With the primaries effectively concluded, it looks like it will now be Hillary versus Trump in the 2016 general election. While I personally prefer Bernie over Hillary, and thus voted for him in the primaries, Hillary is certainly way better than Chump and I will thus vote for her in November. Though not quite as progressive as Bernie, and leaves quite a bit to be desired, she is still far less less regressive, reactionary, racist, and hawkish than Chump, and having her at the nuclear button is far less horrifying than him. People are starting to take a hint that the Donald is really not all he is cracked up to be, and he is crashing and burning in the polls while Hillary is rising. He literally needs no help from anyone to dig his own grave, as he is doing a great job of that himself.
Most importantly, as Hillary herself would say, this is about something far bigger than just one election, it is about smashing the highest and tallest glass ceiling in the world. If she becomes President, it will be a HUGE symbolic victory for the better half of humanity, particularly when running against a (pathetic straw) man who is in many ways the very symbol of the patriarchy. And the eventual transition to Matriarchy will no doubt be accelerated by such a victory, God willing. Besides, if Bernie (or Marianne) had eventually become President, the banksters would surely have had him (or her) whacked within the first hundred days in office. So to the "Bernie or Bust" crowd, let's NOT make the perfect the enemy of the good this time. Otherwise, we may very well see the lights go out on Broadway (or worse) in 2017 after President Chump (shudder) messes things up.
Remember, the distinguished Guru Rasa von Werder had originally predicted that Hillary would become President in 2008. Looks like her prediction was off by only eight years, and the gist of it was still correct.
VIVE LA FEMME! VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Should Men Still Have Individual Rights?
(NOTE: The fellas might just wanna sit down and take a deep breath before reading this article)
I realize that since I began writing this blog a few months ago, I have been treating the question of individual rights for men as a given, when in reality it is far from obvious and thus should not be treated as such. Rather, us fellas need to take off our blinders of male privilege and examine this issue far more critically and objectively than has generally been the case. So let's get down to brass tacks:
In previous posts and elsewhere, I have already established why Women should rule both the family and the world (and why men should not), why the feminine paradigm of leadership is far better than the masculine one could ever be, why sexual freedom is a good thing on balance, and why the general concept of individual rights is worth preserving both before and after Women eventually take over. What I have been taking for granted, consciously and unconsciously, is that men in particular somehow would and should necessarily benefit from all of this under Matriarchy. And as a man, that is clearly chutzpah and hubris on my part to do so uncritically, given all of the evil that men, both historically and contemporarily, have done to Women, children, animals, and the Earth itself. Not that the men of the future automatically would or should not benefit from it, but it needs to be justified. And the onus clearly falls on us fellas to do exactly that.
Having established that Women would and should have individual rights, which practically everyone in the Matriarchy movement (and the broader Feminist movement) would agree with by definition, the question remains whether in fact any of those rights should then be extended to men as well after Women take over. One classic argument is that the men of the future should not be punished for the sins of their forefathers, but that would only be true for those who were born after patriarchy has been completely eradicated along with the "original sin" of male privilege that men continue to benefit from. And even if Women took over tomorrow, it would still take several more generations to eradicate all traces of that system, so that argument really doesn't hold water in the meantime. So there must be another argument given instead.
(NOTE: Some may give the hackneyed "not all men!" argument, but I will not even dignify that with a response.)
And the best argument in favor of men retaining individual rights is that Women would in fact benefit from such an arrangement as well, more so that if men did not have such rights. To wit:
Now having established that it is in fact mutually beneficial for Women to extend individual rights to men, what about the other big question (that Riane Eisler fails to answer)? That is, what's to stop men from ever taking over again? Clearly, there is a risk of "generational forgetting", in which future generations of Women may eventually forget just how dangerous men can be. I mean, no sane person can deny that men do have a dark side that can be extraordinarily dangerous at times. We all know what happened last time, about 7000 years ago, and the rest is history. While being too lenient towards men can clearly increase the odds of men eventually taking over again (leading to men gradually taking more and more power for themselves), remember that so too can being too strict or harsh (leading to mutiny). The sweet spot to prevent a male counterrevolution is somewhere in the middle, though exactly where may vary. And fortunately with today's technology (let alone future technology) in the hands of Women, the risk of men ever taking over again will be fairly small overall, so one can perhaps err on the side of liberty. Happy men who at least feel they are free are, after all, easier for Women to control than disgruntled, alienated, and/or disaffected ones.
Another utilitarian argument: Take a look at how American vs. European parents deal with teenagers, for example. American parents are more like "be a parent, not a pal" and "when you permit, you promote" (i.e. the "dominator" model). European parents are more like "be a mentor, not a tormentor" and "when you permit, you control" (i.e. the "partnership" model). And guess which group of teens are more likely to run amuck, generally speaking? Not the Europeans. Leaving aside the chicken-or-egg question, it makes sense. And since men have basically been stuck in perpetual adolescence for thousands of years, that is a rather fitting analogy if you ask me. But of course, freedom only works if individuals are held fully accountable for their actions--the experience of New Zealand is instructive in terms of what happens when they are not. Men would generally behave much better if they knew they would face swift and certain justice for misbehavior.
The Human Potential Movement believes that we are all still evolving, and that we may indeed be on the verge of a quantum leap in human evolution. And depriving any demographic group of essential liberty would only serve to thwart that evolution. That is also true in a Darwinian sense as well. If self-determination leads to self-termination, as is often the case for the redundant half of humanity, that is basically natural selection in action. So paternalistic arguments, which are antithetical to a free society, should also be rejected as well. That leaves pure revenge and sadism as the only remaining reasons to deny individual rights to men--and I have faith that that the better half of humanity would be above all that.
So now for the biggest question of all: what should the extent of men's individual rights actually be in a Matriarchal society? Ultimately, that will be up to the Women of the future to decide, but here is what I personally believe. First and foremost, men should be banned from holding political office or running large corporations, for obvious reasons. Not that most men get to do that now, so that is really not much of a sacrifice. Women may decide that certain other professions become off-limits to men as well, but that likely won't be much of a loss either. Also, in the USA, it may also be wise to ban men from owning/carrying guns (aside from those that would have existed in 1789) while still allowing Women to do so. That would apply to cops as well. (In the UK, things would basically remain the same for men while Women would have increased gun rights). Honestly, a real man doesn't need a gun, and guns only make men that much more dangerous. Additionally, I believe that, all else being equal, men should pay higher taxes than Women in order to solve the externalities problem and free-rider problem. (Just about any issue can be solved with Pigouvian taxes and/or subsidies, for the most part). But aside from those things I mentioned, I see no good reason why men should lose any other individual rights. Both Women and men should be considered individually sovereign in body and mind, as John Stuart Mill argued in his treatise On Liberty. And as Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
(And yes, I would feel the same way even if I knew I would die tomorrow and be reincarnated as a Woman, in case anyone was wondering.)
I realize that since I began writing this blog a few months ago, I have been treating the question of individual rights for men as a given, when in reality it is far from obvious and thus should not be treated as such. Rather, us fellas need to take off our blinders of male privilege and examine this issue far more critically and objectively than has generally been the case. So let's get down to brass tacks:
In previous posts and elsewhere, I have already established why Women should rule both the family and the world (and why men should not), why the feminine paradigm of leadership is far better than the masculine one could ever be, why sexual freedom is a good thing on balance, and why the general concept of individual rights is worth preserving both before and after Women eventually take over. What I have been taking for granted, consciously and unconsciously, is that men in particular somehow would and should necessarily benefit from all of this under Matriarchy. And as a man, that is clearly chutzpah and hubris on my part to do so uncritically, given all of the evil that men, both historically and contemporarily, have done to Women, children, animals, and the Earth itself. Not that the men of the future automatically would or should not benefit from it, but it needs to be justified. And the onus clearly falls on us fellas to do exactly that.
Having established that Women would and should have individual rights, which practically everyone in the Matriarchy movement (and the broader Feminist movement) would agree with by definition, the question remains whether in fact any of those rights should then be extended to men as well after Women take over. One classic argument is that the men of the future should not be punished for the sins of their forefathers, but that would only be true for those who were born after patriarchy has been completely eradicated along with the "original sin" of male privilege that men continue to benefit from. And even if Women took over tomorrow, it would still take several more generations to eradicate all traces of that system, so that argument really doesn't hold water in the meantime. So there must be another argument given instead.
(NOTE: Some may give the hackneyed "not all men!" argument, but I will not even dignify that with a response.)
And the best argument in favor of men retaining individual rights is that Women would in fact benefit from such an arrangement as well, more so that if men did not have such rights. To wit:
- Men would become even more of a burden on Women if they had no rights, and Women would thus be responsible for them. (Might as well just ditch the man and get a dog instead)
- If men lose their individual rights, that sets a dangerous precedent: what's to stop more-powerful or older Women from taking rights away from less-powerful or younger Women?
- No one is truly free when others are oppressed.
- Logistically and practically speaking, it is far easier if Women manage everything and men manage themselves.
- It is actually easier for Women to control men via pleasure rather than pain/fear, the opposite of what is the case for how men have historically done to Women. Think Huxley's Brave New World, not Orwell's 1984.
- The previous point is especially true given the fact that men are hard-wired to worship Women, especially if they had not been brainwashed by the patriarchy.
- Overall, liberty is like love. The more you give, the more you get.
Now having established that it is in fact mutually beneficial for Women to extend individual rights to men, what about the other big question (that Riane Eisler fails to answer)? That is, what's to stop men from ever taking over again? Clearly, there is a risk of "generational forgetting", in which future generations of Women may eventually forget just how dangerous men can be. I mean, no sane person can deny that men do have a dark side that can be extraordinarily dangerous at times. We all know what happened last time, about 7000 years ago, and the rest is history. While being too lenient towards men can clearly increase the odds of men eventually taking over again (leading to men gradually taking more and more power for themselves), remember that so too can being too strict or harsh (leading to mutiny). The sweet spot to prevent a male counterrevolution is somewhere in the middle, though exactly where may vary. And fortunately with today's technology (let alone future technology) in the hands of Women, the risk of men ever taking over again will be fairly small overall, so one can perhaps err on the side of liberty. Happy men who at least feel they are free are, after all, easier for Women to control than disgruntled, alienated, and/or disaffected ones.
Another utilitarian argument: Take a look at how American vs. European parents deal with teenagers, for example. American parents are more like "be a parent, not a pal" and "when you permit, you promote" (i.e. the "dominator" model). European parents are more like "be a mentor, not a tormentor" and "when you permit, you control" (i.e. the "partnership" model). And guess which group of teens are more likely to run amuck, generally speaking? Not the Europeans. Leaving aside the chicken-or-egg question, it makes sense. And since men have basically been stuck in perpetual adolescence for thousands of years, that is a rather fitting analogy if you ask me. But of course, freedom only works if individuals are held fully accountable for their actions--the experience of New Zealand is instructive in terms of what happens when they are not. Men would generally behave much better if they knew they would face swift and certain justice for misbehavior.
The Human Potential Movement believes that we are all still evolving, and that we may indeed be on the verge of a quantum leap in human evolution. And depriving any demographic group of essential liberty would only serve to thwart that evolution. That is also true in a Darwinian sense as well. If self-determination leads to self-termination, as is often the case for the redundant half of humanity, that is basically natural selection in action. So paternalistic arguments, which are antithetical to a free society, should also be rejected as well. That leaves pure revenge and sadism as the only remaining reasons to deny individual rights to men--and I have faith that that the better half of humanity would be above all that.
So now for the biggest question of all: what should the extent of men's individual rights actually be in a Matriarchal society? Ultimately, that will be up to the Women of the future to decide, but here is what I personally believe. First and foremost, men should be banned from holding political office or running large corporations, for obvious reasons. Not that most men get to do that now, so that is really not much of a sacrifice. Women may decide that certain other professions become off-limits to men as well, but that likely won't be much of a loss either. Also, in the USA, it may also be wise to ban men from owning/carrying guns (aside from those that would have existed in 1789) while still allowing Women to do so. That would apply to cops as well. (In the UK, things would basically remain the same for men while Women would have increased gun rights). Honestly, a real man doesn't need a gun, and guns only make men that much more dangerous. Additionally, I believe that, all else being equal, men should pay higher taxes than Women in order to solve the externalities problem and free-rider problem. (Just about any issue can be solved with Pigouvian taxes and/or subsidies, for the most part). But aside from those things I mentioned, I see no good reason why men should lose any other individual rights. Both Women and men should be considered individually sovereign in body and mind, as John Stuart Mill argued in his treatise On Liberty. And as Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
(And yes, I would feel the same way even if I knew I would die tomorrow and be reincarnated as a Woman, in case anyone was wondering.)
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Towards A New Social Contract
One of the most vexing issues in political philosophy throughout history has been the idea of the social contract. This idea, at its most basic and general, is "the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent
upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which
they live", to quote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Though idea dates back to at least Socrates, the three most prominent schools of thought concerning the modern social contract date back to the so-called Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries: John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Their ideas can best be summarized as follows in the following chart taken from the site 1215.org:
Of course, other thinkers later on have critiqued all three of these theories. John Rawls, most famously, came up with an alternative theory of justice. Feminists, such as Carole Pateman and Annette Baier, have noted how androcentric these social contract theories are and criticized this on several grounds: 1) that such theories really just decide which men get to dominate and control Women and how the "spoils" of the War on Women (i.e. patriarchy) are divvied up, trading one form of patriarchy with another, 2) the nature of the liberal individual, and 3) arguing from the ethics of care, which appears to be absent in such theories. Riane Eisler would most likely agree with such feminist criticisms. And other critics have noted that the issues of racism and classism need to be addressed as well.
So where does that leave the Matriarchy movement, exactly? We clearly need to move towards a new social contract while phasing out the old androcentric and phallocentric paradigms of patriarchy. Even at their very best, none of three (Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau) really are entirely compatible with Matriarchy. But personally, I believe that given a choice between those three in the meantime while the new social contract is being fleshed out, we should (albeit very grudgingly) choose Locke primarily, with a bit of Rousseau thrown in for good measure. Individual rights should still exist after Women eventually take over, in other words. Like Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." And as tempting as it may be to take an overly Hobbesian approach towards men in general, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that doing so would most likely simply lead to "reverse patriarchy" or "patriarchy in drag" as opposed to the fundamentally different paradigm of Matriarchy.
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Comparison Grid
Hobbes
|
Locke
|
Rousseau
|
|
State of
Nature
|
The state of nature is a state of war. No morality exists. Everyone lives in constant fear. Because of this fear, no one is really free,
but, since even the “weakest” could kill the “strongest” men ARE equal.
|
Men exist in the state of nature in perfect freedom to do
what they want. The state of nature
is not necessarily good or bad. It is
chaotic. So, men do give it up to
secure the advantages of civilized society.
|
Men in a state of nature are free and equal. In a state of
nature, men are “Noble Savages”.
Civilization is what corrupted him.
|
Purpose
of Government
|
To impose law and order to prevent the state of war.
|
To secure natural rights, namely man’s property and
liberty.
|
To bring people into harmony. To unite them under the “General Will”.
|
Representation
|
Governments are designed to control, not necessarily
represent.
|
Representation ensures that governments are responsive to
the people. Representation is a
safeguard against oppression.
|
Representation is not enough. Citizens cannot delegate their civic duties. They must be actively involved. Rousseau favors a more direct democracy to
enact the general will.
|
Impact
on Founders
|
Governments must be designed to protect the people from
themselves.
|
1. Governments must be designed to protect the people from the government.2. Natural Rights must be secured. |
1.
Governments must be
responsive and aligned with the general will.
2.
People make a nation, not
institutions.
3.
Individual wills are
subordinate to the general (collective) will.
|
Each of the three theories has its own strengths and weaknesses. For example, Hobbes could be considered too strict and authoritarian compared to the other two, while Locke could be considered too lenient and laissez-faire compared to Hobbes and too individualistic compared to Rousseau, and Rousseau could be considered too collectivistic and impractical compared to the other two. Each answers certain questions better than the others. That said, all three had a huge influence on America's Founding Fathers and beyond.
Of course, other thinkers later on have critiqued all three of these theories. John Rawls, most famously, came up with an alternative theory of justice. Feminists, such as Carole Pateman and Annette Baier, have noted how androcentric these social contract theories are and criticized this on several grounds: 1) that such theories really just decide which men get to dominate and control Women and how the "spoils" of the War on Women (i.e. patriarchy) are divvied up, trading one form of patriarchy with another, 2) the nature of the liberal individual, and 3) arguing from the ethics of care, which appears to be absent in such theories. Riane Eisler would most likely agree with such feminist criticisms. And other critics have noted that the issues of racism and classism need to be addressed as well.
So where does that leave the Matriarchy movement, exactly? We clearly need to move towards a new social contract while phasing out the old androcentric and phallocentric paradigms of patriarchy. Even at their very best, none of three (Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau) really are entirely compatible with Matriarchy. But personally, I believe that given a choice between those three in the meantime while the new social contract is being fleshed out, we should (albeit very grudgingly) choose Locke primarily, with a bit of Rousseau thrown in for good measure. Individual rights should still exist after Women eventually take over, in other words. Like Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." And as tempting as it may be to take an overly Hobbesian approach towards men in general, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that doing so would most likely simply lead to "reverse patriarchy" or "patriarchy in drag" as opposed to the fundamentally different paradigm of Matriarchy.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff122589.html
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff122589.html
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff122589.html
Sunday, May 22, 2016
In Defense of Sexual Freedom
One issue that has long divided humanity since time immemorial--or more accurately, since the advent of patriarchy about 7000 years ago--has been sexuality in general, especially as regards to Women's sexual freedom or lack thereof. While patriarchy's rather peculiar restrictions were primarily if not entirely designed by men to control Women, even many self-proclaimed feminists have also had their reservations about removing them. In the 1970s and 1980s, the "Feminist Sex Wars" were a classic example of such division. And to this day, there is still much controversy about just how sex-positive feminism ought to be.
Like most of us in the Matriarchy movement, I believe in a sexually free society overall as far as consenting adults of all ages are concerned, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Sexual repression has been proven to do more harm than good on balance, and essentially all of patriarchy's archaic and repressive rules about sex were designed to control Women. That was originally done so men could be at least somewhat certain of paternity, as descent was reckoned (and inheritances were passed) through the male bloodline, though with the advent of modern birth control and paternity testing such a reason has basically become obsolete. Note the double standard of patriarchy in which Women are far more likely to be punished for sexual transgressions, and how men who sleep around are considered "studs" and "legends" while women who do so are considered "sluts" and "whores". In contrast, Matriarchal societies have historically been far more sexually free in general, since knowledge of paternity was basically a non-issue as descent was reckoned through the female bloodline. And when Women finally reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world, I believe that our society will become sexually free once again, albeit with some concessions to modern times of course. In the meantime, we all need to stop slut-shaming Women yesterday.
Unfortunately, though, the biggest slut-shamers these days tend to be female, and these prudish modern-day Pharisees come in all ages, generations, and all political leanings ranging from reich-wing fundies to sex-negative radfems. This erotophobia is basically internalized patriarchy and self-hating misogyny (especially on the right), as well as (especially on the left) a fear that sexual freedom will lead to a "race to the bottom" for Women much like so-called "free trade" and "free enterprise" does for the broader working class. The former can be debunked as effed up on its face, while the latter can be debunked by noting that while men are naturally hard-wired to worship Women, employers are not naturally hard-wired to worship their employees (would that it were true!), so that analogy can only go so far in practice. Furthermore, the interests of capital and labor have always been opposed and always will be (unless capital and labor become one and the same), while the interests of men and Women are not inherently opposed (and did not become opposed until the advent of patriarchy). We should in fact be natural allies, but we fellas messed that up big time, and as they say the rest is history. And regardless, since the so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1960s-1970s, as much of a mixed bag as it were, Women have gained more far more power (relative to men) than they lost as a result of increased sexual freedom overall.
Additionally, patriarchy's repressive rules against masturbation, homosexuality, and birth control are really a result of the fact that patriarchy is one big Ponzi scheme (and protection racket) that requires very high birth rates to keep it afloat. Thus, anything that frustrates that goal is deemed "sinful". Patriarchy considers Women to be the brood mares, while men are the work horses (except for the ruling 1%, of course, who reaps all the benefits). And in today's overpopulated world, such rules are also obsolete as well. In Matriarchal societies, on the other hand, overpopulation would never even have occurred in the first place as Women would have complete sexual and reproductive freedom, and thus not have had pregnancies forced upon them by men. Let that sink in for a moment.
I personally believe that there are two important rules for ethical sexual behavior in general. The first one is enthusiastic consent (not mere grudging or reluctant "consent") for all parties involved, period. Otherwise there is a name for it, and it is called RAPE. The second one is, "whoever has the yoni makes the rules", as the primary goal for the man should be to please the woman rather than merely pleasing himself. And aside from general ethical principles such as "do not harm others" that also are true for non-sexual matters, those are basically the only rules for sex that we really need, that we may all enjoy mutual benefit and protection.
Speaking of protection, it should also go without saying that in 2016, condoms should generally be considered SOP (standard operating procedure) by default. The world is on fire, both in terms of the dire consequences of overpopulation as well as some people's STDs these days. But the point cannot be stressed enough.
For an excellent website for the fellas about sexuality, please check out Guru Rasa von Werder's site "Embodiment of God". Food for thought indeed. As Guru Rasa notes, sex is sacred, not sinful. It's time we started treating it accordingly.
Like most of us in the Matriarchy movement, I believe in a sexually free society overall as far as consenting adults of all ages are concerned, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Sexual repression has been proven to do more harm than good on balance, and essentially all of patriarchy's archaic and repressive rules about sex were designed to control Women. That was originally done so men could be at least somewhat certain of paternity, as descent was reckoned (and inheritances were passed) through the male bloodline, though with the advent of modern birth control and paternity testing such a reason has basically become obsolete. Note the double standard of patriarchy in which Women are far more likely to be punished for sexual transgressions, and how men who sleep around are considered "studs" and "legends" while women who do so are considered "sluts" and "whores". In contrast, Matriarchal societies have historically been far more sexually free in general, since knowledge of paternity was basically a non-issue as descent was reckoned through the female bloodline. And when Women finally reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world, I believe that our society will become sexually free once again, albeit with some concessions to modern times of course. In the meantime, we all need to stop slut-shaming Women yesterday.
Unfortunately, though, the biggest slut-shamers these days tend to be female, and these prudish modern-day Pharisees come in all ages, generations, and all political leanings ranging from reich-wing fundies to sex-negative radfems. This erotophobia is basically internalized patriarchy and self-hating misogyny (especially on the right), as well as (especially on the left) a fear that sexual freedom will lead to a "race to the bottom" for Women much like so-called "free trade" and "free enterprise" does for the broader working class. The former can be debunked as effed up on its face, while the latter can be debunked by noting that while men are naturally hard-wired to worship Women, employers are not naturally hard-wired to worship their employees (would that it were true!), so that analogy can only go so far in practice. Furthermore, the interests of capital and labor have always been opposed and always will be (unless capital and labor become one and the same), while the interests of men and Women are not inherently opposed (and did not become opposed until the advent of patriarchy). We should in fact be natural allies, but we fellas messed that up big time, and as they say the rest is history. And regardless, since the so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1960s-1970s, as much of a mixed bag as it were, Women have gained more far more power (relative to men) than they lost as a result of increased sexual freedom overall.
Additionally, patriarchy's repressive rules against masturbation, homosexuality, and birth control are really a result of the fact that patriarchy is one big Ponzi scheme (and protection racket) that requires very high birth rates to keep it afloat. Thus, anything that frustrates that goal is deemed "sinful". Patriarchy considers Women to be the brood mares, while men are the work horses (except for the ruling 1%, of course, who reaps all the benefits). And in today's overpopulated world, such rules are also obsolete as well. In Matriarchal societies, on the other hand, overpopulation would never even have occurred in the first place as Women would have complete sexual and reproductive freedom, and thus not have had pregnancies forced upon them by men. Let that sink in for a moment.
I personally believe that there are two important rules for ethical sexual behavior in general. The first one is enthusiastic consent (not mere grudging or reluctant "consent") for all parties involved, period. Otherwise there is a name for it, and it is called RAPE. The second one is, "whoever has the yoni makes the rules", as the primary goal for the man should be to please the woman rather than merely pleasing himself. And aside from general ethical principles such as "do not harm others" that also are true for non-sexual matters, those are basically the only rules for sex that we really need, that we may all enjoy mutual benefit and protection.
Speaking of protection, it should also go without saying that in 2016, condoms should generally be considered SOP (standard operating procedure) by default. The world is on fire, both in terms of the dire consequences of overpopulation as well as some people's STDs these days. But the point cannot be stressed enough.
For an excellent website for the fellas about sexuality, please check out Guru Rasa von Werder's site "Embodiment of God". Food for thought indeed. As Guru Rasa notes, sex is sacred, not sinful. It's time we started treating it accordingly.
Happy (Belated) Mother's Day!
First, I would like to wish a Happy (belated) Mother's Day to all of the wonderful Mothers out there. You are, after all, literally the reason why the human race even exists at all, despite the fact that the work you do is grossly undervalued in so many way by our twisted capitalistic and patriarchal society. In other words, your beautiful feminine energy is essentially what keeps the rest of us alive. Thank you.
I would also like to note and lament how, for all the shallow platitudes America likes to throw around about "Mothers and apple pie", we are still a nation that perpetually continues to screw over Mothers and pregnant Women in so many ways. Recently, Guru Rasa von Werder shared a poignant and in-depth article from Vox with us that illustrates the various ways in which that is true. This article should be food for thought indeed. Our patriarchal and capitalistic society clearly has a "cult of motherhood", in which the "ideal" of motherhood is so highly vaunted, worshipped even, but in practice actual Mothers themselves get about as much genuine respect as Rodney Dangerfield. Both during and after pregnancy, so many Mothers are routinely discriminated against, overworked, underpaid, and even outright criminalized in many cases. And meanwhile, there is to this day a powerful faction of mostly male politicians that is doing everything in their power to deny Women their right to choose whether or not to get (or stay) pregnant in the first place. Indeed, the rank hypocrisy of our misogynistic and pharisaical system is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Meanwhile, old Buckminster Fuller (who, not coincidentally, believed that Women should rule the world) must be spinning in his grave right now. With today's technology and innovation, there is literally no legitimate reason why we as a society need "everybody and their mother" (literally!) to "work for a living" unless they really wanted to. There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone on this planet to live like a millionaire, but the greedy oligarchs who control such resources apparently don't want to share. Combined with the outdated scarcity mentality that men tend to favor (as opposed to the abundance mentality that Women tend to favor), those same oligarchs have also done everything in their power to sabotage any alternatives (i.e. free and renewable energy) to their own evil system that they force upon the rest of us. So why make them even richer?
Additionally, just as we should "dispense with the absolutely specious notion that everybody needs to earn a living" (in Bucky's words), so too should we jettison the equally specious and outdated idea that everybody must procreate as though it were a civic duty. Not only does today's technology make much useful human labor redundant, but the world is grossly overpopulated and will only get more so in the coming decades, and despite the abundance of the world's resources we are chewing through them like there is no tomorrow while destroying the planet. And the main cause of that overpopulation is--wait for it--MEN. Because they are the ones who, both historically and today, force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women to have kids that they otherwise would not want or are not yet ready for. Men like to "get 'em while they're young" and then use them as serial breeding slaves, essentially, and all the euphemisms in the world do not change that fact. It is really no coincidence that the two most effective (and ethical) ways to reduce overpopulation and excessively high birthrates are 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction, while everything else is a mere sideshow. Because when Women actually have a free and genuine choice on when or whether or not to reproduce, they usually make the right choices overall. After all, they are the ones who have the most "skin in the game". So let the planetary healing begin!
MAMASTE
I would also like to note and lament how, for all the shallow platitudes America likes to throw around about "Mothers and apple pie", we are still a nation that perpetually continues to screw over Mothers and pregnant Women in so many ways. Recently, Guru Rasa von Werder shared a poignant and in-depth article from Vox with us that illustrates the various ways in which that is true. This article should be food for thought indeed. Our patriarchal and capitalistic society clearly has a "cult of motherhood", in which the "ideal" of motherhood is so highly vaunted, worshipped even, but in practice actual Mothers themselves get about as much genuine respect as Rodney Dangerfield. Both during and after pregnancy, so many Mothers are routinely discriminated against, overworked, underpaid, and even outright criminalized in many cases. And meanwhile, there is to this day a powerful faction of mostly male politicians that is doing everything in their power to deny Women their right to choose whether or not to get (or stay) pregnant in the first place. Indeed, the rank hypocrisy of our misogynistic and pharisaical system is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Meanwhile, old Buckminster Fuller (who, not coincidentally, believed that Women should rule the world) must be spinning in his grave right now. With today's technology and innovation, there is literally no legitimate reason why we as a society need "everybody and their mother" (literally!) to "work for a living" unless they really wanted to. There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone on this planet to live like a millionaire, but the greedy oligarchs who control such resources apparently don't want to share. Combined with the outdated scarcity mentality that men tend to favor (as opposed to the abundance mentality that Women tend to favor), those same oligarchs have also done everything in their power to sabotage any alternatives (i.e. free and renewable energy) to their own evil system that they force upon the rest of us. So why make them even richer?
Additionally, just as we should "dispense with the absolutely specious notion that everybody needs to earn a living" (in Bucky's words), so too should we jettison the equally specious and outdated idea that everybody must procreate as though it were a civic duty. Not only does today's technology make much useful human labor redundant, but the world is grossly overpopulated and will only get more so in the coming decades, and despite the abundance of the world's resources we are chewing through them like there is no tomorrow while destroying the planet. And the main cause of that overpopulation is--wait for it--MEN. Because they are the ones who, both historically and today, force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women to have kids that they otherwise would not want or are not yet ready for. Men like to "get 'em while they're young" and then use them as serial breeding slaves, essentially, and all the euphemisms in the world do not change that fact. It is really no coincidence that the two most effective (and ethical) ways to reduce overpopulation and excessively high birthrates are 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction, while everything else is a mere sideshow. Because when Women actually have a free and genuine choice on when or whether or not to reproduce, they usually make the right choices overall. After all, they are the ones who have the most "skin in the game". So let the planetary healing begin!
MAMASTE
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Happy May Day / Beltane, Everyone!
Today, May 1, is May Day, also known as the Celtic and Neopagan holiday of Beltane. It has a rather long history and symbolizes many things, but it is most notably a day to honor the Goddess, which includes the Goddess in every Woman. Elephant Journal describes it rather nicely in their article about the holiday:
Another holiday I would like to propose is Waterloo Day, on April 30, the day before May Day. That would symbolize the (hopefully) eventual surrender of men to Women, which I personally predict will occur on April 30, 2030--the end of an error. Just as that day symbolizes the end of the "darker half" of the year and the beginning of the "lighter half", so too shall it symbolize the end of the 7000 years of darkness known as patriarchy and the beginning of the new earthly paradise known as Matriarchy. Note too that April 30, 1975 was also when the Vietnam War officially ended, and also in 1945 when a certain little painter from Austria did the world a huge favor by offing himself. And the song "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath was originally going to be called "Walpurgisnacht", which is another name for May Eve, or April 30. One idea for how to celebrate Waterloo Day would be for the men to get up on a platform or podium, give a concession speech as though stepping down from power, and have all the Women heckle and throw rotten tomatoes at them.
So have fun and enjoy the festivities, wherever you are!
Halfway between the Vernal Equinox and the Summer Solstice falls May Day—the original holiday of sex and abundance. If you’ve ever wondered, as I used to, what the hype was around May Day—as in why I always heard about ‘May Day’ but never seemed to witness anyone actually celebrating, here’s why. It’s deeply rooted in pagan nature and hedonistic sex worship and celebrations. As Christianity spread and the Church extended its reach and control, these pagan and Divine worships of masculine and feminine equality had to be forgotten. May 1st is Beltane in the Northern Hemisphere, the day we honor nature’s oldest love story. And we all love a love story. This is a holiday of union, between man and woman, God and Goddess—a celebration of the divine balance in the union of Divine masculine and feminine. Because once upon a time, the two were honored as sacred parts of the one Divine balance.Indeed. And among Neopagans today, Beltane is (usually) primarily about honoring the Divine Feminine, where as Samhain (October 31) is primarily about honoring the Divine Masculine. Thus, I propose that we shift International Women's Day (currently March 8) to May 1, and shift International Men's Day (November 19, coinciding with World Toilet Day, lol) to November 1. The latter, of course, should not be seen as a day to celebrate men, but rather as a day of atonement for the evil that men do, and have done for thousands of years now--a sort of all-male equivalent of Yom Kippur to essentially apologize to the Divine Feminine.
Another holiday I would like to propose is Waterloo Day, on April 30, the day before May Day. That would symbolize the (hopefully) eventual surrender of men to Women, which I personally predict will occur on April 30, 2030--the end of an error. Just as that day symbolizes the end of the "darker half" of the year and the beginning of the "lighter half", so too shall it symbolize the end of the 7000 years of darkness known as patriarchy and the beginning of the new earthly paradise known as Matriarchy. Note too that April 30, 1975 was also when the Vietnam War officially ended, and also in 1945 when a certain little painter from Austria did the world a huge favor by offing himself. And the song "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath was originally going to be called "Walpurgisnacht", which is another name for May Eve, or April 30. One idea for how to celebrate Waterloo Day would be for the men to get up on a platform or podium, give a concession speech as though stepping down from power, and have all the Women heckle and throw rotten tomatoes at them.
So have fun and enjoy the festivities, wherever you are!
Friday, April 15, 2016
Why Men Should Pay Higher Taxes Than Women
With it being Tax Day and all, I figured I should write an article about taxes and gender. Recently, a Woman named Judith Shulevitz wrote an op-ed titled, "It's Payback Time for Women", arguing in favor of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all. Her feminist argument for a UBI, which I agree 100% with, was that such a thing would provide long-overdue compensation for Women's unpaid work (i.e. housework and caregiving) that society currently takes for granted and considers a "free resource" for the taking. As the saying goes, there are two kinds of work that Women do: underpaid, and unpaid. While that is true for some men as well, it is overwhelmingly true for Women. Thus, her argument makes a great deal of sense overall, and I agree. It is indeed LONG overdue.
That said, I feel that her proposal doesn't go far enough. The flip side of her argument is that MEN not only haven't been pulling their weight in that regard, but that they also reap the benefits of Women's work as well. As Ashley Montagu has noted, men are essentially parasites on the bodies of Women. Now, I know what you are thinking, fellas. You are probably feeling extremely uncomfortable (if not defensive) right now, as would anyone who is reminded of how relatively privileged they are. But deal with it, since denying the truth only makes it worse later.
What I am proposing, and I am by no means the first person to do so, is that in addition to a UBI for everyone (regardless of gender), men also should pay significantly higher taxes than Women. There, I said it, because somebody's gotta say it. And while Arthur Pigou himself is probably spinning in his grave right now, such an idea is completely justified by Pigouvian economic reasoning. To wit, men impose "negative externalities" on Women, while simultaneously receiving "positive externalities" from Women as well. Quite the energy vampires indeed.
Negative externalities that men overwhelmingly impose on Women include crime, pollution, poverty, resource depletion, anxiety, depression, healthcare costs, unwanted pregnancies, disease, war, and especially violence against Women. Positive externalities that men benefit from include all the unpaid labor (both productive and reproductive) that makes society and the economy even possible in the first place, and is overwhelmingly (even if not entirely) done by Women. Therefore, from a Pigouvian perspective, men should indeed pay higher taxes than Women, since men in general are basically free-riders overall, at least on average. And even in a full-blown Matriarchal society, men would likely still free-ride off of Women to one degree or another, even if not as much as they do under patriarchy. Though they would more likely be leeching off of Women's wallets rather than their bodies, since Women would be the richer gender under Matriarchy.
So does that mean that men are currently undertaxed? That depends--relative to what? Relative to Women, they are, at least on average. Relative to other men, they may or may not be. Relative to an objective standard, rich men are undertaxed while poorer men are overtaxed. It's all relative. And I personally believe that taxation should be progressive for all genders, with the tax rate graduated and rising with increasing income, as fair taxation should be based on the principle of "equal sacrifice" or "equal utility" while also maximizing on balance the utility for all concerned. Flat or regressive taxes are inherently unfair from a utilitarian perspective, since they undertax the rich while overtaxing the poor. And the marginal utility of money clearly decreases with increasing income, as there is some evidence for a "happiness ceiling". Indeed, I believe that the marginal tax rates should be more steeply progressive than it is now, like it was before Ronnie Raygun, but with NO LOOPHOLES this time. But regardless of what kind of tax code we have, as long as we have any sort of income tax, men should pay a higher rate than Women, ceteris paribus. Property taxes, if they are to still exist in the future, should be at a lower rate for any property that is titled exclusively in a Woman's name. Additionally, for the estate tax (i.e. "death tax"), that should be raised and made highly progressive as well, while exempting any inheritances passed on from mother to daughter. That would be a fair system.
Of course, it will be entirely up to the Women of the future to decide what the tax code of the future should be. They may very well decide to tax men and Women equally, or even abolish the monetary system entirely. But us fellas should be willing to agree to pay higher taxes than Women. Honestly, it's the least we can do.
That said, I feel that her proposal doesn't go far enough. The flip side of her argument is that MEN not only haven't been pulling their weight in that regard, but that they also reap the benefits of Women's work as well. As Ashley Montagu has noted, men are essentially parasites on the bodies of Women. Now, I know what you are thinking, fellas. You are probably feeling extremely uncomfortable (if not defensive) right now, as would anyone who is reminded of how relatively privileged they are. But deal with it, since denying the truth only makes it worse later.
What I am proposing, and I am by no means the first person to do so, is that in addition to a UBI for everyone (regardless of gender), men also should pay significantly higher taxes than Women. There, I said it, because somebody's gotta say it. And while Arthur Pigou himself is probably spinning in his grave right now, such an idea is completely justified by Pigouvian economic reasoning. To wit, men impose "negative externalities" on Women, while simultaneously receiving "positive externalities" from Women as well. Quite the energy vampires indeed.
Negative externalities that men overwhelmingly impose on Women include crime, pollution, poverty, resource depletion, anxiety, depression, healthcare costs, unwanted pregnancies, disease, war, and especially violence against Women. Positive externalities that men benefit from include all the unpaid labor (both productive and reproductive) that makes society and the economy even possible in the first place, and is overwhelmingly (even if not entirely) done by Women. Therefore, from a Pigouvian perspective, men should indeed pay higher taxes than Women, since men in general are basically free-riders overall, at least on average. And even in a full-blown Matriarchal society, men would likely still free-ride off of Women to one degree or another, even if not as much as they do under patriarchy. Though they would more likely be leeching off of Women's wallets rather than their bodies, since Women would be the richer gender under Matriarchy.
So does that mean that men are currently undertaxed? That depends--relative to what? Relative to Women, they are, at least on average. Relative to other men, they may or may not be. Relative to an objective standard, rich men are undertaxed while poorer men are overtaxed. It's all relative. And I personally believe that taxation should be progressive for all genders, with the tax rate graduated and rising with increasing income, as fair taxation should be based on the principle of "equal sacrifice" or "equal utility" while also maximizing on balance the utility for all concerned. Flat or regressive taxes are inherently unfair from a utilitarian perspective, since they undertax the rich while overtaxing the poor. And the marginal utility of money clearly decreases with increasing income, as there is some evidence for a "happiness ceiling". Indeed, I believe that the marginal tax rates should be more steeply progressive than it is now, like it was before Ronnie Raygun, but with NO LOOPHOLES this time. But regardless of what kind of tax code we have, as long as we have any sort of income tax, men should pay a higher rate than Women, ceteris paribus. Property taxes, if they are to still exist in the future, should be at a lower rate for any property that is titled exclusively in a Woman's name. Additionally, for the estate tax (i.e. "death tax"), that should be raised and made highly progressive as well, while exempting any inheritances passed on from mother to daughter. That would be a fair system.
Of course, it will be entirely up to the Women of the future to decide what the tax code of the future should be. They may very well decide to tax men and Women equally, or even abolish the monetary system entirely. But us fellas should be willing to agree to pay higher taxes than Women. Honestly, it's the least we can do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)