BOYS AND THEIR PENISES
COMMENTARIES ON THE SOCIOLOGY
OF GENDERISM IN WORLD HISTORY
By: Belinda Matte and Seamus Muldoon
This is the product of a series of conversations between Belinda and Seamus, over an extended period of months and years. The idea that highly educated business executives and professionals may have developed a sensitivity to the interests of women, not only in terms of equal opportunity, but also in terms of referencing women in sexual terms, even when dealing with business issues, seems a pretense.
Moreover, it seems that,
at the time of this actually being written, the world is preoccupied with erectile
function. World leaders may be seen on the tele singing the praises of Viagra. On the
internet, Viagra is currency, a veritable business opportunity, with chat room loiterers
pimping for pharmacists (for a commission, of course).
Then, two of Belinda’s male
cats developed urinary problems and must be treated regularly. Other friends are
experiencing dysfunction and talking about their own use of Viagra and other medicaments.
The world seems to have become focused, as the primary issue of the planet, upon the male
penis. Hopefully, that is merely appearance and not substance.
All of this raises the point that, to an intelligent woman, it would appear that men, at their strongest and most effective point of their careers, are still self identifying by reference to their penises.
Women would, in the main,
be very appreciative of penises in the context of sexual pleasure. But it is not left in
the bedroom. Its mystical influence permeates every male activity. ENOUGH! Women do not
have penis envy! With a vagina, a woman can have all the penises she wants. Men should be
a bit more conscious of the very obvious fact that, with their power shafts, they are
constantly preoccupied with obtaining access to a vagina. Does that indicate where the
real power lies? Without a vagina to make their penises capable of their greatest pleasure
giving experiences, all the damn things are good for is to pee through and to play with,
A THING’S A PHALLIC SYMBOL
If we unearth the very first architectural construct of the first hominid that can be counted as homo erectus (the very name proves the point, doesn’t it?), it will have greater vertical characteristics than any other. It’s perspective, its aspect, it’s focus all expressed verticality as soon as the principles of engineering needed to make something vertical were learned. Gods lived on mountains. And those, all male of course, that did not live on mountains went there to say whatever it was that the men who wrote the stories of what the gods said say they said. Pharaohs built obelisks to themselves to commemorate whatever it was they were commemorating. Greeks and Romans continued the style. Pylons, plinths, columns, Eiffel Towers, Washington Monuments, Seattle Space Needles and Canadian National Towers are but few examples of the male preoccupation with things phallic. Men must remain forever in touch with their eternal inner spear. Everything they use implies penile utility, whether a knife, and arrow, a gun barrel, a fishing pole, a barbershop pole or a baseball bat. Romans and Nazis saluted with a phallic salute. Our day cannot start without our national symbol being run up a flagpole. The Israelites make the symbol of the male covenant with their community a shaving from their children’s’ penises. As women have no penises, they can never enter into that covenant with the Almighty.
Obviously, there is nothing wrong with phallic things. It is the psychic preoccupation with them as authority insignia that is false, illusory, funny, and, sometimes, violent and sick. It is the insistence that God is male, that male is the embodiment of authority (Ephesians 5:20-24 – wives submit to husbands who are head of the family) whether competent or incompetent, that a more competent woman must (yes, must) submit to a fool if the fool is male. Only men could write something so foolish – certainly not a God.
One could speculate that the Ephesians mandate just noted was prefigured in the Genesis myth that woman was created/manufactured out of spare parts from a man (a rib, no less) (Genesis 2:21-23).
Creationism and evolution are not inconsistent concepts. There need not be slaughter among creationists and evolutionists for the preservation of any fundamental imperatives, for the reason that there most certainly was a “first moment” (that may have lasted a long time), followed by the developmental process. The early Israelite males who wrote the “Old Testament”, “The Boys”, engaged in typical male-God delusion. God made a man! That establishes the eternal line of authority! I am a man. I may be a fucking idiot, but you, woman, must obey me in all things, for the Lord, God, who made me in HIS own image, ordained that I am the head of all civilizations, the ultimate temporal arbiter of what God wants you to do.
The Garden of Eden story is real in the sense that the whole earth is/was a garden, and it is true that we have been evicting ourselves from its beauty throughout history. Our male geniuses have been throwing beer cans and fried chicken buckets on the ground since long before Colonel Sanders, polluting everything they can reach, consuming natural beauty far more than necessary to sustain life or progress.
But it would be inconsistent with the imperatives of male insecurity for these maximum leaders to step up and accept responsibility for their blight. The expulsion from Eden – the growing wanton destruction of natural beauty and function – couldn’t possibly be the product of male stupidity. Women made us do it! “And the man said, the woman whom Thou gavest to me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat.” (Genesis 3:12). Adam had been told not to eat that fruit. But when he ate it with culpable foreknowledge, why it had to be the woman’s fault, right? A realistically responsible reading of Genesis reveals that, according to male scripture, Eve and a snake (forerunner of the legal profession?) rationalized access to secular knowledge (fruit of the forbidden tree), and then Eve, that woman, convinced Adam to eat it. They then both became aware of things secular, of cynicism, which, of course, lead to the discovery of the beer can and the fried chicken bucket with which they littered the Garden of Eden and were expelled from the realms of eternal natural beauty. (Genesis 3:2-7) According to male scripture, God, of course, was not fooled, and rightly blamed the woman for their downfall. Thereupon curses were laid forever upon all womanhood as punishment for causing Man to screw up the Garden of Eden. The bitch had to get her comeuppance in these premises or man might seem to have made a mistake – something politically incorrect from that day to this. And so, God punishes Adam for “harkening to thy wife” (Genesis 3:17). Woman is now the acknowledged cause of all man’s future problems. Because of her, man must thereafter and forever live upon cursed ground, eat in sorrow, earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, endure thorns and thistles (the national flower of Scotland) (Genesis 3: 18-19). And the woman gets the ultimate sentence – she will menstruate and give birth in pain and agony, and – horror of horrors – her husband shall rule over her (Genesis 3:16).
There is also the matter of who or what to believe as the recounting of atrocities against women is dealt with in the Book of Judges. The stories of gang rape of individual women and of hundreds of women at a time end up in Judges as a mere rationalization of God’s will. The gang rape of the Levite’s Concubine in Judges is a manifestation not of horror, but of a perceived need for a king in Israel to make such conduct unlawful and punishable. The woman, who is of course nameless, merely serves as a stage prop, to be gang raped to prove the value of some God-endorsed regent. The gang rape of six hundred virgins is, of course, acceptable as the fulfillment of God’s “desire” to see that the Tribe of Benjamin does not become extinct as the result of being anathematized, socially outcast. Raping women, as The Boys have written it in Judges, is but the means through which the divine will of the Almighty is fulfilled. Yeah right!
So insecure about the incredulity of such absurd rationalizations are later male apologists for The Boys, that some scholars later suggest that, since these stories are omitted from the Septuagint (later Greek language edition of Judges), such unlikely events are depicted in the Hebrew Masoretic text because some damn woman must have written that! Well, I can tell you that if a woman had written that it would not have had any spin control to describe gang rape as an instrument of fulfillment of God’s plan for the Tribe of Benjamin. So those “scholars” are obvious idiots of the first order. But they do represent a school of bible writing and apologetics that has sought to exonerate all sorts of obvious evil when it was performed by someone they wish to promote.
The patriarchs of ancient Israel
were Abraham, Isaac (his son) and Jacob (Isaac’s son), a thief of the first order, making
his hungry brother Esau foreswear his birthright for a bowl of stew (some brother).
(Genesis 24:30-34) But for this shining example of brotherly opportunism, Esau would have
received the right of succession to Isaac’s primacy, for Esau was the elder son. Abraham
and Isaac had the delightful trick of pretending their wives were their sisters when they
came into a new land, so that the locals, desiring sex with these women, could have them
at will without their husbands having to stand up and get involved in any defense of their
wives. (Genesis 12:11-15; Genesis 26:7-11). Can’t you just hear those cowards explaining
this gambit to their women? “And who knows, baby? If you’re really good, maybe some of em
will buy dinner.” Great lot, those! And at each instance, of course, God shows up to bless
them, making all this cowardly ill treatment of the women nearest and dearest to them just
fine and dandy. Some moral leadership, what! And, of course, their big deal King David was
a slave to his penis also. Even the ascendancy of David to become the son-in-law to King
Saul was based upon penis fixation. To get to marry Saul’s daughter, Michal, David had to
bring to Saul the foreskins of two hundred Philistines, freshly slaughtered. (First Samuel
18:25-27) Second Samuel recounts with glee the trail of slaughter that was inaugurated by
David’s ascendancy to the throne of Israel, all of which, of course, was for the
glorification of God. In the midst of this bloodbath, David becomes a Peeping Tom,
watching Bath-sheba take baths from his palace roof. He gets the hots for her, checks her
out and, finding that she is married, “sleeps” with her anyway, and, liking the great sex,
arranges the death of her husband Uriah. (Second Samuel 11:2-17) And this sexist scoundrel
is of the House of Jesse, a direct lineal antecedent of Jesus Christ.
Bill Clinton would have been a complete fool ever to go anywhere without his trusty bible. It is a field guide to sexual adventure.
And so the epidemic gyno-sadism of the society in which The Boys lived becomes either a rationalization of God’s intent (stupid beyond any possibility of belief), or a slander sneaked into the Bible by some fucking feminist asshole. People, who think that President Clinton was without moral compunction and who were amazed that such a person could become a national political leader, can now understand better why he was seen every Sunday coming out of church with a bible in his hand! It was his instruction manual!
So literarily incompetent is this product of male generated scripture, that one is prompted to ask whether woman must tolerate male authority because man is head of the family just as Christ is head of the church (Ephesians, supra), or whether woman’s subordination to any idiot with a penis is the product of ultimate punishment for causing man’s downfall from Paradise (Genesis, supra). Which of these two mutually exclusive reasons for woman being subordinate to man is the “real” reason? The men who wrote the scriptures weren’t even smart enough to get the stories straight. A woman would have thought of that. So what are we dealing with? It is a male cadre seeking to perpetuate the then current social norms of male chauvinist bullshit by ascribing a mandate of male supremacy to God. And here we are thousands of years later pretending to actually believe so transparent a lie. Are we nuts?
THE ASSUMED MALE ANATOMY OF GOD
For a woman, one of the things that amuses most is the absurd assumption that humanity, created in the “image” of God, means (as written in the bible by “The Boys”) that God is some representation of masculinity, of which men are the earthly manifestation.
Every woman who has seen men naked knows that there is nothing of Godliness about almost all of them. The very suggestion that God is male diminishes God absolutely. It does so not only in the sense of a ridiculous appearance of limited physicality, but also in the higher sense of God being gender dependent. There is nothing anywhere written or known or believed about God that suggests that any aspect of God’s personae or powers could be limited by gender dependence. For example, if God is male, …….. Need we say more? When one thinks of the quality of male leadership in the world to date, Godliness is hardly what springs to mind. Male leadership has sponsored not only world wars, wanton destruction of people and resources, rapine and slavery, but also the insane insistence upon the exclusion of females from fulfillment of fundamental offices and their relegation to sex slavery on commercial levels of vast proportions. Male dominated societies require women to go about totally covered up with cumbersome clothing; sell daughters into prostitution; destroy female fetuses for the simple reason that they are female; burn living women upon pyres for male funeral customs and for simple manipulative purposes among families; cause women to have no status above common property, like cattle or lawn chairs.
Is there anything so insecure as a man, so in need of constant adulation and confirmation that obvious weaknesses aren’t really there? Compared to what women have to tolerate in male dominated societies, how would a man fare under similar constraints?
The obvious question is,
why do or should we put up with such nonsense? Why did American women go begging for an
equal rights amendment to their constitution when equal rights are theirs for the taking
if they would only assert cohesive group militancy? Burning clothing and holding tea
parties is hardly militancy. The answer is that they have been taught that they are
inferior since they first drew breath. Their personae have been castrated throughout their
formative years by the agendas of our basic institutions. Men are not in charge through
the action of merit, but rather by dint of women’s default. And they have, in the final
analysis, so trivialized their every office, be it head of state or the priesthood, that
it couldn’t be much worse no matter who or what succeeded them at being in charge.
OUTWARD MANIFESTATIONS OF THE GOD-LIKE DELUSION
Part of the reason for the sarcastic humor is the delight taken in comparing male behavior to that of their supposed role model, God/Jesus. A very entertaining recent musical composition asks “Would Jesus wear a Rolex on His television show?” It was about televangelists. If you take that theme and add a bit of Jeff Foxworthy, you might come up with the following logical construct:
YOU KNOW YOU’RE A MALE IF:
You pick your nose while you are driving in rush hour.
You frequently and in public reach down and manipulate your genitalia for reassurance.
You whine about your lousy sex life at home.
You regularly refer to women in the context of the size of their breasts (a/k/a hooters, boobs, jugs, melons etc), and fall apart if a woman responds to your bad taste by asking to see what it is that you bring to the table.
You truly believe that your penis, your car, your wristwatch and your “men’s” cologne are adequate substitutes for integrity and sensitivity.
You comb your hair in a ridiculous and convoluted manner to cover up a bald spot.
You believe that a woman enjoys being
close to you when you smell like stale cigar smoke or have just farted.
You think that you are entitled to have sex because you bought dinner.
You consider yourself to be an Olympic lover because you always finish first.
You think that sitting on the side of the bed and picking stuff out of your toes is foreplay.
You refer to intelligent, competent females as “gals” or “girls”.
You honestly believe that women who
are not your mother will find you truly dazzling.
You have at least five disgusting
synonyms for the word vagina.
You think that your discomfort due to alcohol abuse deserves compassion, but not a woman’s discomfort at the time of her menstrual period, and yours occurs once a week.
You refer to God as He.
Nowhere in scripture can you find a passage describing the conduct of Jesus Christ as being base, crude, demeaning of women, arrogant, intolerant, narcissistic, cruel, corrupt. What are we missing here? Where is the “created in His image” evidence?
Men have, by their delusional assumption of godlike status, inspired some pretty stupid jokes. In one such story, Jesus is thought by a supposed scholar to have been an Irishman because he lived with his mother until he was 32 years old and died asking for a drink. In another Jesus is claimed to have been Jewish because his mother thought he was God. The interesting thing about humor is that it has to be a reflection of truth to be funny.
There are substantial negative consequences that flow from peckercentrcity. If every qualitative inquiry is infected with the need to yield a result that confirms male supremacy, false results, damaging, injurious results, not improvements or benefits will flow. When the following situations are considered, it is readily apparent that the ability and willingness to accept equality between the genders could only improve the result.
With the advent of employee staff reductions accounting for significant merger-resulting efficiencies, more and more men are finding that their wives/significant others are making more than they are and are having to carry the financial load for the family, sometimes for extended periods of time, until the male obtains a new earnings capability. The same happens when a male becomes injured or ill for substantial periods of time. As it presently stands, the fact that a woman is the breadwinner contributes as much to the breakup of families/relationships as any economic trauma. If a man can understand that a woman expects to fill that role, derives self-esteem from pulling the laboring oar, and that the ability to accept help from a woman does not demean a man, a more balanced and durable relationship results. Frequently the earliest sign of strain is erectile dysfunction that results totally from male inability to be mature about equality issues when they count most. Women have the right to make a contribution to any situation. It would not be resented in a relationship based upon merit rather than attitude and insecurity.
When marriages end up in divorce court, economic issues consume the resources, financial and emotional, that on the merits should go to strengthening the future quality of the lives of the parties. Men protest having to pay money for women to get out and learn how to earn their own livelihoods. Well, if they accepted more equably the right of a woman to go out and have a professional life just as men do, married or not, the need for this fight (in which only lawyers profit) would be reduced to almost nothing. What we have now is the abuse of custody rights issues that are not about the kids at all, but about money. Mommy can have custody as soon as the dollars get sorted out. Mommy isn’t an unfit parent once the dollars get sorted out. Men actually argue that wives should not have custody because the kids will experience Mommy having relationships with other men. As if they wouldn’t have the same experience in the custody of a male parent. And when women catch up on the issues of equal access to education, their ability to produce more than adequate incomes will catch up as well. All this foolishness is the product of male fears about women refusing to be subservient, about keeping women from being equally as productive as men and then insisting later that they should be on their own and without financial assistance when families break up. Women are entitled to respect on economic and professional issues, and that respect will cure many other problems that now consume critical emotional and financial resources at the worst possible moments.
Crimes against women can never be reduced to their indispensable minimum until men are educated in the direction away from the mandate of Ephesians. Women are not the property of men, to be directed about willy-nilly and disposed of at will. A comparison of the sociology of third world countries against sociology of countries where women are emancipated reveals without question that violence against women increases as their position vis-à-vis equal rights worsens.
Everyone will have a better sexual relationship when the participants are doing it for and with each other instead of to each other. Making love is mutual. Fucking someone is not. Women have no moral or other duty to please men sexually when men are not pleasing them. Sexual intimacy is not a right produced by dinner or marriage vows. In that mode it is sexual exploitation. Spontaneous, mutual intimacy is so much better than sex as a duty that only someone who believes they are the only person whose gratification is worthy could fail to recognize its obvious superiority.
Men will live longer and happier lives when leadership and productivity responsibilities are willingly shared.
Men will be relieved of terrible anxiety when they recognize and accept that pretense and posturing about invincibility are well known to women as just that, pretense and posturing without basis in fact. Women do not need more than a few days or weeks with a man to know the identity and value of his strengths and weaknesses. To pretend otherwise is ludicrous and destructive. Wouldn’t it be nice to just be who we really are and succeed in spite of it?
For most of the women and men of this world, this article is a total waste of time. Extremist third world religions and cultures will keep their women in bondage for many generations to come. No third world woman can benefit from any awakening or liberating sentiment while she remains in her part of the world or in her culture. In many cultures it is an honor to kill a woman seeking to escape her enslavement, for to do so besmirches her family escutcheon.
Even in the west, even in America and in Western Europe, women remain bound to a low caste in which they are excluded and subordinated by conservative religious factions. The mainstream churches of the west are still tied to Ephesians and to the sentence passed (supposedly) in the Garden of Eden.
But these are the ones who have a chance at liberation. These women can assume command of their lives without torment of soul, for condemning them for their independence is itself the sin against Christ. Christ would be the last person on earth to deny women their personhood. What the disciples did in his name regarding the status and treatment of women after his ascension to heaven cannot be reconciled with statements or actions attributed to him.
It is our belief that, if there is to be remediation, it will be generational, through a blend of education and militancy. It will begin with the manner in which mothers teach their male children about women. We believe that mothers really do not teach their male children about women at all. They leave it to father to discuss sex with little peckerwood when he is of suitable age (usually long after he has learned about fucking from the smut that circulates throughout the secondary school system). Of course, there is the mechanical “sex ed” class that blends in a little public health and epidemiology, and the old military recruit mandatory films about sexually transmitted diseases, rife with pictures of infected genitalia to scare hell out of the recruits.
We believe this inattention to training about how women are to be perceived and treated is probably the single most critical lacuna in any remediation program extant. Mothers are simply surrendering this opportunity to the genderists, a terrible mistake. So long as women are perceived as objects into which one sticks his penis, and young men remain motivated toward and about women primarily for sex, it would be ridiculous to expect any change in attitudes and behavior, no matter how many social messages and programs are out there.
Women must, however, still deal with the young and “mature” men who roam the planet without ever having had the benefit of training in gender sensitivity. This is where militancy comes in. Women must learn to be insistent about how men are allowed to treat them. For so long as women continue to bat the eyes in adulation and smile at every little ponce with a credit card and a job, men will be invited to treat them as stupid little vehicles for the transportation of vaginas. No woman should (but most will) permit a man to dictate her role in life and in relationships. Surrender of identity, dignity, self-respect, in exchange for a roof over her head and food on the table, “the mommy track”, needs to be changed to a relationship of mutuality. We are learning that surrender is no longer rewarded with loyalty and respect anyway. In the USA, 50 % of marriages now end in divorce. There are to many younger women out there flaunting their sexuality before your husbands for you to expect that wedding vows are anything more than theater in most instances. And these dalliances are just as regular among the churchgoers as they are among the unchurched. We have all seen too many instances of moralistic preachments from men who get caught with their penises in women to whom they are not married. Expectations of commitment because a woman has surrendered her self-esteem are simply stupid. A man cannot be permitted to believe that he is the head of any family simply because he is a man.
As we learned from the many legislative successes that turned out to be failures in application, some things cannot and will not be remedied by government fiat. Genderism will not diminish because a bunch of elected adulterers adopt legislation favoring women’s’ rights.
As for the message of this article that is addressed to men, we suggest the following. Instead of conducting an advertising campaign promoting a slogan “What would Jesus do?” in any given situation, maybe you might take the time to examine just how Jesus really conducted himself while he was on earth. Jesus never demeaned any woman. Jesus never preached that men were of greater value than women. Jesus never advocated that women be limited to their physiological roles as receptors of sperm, bearers of children and housekeepers. Jesus never spoke of limiting women regarding their professional advancement or their education. There is no Jesus-source theology that exonerates or supports any genderist behavior or doctrine or social policy or law. The social practices in Jesus’ time regarding women were not endorsed by Jesus as a rational or a righteous doctrine, to be carried into the future. And so, the answer to the question, “What would Jesus do?”, as it applies to the treatment of women, is that Jesus would not ever have conducted himself as a male chauvinist pig.
281 584 0519
Home | Contents Directory
Copyright © 1997-2011, Seamus Muldoon