***

 

“Women can sing to more than one tune. What good were the Perihermeneias, the Elenchi, divided into several branches, the Prior and Posterior Analytics, logic, or the mathematical sciences to Aristotle? For a woman surmounted all of these in mounting him and conquered the master of logic. She placed a bit and headstall on his head and he was dragged into solecism, barbastoma, and barbarism. The hussy used him as a horse and spurred him on like a female ass. She lifted her crotch far too high when she rode the male. The governor was governed and the roles of the sexes reversed, for she was active and he passive, willing to neigh under her. . . .” — Woman over Wisdom, The Lamentations of Matheolus, 1295AD

First, let’s be clear here. In case you haven’t noticed, I am an unabashed sexist. I absolutely do not believe Gender is a Social Construct. I think there certainly were social constructs society once endorsed, but they were based upon our biological differences – and it was more or less correct to structure society as it once was because of them. Our civilization has endured for millenia – proof of its viability under defined gender roles – while in the past century we’ve been tripping over ourselves to commit cultural suicide. The Bible, whether you believe in God or not, is the “blueprint” for our civilization – it is the key to how our cultural and social mores developed. It has proven itself to be a “Book of Life” because the structure of the society it puts forth certainly endures, grows and succeeds.

That there are biological differences between man and woman is clearly evident. It behooves me how society could think this only stops on the surface. There is evidence of it all around us, but the problem is we are only premitted to speak of these things when they praise women’s attributes over men’s – and we never point out the drawbacks of their features. For every cloud there’s a silver lining. There is balance to these things – what gives you power in one area, takes away power in the other. For example – Men have greater physical strength than women, but also die seven years earlier and are far more succeptible to the top ten fatal diseases. So who is stronger? The willow or the oak? They are both strong, but possess entirely different features which make them so. 

Here’s a study that touches on a biological difference in the way men’s and women’s brains work:

Hard-Wired Difference Between Male & Female Brains Could Explain Why Men Are Better At Map Reading 

 

– Researchers found that many of the connections in a typical male brain run between the front and the back of the same side of the brain, whereas in women the connections are more likely to run from side to side between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. This difference in the way the nerve connections in the brain are “hardwired” occurs during adolescence when many of the secondary sexual characteristics such as facial hair in men and breasts in women develop under the influence of sex hormones, the study found. The researchers believe the physical differences between the two sexes in the way the brain is hardwired could play an important role in understanding why men are in general better at spatial tasks involving muscle control while women are better at verbal tasks involving memory and intuition.

… Because the female connections link the left hemisphere, which is associated with logical thinking, with the right, which is linked with intuition, this could help to explain why women tend to do better than men at intuitive tasks, she added. “Intuition is thinking without thinking. It’s what people call gut feelings. Women tend to be better than men at these kinds of skills which are linked with being good mothers,” Professor Verma said.

Note that male brains run front to back, thus not crossing logic with emotion as with women. Not only do women use their greater emotional sensitivities to help them communicate with children, but they also communicate with each other in a similar way. There are plenty of studies out there illustrating how women have better social networks than men do, and they have better support systems to help them through a life crisis (her 4th divorce!) and so on. Women are not only emotionally wired differently than men, they are also emotionally “in-tune” with each other – kinda like a herd!

 

 

 

 

 

Women find a man sexy because of “social proofing” – if enough women find a man sexy, other women will find him sexy too, which is how harems develop. Women are in-tune to ever-changing fashions in a way men never are – because fashion is an ever changing opinion “of the herd.” When women seek to aggress against another, they mostly do so by-proxy – through using other people. This is called “Social Aggression” or “Relational Aggression,” where they use gossip and social manipulation to hurt others – by excluding them from a group for example, which is why so many “traditional punishments” for women involved things like shunning – it really matters to them! Heck, I’ve even read that women who live together wind up co-ordinating their menstrual cycles to each other! 

And it’s all “thinking without thinking.”

 

“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel

The female principle, like a herd, is pure Democracy. It seeks to find truth through consensus and opinions without regard for timeless principles. If the herd believes that 1+1=1, then it is correct because the herd believes it is so. Tomorrow, perhaps the herd will believe 1+1=3 and then that will be correct. Sometimes they may even stumble on 1+1=2 and look pretty smart, but the day after it could easily be 1+1=4 again.

 

This is precisely why women were not supposed to be mixing with men’s place in the government, which was based upon the timeless, unalienable principles found in a Republic:

“Were our state a pure democracy there would still be excluded from our deliberations […] women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issues, should not mix promiscuously in gatherings of men.” — Thomas Jefferson

Men are like a pack of wolves – they have an established hierarchy and don’t work quite so democratically, but rather assign themselves different positions to achieve their goals. There are leaders and there are followers – there are established “truths” to the male principle.

 

The Female Principle is a representation of Democracy, while the Male Principle represents a Republic.

And last I heard, the Bible wasn’t a Democracy either. Instead, it’s based on the concept of timeless, never changing Absolute Truth. God doesn’t hold a vote to see if you approve of what he has to say. Like the Absolute Truth, what he says just IS!

God’s Law = Absolute Truth
Natural Law = Objective Truth = Male Principle
Civil Law = Subjective Truth = Female Principle

 

If a Civil Law contradicts a Natural Law it is a false law, and if a Natural Law contradicts God’s Law, it is a false law.

The whole point of setting things up this way is to control the ever changing subjective truth – that truth which convinces so many convicted felons of their innocence, despite the evidence piled up against them. Certainly men have the subjective truth within them too, although not as much as women, and a man can be held to the Truth by other men in ways they’re incapable of doing with women.

As was pointed out earlier up, because of women’s “intuition” and social connections to one another, they are masters at socially manipulating each other – and men. But this social ability women possess has its drawbacks:

 

“The consciousness of how one stands with other people occupies a relatively larger and larger part of the mind, the lower one goes on the scale of culture.  Woman’s intuition, so fine in the sphere of personal relations, is seldom first-rate in the way of mechanics.  Hence Dr.  Whately’s jest, “Woman is the unreasoning animal, and pokes the fire from the top.” — William James, Principles of Psychology

 

Whenever a woman enters into a group of men, the group becomes subconsciously feminized. In the same way we allow our biology to over-ride principles of justice and excuse women from the most henious of crimes, once a woman enters into a discussion with a group of men, our biology over-rides us as we seek to “please the female.” Women quickly lead men away from their ability to seek “principles” and draw them back down to the level of social manipulations found within “the herd,” where everything is subjective. Very soon, because of women’s much greater social power than men’s, she’ll be leading the men away from the Truth like the Pied Piper.   

 

³² “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. ³³ But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, ³⁴ and his interests are divided.” — 1 Corinthians 7:32-34

 

This is the story of the Garden of Eden all over again, and how Eve over-ruled the Absolute Truth with her Subjective Truths, leading Adam astray. And, it should be noted, while Eve was deceived, Adam sinned willingly. 

“I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” — 1 Timothy 2:12-14

Adam, in his desire to please the woman, over-ruled the Truth he knew to exist, and sinned willingly.

In fact, when God later gives his reasons for cursing Adam, the first reason he gives is for listening to Eve:

“Because you listened to your wife, and ate of the tree about which I commanded you…” (Adam’s Curse)

It couldn’t be more clear.

You have to keep in mind, historically, what kind of an atmosphere the Israelites were in during the Old Testament. All of the cultures and civilizations around them were fertility cultures – they worshipped sexuality and women’s power was enormous. In fact, the Israelites were constantly being tempted to adopt the practices of these sex-worshiping cultures –  like when they were influenced to worship Baal, a consort of the goddess Ishtar. In fact, even the names of the goddesses were removed from the ancient Hebrew texts before they became part of the Old Testament, so it’s far more likely that instead of worshipping the male god Baal, they were actually worshipping the goddess Ishtar, since goddesses were considered more powerful than gods in these Sumerian-Babylonian off-shoot cultures. This happens over and over in the Old Testament.

 

Jeremiah 44
15 Then all the men who were aware that their wives were burning sacrifices to other gods, along with all the women who were standing by, as a large assembly, including all the people who were living in Pathros in the land of Egypt, responded to Jeremiah, saying,

16 “As for the message that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we are not going to listen to you!

17 “But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from our mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.

18 “But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met our end by the sword and by famine.”

 

In fact, if we go back to the story of Abram/Abraham and compare it to the Ancient Sumerian/Babylonian religions, we actually find that “our God” was present there as well. He was known as “El,” and there were even idols of him there. Abram’s father was an idol maker, remember, and idol worship wasn’t outlawed until Moses came down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments a few centuries later. (There wasn’t even a Bible until Moses).

The plural of these El idols were known as Elohim – the God of the Flood and the God of Noah and his son Shem, who was the ancestor of Abram. When Gilgamesh (a descendant of Noah’s other son, Ham – who didn’t follow God) was running around in “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” he was angered at the God of the Flood for killing his ancestors and swore revenge against him. Some suspect that the Nimrod of the Tower of Babel and Gilgamesh were actually the same person, since the purpose of building the tower was to defy the God of the Flood while the name Nimrod means “the rebel” and was possibly a nickname rather than a real name.

El was not a popular god, however, because unlike all of the other gods, he had no wife – and therefore there were no sex worship rituals involved with El. When Abram left the wickedness of the culture surrounding him and set out for the wilderness, he took with him the god of his ancestor Shem – El or Elohim. It is with Elohim that Abram makes a pact to follow One God (One Truth) rather than the multiple gods (multiple truths) he had left

 

So, you can easily see, right from the Garden of Eden all the way through the Old Testament, what we are really talking about is the resistence of letting the female lead the male – because they naturally lead us away from the Truth with the power of their sexual influence.

And of course, all of the animal kingdom worships female fertility – but we are commanded to not live as animals: Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, honor your father and mother… all are things which make us different from animals. It is our ability to “rise up” from being animals that makes us human – and we do it by grabbing onto the Truth, and then ordering it in the proper way.

Rising Up from being Beasts of the Field 

 

QUOTE: “I think that the closest that we can get to an absolute truth might be termed “objective truth,” which starts with an objective assessment of existence and leads to falsifiable conclusions. In a sense, one starts with axiom(s) and follows the logical consequences.”

Yes, but remember how the Founding Fathers/John Locke look at truth and “lock one into the other.”

1 – God’s Law = Absolute Truth
2 – Natural Law = Objective Truth
3 – Civil Law = Relative/Subjective Truth

I agree that the best “we” can know is the objective truth… but we must go higher and acknowledge the existence of this Absolute Truth – because sometimes the objective truth changes, with history or technology or what not, what is true today is not true always. 

“If God did not exist, it would be neccessary to invent him.” — Voltaire

An example of this is found in Orwell’s book 1984. The storyline is essentially a struggle between the Relative Truth (or lies) surrounding the main character who believes in an External Truth.

And, aside from direct philosophical discussion about “finding Truth” – what I keep seeing is the necessity for Truth to exist. An external truth – one that can’t be changed – one we can’t deny. Whether there actually is Truth might not be as important as the human need to believe in Truth.

There has never really been a civilization that has ever existed that didn’t have some form of religion – it’s a universal trait in human cultures.

And keep in mind how the Absoluteness of the Bible has been used to keep us in check – by using it to reign in the king and force him to sign the Magna Carta, for example. Despite the fact that the king had his “divine rights,” he still couldn’t over-rule the Bible – just like although the President is the most powerful man in the world, the Constitution still has authority over him and can be used to curtail his powers. Like the Constitution, since the Bible is unchangeable, it keeps us from drifting off into La-la Land as time goes on. 

In order to “rise up from being a beast of the field” we need to grab onto a Truth – preferably a never changing one, like the Bible, or at least a hard to change one, like the Constitution.

In Angry Harry’s piece Men Are More Intelligent Than Women, he points out how the more you emote, the less you think… and which sex would one think is the “most emotional,” and which sex is, by their own admission, “more in touch with their emotions?”

Alright ladies, I’ll believe you.

But it is also clear that, the more you emote, the less you “think.” The more your emotions lead you, the less your reason leads you. “Passion” is all great and fine, until it becomes “murder in the heat of passion” or a bazillion other things resulting from a highly emotional state leading to a person “not thinking.”

Life by “passion” is the life of living by instinct, which is the life of an animal.

 

Now, I am not a neurosurgeon either, but I have read of the “three brains.”

The old brain/lower brain/reptilian brain, which contains the brain stem and spinal cord, is the one that doesn’t “think.” This is where your fight or flight response comes from and a whole host of other things that don’t involve “thinking.” It is also where our sexual instinct and mating behaviour comes from. In the days when such experiments were still allowed, you could open a cat’s skull and suck out all the cortex. Sexual and mating behavior was not affected at all, but social behavior was destroyed.

 

The next brain is the limbic/mammalian brain, and this is the brain where emotions come from, or “our passions.” Animals have emotions. Ever separate a cow from its calf? Ever seen a dog wag its tail when it sees its owner?

 

The new brain, or cortex, is where we “think.”

So, in order to “rise up from being beasts of the field” we have to “think.”

As we get assaulted with things – violently or emotionally or in any number of ways – our brains “shut down.” The “thinking brain” will shut down in favour of the mammal brain, which will in turn, in emergency, shut down if it has to and run completely on instinct – fight or flight. There is no “thinking” or “emotion” in it.
It just “happens.”

 

 

I’m sorry, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, but you are trying to subvert God himself with your subjective truths – and the very fact you are trying to do so is the reason women have no business philosophizing about Church doctrines. After all, wasn’t God’s Absoluteness the entire justification for this Declaration of Sentiments in the first place?

The final point of the Declaration of Sentiments:

16 – He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Yes, I know, you’re a victim… but the fact is, women are always victims, because it’s one of the primary methods used to entice men to be their tools in society. Babies who don’t cry don’t get milk either, and when something goes wrong, the first people children blame is their parents – just as the first people women look to blame is men.

 

Children are at war with their parents, women are at war with men, and men are at war with God/Truth. But it descends from here as well. The Truth is not at war with men, men are not at war with women, and parents are not at war with their children. Furthermore, only when man is in proper relation to the Truth can he be in proper relation to woman. The fact of the matter is, as Jesus told us, to rule is to serve… and the Truth is, as I think I’ve demonstrated throughout this series, the entire Declaration of Sentiments is an absolute fail. Sometimes the Truth hurts… but it’s still the Truth.