The Maker Of “Men” – Masculinity and its Origins

37
0

WHO MAKES “MEN”? With the behaviour of movie magnate, Harvey Weinstein, dominating the headlines, the nature and origins of masculinity have become a hot topic. At issue is whether all expressions of masculinity are to a greater-or-lesser extent “toxic” – or only some? And, whether the ultimate liberation of womankind is contingent upon the unequivocal elimination of the culturally constructed beings we call “men”?

In many ways the battle for control over the construction and meaning of gender is the greatest revolutionary struggle of them all. Indeed, it is possible to argue that until this critical issue has been resolved, all of those historical upheavals to which the term “revolution” has been applied have been mischaracterised.

The key question to ask in relation to these historic transitions is whether or not, after the power relationship between master and slave, lord and serf, capitalist and proletarian shifted, the relationship between men and women; between the masculine realm and the feminine realm; was similarly changed? Or, was it still very much a matter of, in Leonard Cohen’s words, “that homicidal bitchin’ that goes down in every kitchen to determine who will serve and who will eat.”? After the “revolution”, did masculinity (like “whiteness”) continue to confer a huge societal advantage upon all who fell within its definitional boundaries – regardless of their personal beliefs and/or inclinations?

But perhaps “revolution” is the wrong word to describe the longed-for dethronement of masculinity? Perhaps the near universal institution of patriarchy (rule by the fathers) is actually the product of the first great social revolution in human history. Perhaps what feminist women are seeking to achieve isn’t a revolution – but a restoration?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

And here we must step out of the hard-copy world of recorded history and enter into the much less solid realm of pre-history and mythology. Because it is here, in the indistinct depths of time, that the first and most profound transition in human affairs; the overthrow of the servants of the Earth Mother, by the worshippers of the Sky Father; took place. At the heart of this masculinist revolt lay a deep-seated fear and resentment of all things female – and a burning desire to master them.

Rule by the mothers – Matriarchy – drew its justification from the self-evident need for all living things to submit to the implacable statutes of Mother Earth. Hers was the endless cycle of birth, death and re-birth from which no living creature escaped. And the vessels within which all living things are nurtured, and out of which all new life emerges into the world, are female. Such was the deep magic of generation and fruition which flowed from the timeless creator of all things: The Goddess.

But the sons of the Goddess were lesser beings than their sisters. Helpmeets and protectors, certainly; seed carriers also; but from the deep magic of the mothers they were perforce excluded. Men were the takers of life: the killers of beasts and other men – their brothers. This, too, was a dark and powerful magic, but dangerous and destructive of the settled order. It was a force which the Mothers were careful to keep in check.

It is easy to guess where this story is going.

Men looked skyward, away from the Earth. They observed the gathering darkness in the heavens and heard the deep rumble of the sky’s anger. They witnessed the brilliant spears of light that stabbed the Earth, their mother. In awe they watched her burn, powerless beneath the thrusts of a deity who owed nothing to the slow cycles of growth and decay. Here was a magic to surpass the impenetrable secrets of femininity. Here, in light and fire, they found the power of beginnings: the shock and disruption of all that was new. Not the circles of the Earth Mother, but the straight lines of the Sky Father – the Maker of “Men”.

Masculinity is the world’s disease, and civilisation is its symptom. Patriarchy is the product of the first, and the only true, revolution in human history – and endures as its most malignant legacy.

37 COMMENTS

  1. Hehehe… its innate in many respects,- just look at a pride of lions and the big dude with the big hairdo…

    Then , … because we are self aware,… we should at least strive to be less instinct driven and thus less base…

    Whatever happened to just being nice to each other , for instance ?!!?

    There’s a line from a particular NZ authors book that I like ,… about a bloke called Uncle Hec.

    ” They’re all going mad out there ” ,… Uncle Hec said as he finished listening to the radio news broadcast…

    And its true.

  2. Good insight chis, Here is my manliness experience.

    As a 73 yr old male i began my self driven life leaving Napier in 1966 at 22yrs old for USA/Canada to work as a single man, and three years later hopped around europe, and then through Arabia to Africa and worked in Rhodesia in 1970 for a while then when my ‘wildness’ left me I retured home, and alas after a year that manliness drove me away from here again back to Canada where i finally found a soft demure Kentish woman around a year younger, and she settled me down.

    Without her (who is still at my side) I would still be searching for what i could never find, so man seems to be driven by forces we dont understand until a partner achors us down it seems.

    My life has been rocky but my partner has been my rock, so we all seem to have a purpose here in this strange place we call home.

  3. Good grief, what a bizarre post. Does Chris confuse masculinity with patriarchy, with chauvinism, perhaps?

    Even if a society were more designed along matriarchy or patriarchy, or whatever, society tends to have certain codes of behaviour.

    Masculinity must not be bad, nor femininity, and what Harvey Weinstein did, if all allegations prove to be true, was nothing less than a crime, certainly harassment and abuse of power.

    Ancient societies may have lived under matriarchy, over the past three to four thousand years some societies introduced patriarchy, but all had rules for people to follow.

    Would an abuser who may have daughters allow others to abuse his daughters? He has a 22 year old daughter, I heard, so she must be in a difficult space herself.

    Weinstein has questions to answer, and has to be put before a court, and then he will be held to account.

    Of course this is also a gender issue, but Chris seems confused.

  4. As a trans-male who was born male but who identifies as “straight’ while wearing men’s clothing, I feel that white men (not all men are the problem) should be eradicated through miscegenation.

    Don’t ask me about my previous job “interviewing” Palestinians before I got my plum job on a European newspaper without even speaking the language or having any experience…. and then moved to NZ with the help of Xero.

    • So? Tell me about your previous job ” interviewing” Palestinians?
      The mind boggles, so can you help to de-boggle it. It has enough problems of its own right now.

      I had to look up the word miscegenation.
      Ok. I’d give it a go.
      I’ve just come out of a South Otago winter. I look like I’ve been soaked in bleach. I look like one of those cave creatures with the translucent skin. If I eat a Ginger Nut I can, in a mirror, watch it go down my throat, past my lungs, round my liver, and then down and round and round and round until I worry about where I put the toilet paper.

      See, the thing is, I had no choice re my skin colour. But if I had a choice? Would I chose beautiful black or this fucking pasty, freckly- white glad wrap stuff? Let me think…? Hmmm…? So, if you see me on the beach you’d look at me and say to yourself. ” That white cracker needs ‘eradicating’ because he’s got white skin…?” If so? Then trust me, the sun’s trying to do the job for you.

  5. Humanity’s biggest ‘mistake’ was to abandon the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and adopt fixed-abode agriculture. With fixed-abode agriculture came fences, the concept of ownership of land and the need to defend crops and stored food from theft by outsiders…..and the establishment of armies professional fighters and professional weapon-makers. Fixed-abode agriculture also spawned armies of bureaucrats, politicians and other parasites, and spawned other evils such as institutionalized slavery.

    Humanity’s second biggest ‘mistake’ was to construct machines that convert to chemical energy of fossil fuels into motion and then establish economic dependency on those machines.

    Humanity’s third biggest ‘mistake’ was to allow banks to create money out of thin air and charge interest on it, and allow corporations to have legal identity.

    Humanity’s fourth biggest mistake was to allow so-called economists free rein to impose their bizarre theories (largely disconnected from reality) on the rest of society.

    The ongoing disaster of industrial civilization will play out in a fairly predictable manner, with those who gain short-term benefits from industrialism, war and manipulation of the masses inflicting their faux narratives on the general populace until they are no longer able to, together with massive depletion of resources, generation of severely debilitating levels of pollution, and warfare for control of the last of the resources and the last of the habitable locations on this once-green-and- abundant planet, which is now, in military slang, FUBAR (fucked up beyond all recognition).

    Interestingly, what can be regarded as a prime defining characteristic of maleness, the ability to generate sperm and impregnate females, has now become a victim of the faux progress generated by intense industrial activity; apparently sperm counts are ‘falling off the cliff’ in regions where pollution and stress are particularly high.

    Couple the disruption of hormone levels and sperm counts with the appalling rise in obesity (the latest data indicates that 70% of Americans are now severely overweight or obese as a direct consequence of ingestion of industrially-generated food and lack of exercise), and incorporate the environmental aspects that are ‘falling off the cliff’ (like the report of a colony of 40,000 penguins producing only 2 viable chicks) and it is easy to picture a not-too-distant future in which humans have managed to annihilate their own species, along with most other ‘advanced life forms’.

    • Well, you suggest then, humans should have remained hunters and gatherers forever, and remained at that stage of ‘development’, and live like slightly advanced animals, resigned to limitations not only by nature, also to dying off from all kinds of diseases, whether pestilence, small pox or whatever else.

      As for the drop in fertility and sperm counts, it may have various reasons, not only pollution and certain hormones left in food we eat. It may also be the result of generally changed lifestyles, where the natural reproduction is hampered by less physical virility, due to people sitting in offices, or in cars and so for much of the day, which weakens the whole body – and also what is needed to reproduce, perhaps.

      Surely, a major part of our challenge as human species is the wrong, destructive CULTURE we have adopted, which actually can be changed, to be one that is based in sustainability, instead of ripping the guts out of the soil, water and air.

      • I highly recommend you read ‘Ishmael’ by Daniel Quinn, and ‘The Ascent of Humanity’ by Charles Eisenstein. Also ‘The Naked Ape’ and ‘The HumanZoo’ by Desmond Morris.

        “humans should have remained hunters and gatherers forever, and remained at that stage of ‘development’, and live like slightly advanced animals”

        Some human communities *have* chosen to remain hunter-gatherers forever. Being “slightly advanced animals” is arguably better than slightly mutant animals, who have devolved to the point where their everyday activities erode the capacity of their ecosystems to support them. See the work of Survival International, who advocate for these communities, to protect them from enforced “development” by us factory-farmed humans, whose “developed” lifestyles are not nearly as sustainable as theirs.

      • it makes no difference what the culture is -true communism, faux communism, fascist dictatorship, oligarchy, so-called democracy, consumerism, frugality, so-called green- everything industrial humans do increases the atmospheric CO2 and the acidity of the oceans. Overheated, acidified oceans do not support life as we know it and it will be our children and grandchildren who pay the price for decades of insanity.

        ‘We’ are now about 124 ppm above the pre-industrial level of atmospheric CO2 and about 174 ppm above the long-term average:

        https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

        And atmospheric CO2 will continue tor rise (and cause further overheating) until industrial civilization collapses and the human population collapses….forecast to occur between 2020 and 2030.

        • What about a culture of true, dedicated, committed sustainability, not based on fossil fuel and other energy waste and pollution?

          • A culture of true sustainability, not based on fossil fuels, cannot support the 8 billion people currently living on this planet, the vast majority of whose food supply is generated and distributed using fossil fuels: no use of fossil fuels = mass starvation until the carrying capacity of the land is reached.

            Sadly, the ‘greedy apes’ have overrun the planet like a plague and have destroyed most of the natural systems that provided food for the much lower population that existed 200 years ago. Therefore the carrying capacity of the land (and oceans) is much lower than it was 200 years ago…..arguably around 500 million, and 7.5 billion need to starve to death.

            Additionally, the acidification of the oceans that has taken place is now disrupting the ability of organisms at the base of the food chain to form shells. And, as anyone who is awake knows, corals are disappearing at a record rate.

            Add to that potent blend the fact that the Earth will continue to overheat even if we were to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow because of the amount of formerly sequestered carbon that is now in the atmosphere in the form of CO2 is way beyond that of 200 years ago (around 406 ppm versus 280 ppm). That means massive sea level rise (several metres) is locked in over coming decades.

            And finally, ‘the powers that be’ the banks and corporations, and their local agents -central and local government- will not allow any movement towards true sustainability: their agenda is to keep the populace trapped in debt-slavery and fossil fuel use for as long as possible. And keep their Ponzi scheme going via covering of agricultural land with concrete and asphalt.

            The window of opportunity for a smooth transition passed long ago (arguably in the 1970s), and we are now guaranteed mayhem as a consequence of the hubris, stupidity and mendacity of those who pretended to be leaders over the past 4 decades.

            Permaculture and Powerdown, the only sane responses to our predicament, have been vigorously promoted for decades, and have been thoroughly rejected by the political establishment and most of the general populace. Now it’s just a matter of the mathematics, physics and chemistry following their inexorable paths, I’m afraid.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY

    • All correct there AFEWKNOWTHETRUTH.

      We have dug our own grave by controlling every part of our freedoms earlier generations had.

      My restlessness at 22 was signalling to me that I was not fit to be controllled so now I live 1650 ft up on a mountain in Gisborne where 50 sheep tell me what to do now.

      It feels so good here as when i go to town once a week I now feel as though i don’t belong there any more.

  6. One only need observe the animal kingdom , in the wild or domestically , to see that masculine domination and abuse is way older than any mythology or anything recognisable as a man. In much of our society the interaction has improved with civilisation , but we have a long way to go.
    Sorry, but any significant period of past matriarchal domination I don’t buy at all.
    D J S

  7. I always read Chris Trotter articles. I don’t always (but mostly) a agree with what is said but I love the way the language flows. Like wisdom from the fountain of life. A true man of words. Great article.

    • Hobbes was a classical liberal, the kind that neo-liberals emulate. This quote beautifully sums up their white supremacist belief that “modern” (eurocentric) culture and lifestyles are inherently superior to all others. Neo-liberal true believers (like Steven Pinker) continue to regurgitate these memes, despite the fact that anthropologists have been pointing out for decades that this belief in the inherent superiority of modern lifestyles is both racist and factually wrong.

      Hunter-gatherers have more freedom and more leisure time than most modern humans (ie those not in the top 10%). Their lifestyles involve more exercise, better nutrition, and more mutually supportive communities, resulting in less disease, almost no mental health problems or suicide, and no homelessness or starvation in the midst of plenty. They have less assault and murder per capita than modern societies, and their “wars” consist mainly of ceremonial spear throwing to resolve border disputes, not the attempts at mutual extermination that characterize modern warfare.

      Their relationship with the ecosystems they depend on is one of symbiosis, not domination. They carefully observe the natural food-producing capacities of wild ecosystems, harvesting only surplus, and migrating in seasonal cycles so that they are always camping where surplus is ready for harvest. They “farm” by carefully increasing the capacity of the ecosystems to produce edible surplus, rather than clear-cutting and cultivating mono-crops. When they cut down a tree, they plant at least one in its place.

      If the descendants of modern humans survive at all, it will be because they have learned to be more like hunter-gatherers, and less like us.

      • The problem with this lifestyle is that the world can’t support more than about 1% of the human population this way. Who is going to opt out?
        D J S

      • Modern humans, as a species, have existed for around 200,000 years, and for well over 90% of that time homo sapiens were entirely hunter-gathers. Remnants of our normal lifestyle persist, but only in remote locations that industrial humans find difficult to reach.

        Settlement-based agriculture commenced around 18,000 years ago and became the dominant lifestyle in a few regions of the world by around 4,000 years ago (about 2% of modern human history ). Interestingly, the general health deteriorated -smaller, weaker, more diseases- as a result monoculture agriculture based largely on grains, but the NUMBER of humans increased immensely.

        Economic arrangements based on burning fossil fuels became established in England around 200 years ago (0.1% of modern human history) and became established worldwide around 40 years ago (0.02% of modern human history).

        What is so extraordinary is that so many people in NZ believe the that the severely aberrant economic and social arrangements that we are now subjected to (and which are in the process of rapidly destroying life on Earth) have merit and should be expanded! Almost everywhere we look there are people busying themselves converting semi-sustainable systems into totally unsustainable systems. And despite it being perfectly obvious that current living arrangements will collapse in less than a decade [because of declining g energy availability], idiots bureaucrats and politicians continue to call the conversion of sustainability into unsustainability ‘sustainable development’.

        The belief in the merit (or even worse, the superiority) of industrial living in defiance of all the know facts is one of the most bizarre forms of denial of reality currently practiced. And it is deadly.

      • I was with you right up to the “if they cut down a tree” thing.
        Please!

        Hunter-gatherers set fire to forest to drive the game towards them.

        And if they managed to be less destructive – or the trees wouldn’t burn so easily, as in the Brazilian jungle, for instance, the trees might regenerate, but they wouldn’t have nurseries with trees ready to protect the environment.

        Makes me think a bit of idealization going on.

        Chris’ historical fantasy is also wide of the mark, in my view.

        I suspect that men have pretty much always been political leaders back to the dawn of time. Largely for physical and mobility reasons.

        Women, I concede, often had a prime roll to play in mysticism and the development of religious constructs. They also had a stake in the development of permanent settlements and agriculture – and civilization itself, of course. They were guardians of the future of the tribe, and rewarded the most successful of the men.

        So the revolution should more be seem as the widespread subsumation of women’s roles to the needs of politics. Which gave the male political leaders a much fuller control than before.

        Men’s sexual requirements tend to be focused. Women’s more diffuse and nuanced. If women only responded to the personal profiles typically pursued by men, the wrong would at least be indisputable before, during and after an incident.

        But such is obviously not the case. And to the victor go the spoils – at least in locker-room mythology. The prize, symbol and goal of societal success.

        Harvey Weinstein-type incidents are not an aberrant part of our modern life. They are a seemingly unavoidable part of society itself. Now and back to the dawn of “culture”.

        We can try to mitigate some of its most noxious effects, but to eradicate it completely would be a big ask.

  8. ” After ages during which the earth produced harmless trilobites and butterflies, evolution has progressed to the point at which it has generated Neros, Genghis Khans and Hitlers. This, however, I believe is a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return.”

    Bertrand Russell Quarterly

    Feb 2003.

  9. “At the heart of this masculinist revolt lay a deep-seated fear and resentment of all things female – and a burning desire to master them.”

    That describes misogyny. Men who hate ( fear? ) women. The one or two I know were terrified of their mothers while as children. Men who hate women but enjoy sexy times with women are a tortured lot.

    “Masculinity is the world’s disease, and civilisation is its symptom. Patriarchy is the product of the first, and the only true, revolution in human history – and endures as its most malignant legacy.”
    Brilliant quote.
    Perhaps its a ‘most malignant legacy’ because those who suffer from that particular affliction are most easily psychologically manipulated by Machiavellians who will most benefit from that.
    A warning to women.
    You will not draw men in closer to being equals by hating men. Not all men are monsters.
    I work in an industry where middle and upper management are predominantly women.
    They often talk of ‘ soft cocks’ , typical ‘males’ and make comments like ‘ that’s a typical male thing to say/do. That, to me, sounds like a conversation between trump and the Mexicans about wall building.
    ( Having said that, it’s certainly not as repugnant as listening to truck drivers proving to me, by the tone of the grunts and squeaks that passes for conversation, that have tiny diddles. )
    Misandry is equally repulsive so there must be an effort to spread the word of this weird and old fashioned concept called ‘empathy’. And in this hideous world? What’s the first thing to be rendered superfluous in order to make money and maintain power?
    Empathy is endangered.
    I heard on RNZ that MSD / WINZ is going to make ‘empathy’ classes available to its employees. Does that mean that we’re now without empathy to such an extent that we must be schooled in it to be able to aid our most vulnerable?
    We’re all but fucked.
    There’s only one answer.
    Crop dust everything everywhere immediately with MDMA powder. Or pills if you prefer.
    Down this way the moronic council spray everything everywhere in glyphosate so why not Gods good drugs of love and cuddles too? Turn all the ugly, monstrosity Presbyterian church’s into rave venues? I’d be fucking banging on the door of a Sunday I can tell you!
    Burn the banks, take five day weekends and work two days. I’ve just solved virtually every single woe befalling western culture. Good drugs and time off to play and cuddle. Done.

  10. “Men looked skyward, away from the Earth. They observed the gathering darkness in the heavens and heard the deep rumble of the sky’s anger. They witnessed the brilliant spears of light that stabbed the Earth.”

    Sounds like a close encounter of the third kind

  11. I think the strain has finally got to Chris-someone give him a call to see if he’s OK. I can see him preaching from the pulpit much like Neville Cooper or Brian Tamaki. I’ve no idea what he’s on about but it sounds fantastic!

  12. Unusually weird post from CT. Perhaps we should start with the culture of Hollywood, the hypocrisy of its preaching and the phenomenon of people (men and women) not speaking up earlier. That’s likely to get more useful answers than this speculation on men generally.

  13. “And, whether the ultimate liberation of womankind is contingent upon the unequivocal elimination of the culturally constructed beings we call ‘men’?”

    Recently, I was able to start saying that I’m proud to be a man, just as I want my daughter to be able to confidently say that she’s proud of being a woman. I just turned 40, and although I’ve always been totally comfortable with being a straight male, I spent much of the last 20 years being so horrified by rough-as-guts kiwi bloke culture that I literally didn’t identify as a “man”. Whenever I was out in public and some kid or their parent said something about “that man” (meaning me), I would look around trying to figure out who they meant. But in the last few years, I’ve been lucky to be part of “men’s circles”, which have helped me understand that being a dominating bully and violently acting out unexpressed anger – “toxic masculinity” – is not the essence of being a man.

    Pathologizing maleness and masculinity is not the solution to patriarchal culture. If we tell young men that a “man” is someone who uses violence and intimidation to gain and maintain power, and that the only alternative to that is not to be a “man”, that only reinforces patriarchal notions of masculinity. What we need to tell young men is that a “real man” is someone who treats others with respect, as equals, who uses “soul force” (to quote Ghandi) not violence to defend themselves and get their needs met, and so on. We need to nurture an egalitarian masculinity that stands shoulder-to-shoulder with assertive femininity, and opposes *both* aggressive patriarchy and passive-aggressive matriarchy.

  14. Have I misunderstood the article? I fail to understand how masculinity has any relevance to what Harvey Weinstein has done. It wasn’t masculinity driving his actions, it was perversion and the lust for power/control. Masculine men don’t behave that way – they are confident, respectful and very much in control of themselves.

    Personally, I’ve been treated horribly in the the workplace more by other women in positions of power than men, who were more than willing to betray the sisterhood, with a disturbing glee, when a scapegoat is required. In a nutshell, it’s a power imbalance that’s the problem.

    I doubt we will ever have “equality”, between the genders as we don’t even have equality for people in general, at least not while we live under capitalism, the system designed to have winners and losers.

    Feminism did nothing for women except drive a bigger wedge between the sexes because now we are discouraged, even viewed as lazy for wanting to be around to nurture our kids and make a home. It’s been around for nearly seventy years and things have just gotten worse overall. The ideology certainly hasn’t protected women, clearly. We pay for strangers at daycare centers to bring up our children, don’t give them enough attention when we get them home due to exhaustion, and genuinely scratch our heads as to why they have rampant emotional problems.

    Masculinity and Femininity is to be celebrated, it’s the reason we are all here! Any suggestion they are flaws as though that is the problem, is just beyond absurd.

    • Competitive behaviour is something that happens naturally the higher likelihood individuals who were exposed to a lot of testosterone in the womb (like straight/bisexual men or lesbian/bisexual women) so that is why things like sport are seen as s “masculine” thing. That competitive nature however can make individuals (regardless of sex) want to throw their weight around.

      I think rather than act like this doesn’t exist people need to be more educated on biological instinctive nature and how that can have an influence on certain peoples bahviours. Science is important to learn about for these things, not everything in society is just some made up social construct for no reason, a lot of the time our social issues stem from our human biology which is why we have so many psychological, behavioural and social issues in the first place because our biology is clashing a lot of the time and society gets frustrated when they clash. Not everything stems from biology, not everything stems from psychology and no everything stems from social constructs. It’s a big massive mix of both and everyone should honestly know more about it rather than try to pin every issue on one factor alone.

      • I have to admit, it would seem the definition of masculinity is subjective, an opinion rather than clear cut. For example to my mind, a masculine man is a competent one, cool in stressful situations and a good dad, not some over-sized dude chasing a ball around a field.

        I get what you are saying Sam about the competitive nature of many of people, but there are also many people who love to share and care about others, often those who have the least. That would point towards human choice as opposed to in-built competitive human nature that we are compelled to act on.

        Also, back when humans were hunter-gatherers, we can safely assume resources were plentiful, we are still here and have exponentially multiplied. At that time competition would have been far less necessary. Having said that, I have no doubt the guys best able to protect his young from predators probably got more of the ladies. That would have required brains as much as brawn.

        • Hunter-gatherer societies cannot (or at least, certainly did not) have the surplus productivity or population interaction needed to develop any degree of science and technological advancement.

          Having sight correction methods instead of letting people die to a random wolf attacks as youngsters and don’t understand.

          It’s so only since the invention of agriculture 10k years or so ago that we’ve actually been the dominant species on this planet.

          I think those who praise the hunter-gatherer lifestyle should spend a week on a crab boat in the Bering sea during winter.

          It’s not a bad lifestyle if you’re perfectly formed and lucky, but it’s not one at all if you’re not.

  15. @Liberty4NZ ‘I doubt we will ever have “equality”, between the genders as we don’t even have equality for people in general, at least not while we live under capitalism, the system designed to have winners and losers.’
    Yes but I think the inequality goes back further in time than capitalism. I came across a fascinating article on alchemy. Here is a quote:
    “From ancient times, men have used overt sexual symbolism to communicate and record economic actions. Even when divorced from their origins in husbandry, we still use these sexual metaphors in our economic language. In accounting and finance in particular, many words are puns – they carry a double meaning.
    Growth. Cycle. Period. Maturity. Seed. Deposit. Yield. Labour. Bond. And that’s only a handful.”
    Again:
    “The purpose of this bond – this union of opposites – is not to love each other, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. There is a higher purpose.
    Reproduction.
    The reproduction and growth of money.
    The true purpose of this union of opposites, is the creation and multiplication of money … for the lender.”
    The article is also interesting on the subject of androgyne.

    https://psalmistice.com/2017/07/07/cheating-females-the-production-of-inequalit

  16. Be OUT of Word smiting from within PAGAN INFESTED STUFF and SEEK Him in His MOST Original Scriptures written long before this garbage

Comments are closed.