COLUMN: The combat objective for feminists is to marginalize and bring all men to irrelevance and obsolescence, and they’re winning! Men are wimping out, turning tail, and in retreat on the run. Men, do you wonder why women generally ignore you or don’t bother to take you serious? Are you perplexed when you find you’re treated more like a nuisance by women than an interesting person they’d like to get to know? You got it! You as a man are ancient history; you’re virtually dead, a fossil, as far as women are concerned. Exceptions to this rule are as rare as chicken teeth.

Given this social scene, men could just as well ignore women, don’t look at them, and avoid them as much as possible, and it wouldn’t bother women one single bit; as a matter of fact, they would be delighted and grateful, not grateful to men, just grateful. If you as a male could suddenly disappear, that would be even lovelier for women. The sooner you understand that women are just putting up with you because they can’t get rid of you, the better you will understand women today and why the social scene between men and women is what it is, totally screwed up.

But the real downer for all men is that according to credible reports which will be examined here, feminists are not just content to ignore men as ancient history, they have declared all-out war on them because they don’t know what else to do with them. The “maleness” of men in all the negative stereotypes that this represents, has continued to be a bother to women. Feeling pushed to the limit of what they will put up with as liberated women, going for all-out combat was the last desperate measure they had left to be rid of having to deal with maleness. Hence, I believe it was an actress in a film or TV show who, expressing the latest feminist sentiment on the subject, exclaimed in exasperation concerning men, “You can’t do with them and you can’t shoot them.”

In other words, since feminist-minded women, which are most women today, can’t get rid of men whom they have come to detest, the only option they see left is finally to drive men from the position they now occupy as virtually obsolete and useless beings to a state of total wimpified passivity, submissive inferiority, and meaningless human significance. This is envisioned as a state where men no longer make demands on women but instead only receive gratefully that which women in their absolute gratuitous kindness let them have, which most often is nothing. The whole thing is similar to what a benevolent master would do gratuitously for a meek and submissive plantation slave, mostly nothing.

Because most women today are feminist-minded if not actual raging feminists, virtually any woman you run into and with whom you actually manage to communicate, especially if they’re single, young or old, will be affected and influenced by the war feminists have been waging against males for decades.

In this combat that feminists have instigated and forced upon us for being so unfortunate as to have been born males, all but an extremely rare minority of women carry with them anti-male rage, while clueless men run around in a daze trying to figure out why no matter what they try to do that’s nice or pleasant to get a woman’s serious attention, totally fails to get a serious response. I’m telling you, if you’re a man, you’re dead to women, not only dead, but dead, disgusting and contemptible, though most women won’t tell you this to avoid nasty confrontations. So the war we’re in is mostly silent, though deadly real nonetheless.

So men, don’t be surprised if what women communicate to you outwardly turns out to be different from what they actually think and feel about you inside. In an effort to interpret (or mind-read) how a women may feel inside about a man by how friendly she seems outwardly and/or by her speech, some single men have naively been led to propose something friendly to a women and are subsequently surprised to find out how wrong they were in their assumptions of the woman’s actual thinking and inner feelings.

So it has come to the point that if you as a man assume that most women you meet basically don’t like or trust you merely for the fact that you are a male, regardless of what the woman may say or do outwardly that appears to contradict your presumption, the chances are 99.9% that you are correct in assuming you’re not wanted or welcome for even a close friendship, however harmless that may be. The very moment you try for something like this, women will immediately distance themselves from you. I’m telling you, it takes a miracle nowadays for you as a man to win with a woman, no matter how nice and polite you might be with them.

Hence, in this sexual combat we’re in, women themselves don’t really know what’s truly safe with men their chosen adversary. As a result, single men keep getting wishy-washy responses from women or get stonewalled with no response at all with what appears to be “silent treatment” every time they try to communicate something serious to an overwhelming number of women and expect to receive something rational in response.

Yes, women are winning the sexual fight, that’s why nothing rational works anymore in men-women communications, and we’re in this ride for a long, long time to come. So don’t hold your breath; things can only get worst, definitely not better. After centuries of tension between the sexes, “Armageddon” seems to have finally arrived for men-women relations.

Living as a young adult in the late 1950s to the beginning of the 1960s, I had the great privilege to live through, taste and witness first hand how life was with respect to women under what is now the extinct social system called “chivalry.” In case you didn’t know, chivalry was that system under which women were still treated by men with respect as “ladies” and women in the majority were not at all paranoid and hostile toward men. By and large, this was generally a time of social peace when men and women in the majority behaved toward each other in peaceful, civil and friendly ways, and were generally very accepting and accommodating with respect to each others’ differences.

But as every properly informed person knows, this brief historical period was also to be the very last stage of the chivalry system before it disappeared altogether as a casualty under the feminist onslaught that began in the 1960s. While I had an idea that since the 60’s something had gone extremely wrong between men and women, seeing that too many women were not acting the same as I knew them prior to the 60s, I really could not figure out precisely what it was that had gone wrong, even though I suspected that feminist ideology had something to do with it.

It was not until this year of 2009, when I finally read the renowned American historian Christopher Lasch’s widely acclaimed book, “The Culture of Narcissism,” first published in 1979, that I finally learned what it was that had gone wrong and of a sexual combat that Lasch said was taking place between men and women.

In fact, this was the first most significant thing that “jumped out” big time in my mind from reading Lasch, that men and women were actually at war with each other and that all this was first instigated by feminists. Now all the pieces of the puzzling enigma I was wrestling with, trying to understand the modern woman, began to fall in place, providing me with a wealth of knowledge and understanding as to the nature of the current men-women social scene.

In his section dealing with the now ongoing sexual combat, Lasch referred to an “escalating war between men and women” which he also referred to as “the recent intensification of sexual combat”. I do believe Lasch was correct. It is now very clear to me that men and women in the 1970s, when Lasch’s book was first published, were in an escalating sexual combat. But while Lasch tells us about an ongoing sexual combat in the 1970s and the why of it, he does not tell us precisely the how, when, who, or where, concerning the beginning of this war. To discover this missing information, I had to do research apart from Lasch. Eventually, this led me to discover that it was one person who, at least in effect, first declared war on males. Her name was Betty Friedan (1921-2006), who has since become known as the chief matriarch of feminism’s so-called “second wave.”

In effect and/or principle, Friedan ideologically declared war on males by convincing millions of women through her book, “The Feminine Mystique,” published in 1963, that they were being oppressed by males dominant in society, their husbands of course were included, who were keeping them tied to the home and kitchen, unable to fulfill themselves out of the home as men were doing. “The Feminine Mystique” became a virtual feminist manifesto espousing radicalizing propaganda along typical feminist lines which, as you guessed, radicalized the millions of women who read it. As a result, these women, while initially making in the 60s an attempt to be at peace with males, eventually reversed course and became eager to join a fight against males who came to be viewed as the oppressors who had to be overthrown as the dominant social power.

In the style of Karl Marx against capitalists, Friedan’s ideology in effect convinced millions of women that they had nothing to lose but their “household chains” by revolting against their oppressors. Consequently, it was Friedan’s book that led to the production of the modern “liberated” woman and to the coining of the phrase “Woman’s Lib” into the social jargon. Friedan liberated women from the nursery looking after her babies, from the kitchen, the laundry and ironing room, from having to be the only one in the house who wore dresses and not pants, and from helping their husbands while they as wives worked at home in a marital unit’s joint effort to achieve survival in our harsh world of existence.

Was Friedan correct in doing what she did? Before answering, please consider the following in case you failed to catch the full breadth and scope of what Friedan accomplished:

To begin with, please note that feminism, as Friedan presented the movement, was an ideology that had elements of what some have called an “ideology of discontent.” In case you are not aware of what an ideology of discontent consists of, a Jewish writer named Levi Brackman, with an article posted in the internet gave us a useful example of such an ideology when he sought to explain the basis of radical Arab hate for Israel’s existence as a political state.

Brackman’s explanation began by demonstrating elements that are peculiar to an ideology of discontent. Briefly stated, these elements consist, in a prelude, of arousing strong negative emotions such as fear or envy in those who are led to consider themselves “oppressed” through the propagation of a radicalizing idea. Once this first stage is achieved, it is followed, as natural consequence, by more negative emotions, such as hatred and/or disgust.

In the end, it is the combination of all these strong negative emotions that can lead in conclusion to some form of violent or highly disruptive action. In the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, following is how Brackman described the concluding sequence in an ideology of discontent: “disgust is only a short step away from a hatred that can lead to cold-blooded killing” and “discontent with one’s lot often leads to the disgust and hate of others, and then tragically to carnage.” Using Israel and radical Arabs as an example, Brackman said all this to show what are typical elements in an ideology of discontent, which essentially is just another way of repeating what is now proverbial, namely, that ideas (or ideologies) have consequences.

That Friedan’s feminist ideology is a radicalizing ideology of discontent arousing strong negative emotions in those who are led to believe they are oppressed is clear when you consider that prior to her book, there was no female discontent of the magnitude and scope that erupted and spread to millions of women as a result of The Feminine Mystique. In other words, Friedan’s book first aroused strong emotions of disgust and envy among millions of women; this was essentially women’s disgust over their lot as housewives and mothers and an envy of their husband’s life, which appeared more liberating and fulfilling. This was followed in conclusion by a highly disruptive, feminist-driven, social and family upheaval that the entire world is now experiencing and which is causing violence against women, and against children as an added side-effect, to go from bad to worse.

The following description of the essentials of Friedan’s feminist ideology will make clear that such an ideology qualifies as an ideology of discontent because the description makes it obviously evident that such an ideology has all the essential and requisite elements of an ideology of discontent. This description that now follows is given by Joanne Boucher, Ph.D., who has been a Professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada and has specialized in feminist political thought, feminist theory and women’s studies:

“Betty Friedan is universally regarded as one of the founding mothers of feminism’s Second Wave. In The Feminine Mystique, published in 1963, Friedan aimed to expose the sexist underpinnings of America’s post-World War II complacent prosperity. Friedan argued that millions of American housewives found the destiny of mother and housewife which society mapped out for them stifling, repressive and even dehumanizing.

“Anna Quindlen, in her introduction to the most recent paperback edition of The Feminine Mystique, proclaims that this book changed her life and that of millions of other women who became engaged in the women’s movement and ‘jettisoned empty hours of endless housework and found work, and meaning, outside of raising their children and feeding their husbands. Out of Friedan’s argument that women had been coaxed into selling out their intellect and their ambitions for the paltry price of a new washing machine…came a great wave of change in which women demanded equality and parity under the law and in the workplace.’

“Friedan’s self-presentation in The Feminine Mystique is that of a rather naive and apolitical albeit bright and university-educated suburban housewife who stumbles onto a startling discovery-that America’s housewives are, in fact, miserable. Friedan depicts herself as sharing in all the experiences of her fellow housewives. She is one of them and has experienced their plight. However, Friedan also uses another voice in the text, that of the expert, the university-trained researcher and psychologist. This perspective lends her work scientific authority. The combination of the two voices-the personal and scientific-gives The Feminine Mystique much of its dramatic force.

“However, for all its acclaim and its status as the book that ignited the women’s movement, praise for Friedan’s Feminine Mystique has never been unqualified. Indeed many feminists have criticized its myopic representation of women. There is hardly a word in The Feminine Mystique that would indicate that American women in the 1950s were dealing with problems other than the trap of suburban domesticity which, after all, was a consequence of economic prosperity [in those days for middle class families, only the income of the husband was necessary to support the entire household]. The problems facing, for example, millions of poor, working women or non- white women-oppressive working conditions and low pay, racism, and the burdens of a double day-barely register on the radar screen of The Feminine Mystique. As Rosemarie Tong remarks, ‘Friedan seemed oblivious to any other perspectives than those of white, middle-class, heterosexual, educated women who found the traditional roles of wife and mother unsatisfying.'”

So was Friedan correct in radicalizing and inciting the millions of women as she did with her explosive, highly consequential, and disruptive ideology of discontent? Of course not! At least such is my view. Why? Consider this as a starter:

A whole new social order between men and women that in all the centuries of human history never existed before 1960, was first instigated by only one single, solitary female human being named Betty, was never put through any careful planning, consultation, and approval between the two main parties involved to make it a success, and which is genetically against the nature of at least one of the main parties involved, is now being forced fascistically on humanity under conditions of combat and war, mostly by females alone, without the unanimous agreement, support or cooperation of the other half of humanity composed of males.

Briefly stated, the whole of human civilization is being put through a wrenching and highly damaging, devastating, human and social upheaval by the inane idealism of a female-driven movement that, in its idealism and fascistic imposition on humanity, is similar to Marxism. In the worldwide sexual combat that has erupted as a result of this, men and women no longer pull together as they formerly did, as partners with mutual respect for each other and as a unit to accomplish the important goal of mutual survival in the midst of a dangerous and brutish world that all humans now face every day. Families have been consequently torn apart, and children, caught helplessly in the middle, have also suffered and have been abused in the midst of such upheavals.

Finally, I further submit that Friedan feminism and feminism in general, because such ideologies subvert the social and sexual order that God Almighty set in place at the time of human creation, such feminist ideologies are anti-God and therefore ungodly. Because of this, feminism really has no place in biblical religion, Jew or Christian. We will look at the Jewish-Christian biblical record to demonstrate this.

Violence against women, feminist or not, can never be justified. But feminism has not only wrongly incited women to reckless behavior, it has also wrongly provided male perversity an encouraging pretext to rely on as justifying cause in male crooked minds for perpetrating violence against women. It is feminism, especially that espoused by Friedan, that is ultimately to blame for all this since it was Friedan’s feminist ideology of discontent in the first place that started this whole mess and caused all hell to break loose on women and children as well as men.

Until Friedan came along, all was relatively peaceful between men and women. It should therefore be clear that feminism is a reckless social experiment gone wrong which, as such, can be aptly compared to the rise and fall of Karl Marx’s communistic experiment.

As for what is written here, one thing has to be made totally clear: nothing in this article is intended to provide any justification or encouragement whatsoever for violence against women or anyone else. On the contrary, all that is said here is merely to show reasons why Friedanism and feminism in general is itself recklessly causing highly adverse effects to fall on the very same women they have sought to “liberate.”

Having stated all the necessary disclaimers that are called for, I can now proceed to demonstrate the accuracy of the assertions I have made on the subject of feminism.

Based on what I have learned about that controversial decade of the 1960’s, I have come to understand, rightly or wrongly, that the currently ongoing sexual war began in the 60s with women being “demystified” and liberated by Betty (more on Friedanistic demystification later). It appears to me that, as liberated females, it was women in the 60s who began to change the attitudes women in general had held in pre-60s times. To be precise, what originally made things so radically different in feminist women of the 60s is that they took a radically different position than that which pre-60s women had about sexual differences between men and women.

Pre-60s women believed, and peacefully accepted, that men and women were different. But being now liberated by dear old Betty from their thinking in the past, liberated women in the 60s began presuming and acting as if females, now demystified, were actually and basically no different than males.

Because of this feminist assumption of equality between men and women, it was thought by liberated women in the 60s that women could play and cavort with men as “pals” on an equal footing of togetherness and peace, sharing a nature that women assumed they possessed perfectly equal as that of men. On this presupposition of equality of nature, it seemed right that men and women should come together to celebrate and enjoy their presumed similarities.

On this same basis, women could then, equally with men their new-found pals, be promiscuous together and have free sex with anyone and with however many they wanted, just like most men naturally, or at least privately in their erotic cravings, wish to do. So at this early stage, males seemed to be setting the model for women to emulate. Briefly stated, the 1960s seemed to be a time when women wholeheartedly wanted to celebrate togetherness, oneness, and peace with men. “Make love not war” became the ubiquitous slogan for these 1960s avant-garde men and women, while the Viet-Nam War raged on.

However, it did not take long for women to realize that this option of “loving men thy neighbor” was not a realistic one that female nature could tolerate indefinitely. They quickly came to discover that men and women were not by nature actually the same (or as equal) as women had first thought immediately after Betty had liberated them. Men in general, or at least the lustful men these early Friedans cavorted with, turned out to be too irremediably hurtful and seductively manipulating, and too morally unreliable and emotionally insensitive to suit a woman’s distinctly different nature.

As a result, women were forced to make a hasty retreat from their experiment with sexual equality shown in their attempt at being pals with men at their level. Another option that opened up was that of going into sexual combat with men with the objective of seeking to neutralize and control what was viewed as men’s ingrained perversity. This was highly disturbing for a majority of males who felt offended at the drastic change: first men were considered pals by liberated women who wanted to “join” and emulate them; now these same women were turning in the exact opposite direction treating men as detestable enemies, beings of a different nature, with whom they now had to compete and win against to continue their march to full liberation from their domination.

When men in an effort to resist and put down the whole idea of women’s liberation, responded irrationally by trying to ridicule in various ways the newly emerging and determined “liberated woman,” such women in response became more and more determined to show men what classless losers they were. Finally, toward the end of the 1970s, when Lasch’s book came on the scene, the sexual combat had already intensified and turned into a social brawl.

Hence, it was when liberated women first became convinced that no matter what they did to win with males and that men remained irremediably “men” who apparently could or would not change in their stereotypical “male ways,” that these early Friedans turned to all-out combat against them. But this modern sexual combat, which at least in effect began in the 60’s with Friedan, has never been resolved; it has only gotten worst, at least in the sense that more and more, with each passing year, the hopelessness of a resolution becomes ever more hopeless.

It appears now that there is more hope that radical Arabs will reconcile with Jews before feminist-minded women will reach a peace accord with men in the sexual combat they’re waging against them. This war continues to rage unrelenting into this our first decade of the twenty-first century. Moreover, this is not only happening in America, but everywhere else in the world that militant feminism is forcefully exerting its influence.

Lasch went on to give the following explanations or reasons why modern “sexual combat” came into existence in the first place and why it is persistent:

1. The collapse of paternalism and, with this, the end of chivalry.

2. The liberation of sex from many of its former constraints (primarily reproduction, but also moral restraints that passed away with the demise of religious authority in the social scene).

3. The pursuit of sexual pleasure as an end in itself.

4. The emotional overloading of personal relations (which it appears for Lasch to be due to the excessive, unrealistic, and narcissist expectations men and women were placing on their relationships).

5. Finally, what Lasch calls the most important factor: “the irrational male response to the emergence of the liberated woman” (which has already been noted above).

The word “collapse” seems to be a favorite word for Lasch when referring to the cessation or end of something. For example, there’s the collapse of religious authority, the collapse of paternalism and the collapse of chivalry.

Of all the reasons Lasch gave for sexual combat between men and women, I will focus primarily on the demise of chivalry because it is here, above everything else that went wrong, where I believe feminism made its most grievous error against a woman’s vital interest. Directly connected with this error is the erroneous thinking or assumption in liberated women that views life as a kind of field that has been provided for every human being, male or female, to be “fulfilled” equally. But other than a bare assumption based on the invention of a relative (as opposed to absolute) human ideology called “democracy,” feminism has not shown where it is written, declared, or confirmed with the force of absolute moral authority that “getting fulfilled” or getting fulfilled “equally” is, above all else, what existence is about.

On the other hand, there is empirically verifiable evidence that in absolute terms (that is, not in any way dependent on the support of relative human authority or human ideologies such as democracy or feminism) which categorically, absolutely, and authoritatively declares (1) that men and women are each uniquely different and, thus, not equally the same, but without implying by this that one has less human worth than the other, and (2) that as uniquely different beings, men and women have each a distinctively different destiny to fulfill, which (3) leads to the conclusion that it therefore does not follow that men and women NECESSARILY must fulfill themselves equally in every way; such a thought is a mere unsubstantiated assumption based on relative (not absolute) human ideologies. All this will be examined more at length below.

With respect to chivalry, it appears that Lasch uses the concept of chivalry to apply not only to the respectful deference that men used to extend to women as “ladies,” but also to the long history of paternalistic relations in which those in dominant positions of power behaved as benefactors of those beneath them to make their subordination as inferior players more tolerable. He gives the familial or patriarchal form of capitalism as an example.

But then, Lasch turns to what he calls “the [male] domination of women” and asserts the following concerning chivalry in this context:

“It has been clear for some time that ‘chivalry is dead.’ The tradition of gallantry formerly masked and to some degree mitigated the organized oppression of women. While males monopolized political and economic power, they made their domination of women more palatable by surrounding it with an elaborate ritual of deference and politesse.”

As a prime factor for the feminist war against males, chivalry was rejected and made obsolete by feminists mainly because they interpreted chivalry as being too often a ploy used by corrupt-minded men to try to convince women they were totally inferior to men and that they should therefore simply accept as a trade-off the honor such men were giving them as ladies. Not accepting this accommodation offered by corrupt males, feminists demanded that men no longer place women in a platform of adoration, and consequently for this reason, demanded that women be “demystified” out of being so honored and respected as they were under chivalry.

However, from my perspective, I do believe there have always been corrupt-minded men who abuse and/or take advantage of women in various ways (as it is even now in the age of the liberated female, proving that even women’s lib cannot eradicate male perversity; it is universally persistent and ineradicable). But I certainly do not believe that all males who were chivalrous to women in the days of chivalry were simply for the reason of being chivalrous, necessarily behaving with a hidden purpose to put women down as inferior or to abuse them in any way. Yet whatever be the case, sincere or not, feminists despised chivalry and killed it. But one wonders if this feminist success might not have been a classic pyrrhic victory: winning, but at a great fundamental female loss, perhaps even greater than it was worth the winning. I say this considering the following:

The demystification process that Betty’s feminist ideology put all women through, regardless of whether all women universally approved of it or not, is a process that stripped all women of the high and lofty honor, sanctity, and respect in which the age of male chivalry had placed them. Now that feminism has successfully and decisively blotted out chivalry from the human race as something they despise, women in the minds of men have become mere common “females” in the best of light and “bitches” in the worst. Betty, in other words, made women ripe and inviting as a ready target for desecration and concomitant violence and abuse.

Women had been “demystified” by their own kind, and sincerely decent and chivalrous men, taking full notice of this, lost all the respect they formerly had for women under the chivalry system because women no longer cared for this and actually came to hate it. Thus, with liberated women having cast off and rejected sincere male respect and honor for females, Betty’s demystification process quickly backfired once chivalry “collapsed” (Lasch). Consequently, “men no longer treat women as ‘ladies'” (Lasch).

Moreover, now that men know that feminist-minded women, which are the majority of all women, have declared war on men seeking their obsolescence, how much less do you suppose men will now honor or respect females? How much less will they treat women kindly as friends? If we’re at war, then there can be no kindness, respect, or friendship between the two adversaries involved in combat.

Left without the overwhelming, strong defense and security that men voluntarily had provided women under chivalry, which optimized a woman’s ability to dwell safely in the midst of males, and was something for which women did not have to fight for or have laws passed to attain, demystified women then became fair game for anything and male abuse of females rose sharply. In the following decades since Betty’s female demystification up to our present times, female abuse continues unabated regardless of how many laws have been passed to curb this modern, post-chivalry phenomenon. Campaigns to stop household violence against women are springing up everywhere. This was something virtually unheard of while chivalry was alive and thriving.

But, as we have seen, men and women are at war now and, as in all wars, violence happens and becomes a daily routine and way of life. The good old peaceful days of chivalry are gone, thanks to feminists; all we hear about now is sexual war and combat.

War is a time when all civility and civil law loses its power as an inhibiting force on human violence. There is a breakdown in the ability of such controlling elements to effectively control, and life and living then becomes a jungle where the rule is to destroy or be destroyed and the weak suffer the most. But off course, women are strong, or so the feminists tell us; they can take abuse as good as any man. So let the sex war rage on, shall we? May the best man win!

Yet, in any case, it is because of the profound negative results for women resulting from the feminist victory against male chivalry that the feminist success in overthrowing chivalry appears like a classic pyrrhic victory.

In addition, reaching an accommodating compromise between men and women is out of the question, given the thinking among a significant number of feminist-minded female combatants. Following is how these ferocious females reason: “Why capitulate to a peace with men when we already have them wimping out and on the run? Why not just continue with the drive to complete the objective of marginalizing males and forcing them into irrelevance and obsolescence and be done with the intolerable problem of maleness once and for all.” Yes, indeed, for feminist-minded females “a problem” is the only thing “maleness” can mean. This brings up the issue of genetics as an important point to consider.

FEMALE DOMINANCE AND THE FIGHT AGAINST MALE GENETICS

Can anybody really ever win the ongoing war between the sexes that has been raging since modern feminism began with its so-called “second wave” of the 1960s? I very, very seriously doubt it. I believe that this war will go on without end, with females trying to force males to accept and do what they think and males feeling they are being “pushed against the wall,” resisting and sabotaging every female move in any and every way they can.

Yes, I do realize there’s a lot of sex-whipped male wimps who can be dominated by women who use sex as a weapon to get their way with them. These male weaklings will cry and moan, “Oh! We gotta do what the women tell us; otherwise we get no warm nookie!” But unfortunately for women, there will always be enough stalwart men who would rather withstand sexless years without the hot stuff if they have to, rather than to cave in to fascistic female demands unilaterally pushed on them against their will. For this reason, I do not believe the feminist solution to achieve an all-conclusive feminist victory is sex-whipping enough wimpy males into submission.

On the contrary, I believe the root of the male-female problem that makes it a never-ending one is that both parties in the fight are so genetically unlike each other, it affects inescapably, unavoidably, and inevitably, their ability to reach agreement on many of the most vital things that are important to their lives. Finding a way to survive life, together or separately, with or without each other’s help, is about the only vital thing that men and women can agree on has to be done. Yet, this provides a vital key to demonstrate how a return to chivalry, if it were not for the fact that its loss is irreversible, could have represented the best possible resolution to the present conflict.

Despite its faults (which could have been improved), chivalry was the best possible social system devised for men and women to work together as a team, constructively and in peace, for the commonly-held objective of life-survival. Chivalry was also the best possible social system devised to bring about and sustain peace between two utterly different types of beings whose persistent and unalterable differences are genetically based, and therefore genetically predestined, and therefore genetically doomed to be unchangeable.

Even the urbane scholar and historian Lasch seems to have indirectly acknowledged this by pointing out the existence of a persistent difference in men that women do not naturally possess, hence suggesting genetics at the root, when he wrote the following:

“Polite conventions [i.e., chivalry], even when they were no more than a façade, provided women with ideological leverage in their [incessant, I will add] struggle to domesticate the wildness and savagery of men.”

Clearly, if men generally could naturally think, feel and be like women in every aspect, this male “savagery” would never have existed in the first place. Or if such a thing was a learned behavior, it would have been wiped out long ago by our modern civilizing systems of education to which both men and women have had equal access. But male savagery persists, unlike anything generally coming close to it in women, no matter what feminists do and no matter how many laws are passed to change this persistent and characteristic attribute in men.

Also relevant here is the following that Lasch mentions:

“The woman who rejects the stereotype of feminine weakness and dependence can no longer find much comfort in the cliché that all men are beasts [in other words, if she hates to be stereotyped as “weak,” she would be hypocritical to stereotype all men as “beasts”]. She has no choice except to believe, on the contrary that men are human beings [genetically different, I will add] and she finds it hard to forgive them when they act like animals. Although her own actions, which violate the conventions of female passivity and thus appear to men as a form of aggression, help to call up animal-like actions in males, even her understanding of this dynamic does not make it any easier to make allowances for her adversary. ‘You want too much,’ an older woman says to a younger one. ‘You aren’t willing to compromise. ‘Men will never be as sensitive or aware as women are. It’s just not in their nature [hence again, suggesting genetics]. So you have to get used to that, and be satisfied with…either sexual satisfaction or theoretical intelligence or being loved and not understood or else being left alone to do the things you want.”

In other words, because of men’s genetic nature, women simply can’t have it all with men. With some men, women can of course come close to it rather than with others, it’s totally relative and that’s about the best women can hope for in genetically determined males.

So the real fundamental root problem in the men-woman conflict as I see it is genetics, nothing else. Everything else that has been pointed to as the real problem, such as the “sexist structure of power” that “second-wave” feminism used to justify its attack on males, when you actually trace it down to its final origins, is really nothing other than the end-result of male genetics.

Is there room for improvement in genetically-determined male savagery? I certainly believe so. Civilized men, for example, have come a long way from the primitive brute savagery they displayed in earlier epochs of history. But as far as a total domestication, or the effeminate transformation of males after the female image, don’t count on it because within all men generally there’s always the “call of the wild.” So don’t hold your breath waiting for total domestication to happen, unless you’re inclined to be satisfied with gay men, whose queer genetics seem to have fixed them as female-like.

Incidentally, since we’ve hit on the topic of gays, I will in passing say that, unless I’m presented with compelling evidence to the contrary, I am personally convinced that gays whose gayness cannot be explained by some traumatic event in their growth environment, such gayness has to be genetically- determined. Gayness is a universal phenomenon that I’m sure you can find naturally occurring even among primitive Amazon Indians and Australian aborigines.

On the other hand, forget about this idea among certain “religious” gays who feel so good and proud about their gayness as to believe they can rejoice in their deviation from general manhood because “God made them that way.” Simply because gays are presumptively genetically determined to be what they are does not follow that they can therefore attribute their gayness to God’s handiwork. I say this because the Bible clearly states that homosexuals will be thrown in hell for being homosexuals: “Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunks, slanderers, and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ISV).

Does this mean there’s no Christian hope for homosexuals? I would not say this because, except for the sin of unbelief, any or all sin, no matter how grievous, morally debased, genetically determined or not, is forgivable through faith in Christ, who himself affirmed this in the following: “I tell you with certainty, people will be forgiven their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter” (Mark 3:28 ISV).

But this universal forgiveness of all sin, except the sin of unbelief, presupposes that the offending person has expressed self-judgment, that is, a sincere acknowledgment that their moral behavior is not right and not good in any way and that a sincere effort to control it if not eradicate it altogether has been or is being made. In this light, a homosexual who is homosexual and shamelessly proud of it and/or one who flaunts his or her moral deviation publicly without shame is a sure candidate for hell.

But with respect to “straight” male-female genetics, since no one can re-engineer the basic and different genetic-driven natures of men and women, without creating other problems…monsters, for example, I believe we are all doomed to never-ending sexual combat as a race composed of two utterly disparate and disagreeing beings called men and women.

The chivalry system of men-women social rules was really the best that could be hoped for and socially arranged for men and women to get along constructively and not be constantly at war with each other. But as Lasch has observed, all that is gone and unlikely to ever return:

“Feminism…has caused women to make new demands on men and to hate men when they fail to meet those demands. Feminist consciousness-raising, moreover, has had irreversible effects. Once women begin to question the inevitability of their subordination [by males] and to reject the [chivalry] conventions formerly associated with it, they can no longer retreat to the safety of those conventions.”

Please note that in saying, “Feminism…has caused women to make new demands on men and to hate men when they fail to meet those demands,” Lasch is indirectly and concisely describing the nature of the male-female fight we’re in. Feminism does not like men at all because it does not like the way men stereotypically behave. So, in reaction, feminism demands of men that they stop behaving like men and start behaving like women want them to be.

But since it is genetics that makes men be what they are as men, distinctly different than women, they can’t do anything to change being “men” in how they think, emote, and act. But feminists are not content with this answer. Thus, unable to please feminist-minded females because of their genetics, men are hated and detested by most women, at least in advanced societies like America, because most women in these societies are feminists or feminist-minded females.

Let’s face it men, the situation is now hopelessly fatal as to the likelihood of a dawning of peace between men and women. Because of male-women genetics and because of the estrangement, tantamount to an irreversible divorce, that has taken place between men and women, we, men and women, face nothing but unending sexual combat now and in the future, barring some unforeseen and unlikely miraculous resolution.

What has really made matters worse for male-female relations is a new twist that has evolved within feminism. The second feminist wave that began in the 1960s was mainly concerned with achieving a more equal standing between men and women culturally and with respect to women’s treatment under the law. But the feminist third wave appears to have become dissatisfied with how far the feminist fight was carried by the second wave. It now appears that feminism does not simply want equal treatment between the sexes; it wants to change the world’s thinking altogether on how anyone, but especially men, think about the real differences that exist between male and female.

Feminists now want to obliterate all thinking and/or language that suggests or refers to differences of any kind between men and women. This can become as petty in the minds of some of these females as stating a harmless personal opinion as to how a woman dresses as opposed to men. If you as a male express the wrong or politically incorrect personal opinion in any matter, no matter how trivial, suggesting a sexual difference between men and women, you are, in the minds of these ferocious, feminist females being “sexist.” Prior to mid-twentieth century, such a thing or ideology as “sexism” was unheard of; this has all been a very recent female invention.

Prior to the advent of sexism as an ideology, if a woman felt uncomfortable about something a man said to her without it necessarily being a gross vulgarity or without any harm intended, the woman would simply ask the man politely not say that again because she felt offense at the remark. Assuming that the man was decent (or “chivalrous”) enough, he would just simply apologize sincerely to the woman for the unintended offense and back-off.

But now that we’re in the age of sexual combat and chivalry is dead thanks to the feminist triumph, every male move not “sounding” or “looking right” to feminist ideology is viewed with paranoia by ferocious, feminist-minded females as a combat suppressive put-down on women. As such, the most severe, counter-offense is called for in the thinking of such combative ferocious feminists. This is an example of what feminists are combatively (or in combat) putting males through in their drive to turn a former male dominance of society into a new far greater and starkly fascistic female dominance of their own.

So forget about the problem of the sexes being one of male dominance of society with “helpless” women arising to overthrow male authority “to defend themselves from abuse.” It is more than that; it is clear that the real issue now is not male dominance, but who it is that will dominate or who will decisively win the sexual combat war and come out dominant over human society and culture.

Feminists are hell-bent to make it the female sex who will dominate, turning all men into sex-whipped wimps and they are winning. Society is already female dominated with a whole lot of male wimps running around with their “tails between their legs,” as the proverb goes, crying out, “Oh! We gotta listen and do what the women tell us…” Yes, indeed, the proverbial “tables” of who will dominate have completely turned to the opposite side.

As already suggested, there was a time when rampant un-civility did not exist between men and women. This was generally true up to the middle of the twentieth century. In those days, the majority of men and women in society got along royally well and could even be cheerfully friendly with each other in a healthy moral way. Feminist male-paranoia was virtually non-existent. Then along came feminism’s second wave in the sixties and changed all this. Since then, the male-female world has descended into a horribly devastating social combat.

So in case you wonder why relations between men and women stink and are so rotten today, or why social relations in general (husbands, wives, children, singles, whole families) are so screwed up and dysfunctional, with everybody confused as to what’s right or what’s wrong, WAKE UP, get off your sleeping bed, and look around, it’s time you realized that feminist-minded females have been very busy for at least the last four decades cooking up something, and it hasn’t been dear old mom’s apple pie.

Feminist-minded females have cooked up a war against males; they declared it years ago and immediately started an all-out fight against males with the objective of achieving a final male submission to their thinking and social dominance. As with all wars, this one is also deadly and devastating, not just for adult males, but for women themselves as well as children.

As I said earlier and must repeat now, a whole new social order between men and women that never existed before 1960, and was never put through any careful planning, consultation, and approval between the two main parties involved to make it a success, and which is genetically against the nature of at least one of the main parties involved is being forced fascistically on humanity by females.

I again repeat, the whole of human civilization is being put through a wrenching and highly damaging, devastating human upheaval by the inane idealism of a female-driven movement. In this war, men and women no longer pull together as partners with mutual respect for each other as a unit to accomplish a mutual goal. All such cooperation came to an end beginning with the 1960s.

Yes, war is hell and supremely destructive and we’re living through one right now, except that you don’t hear bombs and cannons going off and the destruction being caused is not buildings or the infrastructure of cities; it is the destruction of human society with its families and children’s lives, thanks to muddle-headed feminism.

The war of the sexes that we’re in right now-and make no mistake about it, it is a war, a kind of mortal combat where only one victor can come out of it and dominate the land (and women are winning, don’t you know by now)-can be compared to a marriage which at first seemed right suddenly go wrong. This is when a husband and wife all of a sudden realize how mistaken they were in the beginning, thinking they had enough in common to make their marriage a peaceful and lasting one. Now they find themselves constantly bickering with each other and engaged in a struggle to see who in the end will dominate. When no happy solution seems to be in sight and only constant conflict and bickering goes on, the decision is finally made to separate and divorce and in bitterness go into all-out war.

Unfortunately, the human race does not have divorce between men and women as an option to end the sexual conflict in which the whole world is in now. These two utterly different beings are stuck with each other on this planet earth, whether they get along or not.

Yet it remains true that male-hating feminists have seen how hopeless it is to successfully change and “fix” men according to their own female image, and so they really want a divorce that will make men disappear from the human scene but can’t get one. Yet in spite of this impossibility, it seems that in the minds of these wishful-thinking women, such an event would solve the problem the human race is struggling with right now between the sexes: “Wouldn’t it be just grand and lovely if we women could in a moment somehow make all men simply disappear? Then we women would be the only ones owning the planet and never again have to contend with “the male problem.”

I have said women are winning the combat we’re in, and to an overwhelming extent that’s true. That’s why, men, no matter what you try with women, nothing works with them anymore. For many years now, the men-women rules have changed under the increasing female domination of our society. In the past, you never saw so many women on the street and everywhere else you look, because most of them were at home cooking up savory dishes instead of dumb, divisive, destructive and confrontational ideas like feminism which destabilize entire societies. Some women are smart enough, but others are too dangerous to leave alone for too long unsupervised. Now you know what dear old Betty was up to when she was messing around with her IBM Selectric unsupervised.

But now women are everywhere. What used to be male-dominated workplaces are now overrun with demanding, dominant females who have already taken societal command. Women are taking over and dominating in banks, in sales and merchandizing, in construction, in the legal and medical industry, in government, in politics, and so on infinitum. That’s why the rules have been changing everywhere; women are taking over and exerting a dominant rule.

However, because of this change to a female dominated society, it’s now the old American Wild West when it comes to knowing how to handle a relationship with a woman. This is true because when we conceive of a feminist rule change in the sexual combat we’re in, we should not, to be accurate, conceive it as an abolishment of rules that were previously in place and the institution of new rules that were carefully planned, designed, examined and implemented with due public notice so that everyone affected would know how the new game of men-women relations is supposed to work or be played.

Rather, it is the thoughtless female move to overthrow previous rules and let a void develop where there are no new rules. So you’re now left with only your imagination as to what you’re supposed to do and, most often, what you imagine is wrong. Even women don’t safely know what to do; that’s why they’re just as confused as men and have become as unpredictable and wishy-washy as they are.

This is why I say that under the new female-dominated social regime that is overwhelmingly and rapidly emerging, it is now like the old American Wild West where everyone is on their own to try anything. If you’re bold and lucky, sometimes fortune will bless your efforts, but sometimes it won’t because everything is fluid, constantly changing, and you therefore can’t depend on anything for sure anymore. It’s all in the blind luck of the draw.

But how was it that before the 1960s, this ferocious, feminist female problem did not exist? Had the vast majority of women up to that point really been so stupid as to believe all was well, and it took just one solitary female by the name of Betty to demonstrate in her book that this was so and then use her book to start the sexual combat we’re in?

No, I do not believe that was the case. It was not stupidity in pre-1960s women or brightness in post-1960s women that made the difference and brought about the change in the male-female rules and the sexual combat we’re in. I believe that apart from the important issue of genetics, what brought about the rule change and the combat was the inevitability of it all resulting from the final success of secularizing forces in society, where humans and not God, would solely determine not only their own affairs but their moral norms and human destiny. It was all the result of the “collapse of religious authority,” as Lasch has correctly observed.

All this is the same as to assert that the chivalrous social order that existed prior to the 1960s was based on the traditional biblical belief, basically involving Jewish biblical concepts but shared as well by Christian culture, since Christianity came from the Jews, that God had created men and women differently in very significant ways. These are ways which, with the advent of genetics science, we now see were genetically-based.

In other words, we who still believe can now say that God created men and women genetically different and that such genetic differences impose an inevitable and unalterable biological predestination that makes men and women unlike each other in vital aspects, such as how they view reality, how they think, and how they emote or experience and express emotion. We will delve into this biblical religious root in chivalry after we touch briefly on its medieval roots.

THE DEMISE OF CHIVALRY AND THE RESULTING FEMALE CURSE

It has been said by social historians that the idea or social concept of “chivalry,” at times also referred to as “gallantry,” which was manifested in the now-extinct respectful deference (or honor) that in the pre-1960s past men directed toward women as “ladies,” had its earliest origins in the ethical ideals of knighthood during the medieval period of European history.

Insofar as knighthood was a factor, knights were expected to be gallant (or chivalrous) in all their deportment, which was to be directed not only to women as “fair damsels” (or ladies) but to humanity in general. With respect to women generally, looked upon in the early days of chivalry as “fair ladies” or the “fair sex,” the word “fair” implied simply the opposite of being coarse or rough. The word “lady” was a synonym for a polite, well-mannered, respectable female. Because of positive qualities like these with which females were socially associated as well as encouraged to possess, in the early days of chivalry, chivalrous men generally treated the female sex with honor and respect, not just as mere women or females but as fair ladies.

Thus, in the old and early days of chivalry, to be honored as “a lady” by men, all a woman needed to be was nothing more than a decent female; she could not, in other words, be such a thing as a common “tramp.” To be a decent woman, she needed to be someone who first of all exuded self-respect in how delicately discriminating she behaved and in the way she took care of her overall feminine appearance and, secondly, she was a woman who demonstrated delicate, discriminating poise in accepting something beneficial from a man or was very polite and courteous to him if she felt she had to refuse it.

Femininity in attire took in dresses, not pants, made of such things as fabrics of soft cotton or silk, with embroidery, ribbons and lace that might or might not be added. Such “lady-like” behavior and appearance alone would mark a woman as being a “lady.” Added to this, making a woman more lady-like, would be an air of studied grace, charm and social refinement.

In modern times up to the emergence and success of feminism, the old knighthood ethical ideal called chivalry came to mean, in its best form, simply the deferential, respectful and honorable way, which largely by implicit social custom, men were expected to treat women.

Feminism came to despise all this. Why should women be expected to be different from men? Why should they be placed in a pedestal of respectful sanctity above them? My basic argument in answer to this is that unless this is done, as we shall see, dire and adverse consequences inevitably come to women, not to mention society as a whole, and that the basic reason why this happens is that men, no less than women, are fundamentally, genetically, and thus irredeemably, “wired” different than women. As such, this cannot be changed unless feminists find a miraculous way to genetically re-program men without adverse consequences for both.

Hence, any movement to superficially impose a social change of the magnitude that proposes women should be like men or, even more hopeless, that men should be like women, is predestined to backfire because such a move ignores the genetic factors involved and is driven instead by pure idealism rather than the brute reality of genetics that stand against it.

Hence, the feminist idealistic stance of trying to lower themselves to the level of men or to raise men to act, feel, and think at the female level can be likened, at least in one important aspect, to what happened with the liquor prohibition’s Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Many idealistic females were involved in the drive to bring about prohibition and the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment. Idealistically driven, the female thinking was, “If men can’t stop drinking, well simply pass a law to FORCE them to do so. Well, it didn’t work! Because it didn’t work, the Amendment finally had to be repealed. But why was it that even a constitutional amendment could not stop men from drinking? Because men are so genetically wired that when they are determined to do something, they will find a way to do it, law or no law.

By the same token, men are so wired that when they are determined NOT to do something, they will find a way NOT to do it, law or no law. For example, it made no difference that many men were “busted” by prohibitionist laws; men are wired to withstand abuse and “take it like a man” if they have to when pushed against the wall.

The builders of feminism never consulted men universally to get their approval and cooperation on the idea of feminism. Feminism was virtually a unilateral move by females seeking to fascistically push and impose on men something that is overwhelmingly against their will and their genetically-determined nature. Using the same idealistic mentality that the prohibitionists did, feminists simply and casually thought, foolishly I will add, “We’ll fix these men. If they won’t go along with our unilateral program of bringing about unqualified, total sexual equality in human society, an equality that will wipe out all sexist distinctions between men and women, we’ll see to it that laws and regulations are passed to force it on them.”

I keep telling you ladies, you forget the male genetic factors; men don’t think like you. Because it is an issue of genetics, men have never thought like women and they never will. The chivalry system, in spite of whatever bearable faults it had, which again I repeat, could have been improved without throwing out the whole system, was the best way for men and women to get along. But you succeeded in giving it a bad name and successfully got rid of it in total. As a result, men are now giving women a worst kind of hell than they ever did when chivalry was alive and well. They have lost all the respect they had in the past for women as ladies and are showing it by different forms of sheer irrational behavior that was not as rampant then as it is now.

I repeat this because it is so crucial. Under chivalry, women got the overwhelming male respect they not only needed but required to live most safe and secure in the midst of males, and men got the female rewards they have always thrived on. Once feminism succeeded in throwing all this out, and against the dictates of genetics began a fight against males, seeking fascistically to impose their new social order where all sexual distinctions are forbidden, all hell broke loose.

So are you now surprised that we’re in sexual combat? Again, men are so wired that they simply will not peacefully acquiesce to anything that’s pushed on them against their will, especially by women, law or no law. Men will inevitably defeat such a thing; they have to (or must) because they are so genetically wired. Hence, because of genetics, men as a whole, unless they are sex-whipped wimps, will never under any circumstance be willingly subjected to being dominated by women. Again, this is not an issue of male stubbornness; it is an issue of genetics, what is natural against what is unnatural.

So in case you didn’t already picked up on it, the bottom line conclusion on genetics is this: It is really a war against genetics, specifically men’s genetic code and genetic nature, which is totally unlike theirs, that feminists have declared war on and are engaged in. In this war, feminists don’t even show interest in a truce to find peaceful co-existence. Instead, idealistic and not reality driven, feminists obstinately push on to soundly establish their genderless new order, come hell or high water, which they envision will be completely theirs once total societal dominance falls in their hands and all men have been wimpified. Lot’s of luck ladies, or whatever you are, now that chivalry is dead.

CHRISTIAN CHIVALRY AND ITS CORRUPT ABUSE

In any case, in addition to its medieval knighthood roots, it appears that the concept of chivalry up to its demise in the 1960s also had Christian, biblical roots. However, and unfortunately, this Christian, biblical root of chivalry, while good when it’s original stated intent was correctly understood, became open to corruption.

The openness to corruption of the Christian version of chivalry seems to have been based on a multifaceted meaning of the word “vessel” that is found in what the Christian-Jewish Apostle Peter wrote in 1 Peter 3:7. This controversial passage, as well as all of the biblical New Testament, was originally written in the Greek that was current in the geographical area and time of Christ

“Vessel,” the word in question, had been in the King James Bible, translated from the Greek, for centuries in 1 Peter 3:7 before a flurry of modern English Bible translations sprouted in the twentieth century seeking to improve on the old English style in which the King James version was written. In the King James, at 1 Peter 3:7, we find the word “vessel” referring to women in the following way in old English language: “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [your wives] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel.”

The openness or susceptibility to corruption which the words “a weaker vessel” had, was the fact that many came to assume that the word “vessel” in reference to the female sex meant that the 1 Peter 3:7 passage was saying that a women in her entire being as the female sex (or gender) that she was, happened to be in some way totally inferior and totally unequal to the male sex. Consequently, the presumed interpretation of “vessel” found in 1 Peter 3:7 came to mean or refer in the minds of many in Christian culture, to the entire being of a women.

In some, not all, modern English versions of the Bible where “the weaker vessel” is translated as “the weaker sex,” the susceptibility to a corrupt understanding is there because just the words “the weaker sex” alone clearly and immediately suggests or implies to most readers, in an unqualified way, that a woman as to her entire being or female gender is referred to.

For example, although the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible states in the margin that the literal meaning of the original Greek word translated “sex” is actually the word “vessel,” it goes on to use the word “sex” in the main body of its translation of the controversial passage of 1 Peter 3:7. Following is how this passage in the NRSV is found translated from the original Greek: “Husbands…show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life.”

However, in the New American Standard Bible, woman as “the weaker sex” in the NRSV is translated instead as “a weaker vessel,” similar to the usage found in the King James. To clear this apparent confusion, we need to know that the word which is translated “sex” in one Bible version and “vessel” in another is really, in the original language, the Greek word “skeuos.” The Greek word “skeuos,” according to a standard biblical concordance, literally means “vessel” as its primary meaning, it does not mean “sex.”

However, in the Greek, there are also other (or secondary) usages or connotations to “skeuos.” This word can also secondarily mean instrument, equipment, or apparatus. It is for this reason that I have said that this Greek word is multifaceted. Accordingly, here are three different ways or senses in which the word “skeuos,” translated as vessel, is used in the Bible. You will notice that in each case, the words make it clear the sense in which “vessel” is intended to be understood:

1. A literal vessel – Mark 11:16 ISV: “He wouldn’t even let anyone carry a vessel through the temple.”

2. Vessel as symbolic of a human being in his or her entirety to be used as an instrument for some end – Acts 9:15 AKJ: “Go your way: for he is a chosen vessel to me, to bear my name before the Gentiles.”

3. Vessel as symbolic of the human body – 1 Thessalonians 4:4-5 NASB: “Each of you [should] know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God.”

This third sense of “vessel” as symbolic of the human body is very pertinent for our purpose here and, accordingly, it is worth elaboration. We begin by asking why would the Bible refer to the human body as a vessel or container? The answer to this has to do with how the Bible conceptualizes the make-up of human beings (both male and female) as being composed of three distinct entities: body, soul and spirit.

According to the Bible, the physical body is the “vessel” (or container) that holds within it the soul and the spirit. There are some theologians who believe that the words “soul” and “spirit” refer to the same thing under two different names. But in my work on biblical psychology, I demonstrate why this view is faulty. The biblical view of who we are as humans is a complex one. However, to explain this in the simplest way possible, we can basically say that, according to the Bible, the human soul is the conscious or consciously thinking person in a human being.

The soul, in other words, is the “I” or the “me” that we consciously know ourselves to be and through which the outside world gets to know us. The spirit, on the other hand, is the seat or source of life and rational thinking; it is the source of life both of the body and of the soul.

The spirit is also the seat or source of what we and the Bible call our moral conscience. Sigmund Freud, who plagiarized the Jewish-Christian Apostle Paul, referred to the soul as the “ego” and to the biblical conscience as the “super-ego.” The human spirit’s center of power dwells in the subconscious mind. Consequently, it is from the subconscious mind, where the spirit’s center of power dwells, that our soul (or conscious mind) receives mental, moral promptings that either approve or disapprove morally whatever we think or do.

Knowing then, that “skeuos” as “vessel” can refer symbolically to the human body, it does not appear to me difficult to assume, based on this technical linguistic knowledge, that the use of the controversial phrase “a weaker vessel” might just have been the Apostle Peter focusing (or placing emphasis) on the part of the human female he had in mind as being weaker than the male. He was not, in other words, saying that the entire being of a woman, body, soul, and spirit, was weaker than the man, only her physical or bodily constitution. Other textual evidence clearly visible and inherent in this 1 Peter 3:7 passage as a whole serves to support this assumption.

For example, there is no question that the passage in 1 Peter 3:7 affirms a foundational life and spiritual equality between men and woman. This is implied and made clear when it is said that women, equally as men, “are also heirs of the gracious gift of life [from God].” A man and a woman, in other words, are both equally bodily vessels containing a soul and a sexually-neutral spirit and this spirit’s life within. Also equal between them is the value and worth of the spirit life they both equally possess inwardly.

As already indicated, it is through the spirit’s life, manifested through the conscious living soul acting on the body, that the indwelling spirit of men and women makes its presence felt and known outwardly. Yet it is not the sexually-neutral spirit in the subconscious, but the soul in its intimate connection to and thus identification with the sexual body, that gives men and women their outwardly-expressed sexual differentiation. In other words, body and soul, working together in close connection, coordination and intimacy, allow women and men to express outwardly their respective sexuality in the varied and distinct ways that men and women do this.

In consequence, following what has been said of the passage in 1 Peter 3:7, no one would then be correct in assuming that this passage suggests a total inequality between men and women. It does no such a thing. Accordingly, as to the CONTENTS of the male and female bodily vessels, there is absolute equality between men and women. However, the passage at 1 Peter 3:7 does affirm that, notwithstanding feminist protests to the contrary, God and the Bible view the female body (or bodily vessel) next to that of the male as, relatively speaking, the physically weaker, more feeble and delicate of the two.

Since there have always been exceptions to general rules, this passage out of 1 Peter 3:7 must therefore be interpreted in the sense of what is generally true between men and women. Men generally, I repeat, generally, tend to be physically sturdier, tougher and stronger than women and can thus endure a greater degree of physical exertion and abuse, as opposed (again, generally) to the more delicate, softer and feebler nature of a woman’s body.

The passage in 1 Peter 3:7 actually embodies an admonition given to Christian husbands on how they ought to treat their believing wives. It simply says that because of their weaker physical or bodily constitution, Christian husbands should treat their believing wives with delicate care, respect and honor. In the development and history of Christian culture, this principle of deferential honor to be given to Christian wives for the actual limited reason stated, which was made morally obligatory on Christian males through a biblical command, became immediately applicable to all females generally in Christian culture. This, briefly, became the Christian, biblical-based version of medieval knighthood gallantry or chivalry.

Nevertheless, the misunderstanding of this passage in 1 Peter 3:7, eventually became at least partly responsible for a huge controversy that developed between men and women; it was a controversy that feminists turned into a huge tempest that is still ongoing. It is a tempest that never had the factual basis it was presumed to have and was the result of a gross misunderstanding of the biblical text.

Furthermore, the problem of this whole issue of “weakness” in women that turned into the full-blown controversy that feminism instigated became a problem only after men in power misunderstood, and thus through misunderstanding, corrupted the actual intended meaning of 1 Peter 3:7, as if the passage had said that women in their entire being of body, soul and spirit were weaker (or inferior) to that of men, which, as we have seen, is not necessarily true of this passage.

In any case, once the actual, intended meaning of 1 Peter 3:7 was corrupted, the sincere and harmless respectful honor that the biblical concept originally admonished Christian husbands should direct to their believing wives as the weaker (bodily) vessel, was eventually transformed within a bastardized and nominal Christian culture into a subtle form of oppression against women generally. In an insulting way, women as to their entire being were being degraded and “put-down” simply because they were females.

Men exercising power in a male dominated society, who never really had a genuinely vibrant Christian faith, or the love of God, or a genuine Christian respect for women in their hearts, transformed the Christian, biblical version of chivalry, against the actual intent of 1 Peter 3:7, into an instrument of subtle abuse that was detrimental rather than enriching to a woman’s life.

We should know that all human beings (unless they happen to be atheist psychopaths with a dead conscience), whether they are religious or not, or regardless of what religion they profess, cannot claim to be continually consistent in living up to the moral ideals which their religion or personal moral views espouses. As a Christian, I definitely know this applies to me. If it were not because I rely on the compassion and forbearance of God as much as I do, I would become a dysfunctional mess continually beating up on myself because of all my moral lapses, the number of which is beyond remembrance and overwhelming.

Religious hypocrites, on the other hand, are people who pretend they are super-holy, as if they can do no wrong. These religious misfits totally overlook and disregard that the Bible itself has affirmed that “there is not one just man upon the earth who continually does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). All this is simply to say that not all who call or have called themselves Christian in present or past Christian culture, are or have been entirely consistent in living up to Christian ideals. Either that, or they are Christian by name only and not by inherent substance.

In a Western culture that had largely lost its genuine Christian religious fervor due to the successes of secularizing forces, with only an empty shell or façade of Christianity remaining, male perversity emerged by default within that culture to do its dirty work of transforming a good thing, based on Christian religious faith, into a grotesque social and secular corruption. In the case of the Christian, biblical version of chivalry, based on the biblical mandate in 1 Peter 3:7 discussed above, this mandate intended as a deferential honor to be extended to women in view of their bodily constitution, was perversely corrupted and transformed as an instrument to “put down” women as to their whole being in a most insulting way.

Under this corruption of 1 Peter 3:7, women were looked upon as being entirely inferior to men as a “weaker sex” or human being in the totality that this entails. To repeat here what Lasch observed, he briefly described this subtle corruption as follows, “The [now extinct, post-feminism] tradition of gallantry [or chivalry] formerly masked and to some degree mitigated the organized oppression of women [I would now add, ‘by those who perversely had transformed an already corrupted form of Christian chivalry into a virtual social secular institution’].”

Feminists saw this end result of the corrupt degeneration of the sincere and harmless Christian version of chivalry into a means of subtle female abuse and jumped on it as the “cause célèbre” (or grand issue) they would attack. They then went on to make their attack an unceasing, all-consuming, obsessive and self-defining identity. However, carried to extremes, the presently ongoing, modern sexual combat that feminism instigated between men and women eventually resulted in highly adverse consequences for both women and men. As we have seen and shall further see, the results have been a significant, currently ongoing painful loss for both.

Feminism in the beginning represented a struggle among liberal-minded women to stop the social put-down of women so as to gain equal rights next men in such areas as politics, education and employment. However, the movement, at least in some quarters, eventually went beyond a struggle to gain equal rights next to men; it became a movement as well to obliterate all sexual distinctions between men and women. It was at this point that the ideology of “sexism” so-called arose as an effort to shame men who would dare to imply or suggest that the female sex was different in any way than that of males.

Traditionally in the past, the preponderance of women consistently wore dresses, not pants. This is the same tradition that architects still rely on in public buildings to visually differentiate on bathroom doors which is the men’s room and which is the women’s room. However, in their effort to affirm their imagined brand of equality next to men, feminists began to dress, talk and act like men and to lead all other females to do the same.

As a result, we now see the reverse of the old tradition of female attire with a preponderance of women wearing pants rather than dresses or skirts. Originally, this turn-about began as an effort on the part of women to improve their chances of competing well against men in the workplace. In those early times when feminism was on the march to success, one could see many professional women dressing up for their office jobs in attire that closely resembled that of a man’s business suit.

But it turned out that this was a “two-edged sword,” for in seeking to dress, talk and act like men to better compete against them, women were in fact ironically, unwittingly and unconsciously playing up to the idea of male supremacy by making themselves appear as aspiring male wanna-be’s.

In any case, it remains true that once feminists went on the attack against a corrupted chivalry and largely succeeded, along with the impetus and assistance given to feminists in their struggle by the success of democracy and the end of feudalism beginning in the eighteenth century, all this made chivalry or gallantry toward women in any form, Christian version or other, a doomed tradition in secular society.

Accordingly, the gallant tradition of chivalry became socially extinct thanks to the triumph of feminism. Now, in the ongoing, raging sexual combat between men and women, the preponderance of women, young and old, look at and judge all male action, sincere or not, through the paranoid, biased prism of feminism.

While a corrupted form of Christian gallantry became an obstacle that ideological feminism successfully overthrew, in the train of this success came, as we shall see below, other forms of abuse of females proving that, in the words of historian Lasch, “the male sex [I assume he does not mean every single male] at no time [has] ceased to regard most women as fair game.”

Apart from some countervailing and revolutionary “spiritual” transformation that will make them more sensitive to a woman’s needs, men are hopelessly and irremediably men, that is, totally unlike women in sexual and emotional attitudes because of the way they were genetically wired at Creation. Which is simply and only to say that the quixotic quest of feminism to “fix” men by forcing them, through laws or through public shame heaped on them, to think and feel like women is hopelessly doomed.

Again I say that, apart from some countervailing and revolutionary “spiritual” transformation, men will never, ever change and become like women in any meaningful way under any circumstance. This is true because such a thing is totally against their inherited genetic nature. Consequently, just the thought of this alone is detestable to men generally.

At least in the chivalrous respect and honor that men in pre-feminist times felt as a duty they owed women, any gross physical abuse of women that we see rampant today was socially inhibited because the male perpetrators would be shamed and socially ostracized if they failed to observe the respect that society insisted men owed to women. Again, we listen to how Lasch expresses this:

“[The] polite conventions [or traditions of gallantry or chivalry toward women], even though they were no more than a façade, provided women with ideological leverage in their struggle to domesticate the wildness and savagery of men. They surrounded essentially exploitative relationships with a network of reciprocal obligations, which if nothing else made exploitation easier to bear.” With the triumph of feminism, all this was transformed and moved on into ancient history, the likes of which has never been seen again. Have women won as a result of this? I greatly question the accuracy of a positive answer to this question.

Decent men love and crave exceedingly being a hero in women’s eyes. Chivalry gave them a pathway to achieve this. Decent men loved this because chivalry during its time was a voluntary behavior they could creatively work at to achieve and then feel deep satisfaction and a woman’s gratitude as a reward for succeeding. However, with the triumph of feminism, this creative and voluntary pathway to the benefit of women was effectively overthrown and shut for men. So now women are reaping abuse by default, again, it’s a simple matter of male genetics.

You who were not around in the last two decades before the 60s feminist hurricane hit and destroyed society, if you want to get an idea of what men-women relations were immediately prior to the 60s when feminism struck and scrambled everything, see if you can find and view old re-runs of such TV shows as Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, or Mayberry RFD. I’m sure you will agree that the male leading actors here would not be men you could classify as feminist-wimpified males like many today who are running around saying, “Oh! We gotta do what the women tell us, otherwise we get no warm nookie!”

Just remember that these old TV shows were the ideals that equally both men and women of pre-feminist times held up as models of healthy men-women relations. They were not, in other words, an exact replica of real life in every detail and for every family unit of the time, but they will at least give any viewer an adequate representation of what was the ideal that men and women equally nurtured and looked up to in those days now extinct. Then compare this chivalric ideal with a TV show like Roseanne after Betty had already radicalized women and feminism had successfully impacted and transformed the entertainment industry.

I’m sure that this comparison of old TV shows will reveal to you how stark the change was after feminism destroyed chivalry. For example, the feminist Roseanne is the dominant character in the TV show whereas Arnold, her husband, is what has become the classic feminist-wimpified male: “Oh! We gotta do what the women tell us, otherwise we get no warm nookie!”

It is easy to conceive how the dominating feminist Roseanne could get into black leather boots, pants and jacket with a whit to whip a naked Arnold chained to the love bed. On the other hand, there’s no way you could easily conceive Margaret of “Father Knows Best” as wearing anything other than her very feminine dresses. Forget it! You may as well conceive of pigs sprouting wings and flying if you’re going to think that.

It is good that feminism put a stop to a corrupted form of chivalry. But seeing that it was not chivalry that was causing the problem, but a corrupted form of it, such a thing could therefore not be accurately called chivalry. At least historic, Christian biblical chivalry, based on 1 Peter 3:7, was never in principle (or as intended) an instrument of social abuse against women. It was inculcated instead as an essential and vital need women required to be most safe and secure among males, again, because of a male’s genetically-determined nature, which if not properly socialized, controlled, and/or civilized can, unlike the nature of a woman generally, be naturally very lustful, narcissistic and hurtfully brutish.

Now, with feminism under control of social norms between men and women, men are being confronted with a female ideology that indiscriminately considers all men jerks and demands them to perform female dictated behavior. Hence, voluntary chivalry is no longer in vogue; women despise it. This is understandable when one considers that the corruption of genuine chivalry gave chivalry in any form a disgusting meaning to women.

But, in any case, as a result of feminist-dictated behavior that is being fascistically demanded of males, a feminist-instigated battle rages on where men refuse to be so demeaned as to cave in to what they see in feminist ideology as arrogant, chauvinistic and high-handed demands. Moreover, in a new simmering and intensifying male rage, men offer nothing but creative passive resistance to feminist ideological demands at every point, and even new kinds of gross abuse against women; this is abuse the likes of which did not exist prior to the triumph of feminism as grossly and as rampant as it does now.

Consequently, after the success of feminism, the biblical admonition to Christian men to honor their wives as the weaker vessel is now, on the basis of modern-day feminist and secular thinking, a sexist anachronism. But this raises the question as to whether it took ideological feminism to reveal that the Bible and the biblical God have been “sexist” all along. Well yes, the Bible and the biblical God are and have been “sexist” all along, that is, if we are disposed to believe that feminist ideology has the status of absolute moral truth.

But the whole world has known about what the Bible has been saying all along. For thousands of years, before anyone even knew that such an ideological invention as feminism had come into existence, the Bible had been saying and affirming that men and women are different. They are different in mode of creation, in inherent biological design, and in God-ordained roles.

But isn’t sexism morally wrong under any circumstance, feminism or not? Actually, this depends on whether the feminist ideology behind sexism represents or embodies an absolute moral commandment like “Thou shall not murder” as well as who has the last word determining what is an absolute moral truth. If there is no absolute God or absolute moral authority to determine this, then no human being can determine such a thing absolutely for the simple reason that humans are relative (as opposed to absolute) beings.

In other words, apart from the force of human-made laws or the use of brute, irrational force to compulsorily or fascistically establish what is right or wrong, there is not a single human being or group of humans, females or males, who can claim moral absoluteness or absolute authority to justifiably dictate to other fellow-humans what is absolutely morally right or morally wrong.

My assertion at this point is that the biblical Creator-God is an absolute God whose existence (1) has been made empirically known through the documented history of the Jews, (2) through the Jews’ testimony as empirical eyewitnesses to the presence, reality and works of this God, and (3) through the Jews’ indestructible endurance as a people and nation from the beginning of human history which testify that what they have been saying through their recorded history has been true all along. For those who care to look it up, in another page of this site, I have written more at length on this topic of the Jews as empirical proof of the biblical God’s existence (see https://enewschannels.com/2009/06/16/enc7545_110938.php).

Hence, given that there is such an absolute God, attested to by the documented history of the Jews, and given that the founders of feminist ideology never consulted with this God as to the moral standing of their philosophy, and that this God actually created a humanity that is inherently and innately sexually discriminating between males and females, which alone, under ungodly feminist standards, makes this God and his human creation inherently and ideologically sexist and thus anti-feminist, then the answer to the question, “Isn’t sexism morally wrong under any circumstance?” is no; sexism is NOT morally wrong under any circumstance.

To elaborate on these assertions about God, feminism, and sexism, we must first consider one cardinal aspect concerning the nature of the biblical God as he is portrayed in the Bible. I am referring to the fact that the Bible views this God as being an “absolute autocrat.”

DEMOCRACY, AUTOCRACY AND THE ABSOLUTE BIBLICAL GOD

So what’s an “absolute autocrat”? In political science, the word “autocrat” by itself simply means an absolute ruler or monarch who can do or will as he pleases and get away with it. In modern political parlance, until they are removed from power, dictators like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and tyrants and despots like the North Korean ruler, Kim Jong-il, are classified as autocrats and their rule or reign is referred to as an “autocracy.”

That the biblical God is portrayed as a God possessing an enduring, absolute and autocratic sovereignty is made clear by the following passages drawn from the Bible:

Daniel 4:34-35 NRSV: “For his sovereignty is an everlasting sovereignty, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does what he wills with the host of heaven and the inhabitants of earth. There is no one who can stay his hand or say to him [prevailingly], ‘What are you doing?'”

Job 9:12 NRSV: “He snatches away; who can stop him? Who will say to him, ‘What are you doing?'”

Romans 9:19-20 NRSV: “For who can resist his will? But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say [prevailingly] to the one who molds it, ‘Why have you made me like this?'”

We who enjoy a democracy in government are very happy about it, at least in the sense that, in such a political arrangement, we do not have a minority or one person dictating to the whole country what’s acceptable and what’s not. As an independent-minded people, we would therefore understandably despise an autocrat to run our government. For this same reason, it is also understandable that we may find it difficult to accommodate ourselves to the thought of even a God who autocratically commands and tells us under the threat of adverse consequences what’s right or wrong.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that, according to the Bible, the rule of the biblical God is not a democracy; it is an autocracy. However, unlike human autocrats who do not create the living beings and the physical realms they unjustly rule by force and/or political corruption, in the case of the biblical God, the Bible claims that this God rules justly as an autocrat over the infinite universe of all living and non-living realities. According to the Bible, what makes the autocratic, universal rule of the biblical God a just (as opposed to an unjust) autocracy is that ultimately, all that exists and has being owe their being and existence to this biblical God who originally created everything that exists from (or out of) nothing, “ex nihilo,” as the theologians call it.

The logic here is one analogous to that of an independent potter who designs, fashions, creates and owns in an absolute way whatever clay vessels this potter designs and creates. Being the absolute owner of the clay, this potter will design and create clay vessels according to whatever he or she sees fit for each clay vessel created. Finally, this potter as owner of the clay will then have the unquestioned authority and/or power, by virtue of independent and absolute ownership of his or her creations, to treat, conserve or destroy, as the potter sees fit, any or all of the vessels the potter created. In other words, if you totally, independently and lawfully own something you create, like a paper-doll for example, you have the perfect right and authority as sole owner of your creation to design, treat or use your creation as you perfectly see fit.

Atheists of course, who both bristle at any assertion of a god who may exist and, worst yet, of a god who rules autocratically, think they have found a sure-fire, rationally undefeatable way to get around our defining assertion about the biblical God. Finding unacceptable any assertion of an existing biblical God who is also autocratic, they think they can “pull the rug” from under this idea by simply declaring, as the typical “know-it-all” simpletons that they are, that there is no such god, much less an absolute, autocratic one. Furthermore, in arrogant hubris, such atheists fancy themselves as heroes of humankind, thinking that by asserting what they do, they will be loved and welcome as “liberators” of humanity from a burden of guilt over a fictional biblical God who autocratically demands moral performance.

But what about the universe in its infinity (or unending reaches) as evidence that there is such a biblical Creator-God who was behind astronomy’s “Big Bang”? Well, the atheists have an answer for this. They seek to instruct us on how we should accept that the material universe, notwithstanding all its mysteries, is merely a huge mass of physical reality that is no more special in nature than any other physical reality we know, such as trees, chairs and tables that we see every day without thinking there is a god behind them.

But it is exactly here that simpleton, know-it-all, shallow atheists make their most crucial error. These atheists, in other words, desire us simply to take for granted the highly complex, colossal, mysterious and immense fact of the visible, infinite universe of living and non-living phenomena. I know that some atheists will answer and say, “We do no such thing; we do not take the universe for granted; we marvel at such a wonder-filled universe.”

But that’s not the point. The point is that while atheists can easily dismiss the entire infinite universe of living and non-living realities as mere “physical stuff,” they cannot explain why such a highly complex, colossal, mathematical, mysterious and immense universe, of which, by the way, we humans are an integral part, exists in the first place. In other words, why do we or anything else exists at all? Why not nothing, including us humans? These are questions an atheist cannot answer with any satisfying rationale. It is in this sense that atheists take the mysterious existence of the universe (including us humans) for granted.

But the universe, in the meantime, refuses to be taken for granted. Everywhere our eyes turn to see, this universe, as it were, shouts and screams at us, “Look! I’m here. Explain why I’m here.” Moreover, it is this same universe that brought us into existence from the chemical stuff that is found in the dust of the earth. It is also this same universe that brings hardship, pain, disease and old age to our lives and bodies. Finally, it is this same universe that brings about the end of our earthly existence when we again, whether we like it or protest, shall return to the dust of the earth from whence we came.

Yes, indeed, the universe will thus not allow us to take it for granted. Not only is the biblical God autocratic, but reflecting the nature of its Creator who uses it as a tool to accomplish his ends in space and time, God’s created universe is itself most autocratic, painfully forcing its power upon us whether we like it or not in a host of ways, and there’s not a damn thing anyone can do to stop it, just like with God its autocratic creator.

All of this is what goes into the universe screaming at us, “Look! I’m here. Explain why I’m here in the way that I am, in what I’m doing to you, and in what empirical science has told you I say about my nature. Explain why I’m here instead of nothing, including you. Explain why you were born to see, experience and hear all that you do about me? Or are you just a meaningless accident resulting from a brief moment of parental pleasure? Is that all you are…a freaky accident, really?”

Nor is it true, as an answer to these troubling human dilemmas, that the biblical God has left the human race devoid of any tangible, empirical proof of his existence. I have already referred to the Jews. They are the empirical proof. I have already said that the Jews are the empirical, live evidence that denies the thought that the biblical God has left us without empirical proof of his existence. It is on the basis of this Jewish evidence that I assert not only the existence of the biblical God but also his autocratic rule with the absolute power and authority that goes with this.

Anyone, after all, who has all-prevailing power also rules correspondingly and has the authority to do so for the same reason. I thus assert that the authority and power that the biblical God has is that of an autocratic or absolute ruler who in designing the human race as he did, such a design cannot be messed with without adverse consequences. I say this analogous in the sense in which some human designs cannot be messed with without painful and unhappy consequences.

For example, happiness is not the result when you stick your fingers inside a running garbage disposer or put leaded gasoline in an automobile where unleaded gas is called for. These machines were not designed and created by humans to safely allow for such things to be done. Likewise, humans were created and designed to work happily and well only according to the nature the biblical God gave their design. Accordingly, adverse consequences can be expected if one tampers with the design the biblical God desi