it. Once committed he cannot admit to his mistake, having too much to lose. So he buries his thinking, and his spirit with it. <"Man has no inkling of the extreme egotism in her> <devotedness; he considers himself very lucky and feels highly> <flattered to be the object of such fervent devotion; which> <always takes the form of submission, perhaps because woman has a> <bad conscience about it, wondering if it is not really egotism."> Kierkegaard Woman lives through man's strength, through his courage and ability to bear-up under heavy loads and great thoughts. She cannot tread where he does, so needs him to traverse the land for her, the country she needs to experience and feel, but can do so only through another. So she woos him, and he comes to love, and worship her. She senses that something is wrong here - woman is not stupid - though she is powerless to do anything about it, being a slave to her own heart. She has to force herself not to think too deeply about this state of affairs for fear of what she might find out. Perhaps out of guilt for her weakness she submits to the situation, and to him, who embodies that which she is submitting to. She is saying: "I know this is wrong, but my desire is too strong. All I can do is let-go and submit. I throw myself at your feet to prove to myself that you are the stronger." Thus does she avoid having a conscience about it. She merely has to convince herself that all things are too difficult to fight. Bowing and crumbling beneath all things serves the purpose admirably. But she is not to blame for her weakness. Woman is <forced> into her thoughtlessness and superficiality, not being equipped to make a stand for individuality and reason. When she does make a stand she is punished for not fitting the role expected of her. Men will despise her. On top of this she faces all the defeats and pressures involved in the exercise of thought. For her, the exercise of thought is like stepping outside of a cosy warm cottage into a cold and icy blizzard. She's just not used to it. Therefore, rather than fail, and suffer, which she cannot stand, cannot enter into and bear-up under, she steps back into the restfulness of womanliness. Even here, she can still think a little, a lot more than she appears to. Though she must cover up her thinking, repress it, not let it come to the surface - not actually <use> it. The human mind is born with the potential to enjoy the fruits of analytical thought. Consequently the will to learn and conquer has a seed in <every> human mind. So we see the stronger women becoming men. Some women, however, were men from the start, having failed the difficult transition from the "boy" of early childhood into the woman of adolescence. Unfortunat- ely, masculinity in a woman, regardless of its source, is rarely of quality; it explodes too easily in the form of rashness. The masculine does not sit easily in a female brain: it tends to overcompensate. Adding to her so-called mystery, woman has an inbuilt bisexuality resulting from her difficult formation. While a man is man all his life, she had to grow from a boy into a woman. Thus she seems to alternate between the masculine and the feminine. This leaves man puzzled as to how he is supposed to behave towards such a double entity. For now she is the hard and angry feminist, demanding equal rights; and now she dresses in pink and frills begging for a man to overwhelm her. She claims weakness, yet seems to have no shortage of strength. She achieves this through love, her speciality, nay, her <profession>. For while man has <direct> mastery over things, woman can achieve an indirect mastery through her direct mastery of man. Women are united in this goal, and while men have countless interests, women all belong to the one trade. Thus their whole life is love, its conquests, and the associated vanities such as fashion. Love comes first with woman, while it is only second with man. Thus a woman learns to like the man she loves, while a man learns to love the woman he likes. And because love is a woman's life, sexual relations come into everything. The difference is essentially this: man <has> sexual thoughts; woman <is> sexual thought. She knows nothing other than the sexual, so is unaware of just how sexual, how <animal> she really is. Another consequence of her psychology is that women either love or they hate. They know no happy medium. Their lives are love and beauty: from love issues hatred and from beauty springs ugliness. Further, because her life revolves around love, woman regards everything solely as a means to win the man; so their interest in anything is usually a simulated one. A woman will study philosophy for months to impress a man, without understanding a word of it. If she truly is interested in philosophy, it is only to find an all-powerful doctrine to submit herself to, and within which she can enthrone herself. There is no doubt that women can sometimes see much more than men, who are often blinded by their own abstractions. But when men understand, they have the potential to put it into practise, and to make it real, which women do not. For women, knowledge is only useful in how it helps them to avoid pain. Women have horizontal knowledge, but not vertical. They do not have the depth of intellect necessary to bore through to the real truths. And only real truths can give one the strength to live infinitely, and to make infinite movements. There can be no real and heartfelt faith in reason when that reason fails to penetrate to lasting and indisputable truths. There is no confidence in a reason that can only produce truths that stand up for as long as the wind doesn't blow. Such is her reason. Women, as they are at present, can at best only see the signs of the weight that men carry. I am speaking of the weight of reflection. Even then, women can only do this if they think enough to be granted such a vision; otherwise they will see men as helpless little boys. It is good if women can at least think enough to be aware of the strength of men. Then at least women will be able to see that they themselves are not gods. I regret that the women of today are not of this calibre. Their wisdom tells them: "My femininity is itself spirituality. I am complete!". Jesus told an applicable story about a farmer and his two sons. The father asked his sons to work the field for him while he was away. The younger son was in no mood to work and said, quite honestly, "No". The elder son said "Yes father, I'd love to do it," but had no intention of helping. The elder son lived in selfish dream, wanting only to impress his father, and puff-up his own pride. The younger son later developed the mind to work and did his father's bidding. The elder son never will, as he believes he has no work to do. So it is with all people, being sons of God. It is better to say "No" to Him, and at least recognize his existence, than to say "Yes" and never know of Him at all. Woman is like the elder son. Man is the more honest of the two, and has potential. The characteristic jealousy and envy of woman is a result of her limited ego. That is, with its delicate skin, which contains security, but is so easily punctured. The female ego is simple, with few dependencies, so when one of these dependencies does fail she is plunged into dire trouble. When her armour collapses, it collapses totally. The many safety supports that men have at their disposal are not her's. Nor does she have man's experience at carrying a burden of pain. Therefore she is expert at coping with things that fall within her sphere of submission, but she fails spectacularly when forced "outside". The modern woman: Men are professional at being men, precisely because they have been men all their lives. They keep an even keel even in rough seas. But the modern masculine woman is new to the game, and is often rash, cruel and incounsellable. Her rawness results in her expressing the very worst qualities of the male spectrum. I tell you, she is not masculine enough! Buddhism has taught from the very beginning that it is impossible for a woman to attain Buddhahood - <in the form of a> <woman>. However, if a woman becomes reborn as a man, that is a different matter. Thus, a woman has to attain the mind of a man, for this is what it really means to become a man. Yet to become a man is not easy for a woman. Gossip: The gossip of women is a submissive pleasure in which self-pities can be shared and reinforced. Man, however, cannot submit to fear. He cannot share it with himself or others. He keeps it inside, preferring to live with the pain. For him to recognize the hurt means to be a failure as a man. In contrast, woman sees nothing wrong with being fearful; she even deems it a virtue. She does not know "failure" as man does, because she does not compete. The more she submits, the more she can bask in the happiness of carefreeness. She calls it "honest" to recognize and share her fears. She has no bad conscience about it, and sees no fault in her argument. Yes, it is honest to recognize suffering, but it is <dishonest> to submit to it. Woman only accepts her fear so she can submit to it. Man, with his relative love of reason, is in a predicament. He knows it is wrong to submit to his fear, but also knows he hasn't the strength to confront it. All he can do is let his fear settle in his brain and make the best out of a bad situation. If only man were <more> rational! - then fear would not arise in him at all. The woman's defence: Woman has the strongest of defences. She can counter any argument by claiming to be <unqualified>. This is called "acting dumb", which they always do when it comes to real thinking. She feigns interest and praises the reasoner to the skies. In this way, she not only escapes threat, but also pacifies the other, making them softer. She may even win the other for herself, which she deems a valuable prize indeed - her very own thinker! The only alternative for her is to compete in the reasoning, which she cannot do. She is not skilled or practiced in thinking, so whenever she ventures to make as much as a suggestion she is comprehensively defeated. The moment she puts her foot through the door it slams painfully shut. She cannot tolerate this pain without submitting, not being familiar with real pain. Even less can she cope with this immense pain, arising from her great failure, which in turn arises from her lack of competence in reasoning. Her defence is <Yes>. It is a dominant Yes, as are all things submissive. She is a lump of clay, which yields to any force rather than fight. Nobody, no matter how strong, can defeat a lump of clay. So she lets herself be moulded, and remains in control. The Sexes: When I speak of "male" or "female" I am usually referring to aspects of the personality. It is character that counts in all important regards, and genetics count for nothing by comparison. The female personality is composed of what I naturally enough term "female values." These are expressed in submissiveness, weakness of will, a childish innocence, spontaneity, and emotionality. In contrast the male personality shows itself as a dominant striving, courage, depth, strength under pressure, and a greater degree of rationality. We all possess both male and female personalities. If we look closely, we can see the "feminine" in man, and the "masculine" in woman - both of which demand satisfaction. It just so happens that the female personality predominates in the genetically female, while the male personality predominates in the genetically male. It is unlikely that genetics determines personality in any direct way, so why is there a such a strong correlation between genetic and personality types? This question demands our attention, because if we truly wish to make the sexes equal it would be useful to know what we are fighting against. One contributing factor may be the superior physical strength of the male. His sheer size and strength surely has a psychologically intimidating effect on women. Then add to this his aggressive and competitive attitude, which was probably required of him in past ages to acquire food and shelter. Woman probably finds the combination of the two overwhelming. There is no question that physical and mental strength can produce great results. But why are women so much the opposite of man? - why <so much> the "opposite sex"? Surely physical and mental strength in women would have done no harm? A <bipolarization> of personality types would aid pair-bonding, breeding, and child nurturing, by making men and women psychologically dependent on each other. A couple would grow to need each other to complement and fulfill their individual personalities. Woman grew to need man not only for his physical and mental strength, not only for his support and sex, but also to help in exercising the male part of her own personality. Similarly, man grew to need woman not only for her body and her particular mental skills, but also to exercise and satisfy the female part of his personality. In addition, the segregation of personality types into well defined roles simplifies social interactions. People could then specialize in certain tasks, and thereby achieve greater things. Everyone would know what was expected of them, and how to behave towards others, which would undoubtedly reduces stress in society and perhaps increase its efficiency. So, in a sense the wish for enlightenment for one and all, true equality of the sexes, seems to be going against the stream of evolution. But is not this Great Wish the <result> of evolution? I seem to write at inordinate length on the subject of the sexes, though I am only writing about human values. It is a difficult task, and I have chosen to tackle it from the perspective of the two "sex personalities". I am merely writing about the ego, the embodiment of delusion, and how it manifests in our lives. The pleasure of sex: The whole arena of sex-pleasure, from flirting to courting, foreplay and copulation, has little to do with our physical and genetic nature, but all to do with the pleasure arising from the emotional interplay between the different sex-personalities. Woman and child: A woman cannot resist a man who tells her that his life is a shambles, and that he needs her, and her alone, to pull his life back together and save him from death. For now she has a child, exactly as if she had her very own baby. A baby needs her for its very life, and it is this need that is love to her. Now she is swept with feelings of importance and power, for a human life is now entirely within her hands. And if it is a man who has given himself to her, and who she now possesses, then she also feels the power of having the very image of strength crawling at her feet, begging for help. Man and child are in the same boat, shipwrecked, and washed-up on the shore of woman. How to see To avoid the sin of lustful desire, a man should see women as sisters, or daughters, or mothers, loving whom would be incest. He can also see woman as his own self, falling in love with whom would be narcissism. Yet this is dishonesty. You must learn to see women as women, and men as men. Have nothing to do with what is merely the skillful use of the imagination and trickery. The opposite sex are <literally> a part of your own Infinite body. Seeing the Infinite, and being the Infinite, how can you ever distinguish any such thing as "family", or feel any kind of feeling towards others - you who know nothing other than the Love of God. If you are honest you will be hated, for there is nothing people hate more than Infinite Love: it is an opposite of what they call love. If you are a man, then never let a woman catch you looking at her; for how can you teach her non-attachment when you are attached to physical and emotional beauty yourself? And don't think you can get away with picturing beautiful women in your mind, for where the mind wanders the eyes will follow. Vanity: It was a fool who said that women are attached to their appearance. Anyone can see it is not their appearance they are attached to, but what their appearance brings them . . . attention, compliments, self-respect, friends, employment, sex, men, children . . . and the list goes on! I once heard a woman say "I take a lot of care of my appearance, but I don't like to think of myself as shallow"! Men die ten years sooner than women: Are men unfairly deprived of ten years of enjoyment in this world? Why should that which is incapable of birth be concerned with death? I can't understand . . .: While men joyfully pronounce their inability to understand the female mind, women proclaim the mystery of the male mind. All this ignorance is because men and women don't understand <their own> minds! Understand your own mind, and you will understand all, for all is within you. Women and reason: When a man hears a reasoned truth, he sweats out of fear. Fortunately, his strength of intellect enables him to live with this stress. Yet when a woman hears some such truth she is not even threatened! Why? Because her mind snaps. It hasn't the power of resistance, so it simply switches off. If it is strength to avoid suffering, then woman is far stronger than man. The cunning of woman: She does not want to be called "immoral" so covers herself with clothing. Yet the clothing she uses to do this is even more suggestive than her bare skin. Thus she successfully manages to avoid guilt and embarrassment through a neat mental trick. See-through clothing is the perfect solution because she can feel "covered" at the same time as appearing more exposed and vulnerable than if she were completely naked. See-through clothing enhances her feminine appeal by making her appear infinitely weak and helpless - for has she not tried to hide herself, yet exposed herself all the more? Woman knows hundreds of these tricks, and does not hesitate in using them. She has so few devices in her arsenal to choose from, that she becomes a specialist in the multifarious use of a single weapon - cunning. Beware: The spiritual man sees so much more than the normal man. He sees all that happens on a person's face and can read their deepest thoughts. And right here is the danger; for when he looks at a woman's face he sees how he has affected her . . . she feels intimidated, she feels desire, she is paralyzed, she is perplexed. He can place himself in a woman's shoes, seeing her from the inside. And because he sees more of the woman than an ordinary man, more than the woman does herself, there is more to tempt him. Few can see straight through the woman as he does. His gaze makes her naked, stripped even of her flesh. This man is a mysterious power indeed, and she sets out to make this power her own. Man/woman: Woman is deeply secure and resilient, but beyond a certain point she breaks, and is as broken as can be. In contrast, the man is much less secure at any stage, though always retains some control. It is like one person who can fall off a boat and swim to safety, and another who cannot swim and will surely drown. Therefore a man can come to the conclusion "All is false. All I do is selfish," and can still live with the consequences. For he has the leisure of being able to abandon the boat and still swim. But the woman must not consider leaving the safety of her boat. She will not consider "all is false", for what else will be left for her? Thus she is severely limited in the realm of spirit. Dialectical redoubling: Women cannot stand a dialectical redoubling, an intensification of reason. The awesome redoubling is nothing more than a second thought, against the first, and simultaneous with it. Woman is one dimensional in the sense that she can only think the one thing. If she tries to think the second she begins to lose the first - and her mind snaps. She loses her life, because her first thought <is> her life. By contrast, man finds his sanity in that second thought, which, in a noble man, becomes his life. He doesn't lose his mind because he has a firm grip on that second thing - I am of course speaking of <reason>. Reason is not unlike a second wind, which sustains, but is not reached without considerable pain. Crime: Woman doesn't have a mind for crime. She cannot hold things within, which would enable her to bear guilt. She doesn't have the ability of man to be two people at once: one person on the outside, and another, fully conscious of the duplication, within. She can certainly lie, but only if she makes herself fully <believe> in the lie. Her talent is her ability to transform herself, so that she believes inwardly, while the man can only do so outwardly. The upbringing of men: Children are invariably reared by their mother in the early years, regardless of the sex of the child. As we might expect, early on, the boy comes to think he is the same as his mother, and therefore that he has a right to be a mother when he grows older. Then the time comes when he is told he is not allowed to be a mother . . . because . . . he is a boy. So, very early in life the male of our species learns that he must stand alone and unsupported. He cannot afford to get attached to anything too closely. Alienated by the central figure of his life, his mother, he learns to formulate a life plan based on self-reliance. Perhaps this rejection by the mother plays a part in creating the vast divergence inpersonality between men and women. Man, Woman and love: Woman loves the mysterious in man, the hidden, the powerful, the deep. Such a man is deemed by woman a worthy god to submit herself to. With such a man she can make herself the froth on the surface of an ocean, listening to the rumblings of the deep. She loves the poet in a man, which echoes the noise of those depths. But if he ever becomes a real poet - a poet of his own soul - if he ever discovers his own source - then she has lost him. From that moment forth, he goes his own way: the way of the spirit. Man, if man he is, is drawn to the intelligent and self-willed woman. But she must be so only on the surface; for the beauty a woman holds for man is in her weakness. I remember a famous model being asked her advice on how to look glamorous, she responded "Just look dumb". A woman's first word must be "No" - but her second, third, and fourth, must all be "Yes". Love is just this: man takes and woman gives. To preserve one's sanity one tries not to remind oneself too often how harsh, terrible, and immoral this antagonism is. You see, a woman's love is not mere devotedness, but is an unreserved sacrifice of both mind and body. She gives up all she holds dear, <especially> all she holds dear: her mind and her soul. It must be all or nothing; much as when treating a carpet for fleas one wants to be rid of <all> the fleas, not merely most of them. There must be no complicating conditions. Thus we get the nauseating reality where a highly intelligent and educated woman will fawn to a moronic lug of a man, who will pontificate to her on any and every matter of life, while she sits with respectful fear, with wide adoring eyes, ears pricked and hungry for every word he utters, every sound he makes, every breath he takes . . . and all this with barely restrained glee. Where did her reason go? Where that suffering for truth? Where that preparedness to die for an ideal? Where that noble longing for the immortal? Feelings, it seems, negate all these unnecessaries. And what of man? Surely such devotion on the part of woman only encourages his overestimation of himself. Yet there is one small consolation, for while woman gives herself totally, man never feels in total possession. The possession of a rug does not exactly provide one with a reason for living; moreover one wonders whether it is in fact possible to possess such a lifeless entity as - a rug - a rug upon which anyone can wipe their feet! Hence a fragment of mind is reserved for man, a small fragment perhaps, but a fragment. Yes, one never feels fully in possession of a woman's love, because while it is vast, it lacks substance. You see, woman does not love the man, nor the goodness or truth in a man, but his <lovableness> . . . which has scant little to do with goodness and truth, and leaves him feeling cheated. She on the other hand expects to be somewhat cheated by man, as this is the man she loves. Today her love graces a priest, and tomorrow - a professional hit-man. What knows she? It feels ludicrous to apply ethical standards to her, for she knows nothing of them to begin with. "Stupid as a man" say the women: "cowardly as a woman" say the men. Stupidity is in woman <unwomanly>. Thus Nietzsche has it. She has no character, no inner constancy, because she bases her existence on the whims of feeling. Philosophy is beyond her. <The difference> She mirrors, Changing with the light. He is the sun. Strong and steady; But for occasional flares. When he Has a thorn in his side; She Has to have a sword through her heart. He loves trees; She loves flowers. He laughs; She cries. He creates; She preserves. His mind is one-track; Her's is one dimensional. He has the will power; She has the <willingness> power. The seducer: It is the man who is traditionally seen as the seducer, the animal-like "predatory male", hunting down the innocent weak female. Yet this is only because his particular kind of egotism make his behaviour look contrived and unnatural, and his manipulations conspicuous. The passive egotism of woman is subtle. It is not in her nature to force, and make the plays. She is not the aggressor. Her manipulations are imperceptible because she manipulates without effort. She has no problem in flashing a leg, but does it in such an innocent fashion as to appear natural. She appears to be always acting for her mere survival, while the male appears to be acting from the position of one who has enough yet wants more. Furthermore, we have the common feeling that it is human to submit, but inhuman to dominate. We feel that submission hurts no-one, while dominance harms many. How false appearances can be! Men do not realize how far they are dragged down by women. You can travel along what seems to be a level road, only to find later that you had been moving gradually downhill! Most men get up and sit down at the bidding of a woman. All married men speak highly of their wives. Men work, and work like slaves for the approval and acceptance of women. Women are only after one thing - emotional security. So although men and women are undoubtedly equal, you should fear women as you would fear standing beneath a building in an earthquake. All ground is the same, but some standing places are safer than others. Don't let yourself touch the air near a woman's body. Do not sit with a woman. You may say a couple of words to them, standing, and if in the company of others. Never even glance at a woman! The danger with looking at a woman is that she might look back. Do not challenge her so. Only when you know what woman truly is, will you be safe from her. You will be mad - but nevertheless safe. Woman's purpose in life is to capture and hold a man. Man's purpose in life is to remain free. So I have heard. My failure: My failure in life is easily explained. I refuse to be respected and loved by fools. The foremost among the rabble is beloved of the Devil. Never will I water-down my truths to make them palatable to the herd. If one is popular with the Devil one cannot at the same time be his mortal enemy. Never will I allow my Truth to be covered over and buried beneath a mountain of dirt, which is humanly known as praise. My failure with women and in love is even more easily explained. For I refuse to sell myself. To sell yourself is to diminish yourself, and to beg for help from fools and intellectual insects, I mean women. There is little wrong with being weak, shamelessly weak, when you know nothing of God. Indeed weakness and shamelessness would be expected. But to <know> about God, and to have his infinite strength in your grasp, and then to openly flaunt your rejection of Him by declaring yourself bankrupt and seeking your salvation in the arms of a woman - this is deplorable. The wise man seeks life, but woman is suicide. The man who feels responsible for the survival of the species, and sees himself as an example to the young, is not proud to shoot himself in the head. I can fantasize about women. Even better can I fantasize about women with other men. But the thought of engaging in love with a woman in real life, and holding a woman's hand, is a little too flagrantly degrading to myself and harmful to the world. If I felt a woman's hand in mine I would be forced to think: Why do I need this touch? Am I yet an animal? Why do I need this creatures approval? Am I yet a child who needs his mothers nod, and his mothers bosom? Why am I flattering this person's ego? Do I not wish to help them to dismantle their ego and become enlightened? Why have I stopped speaking and thinking, and forgotten all my words except for love's vocabulary of fifty pre-human words, sighs, grunts and squeals? Why have I abandoned my ideals, my future, my fellow man, my soul, and returned to the crude, rudimentary mind I had when I was nine years old? Do I prefer painful childhood dependencies? Why am I retreating into this dark, dirty, and impulsive recess of the brain, sacrificing the rest of my consciousness forever? For in holding a woman's hand you are entering into a new occupation in which you have to spend all your time thinking about creative and constructive lies. You now have the full time job of devising ways to flatter continually, but with enough variety to make it interesting. Covering up your lies is also no easy task. And not only do you have the daunting task of lying to yourself, but you have to do so for the other person as well. And they will not always ask when they need your help, so you must watch with eagle eyes. In love you have two people's hell to contend with. The simple act of asking a woman out, just to talk, to get to know her, means that you have accepted falsity and inadequacy and rejected Truth. It means you have accepted the word of the ego over the word of God. For if Truth still occupies one's mind, even just a bit, then one would still have some hope for God and would not seek to go into cohorts with the ego, the Devil, in the form of woman and love. I am at a definite advantage here, because it is usually left to the man to make the decisive steps in a relationship. A woman will encourage and entice, but will not make steps. Thus it is the man who must debase himself and put himself at a loss. For woman encourages evil, but will not create it - she leaves this to man. But to create evil is no small thing, not entirely unconscious, and man can more easily choose against it. Thus I choose against it - promoting my own failure. I am also in a bind because women love my inner strength - but my strength comes from my wisdom. If I loved women I would lose the very thing they loved, and would become unlovable. Time and again my ego itself stops itself from being satisfied, promoting its own downfall still further. It is too proud in its knowledge to compete with other men for the affection of a woman, or to risk rejection by a woman. So if she has, in the past, loved men whom I regard to be inferior to myself, then I cannot believe she is qualified to appreciate me. Thus, not only does she fail to flatter me, but she is also more than likely to reject me, which my pride cannot tolerate. Similarly, if I suspect she has the potential to love such inferior men (any man) in the future, this too disqualifies her. In any case, my selfish pride will not allow me to be seen in public with a woman, whispering in ears, caressing fingers, empty talk. I will not be seen begging at the feet of the Devil for sustenance. What kind of an example would I be to others? Of what worth would be the remainder of my life? My ego (and it is only the ego that can ever love), what remains of it, knows full well that love is but a dream, so it fights to adapt itself to the dream. It does not follow love through to completion in the real world so as not to spoil the fantasy, and the ideal. The romantic and idealistic spirit knows that an unconsummated love is better than a shattered one; it allows room for hope, expectation, and dreams. More than this love can never be. Ultimately, the only way the truly romantic spirit can succeed is through death or separation. In other words, failure. For example, if I ever do approach a woman, I will not ask her for some small favour or concession, but will immediately ask for and expect everything. I do not ask for a date, but for the entirety of her love for all time. This she will never grant, and I never ask twice - so I live to fight another day. One doesn't wish to get so close as to have to speak of something other than love; not close enough to kiss. But my biggest failing is not my ego, its rare knowledge, prides, and sensitivities; it is my pure wisdom. For my wisdom debars any success at all. The woman behind the man: It is said that behind every great man there is a woman. But I say to you, behind every great ego there is a wife! Yes, behind every truly great man there is a woman, but she was the one he <didn't> marry. She existed as a negative factor in his life, at just the right time to arouse his ideality, and then she promptly vanished from the scene. Her favour to him was to marry another. <"It is through woman that ideality is born into the world> <and - what were man without her? Many a man has become a genius> <because of a woman, many a man a hero, many a man a poet, many a> <man even a saint; but he did not become a genius through the> <woman he married, for through her he only became a privy> <counsellor; he did not become a hero through the woman he> <married, for through her he only became a general; he did not> <become a poet through the woman he married, for through her he> <only became a father; he did not become a saint through the> <woman he married - for he did not marry; and would have married> <but one, the one whom he did not marry." In marriage: woman has nothing to lose, while man has everything to lose. She knows who she is, what she wants, and how to get it. He doesn't know who he is, what he wants, or how to get it. Stay low: If a man achieves too much, no woman would be able to appreciate him. So he aims low, to remain in her sight. Appreciation: In its youth, wisdom can make a man resentful of women, because no woman appreciates true wisdom. She prefers the animal-man. Consequently the lingering animal within a wise man feels cheated. However, in wisdom's maturity there is no need for appreciation, and hence no bitterness. Great achievers: Virtually every great achievement of mankind, whether spiritual, scientific, or artistic, has been due to men. More specifically to courageous men. If the female role changes, then men begin to lose their identity, as men only find their identity when contrasted with women. Men will inevitably become more effeminate, just as water falls downhill, following the path of least resistance. And even though women may become slightly more masculine in their values, the invaluable courage and masculinity of men will decline, and their precious poison diluted. The dilution does not have to be much for it to have a devastating effect on the number of superior men, for these precious ones only crystallize beyond a certain threshold of potency - the threshold of genius. Even so, I do not want women to remain feminine. I welcome their becoming more masculine. Though I wish they would go <all> <the way>; and I wish men would help them do so! To be of any real help to women, man himself needs to become supremely masculine - masculine enough not to need the emotional services of women. The Supreme Masculine needs nothing. As it is, we are facing a shortage of genius and all too much talent. I only hope these few words, in the shape of a warning, will inspire a few rare individuals to strive forwards and make up the shortfall. Men again: There are signs that women are becoming more masculine and independent. Yet I fear that their transformation will never be more than superficial; the reason being that women will remain women for as long as men are attracted to women. Woman and God: The Tao Te Ching asks the question: "Can you play the role of a woman?" Krishna once dressed as a cow-girl to dance with cow-girls in the forest. All this does <not> mean you must become like a woman! On the contrary, give up your will <entirely>. Make yourself <truly> empty if you wish to be filled by God. Do not be like the common man, a transvestite, who while he may not dress in women's clothing, wears woman <in> <his mind>. You must become infinitely more womanly than woman herself if you will become a Superman. The depths of woman: Have you noticed that she never really looks worried? She may look puzzled, perplexed, even shocked . . . but never worried. I do not like to say this, but even the strongest women are probably weaker than the dullest of men. For all the intelligence of woman, it only apes the intelligence of man. Her manliness is surface. Her depths are woman. I have observed that as woman becomes more educated and self-reliant, man sees her differently. Now she appears as a mirror of his own stature, or a lump of clay which he can mould into an effigy of himself. She apes his nature like a trained monkey, and to own such a modern woman he finds flattering. However, such fantasy is short-lived. Soon he realizes that not only does clay not have any choice about what form it takes, but that woman is of a clay that can be reshaped again and again. She mirrors him now, but just as the image changes in a mirror as you move it from place to place, so does her image change, depending on which man she is with. Her basic nature is without form: only on her surface does form appear. What a disappointment it is to a man, to see his lover remolded by another man, into <his> shape! Woman: A woman is always aware of how she looks. Indeed <she is> how she believes she looks. She is a master of appearances - born to act. She can push an emotional button to switch-on any feeling she chooses. At a moments notice her face becomes soft, her eyes wide, her smile welcoming. A look of pure early morning sunshine - flat, yet warmly alive - and vacant. But then her face is not so much vacant, but <a vacuum> to a man; for it draws him closer before sucking him in to oblivion. A woman's eyes are big enough for a man to fall into. And when he does, he merges with the essence of woman. Then he becomes like the wind: yielding, free, untouchable. But like the wind he also becomes aimless, changeable, and without substance. She is like butter about to melt. How does she stand up? She looks so lacking in structure that if one blew against her she might vaporize. But Oh how much pleasure man receives in this - for a little while - to be nothing! Is it not ridiculous that Nature should feel lacking? And what is more, to desire <itself> in order to feel complete. So it is when a man desires a woman. A woman's love: Woman loves the man who thinks, but the man who thinks does not love woman. Yes, woman loves the man who thinks, <but not the man who> <lives by his thought>. Motherhood: No mother loves her child. To her, a child is a status symbol - to prove she is woman. A child is the ultimate bangle. In contrast, man finds his immortality through his children: they are his future. Woman finds only self-flattery through her children: they are her <now>. Yes, a mother's love is deep - about as deep as a woman's mind. The nature of nurture: Women, nurturing? . . . nurturing of the <ego> perhaps - but destructive of the spirit! Physical/emotional violence: What is worse, the physical violence of man, or the emotional violence of woman? Woman can only unleash her anger in imagination, and in emotion, while man can unleash anger physically, when he cannot dissolve it inside his mind with his many reasons. Consequently a woman's imagination is much more dark and vicious than man's. In battle, men have a respect for the enemy, if the enemy are valiant in their ideals. Women, however, are brutal in their hatred and know no limits. Woman is incounsellable. She would not have a conscience about hanging anyone she did not particularly like. Yes, she is compassionate, but only to those who meet her favour. It is interesting how we feel more strongly about a man who commits a crime of violence than a woman. She is the eternally innocent. This is probably because men traditionally act <willfully>, while women act <in response>. Man is action, woman is reaction. The intelligent woman: The woman who values her intellect is one of the greatest threats to the spiritual man. His music attracts, yet is fatal to her. His melodious rhythms conceal powerful thunder. She is strong enough to be aware of his fire. She even feels its warmth. But instead of using the fire to heat a brew of wisdom - she gets burned. Now her ego is engaged by this powerful one who has struck her so, and who sees through her as through air. She then seeks a powerful ointment in the place where she touched a hot fire. So beware, you spiritual men! You are, however, safe enough from the ordinary woman: she is blind to your light and untouched by your lightning. And what of the spiritual woman? Well, she has much to fear from both men and women. There will be many who try to drag her down, claiming that, while a woman's place may not be in the home, it is not in the clouds either. Man/woman: The truly masculine man wants a woman who will make no demands on him. However, if there is a woman who loves such a man then she is thus making demands on his demands - disqualifying her as a possible partner. This man is close to renouncing women. I love such men, for they cause their own downfall. The beautiful woman: A beautiful woman will never meet with rational truths, for what man in his right mind would dare argue with her? He might argue with an ugly woman, as then he has nothing to lose; but with a beautiful woman? - never! Thus she remains sheltered, and her self confidence and strength correspondingly hollow. Thus have I heard: - Men look for a woman of deep and strong character, women for a being of intelligence, brilliance, and presence of mind. It is plain, that men seek the ideal man, and women for the ideal woman - consequently not for the compliment but for the <completion> of their own excellence. - Without knowing it, women act as if they were taking away the stones from the path of the wandering mineralogist in order that he might not strike his foot against them - when he has gone out for the very purpose of striking against them. - Did a woman herself ever acknowledge profundity in a woman's mind, or justice in a woman's heart? - For that matter, I myself might add, did a woman ever acknowledge profundity in a <man's> mind, or justice in a man's heart? Men are full of praise for the special talents of women; but does a woman ever truly recognize the talents of a man? - Weakness for this life is part of being strong for eternity. A man without a woman is weak for this life. - She is more sensate than man; for were she more spiritual she could never find her culmination point in another. Spirit is the true independent. The problem of language: The English language does not have specific sex-indefinite pronouns: "He", "him" and "his" are regarded as being the only correct generic pronouns, at least in written use. Women can so easily be made to feel invisible. The directions and warnings set down in these writings are as applicable to women as to men. I do not want to give women an excuse for passing them over, so I try to avoid terms that might provide an excuse. However, male words signify many things; importantly, they imply courage and strength. Buddhism teaches that women must first attain a male rebirth before enlightenment is possible. These are interesting and useful words, pregnant with meaning, but they are also easily misunderstood by those who want to do so. I will not make it easy for them! Man, Woman, Science and Rationality: Man dreads the feminine because he fears the loss of his own individuality and identity. This is man's classic weakness, highlighting a major flaw in his character. But is he so bad? Should a man not fear the loss of his individuality, his reason, and his dignity? Woe is he who does not fear the loss of his soul! Man's dread of the feminine is said to be the fuel behind his repression of women throughout history. Maybe so, but this is no excuse to do away with male reason! On the contrary, if man's rationality and strength were made <perfect> he would feel no such threat from woman, as he would have no need of her emotional services, and would no longer need to keep her subservient to his will. The solution is not to make man abandon his identity in favour of the feminine, but to encourage both men and women to take reason to its completion. Many believe rationality to have reached its limits and become unproductive. They say reason is not enough by itself, and that we must now turn to the heart within, using feelings in conjunction with reason. O ye of little faith! You have not yet <begun> to use reason, yet claim to have exhausted it! You have abandoned reason and the "either/or" as though it were a burden! I beg of you, <either> reason <or> feelings, but please, not both! You choose reason only when it suits you, and feelings, or should I say fantasy, when it suits you. Even on those rare occasions when you do resort to reason it is only to try to justify your fantasies. The women of this world, of both sexes, say that the age of men is over because his science has failed to provide us with ultimate values. Yet science is not to blame. The fault lies entirely with the miserable so-called <scientists> who have limited themselves to what is physically and demonstrably provable. They have carved out a small niche for themselves and <called> it science, yet it is <not> science. They conveniently ignore the fact that many truths are not experimentally and physically provable, and that many truths are not demonstrable under any circumstances to those who lack sufficient intellectual courage to see them. In the hands of these fools has science become a mere tool, one among many, to aid in the survival of the ego. One moment these bumbling scientists espouse science, and the next they worshipfully extol emotional feelings and religion! Scientific truth is the one and only Truth, yet the morons who call themselves scientists wouldn't have any idea about such a thing. The truly scientific mind is the mind that seeks Ultimate Truth at all costs and without compromise. Such a mind is infinitely remote from the scientists and philosophers of today. The desire for Truth and the love of reason is indeed an emotional passion, but no ordinary passion, for it ends in the destruction of passion. However, if you use reason only sparingly and without complete love, as do the scientists, then your reason will be no more than ordinary greed, used opportunistically and inconsistently. In such a dilapidated state of mind you will have no right to proclaim reason above the feminine emotions. If you do not follow reason <to> <completion> your inconsistency will leave you open to a thousand criticisms. You will be told you are suppressing feelings - <and you will be> - as you will lack the power to utterly destroy feelings as they should be destroyed. You will be a hypocrite, living a double life with double standards. Scholars cannot see beyond the emotions. To them, the emotions and feelings are a permanent fixture that can only ever be repressed, never extinguished. They regard those who seek the perfection of reason to be unrealistic and egotistical idealists, and will laugh at them. These impostors give science a bad name. Please do not take them as representative of science, but rather see them as the parasites they are. Man may be the more rational of the sexes, but do not expect too much of him: he falls on a regular basis. His falling, however, does not necessarily mean he is on the wrong track. Let it be remembered that no matter how good one's intentions, until one has achieved absolute perfection, one's activity will be not be without fault. As long as there is striving there is lacking. Man strives, therefore he lacks. He appears cloddish, foolish, unnatural as he moves in unfamiliar ways traversing new ground. Woman moves differently. She is consistent, in that <she> <does nothing>. She does not strive, so does not fail. Her lack of embarrassing slips is not so much evidence that she is on the right path, as it is proof she is going nowhere. Man is substance and therefore has something to lose. Understandably he fears woman, who threatens to deny him any higher striving. In contrast, woman has nothing to fear from man, as she has no identity to lose. Man fears re-engulfment by the mother, but woman never left the mothers womb - never became a self. Man is like water trying to flow uphill, and woman is the lake below, waiting to catch him should he fall. Woman is of the earth, <is> the earth, and extols the earth. Man is a homeless wanderer, extols the stars, reaches for the stars . . . and looks foolish when he falls short. Only when your consuming passion for truth is so strong that passion itself is consumed, only then will you be without fear of woman or man. You will then have made a clean break from the womb, and become the Mother of all mothers. Only then can you rightly and deservedly speak of reason as being the superior passion. Only then will your desires be entirely without desire and your loves without love. Until that time you are too much of a woman. The resurgence of the feminine philosophy of feelings is a serious threat to science and reason. Don't get me wrong, I will support any woman who tries to develop her mind, or any demand upon men to be more consistent and rational. I will not, however, tolerate the spread of feminine values to the detriment of Truth. Science has failed not because of men, but because there is all too much of a woman in man. Man is not masculine <enough>! We are told that if we relied more on our feelings than on reason, there would not be so much violence in this world. We are led to believe that <reason> is the cause of war and violence! But I tell you, reason is only harmful when it used to justify the feminine in us, the emotions and feelings. Woman's thought is intuitive and unstructured. Man's thought is lateral and connected. That is, he is capable of both the intuitive <and> the rational. We must not deny him his reason. I am told that rationality makes one uncaring and cold. Then I must be truly hateful and icy cold, for there are few more rational than I. Yet I bring the end of the ice-age! How a man can become a woman: Spiritual pregnancy produces something like a feminine character in a man. And just like a pregnant woman he becomes kinder, more patient, and quite beautiful. His birthchild is <enlightenment>. Solitude Of what use The psychology of men and women: Good things invariably take time. Man hardly is independence to a woman, if she is - all alone? reaches the maturity of his reason and intellectual powers before his twenty-eighth year, woman with her eighteenth. Thus woman's reason is very circumscribed and usually remains in a largely juvenile condition. She sees only what is nearest to her, takes appearances for reality, and prefers trivialities to the important subjects. Why is this so? We have to look to where men and women come from. Man is reared by his mother as an infant, and becomes lovingly attached to his mother. It is acceptable for him to remain in love with this mother figure throughout life, and his development is thus relatively straightforward. He can be masculine all his life, and has no changes forced upon him. The woman, however, must undergo a redirection of loving feelings from the mother towards the father. As a young girl she is effectively a boy, but she <grows> feminine. A woman of thirty has long been fully emotionally developed. There are no paths open to her for further growth. By contrast, a man retains his boyishness, and at thirty is still searching for who he is. Perhaps woman's early maturity is because the difficult development which leads to femininity exhausts all the possibilities of the individual. It is because the man remains a hungry boy, in need of more excitement, that he pushes into the philosophic realms in search of ideals. His reason is his saviour, of which women feel they have no need. Human beings are distinguished from animals in their ability to survey and consider the past and the future. This mental quality gives to men their foresight, caring, and all too many depressing worries. To women it gives nothing, for it must be said, women (as they are) are barely human. Woman's world is the present. She is not burdened by the complications that come from a perception of a broader perspective. She is free from the knowledge of consequences. This innocence bestows upon her a certain cheerfulness; but the price of innocence is that you forever remain - a child or an animal. The most intelligent: The most intelligent women in the world are female impersonators. A woman's concerns : A woman I met yesterday typifies the only kind of thinking women seem to be capable of. Her primary concern with religion was whether it should be hard-line and dogmatic, or easy-going and liberal. The question of whether religious teachings should be <true> or not was of no concern to her. What she cares about is the Experience: To her, truth is an irrelevant triviality whose only role in life is as a stumbling block for men. A child visiting the doctor cares only about the jar of sweets on the doctors desk - he cares not about his own health. Sweets come first, <and second.> Talk: Can a man talk with a woman? Yes, a man will talk with a woman . . . until she is his! He will talk till he knows her, and until she knows enough of him. He gains nothing by further talk. Having fished-out her shallows, she has no depth to hold his interest. There is no respect in the morning. Radio Priest and the female mind (a transcript: Woman: I am confused. The man I am with now is the best friend I ever had, but I think I should go back to the man I was with before, even though he used to abuse me badly. Priest: But you really feel a lot for the man you're with now . . . so I think you should do what your heart tells you! Woman: My heart tells me to go back to the man who abused me. Priest: Then you should do what your mind tells you. Balancing the masculine and the feminine: When I say "Men should encourage women to become more independent, strong, courageous, and rational" the response from men is always something like "Do you want to make love to masculine women?" Fools are concerned only about their own happiness. The plight of truth, intellect, and the human race are of no concern to them. Men try to suppress women's individuality and growth not to maintain power over them, but to preserve their source of beauty and joy. Men do not find joy in their power over women, but in the weakness, softness, and innocence of women. Likewise, women do not find their joy in the power and courage of men, but rather in the love and worship of men. Thus both sexes try to maintain the ignorance of the other, for therein lies joy. Moreover, men want women to remain lovable, so they can love; and women want to remain lovable, so they will be loved. A lovable woman is more important to a man than a deeply intelligent, uncompromising woman who is masculine to the core. And a man's love is more important to a woman than her own thought and intellect. It is true that men are often attracted to the woman of strength and character, but her hardness must be surface only, enough to flatter him and fuel his fantasies. Underneath she must be soft, yielding, and feminine - wearing frilly panties. This "independent" woman's strength is <not> because of her intellectual depth and courage, but because of the strength of her feminine delusions, which provide a reliable base to fall back on. Her confidence comes from being strong enough to avoid the truth, which a man finds more difficult to do, because reason goes right to his heart. With woman, reason is as superficial as the fashions she wears with equal confidence. People today speak of the importance of preserving a "balance" between the masculine and the feminine, but they do not want an <even> balance. Rather, the balance they refer to simply involves being happy in life, love and relationships. When they have assembled a happy family of delusions inside their skull they <feel> balanced. This balancing act is often presented as tantamount to enlightenment. But truly balanced or not, two wrongs will never make a right. Both the masculine and the feminine emotions are firmly rooted in the ego, so combining or balancing the two only empowers the ego, making it more happy and secure rather than getting rid of it. This happiness is achieved through a skillful use of the emotions rather than the courageous use of reason. It is the easy and popular way out, not the brave and honest way. I want to take away the beauty of woman and give her truth. Yes, I want to take away love; the love that is life to so many. Little wonder they cry out as I attempt to confiscate their precious drugs and their cherished toys. Few are ready to grow-up. These exhausting words: To turn over thoughts like these for only one hour is more exhausting than enormous efforts in the hope of being victorious. It has not been easy for me to write about the feminine. I have done so to promote my own downfall, as well as yours. For it must be said, and said again, that life appears overful of beautiful things, yet underneath, it is very poor. Yes, life is a woman.