As she stood in a building built by men, using products made by men, purchased in an economy created by men, she proudly proclaimed the independence of women from men.  That the thousands of years of subjugation to men and their wants was now over, same as the culture that she says women feel trapped within.  She would no longer work to appeal to men; take me as I am.  Me and my sisters, accept us as we are.  Any unwanted sexual attention from men is malevolent and demeaning, any acceptable sexual attention is a tool to be leveraged.  This is an escalation in hostilities–The war of the sexes has intensified; this a communique’ from the battlefield.

Talent makes the difficult look easy.  Men are extremely talented.  After ages of survival and protecting, of men building and manufacturing and creating, seemingly with ease and overnight, the works of the male appear to be simple.  That apparent simplicity, emphasis on apparent, lends to the interpretation that the world a man builds is not actually his work but a transferable bestowment.

Not recognizing the struggle of protecting and building, particularly for ‘her’, the contemporary American female addresses men as though the male is on easy street and his presence in decision making is unearned.  The world he built for her and dedicated to her is a naturally occurring phenomenon that he is fraudulently taking credit for. She figures, “if I am just as strong, I can do what he does and have what he has”.  Men have performed so well for so long that women take it for granted and see the physical and societal infrastructure surrounding our world and culture as a lassiez fare concoction that may occur just as easily without the jurisdiction of men. 

The male is a victim of his own success.  Now that civilization has been built, he may be guilted into imbecility for the aims of women who think like teenage girls.  The male must be deconstructed.  Due to his deference to ‘happy wife, happy life’ she is now divorcing him, and all women are divorcing all men, with the world men built as the alimony.  Clueless as to what men do to bring a complete world to them, the message seems to be that women are tortured by the existence that was created for them. 

 

 

Perhaps she is angry at men; but not malehood. 

 

Or she likes men, but not male culture.  The male must be deconstructed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Observing female same-sex couples, lesbians who embrace the touch of another woman proceed to imitate their perception of malehood.  It is no secret, nor does it require a statistical analysis–when observing lesbian couples at least one will tend to adopt ‘male’ characteristics. Therefore, the problem is not with malehood, which they adopt readily; the problem is particularly with men.

Observing the feminist, she wishes to sit on a throne like a man, and have men serve her like drones with no clear explanation of why they would participate in this.  She leverages the existence of men, but not the accompanying patriarchal culture that built her hive, built her throne, and won the war that ensured her survival.  In her eyes those are naturally occurring amenities, not the result of patriarchy.  Her problem is not with men–her problem is male culture.

And so, the female either:

  • aspires to assume malehood and replace men with themselves (women can be better men than men),
  • or she rejects malehood but accepts men, because she intends to graft feminine identity onto every male in sight (the future is feminine).

The first woman is lying to the universe and herself.  The second woman is a sixteen year-old girl in perpetual rebellion.   They are both tragic combatants in the war of the sexes, the deconstruction of men, the masculinization of women.

The first woman has no use for men, she only wants validation that she has met the requirements of membership to malehood, and can be ‘one of the guys’, or even The man.  She seeks masculinization.  The second woman has no use for malehood, she seeks elimination of male culture, but not necessarily men.  Her goals require the deconstruction of men.  She sees men as interchangeable pieces in some sort of controllable machine.  These are the Queens of the Beehive who hunger for the power of the man—but not his responsibility. 

Angry at her female position, she also wants to possess what the male owns, which is power.  This desire neglects that male power comes from the requirements of malehood, and its composition of men, not its mere existence.  The male has done it for so long, and made it look so easy, that women believe being a man is a costume that may be put on for fun or personal gain.  I direct you to the trailer of any feature film of the last five years.  The advertised popular culture seeks to demonstrate that anyone can be a man—failing to mention this fantasy exists in the safety of a realm built by men.

That is the covet nature.  The very nature that bit of the fruit of the tree, seeking to eclipse the role of the father.  And then led a man to disobey his father, to follow the woman rather than lead the woman, a man who insisted, ‘Happy wife, happy life’, as she led him to the Fall.  The masculinization of women, the deconstruction of men.

Her anger is in loss of the throne that she never was in line for.  She fantasized sitting in a position of superiority to dictate to the masses, for sure she thought she was wiser than the men whom she had been at the mercy of and their warlike world.  She would set the kingdom right, rebrand it a ‘Queendom’, and even one day knock the spiritual father off his heavenly place, declaring that all along it was a non-submissive woman who made the earth, from horizon to horizon, from sunrise to sunset.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>