Patriarchy is a word we’re all familiar with, often used in the context of cultural dogma of “The patriarchy”. This implies a hidden social structure threading through history, elevating men and suppressing women.
One institution, in particular, is singled out for feminist ire. The Christian Church. According to feminists; Christianity, like all Abrahamic faiths, elevates men above women.
But does it?
The existence of a male priesthood, and a male-headed nation state (the Vatican) both seem to support the feminist conception. But we are all aware of the frontman fallacy; because there is a man in the front, it does not follow that the frontman uses his power to benefit other men. Because Christianity has a male priesthood, is headed by a man and uses masculine language to refer to the God and humanity’s savior, does it necessarily follow that Christianity is male favoring?
In Christian tradition of the last two millennia, the books of the New Testament provide a foundation for the spiritual identities of men and women – based on the life of the son of the creator of the universe, born of a virgin mother, and redeemer of all human beings who accept him. Of course, the apparent son of God, who in some variations of the doctrine is the human incarnation of God, fathered by himself on a virgin mother – this is a male avatar of the God on earth.
The masculinity of the Christ is usually taken as evidence for male supremacy fostered through the church and it’s long influence on Western culture.
However, simply acknowledging the sex of God’s son, or his avatar doesn’t justify automatic assumption of male elevation. For men, spiritual identity is tied to service in the form of conformity to the doctrine of the Christ. While men may find a model for identity in the character of the son of the God, according to the books of the new testament, figure had no sexual life. This absence leaves no spiritual connection between the masculine body and the divine.
The Christ is sexless; presumptively masculine, but never actually engaging in any activity unique to his masculine body.
This stands in contrast with the story of the Virgin Mary. She, unlike the Christ, was a human woman who had a relationship with the divine mediated through her own feminine physicality. The Virgin conceived, gestated, gave birth and nursed the Infant Jesus. Absent a human father, Mary’s conception, pregnancy and birth of God’s avatar on Earth are all deeply and supernaturally rooted in the female body. As the mother of the Christ, Mary was the one human being who came closest to God.
The implicit stricture of making the female body the vessel of Holy Spirit while offering no corresponding connection between the divine and the male body creates a spiritual caste system with women on top and men on the bottom. But this is not the only or even the worst form of virulent misandry in Christianity.
The birth of Christ is without sin because, quite simply, it did not involve a penis. The entire mythology around the birth of Christ implicitly indicts male sexuality as the vector of original sin from generation to generation. This is not explicitly stated, but the conclusion is inescapable.
Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) was a principal theologian and philosopher of the early Christianity, and credited with responsibility for the merging of Greek philosophical tradition with Judeo-Christian religious and scriptural traditions[1]. A seminal member of the early church, Augustine denigrated male sexual desire and turned the Fascinus[2] into the demon rod.
“the organ was a lever of sin: “the demon rod.” Semen itself was a toxic glue, effectively damning both men and women to a state of sin, a neat one-two punch that rendered sex dirty by definition. Erections were less spiritual highs than demonic jolts, an interpretation that was to ripple through much of Western culture.”[3]
Augustine’s wrote City of God to discredit and undermine existing pagan traditions which did not denigrate male sexuality and were in direct competition with the Church for the hearts and minds of the citizens of Rome. In City of God he stated:
“when sexual intercourse is spoken of now, it suggests to men’s thoughts not such a placid obedience to the will as is conceivable in our first parents, but such violent acting of lust as they themselves have experienced.”[4]
Forget Eve. Forget the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the Serpent. If all human women, tomorrow, conceived and gestated and gave birth without ever coming into contact with a penis, our race would be purged of original sin.
Would anyone care to speculate where Radical Feminists got their ideas from?
Indeed even mainstream feminists cling to their insistence in blaming all the world’s ills on men. Not just patriarchal oppression, but domestic violence, rape, child abuse, war, financial crises; all original sin can be laid at the feet of men. Or their penises.
In Christianity a woman’s experience of her body’s uniquely feminine characteristics (sans male influence) brings her closer to God; a man’s experience of his body’s uniquely masculine characteristics drives him into damnation.
By contrast, the pagan traditions displaced by Abrahamic monotheism provided a path to spirituality for men and women through the experience of their own bodies. Women, quite obviously had then, and still retain a naturalistic spiritual identity as creators of life through the act of childbirth. This is preserved in the mythology of the Virgin Mary. But in most pagan traditions, men also have a connection to the divine through their own bodies, semen and the penis itself were both seen as symbols of divine generative power. It is this aspect of the spiritual masculine which is excised by the mythology of the Church.
“We speak of things which are now shameful, and although we try, as well as we are able, to conceive them as they were before they became shameful, [...] For since that which I have been speaking of was not experienced even by those who might have experienced it—I mean our first parents (for sin and its merited banishment from Paradise anticipated this passionless generation on their part)—when sexual intercourse is spoken of now, it suggests to men’s thoughts not such a placid obedience to the will as is conceivable in our first parents, but such violent acting of lust as they themselves have experienced.”[4]
Christ, the asexual model of male virtue did have a female disciple, specifically Mary Magdelen. However, the gospel of Mary although it exists today in fragmentary form, was excluded from cannon. The gospel of Thomas, also excluded mentions that Mary was the favored and closest disciple of the figure we know as Jesus. Why then would the testament of both Mary and Thomas be omitted? If Christ had a scripturally acknowledged intimate relationship with a woman, this might represent a recognition of the acceptability of male sexuality.
Our culture’s war against masculine identity, male sexuality and fatherhood is an old one. That war arguably began as we adopted a faith which marginalizes the role of men in procreation, idolizing a story that removes them completely from the process. The exemplar of male virtue in this theology is a man who had no natural sexual expression, although his character is designated as male. And his primary purpose was to be flogged, literally tortured for the “crimes” of others, and then bound and nailed through his limbs, still alive to an erected cruciform scaffold, to die from shock and exposure on a hilltop. And we somehow manage to claim that this religion elevates men over women?
Rather than supremacy, Christianity provides to men the role of asexual stewards of women’s benefit, and sacrificial penitent, preaching the gospel of a female-deifying, male-demonizing faith. It is true that women have not historically been allowed to front this farce, but mostly because that would make the message too obvious.
But we continue to ignore all of this, and we entertain the farce that our religious institutions constitute a male-elevating, female oppressing patriarchy.
Yeah, tell us another one.
[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/
[2] the phallus was seen as the bridge between man and the creative force of divinity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascinus
2 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
ErnestoGuevara:
Paul Elam:
ER:
aimeemcgee:
Religion isn’t patriarchy. Patriarchy, in the REAL definition, is “A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.”
That’s the first definition on google, the second one is the feminist bullshit. Patriarchy is essentially a blood-line. We’ve never had that in western society, except maybe some of the Native Americans.
Interesting article, and brings points I hadn’t considered (as much as I’m loathe to admit, actually being Catholic, mostly Catholic, and all). A few points, though. Some of this applies specifically to the Catholic Church, which isn’t interchangeable with Christianity. There are Christian denominations which do accept female leaders.
Also, Jesus was both fully human, and fully divine. The Virgin Mary, however, was fully human, and only human. She, according to Catholic doctrine, was conceived without sin (the Immaculate Conception refers to her conception, not Jesus’, a misconception that is often brought up as a misconception often enough that I’m not sure how much of a true misconception it is). She also lived, and died sinless, something no other human managed. Additionally, because she was sinless, she was assumed whole into Heaven, according to Church teaching. The question is why the Church still promotes Mary’s virtue, and doesn’t hide, nor diminish it.
Additionally, God has been referred to in motherly terms, and as a female entity in the Bible, though current Church teaching is that God is without sex nor gender, and the use of a masculine pronoun is merely our of linguistic convenience of pronoun use, and because “it” would sound wrong.
As for the bit about mythology, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. Seriously though, aside from agreements to disagreements on the theological truth, the article is quite fair, while still saying what needed to be said in criticism.
I would be interested to know where in the Bible it refers to God as being female in any sense?
That’s the first I have heard of that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caWKrZwA2Zc
Jump to 9:15
I should add that the video is a religious video and not really of interest to MRA’s. The video does claims that god is androgynous based on the Hebrew word for god
I was raised Mormon (surprising, huh?), and the chief criticism I heard of my church growing up was that it was sexist. The LDS hierarchy is organized quite differently from other churches; in ours, our clergy are not paid for their church duties, and earn their living through day jobs. The reason we can manage this is because all males in our church over the age of twelve (if they’ve been living the commandments) are appointed to priesthood offices. Now, of course feminists are gonna seize on this, saying “Look! You’re giving all men so much power, and women none!”
The fallacy here, of course, is that dividing power that much amongst so many men dilutes it pretty much to the point of non-existence. As for refuting the charge of misogyny? The proof is in the pudding. Men in the LDS church, even those who hold priesthood offices and carry out their duties efficiently and enthusiastically, are still treated like scum. They’re still told how perverted, stupid, lazy, and worthless they are. And if such men aren’t married? Well, it’s a thousand times worse, for lack of a good metaphor.
Feminists REALLY need to learn the difference between theory and practice.
But it’s not good in theory either.
That’s not the problem. The problem is deliberately grasping at straws to justify “the vision”.
Not the “vision” the actual “results”. It is a potential framework to explain how misandry could take hold so easily.
Christianity (and Christendom, historically the current west) would certainly be more vulnerable to Feminism if in essence they stole and co-opted some of its ideas.
Another one two combo from JTO and TB! Concise and sensible. I am a recovering Catholic. I have wondered how the parable of Jesus and his teachings fit into the feminist dogma. I know I never really liked it. It never sat well with me. Pissed me off actually. Since I was a boy i have always preferred the Norse/Germanic myths. I have studied many philosophies and religions in my 40 years here on Midgard. Keep coming back to the “pagan” myths. They just make sense to me on so many levels.
Christianity to this man means sex bad carrying someone else’s burden good! Even if it costs you your freedom and ultimately your life. Shut up and go out there and die like a good boy should. Take shit from others (domestic violence) turn the other cheek and take it again. Fuck all that and the donkey you rode in on!
Great article TB and JtO.
In most of history, and Robert St Estephes work shows this in abundance, where men get put somewhere as the “head”, it is usually in terms of responsibilities.
For the most part, the supposed benefits, if they materialised at all, would not compensate for the responsibilities.
Men, being the “head” of the family, had to provide for as well as protect his family. The upside was that he got the big chair. Whoop de doo.
Feminists would find patriarchy anything, so its not surprising that they see it in religion. Just ignore all of the parts that revere, pamper, protect, serve and idolise women, and there it is.
“Our culture’s war against masculine identity, male sexuality and fatherhood is an old one.”
You guys are spot on, as usual.
Yeah, the ‘big chair’ means he is in the firing line!
All who have heard the name Joseph Campbell know he was the leading scholarly authority on myth and religion in the world. The following excerpt from an interview with him by Bill Moyers:
MOYERS: There are women today who say that the spirit of the Goddess has been in exile for five thousand years, since the –
CAMPBELL: You can’t put it that far back, five thousand years. She was a very potent figure in Hellenistic times in the Mediterranean, and she came back with the Virgin in the Roman Catholic tradition. You don’t have a tradition with the Goddess celebrated any more beautifully and marvelously than in the twelfth- and thirteenth-century French cathedrals, every one of which is called Notre Dame.
MOYERS: Yes, but all of those motifs and themes were controlled by males — priests, bishops — who excluded women, so whatever the form might have meant to the believer, for the purpose of power the image was in the hands of the dominant male figure.
CAMPBELL: You can put an accent on it that way, but I think it’s a little too strong because there were the great female saints. Hildegarde of Bingen — she was a match for Innocent III. And Eleanor of Aquitaine — I don’t think there is anybody in the Middle Ages who has the stature to match hers. One now can look back and quarrel with the whole situation, but the situation of women was not that bad by any means.
MOYERS: No, but none of those saints would ever become pope.
CAMPBELL: Becoming pope, that’s not much of a job, really. That’s a business position. None of the popes could ever have become the mother of Christ. There are different roles to play. It was the male’s job to protect the women.
“but none of those saints would ever become pope.”
And none of the women would ever become soldiers, either. Glass-ceiling-that-benefits-virtually-no-men, meet steel-cellar-that-benefits-most-women.
Hey, whaddya know? Joe Campbell is a absolute genius, a true renaissance…**ahem**
MAN!
Yeah, he’s a freaking MAN!
Sorry, I just wanted to put that out there…
Men are pretty fucking awesome, eh?
Absolutely Limeywestlake, the man is a giant!
Great video!
Orthodox Judaism(rather Abrahamic) is male enslavement. The first 5 books of the “Old Testament” have 613 laws. Half of them have to do with animal sacrifice. Over the years, these laws have been ‘translated’ into thousands of laws (called ‘Halachot[the 'ch' is the Heimlich consonant.]) These laws instruct you how to live your life, down to the minutia of the minutia, including how to tie your shoes – no joke.
Thing is, there are faaar more Hala*choke*ot that pertain to men, including praying 3 times a day for a total of roughly an hour and a half. My apologies if I’m offending anyone, but I came from that culture.
The high school years are an all-male boarding school(Yeshiva) where school starts at 7am and ends at 8pm. Not so for the girls. So very not fucking so. Thank the mangina gods I wasn’t raised Hassidic, however. They force their men to wear a beard-burka with multiple layers.
An interesting article from Typhonblue and JTO!
I don’t agree with your premise, but you did raise some interesting points.
I am a practicing Catholic and see nothing to recover from. So, with my very limited knowledge, I shall try to put my few points together in some form of intelligent argument. But I do have some questions also.
Please forgive any bumbling and tripping over my tongue, I live off of pain medication, which plays havoc with my brain and thought processes sometimes.
You make assumptions that Jesus was essentially ‘asexual’.
Where did you get that idea from?
Where is it in The Bible and in Catholic Church tradition that states He was asexual?
I hope you haven’t fallen victim to the fallacy and garbage written by Dan Brown?
Also, Mary of Magdala was not a girlfriend (as stated by Brown) of Jesus or his closest companion. Saint John, who was the youngest of the Apostles and who is the one seen with his head resting on Jesus’ breast in the picture of the Last Supper, was the one who was closest to Jesus. Also, Jesus had very many female disciples. There were hundreds of disciples, both men and women. However, He only had 12 Apostles, whom He ordained as the first Bishops, who would then be charged with walking the long roads of this world spreading the Good News and ordaining Priests to help in this task.
There were 11 (plus 1 more later) Apostles. The Church only published the Gospels that were written by or for only 4 of the Apostles. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.
As Mateusz says, it was Mary who was ‘conceived’ without original sin, not Jesus.
Jesus is God Incarnate. So there is no question as to Him being born without sin. It is an oxymoron to suggest otherwise. I think oxymoron is the word I need to use here???
Jesus being the second person of the Trinity, where all 3 members have existed since before time, cannot be considered under the question of whether or not He was born of sin.
He is God, before conception, during pregnancy and post birth. So there is no classification we can put that under, only to say that he required a ‘Clean vessel’ (without the stain of original sin) within which to place Himself, to come forth into this world as one of us. And because ‘man’ was not created to carry out this task of clothing a Soul in flesh, He had to do it in the obvious manner.
This does however have many connotations for women, which are deliberately overlooked by feminists. The most powerful human symbol of that time was the Mother of Christ. A woman!
Even St. Peter, who was the first Pope and head of the Universal Church of Jesus Christ, would seek counsel and blessings from this lowly woman who gave birth to God incarnate.
Whether or not St. Peter ‘needed’ to seek counsel, is something I do not know. But the truth is, Mary was there for several decades helping to establish this infant Church and was consulted very often.
None of these things are written in the Bible, because they needed to make the book easy to carry around. To write the whole thing out, would give you volumes that would fill………well, a library.
The Bible only tells a small amount of the information necessary for one to grow in faith and knowledge. Much of this information is available to Catholics who wish to study further.
Protestant religions, base their faith and religions on the book they call the Bible, which is a pale, watered down version of ‘THE Bible’, as handed down through tradition and writings for much more than 2 thousand years.
Religions that base their whole existence on an altered document, only have that altered document to rely on, for them to believe. In some respects, they have been cheated out of information. But that’s my opinion!
The Bible has little information regarding the mother of Christ. She was bodily preserved from the age of 33. From what we are told, she died of a natural death in her 90s, but was assumed body and soul, alive, into Heaven. This is my understanding, but could be a bit off track with some of those facts, so don’t quote me.
If you take the premise at the point of Jesus’ life that you have suggested above and carried this story though in the light of misandry and servitude to women, then you will naturally come to the conclusion you have reached. I believe you have gone way off the mark and that your conclusion has only some resemblance to the truth. There are areas where I can see your point and feel that it could be construed as being true.
Now, I am not saying that the Catholic Church, moreover, the physical public entity we see as the Catholic Church, is perfect. It’s far from it!
The Catholic Church itself as an entity is perfect and protected by God, as promised by Jesus, when He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. He told Peter that the gates of the underworld will not hold out against His Church. (my words from memory)
Jesus told St. John (Apocalypse) that Satan would infiltrate to the very heights of His Church. Yep, Satan has pretty much sat in all seats within this church, to carry out his evil deeds, and this includes to aid and abet the spread of radical feminism throughout the world.
To also cause much damage to men and boys, when many homosexuals infiltrated the Church post the 1960s and proceeded to abuse men and boys. These homosexual priests are criminals and will be duly dealt with by God when they stand before Him at their judgment.
There are many things that can be said about the roles of men and women in the Church. But those who are actually orthodox Catholics, and there are few today, will know that women and men both (collectively and individually) play a pivotal role in the survival of the Faith and there is no issue with regard misogyny or misandry. They each know their place, and there is no need to debate it. I don’t feel qualified enough to debate the questions behind your article/post with regard the roles played by both any further than that.
All I know is that it was Jesus who chose men to be Priests, and He showed them by example, how He wanted them to live. The women, who followed Jesus, mostly lived the same way. Many had no family and worked for the Church till they died. This tradition followed on for the next 2 thousand years, but today, many of the female religious orders have been overrun by radical feminists.
I hope I have been able to put some intelligent things down in this post. Forgive me if some bits don’t add up. As I said, my medication affected brain, sometimes causes me problems. And I know it can easily be picked to pieces. So please be gentle!
Thanks.
God can do anything right? If I was god, and wanted to come to earth in human form, I reckon I’d skip the whole womb thing, infant, childhood, all that waste of time, and I’d just cast myself onto earth in the form of a man. No messing around, just get the main event. But I could think of better things to do anyway…..how about a giant head floating in the sky…..like the sun, but bigger…..looking down on you like big bro……speaking out with a big booming voice. But then, I wouldn’t have made this species with all it’s built in faults and flaws. I’d just have made them to be perfect if that’s what I wanted them to be. If you manufacture something shitty and with faults, especially if you could have done better……you got no business blaming the product for having those faults.
Yeah, I get your point Stu, but God didn’t blame the product He made, for having those faults. Not at all!
That is why He sent Jesus to die on the cross to pay the debt we owe for us. The debt was death, because there was a blood covenant broken. And we humans had no way of paying that debt, no matter how many of us died.
The cause of this whole problem is the result of war. This war has been raging since long before Adam was a boy, so to speak.
When you have the most perfect, illuminated and highest angel defying God, his creator, and you then have this other angel (St. Michael) from way down the ranks calling for justice, then rising up and with the power of God, slams this renegade angel and his followers onto the earth like a lightening bolt, then I guess you can kind of believe Satan’s curses and threats that he will try to destroy the human race and take all souls into hell with him.
It’s war my friend and we are stuck right in the middle of it.
The church translates the word of jahweh. The church and the state disseminate the translated word to the masses. These entities essentially become God in the minds and hearts of the population. So the church state God strikes down the most powerful beautiful godlike angel in effect intimidating the population. Well its not working. I am the lightbringer incarnate. I am the evening star. Knowledge will prevail. All I need to succeed is time. Besides its better to rule in hell than serve in heavan!
I’ve always been partial to the big hand coming out of a cloud, with the pointing blaming finger..
‘Who dunnit, M’lord?’
“The most powerful human symbol of that time was the Mother of Christ. A woman!”
Exactly, Shrek!!
Sex is not sinful. Sex is connecting with the divine. Sex is reaffirming the love for ones partner. Christianity takes that away. This gives significant control of the population to the church. That is evil. True sexual liberty and power taken away from individuals creates cognitive dissonance and self destructive tendencies. Welcome to the matrix!
A very good article – I’ve been a lot thinking recently how, while feminists complain that female bodies are seen primarily in terms of sex and inspiring sexual desire, it seems to me men’s bodies are seen as “violence objects”, our manhood defined by how well we dish out, but mostly how we absorb, violence. This has come from reading criticism of the way women are portrayed compared to men in superhero comics, and listening to female acquaintances discussing soccer and rugby players, and definitely preferring the rugby players. The difference between the portrayal of Jesus and Mary is one I hadn’t thought of, but illustrates it very well indeed.
On the point of Jesus being sexless though. We all know the famous scene from John 12 where the disciples catch Mary Magdalene anointing Jesus’ feet with expensive perfume and wiping them with her hair. The disciples are shocked, because the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor, but Jesus rebukes them and defends her on the grounds that there’ll always be poor people. I’ve always found this an odd scene, until I read that the Old Testament often uses “feet” as a “displaced metaphor” for the genitals.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Since this article is a tough one for me to comment on, I reserve the right to read it and move on. But I also reserve the right to comment on your post.
“As it is, you’ve further alienated all serious Christians from the MRM”
It is my opinion that which I just quoted from you is your opinion only.
Read up some more on the MRM.
I think that “serious Christians” feel the same pain of a female-biased paternity ruling, a princess’ entitlement of a divorce settlement’s material possessions, the same stinging blow to the face by an abusive woman (who will probably not go to jail for it), as well as the job they lost to an unqualified feminist to fill a gender quota….(etc. etc)…..as those much less “serious Christians”
Or GOD forbid….those ‘blasphemous’ Athiests. (most of my friends)
I am a Catholic on both sides of my family. (I have a pretty well-known important one, as a relative)
I’m here.
Ain’t leavin’ either.
Izzey
“you’ve further alienated all serious Christians from the MRM.”
So suddenly misandry doesn’t exist?
Aeneas, that is, if you don’t mind me saying so, a rather feminist way of responding: appealing to an ideal form of your ideology rather than the one we observe existing in the real world, and refusing to engage with others unless they first defer to your ideology.
JTO and Typhon, perhaps you can add the assumption that others will walk on eggshells to avoid them taking offence as another way religion encourages traditionally feminine behaviour.
What do you mean “Further” alienated all serious Christians from the MRM. Were they already on the outer and this pushed them over the edge. Seriously?
I would suggest to you Aeneas that you make a point of your objection to the article, get involved and tell us what your objection is. You will find here that you will get fair and robust debate. Make your point. I have never seen you on this site, and I am betting I never see you again, prove me wrong. If you are a true MRA you would be here arguing and debating, not just making a snide remark. We have here on this site extremes from both left and right, and religious to atheists. But even though we disagree on many things we all are here to improve the lot of Fathers and their children. If you are serious,stick around. if not, Fuck off, because we have no time for your delicate sensibilities.
I guess that most serious Christians wouldn’t count a liberal Friend as serious…
Not leaving
“As it is, you’ve further alienated all serious Christians from the MRM.”
So what! Good! we need more of it!We are going to alienate many more people to get the job done.
What is stopping a Christian branch of the MRM starting up?My guess is the nature of religion itself will get into the way.
I don’t normally let on – because it should be a non-issue – but the central core group at AvFM are atheists bar one or two.I suspect this is why AvFM, in it’s short life, less than two years, is so popular. This fact was not by design as such, though they say like attracts like.
Atheists (some) aren’t as prone to backing themselves into an ideological corner as the religious or people that participate with an ism.
The only way the MRM can win this battle is to question everything about everything, we must leave no stone unturned and we must not be afraid to offend, we must be prepared to be offended, not doing this will be more of the same for men and boys.
It would be better to stick to your normal behaviour because it IS a non-issue until someone brings it up like this.
Religion has been perverted by those who cannot see beyond their personal prejudices or who seek a justification for enforcing them. Horrendous crimes have been committed in the name of religion, but you need not be one of the faithful to commit horrendous crimes. Atheists bring no moral superiority to humanities failings. There are many atheists who are as fallible, intolerant and prejudiced as the rest of us (eg Kim Jong Il, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones, Benito Mussolini , Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, etc.)
I cannot easily think of any ploy that would be more damaging to the MRM than for us to be successfully cast as all atheists too (we’re already all white, rich, ultra-conservative and bitter after all.)
Thanks for your comment, though I am one of the nine down votes so far (and I seldom vote).
This website is about combating misandry, and no institution, doctrine or ideology is immune, any more than honest examination of the traits of both sexes is immune.
These are discussions we have to have irrespective of sacred cows. There is abundant misandry in the modern church, much of it stemming from long standing religious traditions.
Religious men and women are welcome here to examine those problems and look for solutions, and they need not bring religious credentials with them to have an opinion.
I appreciate that on some level most of the material on this site is difficult for most people to digest. As someone who has been forced to admit that many of my earlier beliefs in life were unsound, I understand the dissonance and frustration that causes.
My only advice is to deal with it and if you want to dissent, out of your religious beliefs or not, then by all means stay and voice those things responsibly.
But spare me the claim of alienation while you enjoy the privilege here of being a valid part of the discussion. It’s bullshit.
Religious people need to understand something .Your religion, whatever it may be, is not going to solve a damn thing for men. Ok, lets take for example the Catholic church. How many Catholics are there…1 Billion…more? Then add in all the other Christian denominations. Massive organizations, with massive resources, and huge followings. And what have they done to stop the march of feminism, and the erosion of men’s rights…….nothing. We are here, because all the other institutions in society have failed us, and even conspired with our enemies. We are not looking backwards to anything, that had it’s shot in a past, and either failed or sold out. Christians and followers of all other religions are welcome, but forget about trying to make MRM policy or behavior, or rhetoric conform to your religion, or your sensitivities, or to have your religion off the table for criticism.
Stu, I couldn’t agree with you more, but would like to add a bit more to what you say here.
I am an Orthodox Catholic and an Aussie, yet I find this blog-site to be the best thing I have had access to in a long time. I wish many more good Catholic men would come here and have their eyes opened, because if they did, they would be able to assist in many more ways, to hopefully bring about an end to this discrimination.
You need to realise that the stories out there about the Catholic church and what it believes in, are mostly hearsay and distortions.
In our history, both women and men knew their place. Yes, it has always been, even since the beginning of Mankind, that men have been the warriors and protected the women and children. I cannot see that ever changing. But I can see the abuse of men in this capacity, changing forever after this period in our history.
But go back into the early days of the Church and women not only knew their place, it was demanded of them to keep it.
And sometimes that place for women was on the battle front. There are stories of women in battle, fighting alongside men and dying with them.
Things were not back then as people want to believe they were. Many people today have little knowledge of the Catholic Faith, most especially the majority of Catholics themselves.
There maybe over a billion Catholics Stu, but most are only Cafe or Sunday Catholics and will fall be the wayside when the going gets tough. They will run!
No Stu and everyone else, the Catholic Church and Christianity, need the MRM and the MRM needs the Church.
I don’t think that many of us who are Christian, will try to force our life choice on anyone here, because we have already accepted who the rest of you are and we are not threatened by you, or in our faith, and will not give over our faith, just to remain part of this blog/group.
Thank you for your tolerance and acceptance. The MRM needs brothers from ALL walks of life, if it is to succeed!
Well as usual, I find myself in disagreement with much of what you say, but it doesn’t matter. You see shrek, I’m an atheist, which means I don’t believe in any spirits in the sky, or any supernatural beings of any kind. That means I am free in my mind, to reject anything that came from any religion, doctrine, morals, traditions, anything.
I’m actually free to wipe the slate clean of every single human practice and tradition and assumption, period. I’m capable of thinking of entirely new systems, without having to consider such things. The religious person will always, always have to reject things that are in opposition to their religious beliefs. And they can’t do that without abandoning their religion can they?
So there is always going to objection to views expressed in the MRM on the grounds that those views are not in line with others morality etc. The non religious will be having these little arguments with the religious all the time. The religious often seem to be offended by atheists lack of respect for their beliefs, but what about religions lack of respect for our beliefs.
For example, nearly all religions condemn people who live my life, to hellfire and brimstone. I can have an argument with a religious person and disagree strongly on things, but I don’t have this attitude that this other person is miserable excuse of a human being that will be rejected by god and sent to hell to burn forever because they don’t live by my rules or adopt my preferences in lifestyles.
So before any religious people bitch about a lack of respect for your opinions, they need to remember that their very religion has no respect for the beliefs of many of the people on these sites, and in fact, you worship a spirit in the sky that will send me to hell to burn forever.
You understand where I’m coming from? Can you see why I don’t want to engage in religious talk? I just don’t want to hear about this god that hates me and wants me to burn forever anymore than a Jew wants to have people telling him what a great guy Hitler is.
By the way, when I said I find myself in disagreement often, I meant only with the religious stuff.
The thing I find odd the most, is that you don’t see that I am not in disagreement with you. Obviously, I am not saying this the right way.
And no, I am not interested in having a religious discussion with you or anyone else on this site, because I am not here for that.
I have made some statements and added my points of view into this document/post, because it was filled with ignorance and a fairly silly argument that I felt compelled to make a statement on. That is the only reason I commented.
Surely, I have the right to comment on an issue I do know a little about? It was not me who raised the issue!
Outside of that, I am not offended by what you may or may not think of me or my Catholic Faith. I fully respect your position and your choices.
As for the ‘religious’ people you claim who condemn you for your way of life. I whole heartedly agree with you. They have no right to condemn you or anyone else.
This is why I said that the vast majority of these so-called perfect people who call themselves Christian, are nothing of the sort. They are charlatans!
Please re-read my other response in a different light and you will see my point.
You and I may be at opposite ends of the room when it comes to believing in God, but Mate, when it comes to the hell on this earth that has beset us by seething harridans, we are in the same boat. And I have been in that damn boat for 25 stinking years.
And NO, I have had not one ounce of help from my religion either, because the public or human face of it, is over run with feminists. They are a disease and have caused shipwreck to the Church like some foul cancer.
I am here for the long haul, just as I have been in the MRM now for at least 10 years and although I am a practicing Catholic, I am not afraid to call a ‘spade a spade’ when i find it necessary.
You see Mr. Stu, I am also free to choose my own path and am free to think for myself, which is precisely what I do everyday, without being dictated to by some false religion!
Yes I realize you aren’t one of the people that I’m talking about. I’m talking about the people who come in here, or already are here, who jump and complain and demand we protect their feelings every time someone rights an article or makes a comment that criticizes their religion.
To me it just shows that the majority of believers, including the clergy, right up to the level of Pope, don’t really……really and truly believe they have anything in the holy scriptures but a collection of fairly tales and opinions…..of human beings…not god.
If this was not true, they would have absolutely zero tolerance for feminists and manginas gradually twisting things around until their religion means nothing anymore. What has happened is pretty much like a debate. We have God, and his angels on one side of the room, and the feminists on the other. God puts his views forward about what is what. Then the feminists say, God is wrong, blah blah blah. And the clergy and are the home viewers who dial in to vote. They voted for the feminists. Insane right…….well….not if you don’t really believe in God.
“The religious person will always, always have to reject things that are in opposition to their religious beliefs. And they can’t do that without abandoning their religion can they?”
I have seen *almost* as much dogma and doctrinaire statements of “fact” from atheists as I have from theists.
I have also seen many religious people reject the doctrines of their religious leaders out of hand when they disagree with them on a personal level.
Representatives of the catholic church ordered their followers not to watch the Da Vinci Code and were disobeyed in mass with sold out showings in predominately catholic countries like Italy, Spain and Mexico. They similarly ignore demands that they not use contraception.
Religious people who are not fanatics can separate the dogma from the true teachings, and atheists can have “faith” in the fact (ie dis-Belief) that God does not exist which is every bit as dogmatic as the most fundamental of Christians and persecute believers as much as religious fanatics persecute non-believers.
I am naming Stu religious editor of AVfM.
Seriously, this is a perfect description. The only thing I would add is that I probably need to be more mindful of anti-religious content on the site. Or rather content that actually is alienating or gratuitously insulting to men of faith. I don’t see this article that way, though.
There is nothing about challenging the misandry practiced in religious organizations (and it is there by the truckload) that is intended to alienate men of faith, and it is vital we do so as much as anywhere else.
Karma brings up an interesting point by asking where are the Christian arms of the MRM. There should be, and we would support their mission.
In the meantime we will do our best here to maintain AVfM as an organization that alienates no one that is interested in combating misandry.
However, if you religious beliefs lend you to assuming no one can critique your particular brand of faith as it relates to the well being of men and boys, then you will likely alienate yourself.
Agree with you 100% Paul. There is a huge amount of misandry in the Church that must be challenged and I am happy for you to do so.
I would however, like to be able to make comment on issues regarding my own faith, especially if they are way off the mark. I am also very happy to agree with truthful criticisms, because there are too many to hide.
Stupid to say the bad things never happened!
Yeah but you know Paul can comment on the misandry in the church until he’s blue in the face, it wont change anything. My advice to men of faith, who find misandry and chivalry, and manginaism dominating their church, is the same advice I tell men to tell women who want marriage and kids and all that stuff. No, and walk away, and tell them why.
The changes in the church have to made by the men in the church. They aren’t going to listen to us.
It occurs to me that on a women’s website there would be no such discussion about religion. Women don’t care about ideas and don’t deal in ideas. They know which side their bread is buttered on and they will lie or tell the truth or express agreement or disagreement as fits their ideology.
Jack, not all women eschew ideas. There is a few of us who value reason over emotion…and some of us even read and post here!
“The Christ is sexless; presumptively masculine, but never actually engaging in any activity unique to his masculine body.”
This is a sensitive subject as several members here are Christian. I don’t want to join the ranks of atheists who take pleasure in ridiculing Christian beliefs, or further, claiming that atheists own the MRM. With that disclaimer out of the way I think JTOs question about the acceptability of the male reproductive body in the Christian tradition is very interesting indeed.
Mary did not have sex- she was unsullied by any male penis, and God impregnated her without engaging in sexual intercourse. I suppose this has some semblance to artificial insemination practiced by today’s women in which intercourse is not involved. Add to this that Jesus is always portrayed without any penis (ie, grape leaves instead) and we have an indication that the Christian tradition is not “penis-freindly”. Contrast this with Greco-Roman religion and culture which saw young virgins enthusiastically kissing the erect penises of public statues of male gods (eg. Hermes) in order to bring them luck in finding a suitable male partner. Males likewise paid homage to female genitalia in their search for a mate.
Not that I would preference Pagan over Christian, but more to note the differences in attitude toward male body/sexuality. It appears that the Bible and Christian tradition is not welcoming of the male body in comparison to Mary’s womb-body, which is very welcome indeed.
Apologies to my Christian friends if this sounds irreverent, but I believe JTO has made at least one valid observation here.
No need to apologise Tarwil, much of what you say is in history for all to see.
There are pictures used in the Catholic Faith, that depict Jesus as having a penis. Obviously, the penis is not on show but clothed, which is what would be expected.
And just for the record, although I am a practicing Catholic, I am not going to take offense to anyone wishing to disagree with my beliefs or the existence of God. It’s not my place to counsel anyone who holds fast to their own beliefs. I can state mine and if that is respected by others, then I will respect their points of view also.
PS. TyphonBlue- apologies for omitting your name from the above… I associate critiques of Christianity with JTOs style so I briefly forgot your role in crafting this article. In fact the article is more nuanced than JTOs usual pieces (no offense JTO) which I assume arises from the fact that its a collaborative effort.
Love your writings TB,
I reckon it was just sexism
Why is the penis considered dirty in the Bible? I wash mine dailey. Seriously it is just more misandry. The womb has the stinkiest dampest entrance of any orifice on the body. Especially during a woman’s period. The church is just kissing women’s assess for money and control of the population. Just like companies do with advertising and politicians do for votes. Women are easily manipulated by compliments. Remember Eddie Haskell from Leave it to Beaver?!?
Well, there has so far been a lot of interesting discussion regarding religion so far on this thread, and I do mean interesting, many people here have great knowledge on the subject. My personal view is that religion is a waste of time, but as I say that is my own personal opinion, and I believe in live and let live.
My question is, with the western world having many powerful religions, the catholic church being probably the biggest, what have they done to stop the rampant feminism that has engulfed the western world in the last 50 years?
Which religion has stood up for men and boys to stop the horrendous laws that victimize us.
Which religion has stood up to feminist g,ment after g,ment, and lobbied to stop these terrible laws which have effectively rendered the sanctity of their sacred marriage as useleuss
The way I see it, none of them have, because the religious IS the political, and none of them had the guts to stand up for what was right, lest they lose some followers.
That is one reason that I despise all religious denominations, because as powerful as they can be, they have been pathetic when it comes to what they claim to be their main game, that is peace and good will to all men.
Yes, what have they done to stop it. They were a lot more powerful and popular 50 years ago then they are today, yet they failed, if they ever tried. So all these people who think the answer to men’s probs has any sort of solution in religion are pretty much barking up the wrong tree with the possible exception of Islam, because that’s about the only religion that has stood its ground against feminism…..more or less anyway.
In fact, anyone who thinks that the answer lies anywhere in the past is kidding themselves. The recipes of the past don’t work anymore. You try to bake a marriage, you end up with divorce, child support, alimony, etc. Same with defacto. Commitment works one way, women are free to end any relationship anytime without cost, and often with profit. So commitment anything is bullshit too. Same with monogamy, worked once, but it’s dead now. Women think they want it, and a few years after they have it, they will have a never ending plague of headaches, and will lay in bed at night hoping you don’t feel like sex. Even if they stay faithful, who wants to be with a women past your use by date. And being monogamous just exasperates her hypergamy instincts to move on anyway, because you become the obstacle to her. Better not to even enter into these arrangements to start with.
What we need is Stu’s four no’s. No marriage, no defacto, no kids, no monogamy. Then we renegotiate the new deal. Couples enter into legally binding agreements for the purposes of having and raising kids together….and that is it. She gets no say at all in your personal life, and you none in hers. Just a straight contract, legally binding, and punishable for breaches of contract. You’re free to do as you like with your money, your property, your income, and each partner in the child raising contract is entirely responsible for providing their end of the deal themselves. No legal right to acquire anything off the other partner outside of that at all.
I reckon any sort of going back to past arrangements is just going back to being slaves.
Sorry I don’t agree with you there. The problem for you is that Religion stands up for things that you don’t necessarily agree with. When the church stands up against abortion or contraception in the case of the Roman Church what do we hear people say. What business is it of yours on these issues. For the most part people of any religious affiliation if they choose to act on conscience they are told flat out to shut up that you don’t have any right to act according to your religion when it comes to business with me. As it is with certain individuals in the medical profession that will refuse to perscribe conceptives or despence them because of religious convictions. Do you truly believe that the state of marriage is what it is today because those in public office have listened to the Churches on this? No they haven’t. I have said it in the past and I will say it again, yes there are areas that the Chruches have to grapple with issues that affect men in such a negitive way, to try and protect and help guid society in a direction where both men and women are equally protected within the framework of their own theology.
Hey I could also say what has the men before me done to try and avert what we face as men today in our society but what are we going to do play the blame game or try and do something about it. The Roman Chruch has started to do just that to confront some of these radical feminists that have found their way into some of their religious sisterhoods. They are starting to wake up to this themselves.
Hi Fr Bob
“The problem for you is that Religion stands up for things that you don’t necessarily agree with. When the church stands up against abortion or contraception in the case of the Roman Church what do we hear people say”
I didn’t mention anything about what I agree or disagree with regarding religion, and I certainly did not mention abortion or contraception. But if I read what you are saying correctly, that is that every time the church speaks out about their beliefs that they are shouted down. Sorry, I don’t accept that as an excuse for allowing these terrible laws and their application to greatly affect Fathers and their children without a peep from the religions that have Marriage and Family as one of their staple beliefs.
“Do you truly believe that the state of marriage is what it is today because those in public office have listened to the Churches on this? No they haven’t”
Absolutely not, I have no doubt that the situation, from the churches point of view is terrible. Simply because Marriage has been turned into an institution to be avoided, on pain of emotional trauma, financial ruin and sometimes death.
I am not blaming religion for the current state, I am wondering where they were to fight back when these feminists started to destroy the Family. That is my issue.
“Hey I could also say what has the men before me done to try and avert what we face as men today in our society but what are we going to do play the blame game or try and do something about it.”
No doubt about that, no disagreement from me on that statement. The church were not the only ones to sit on their hands. We all have some responsibility, at least those of us who are a bit older. If as you say the Roman Church is starting to confront some of these issues and wake up to themselves, then I applaud that. I would say it is about time, but it is never too late, and so I welcome it.
Right on. Time to roll out some pagan mythology. More practical. No church no dogma. No social pressure to subscribe to a particular faith. More awareness of good and bad sides of men and women. Being aware of and appreciating the natural world around us.
Retraction, I said
“That is one reason that I despise all religious denominations”
I retract that statement, despise is too hard a word, let me just say that I am extremely disappointed in all religious denominations.
I will save my despise for the radical feminists, those who really deserve it. Those who I really do despise.
One only has to visit a church and survey who actually attends (and gives money) each Sunday. 85% of attendees are women of which the vast majority are over 55 years old. If the church was as patriarchal as feminists would have us believe, women would simply refuse to attend and refuse to donate.
The simple conclusion is that women want a man to lead their group. Women instinctively know that a woman-led organization leads to vicious bitching, and only having a man at the top yields effectively leadership. This is true of church, business, and all other groups.
Hardcore feminists don’t see this yet, but eventually they will, and at this point feminism will morph into a social movement to have women at all positions of power except for the top layer. Women worldwide will begin to favor polygamy as a woman will convince herself it is better to have a share of one alpha male with several other women, than to have an entire beta male to herself.
The worst part is that MRAs don’t realize yet, that their strategies and tactics to end feminism will end in polygamy to the benefit alpha males.
“… only having a man at the top yields effectively leadership”
The question men an women alike could ask themselves is “would they trust a woman with the Nuclear Briefcase?”. An truthful answer would be that no one would. Never mind the man with his finger on the Red Button was corrupt or incompetent. A corrupt or incompetent man is still better than a woman in this case.
Regarding the question of why the RC church did nothing to nip feminism in the bud, the answer might be that the priesthood was never into women so they didn’t bear the brunt. What’s it to a (celibate) priest or bishop if divorced women get to keep the family home?
Bertrand Russel was asked what he would have to say if he had to appear before God after his death and God asked him why he hadn’t believed in Him. Russel answered : “not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!”. Religion is one of the reasons many MRAs don’t want an alliance with the political right. If you want to do God, go the whole hog: go Muslim!
Yes, if she was a genuine woman with motherly instincts that expanded to the whole of humanity – I’d definitely trust her. But there are no such women running for office that I’d trust with that. They are vicious feminazis.
And your statement about Islam is sad to hear. As a Muslim, I must protest.
Yes, have the male as the leader – but that also occurred during much of our chivalrous past. The men turned out to prioritise the interests of women far above their own agenda. They were just figureheads for male disposability.
As far as the Bible is concerned, there are seven female prophets that are part of the scripture. One of them was a Judge and a powerful and wise influence over an entire nation (Deborah). Why were most of the Prophets male? Perhaps because few women would be willing to take up such a role, and prefer to spend time on their own comforts instead. The first wife of the Muslim Prophet (Khadijah) was a rich business woman who employed Muhammad to work for her after hearing of his honesty. He was not yet a Prophet, and thus lower status than her and the other suitors competing for her marriage interest. She then married him, and then basically gave most of her money away to the poor and also supported him financially while he went out to teach and assist the community. How many women like that exist? Hardly any. Yet, she was regarded as among the best women in Islamic history (along with the Virgin Mary).
It seems the default nature of the female is that of sin, and that it needs to be transcended. Then again, you could say the same for the male.
But that’s just my own religious point of view.
Feminism derives Christianity from the Biblical teachings of how a wife must obey her husband. God is the Father and the father is an extension of man or men. Also that women should be silent in church.
Feminists don’t really get that deep into Christianity as partiarchal. All they need is the surface stuff, quotes from Bibilical verse.
This was a very good analysis on the age old philosophy of “women good, men bad” even in institutions that are supposed to be misogynistic. There may be guides on how proper women should behave, but there is no going around the “sin of men” and the “virtues of women.” Considering how much men have done to raise society out of the cave and into prosperity, why do so many man get off on the white knight creed of “men evil; women divine”?
Secular feminists set the tone. Evangelical feminists then said I gotta get me somma dat. Hence the pretzeling of scripture and horrific exegesis that IS the backbone of evangelical feminism.
Its a little bit painful to read a pseudo analysis of Christianity written by folks who most likely are preconceived against it, but at least the article made some good points in the end.
The church follows the culture. Sometimes the church has to bend things a bit to make it fit. The church today is all about selling The Personal Jesus (TM) figurines anyway, the creator of the universe bursting with empathy and understanding of the little snowflakes and after he hears her side of the story why then every thing is fine…..he just didnt get her at first
Atheist:
“Hey god. I don’t believe you exist. Prove it. Speak to me.”
God:
“I am here.”
Former atheist:
“Wow ! You do exist then ?”
God:
“Yep.”
Former atheist:
“Tell me god. Why are you sitting back and tolerating feminism and all it’s horrors ?”
God:
(silence)
Former atheist:
“God ?”
(silence)
Former atheist:
“You there mate ?”
(Silence)
Former former atheist:
“I knew it. It was the booze talking.”
Or:
Former atheist:
“God..-You there?”
God:
“NOW what??!”
Former atheist:
(Silence.)
Kimski that is fantastic.
Can you do one with “Former god” as a character in the dialogue ?
Former Atheist:
God?
God:
Yeah?
Former atheist:
Tell me god. Why are you sitting back and tolerating feminism and all it’s horrors?
God:
What are you going on about? I gave you humans ethics, morals, and intellect to sort that out. I’m not controlling your actions. Y’all have the free will. You used that free will to fuck things up in the first place. Now use it to unfuck things.
Former atheist:
*coughs nervously* Right-o. Will get to it.
Thumbs up
To base such an arguement on Augustine what he did and what he didn’t do, I am not too sure one could come up with an end all cover all position of saying that is the Christian Church. Well for one there are many even of Augustine’s time thought he was plain wrong, and heck talk to some of the Bishops of the Orthodox Church today and you will find a good amount of them that would say that Augustine was a heretic.
The church has never looked at sex either for a man or a woman as being evil or the source of original sin. The Church has always seen sex within certain rules as being good, hence the words of the Old Testament, “Go forth and be fruitful” Genesis 9:7. The right expression of sexual relationships is within marriage according to the Church’s teaching.
Genesis 38 9 & 10
9 he spilled the semen on the ground,
10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD
Semen could not be that “toxic glue” it was something of a man that in reality to even spill in on the groung would be displeasing to God. It is the seed of life.
When it comes to certain books that didn’t make it into the canon of the New Testament there are many extra biblical books that didn’t make it in. Why because they didn’t meet the criteria set out for accepting books or rejecting them. In fact Revelations has had a rough ride there itself in and out of the canon of the New Testament a few times before it was finally accepted. Gostic writings were not acceptable for the canon of the New Testament as the Gospels of Mary Magdalene and Thomas were both Gostic writings, they could not be allowed in.
I see that yes there are areas where the Church has to grapple with and something that my activism has headed especially when it come to the care and well being of men. But the arguements here especailly concerning masculinity and the church I am sorry I can’t see it. Based on a man that saw his own vocation to include celebacy therefore anything to distact him from that he would see as evil, but that was his calling. That was his order in the life of the Church. What is forgotten here though is that there is also the calling to be a parent ie a father yes with in a marriage but that too is seen as a sacrament and through his sexuality mixed with his wife’s the fruit of that sacrament in their sacramental life is more life in the new born. What feminism has done is to distroy this institution so much so that it is now a dangerious risk for men to enter. This is where I see the Chruch needs to do some work as they are operating as agents of the state when they do marry a couple they have to re-evaluate where and what it needs to do to get to a place to protect both within that marriage as best as can be in light of the new circumstances that we find ourselves in today.
The writing of the scripture falls under the heading “making this shit up as we go along” section of the bookstore. Also known simply as religion. People debate the scripture and get nowhere. I don’t give two shits about the content of any religious text until it is used as justification for unsavory behavior. Oh yeah I sleep great at night.
In Japan there are countless local festivals centering around the theme of fertility which celebrate the image of the phallus. There you can see phallic sculptures, buy phallic symbols, and perhaps even get to eat a phallus cookie! Foreign tourists are amused by these festivals – if not slightly repulsed. I really wish that the phallus was more often celebrated as a symbol of fertility in the West, rather than only demonizing male sexuality and disproportionately elevating the sanctity of female fertility.
You mean this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C5%8Dnen_Matsuri
Lets introduce praise of the phallus (ie. praise of maleness) to Western Countries.
We in the men’s movement should use the penis as our symbol. Phallocentrism meets gynocentrism. We could even create our own Penis Monologues just to FTSU, and show the world we are not ashamed of having man-bumps. I think Dr. F might be the man to work up such a monologue…. hows about it Dr. F?
I wish I could give you more upvotes on that comment, Tawil. What an absolutely brilliant idea.
@Dr.F:
Here’s another little nugget for you.
Kimski thank you.
Very funny indeed.
Priceless! That can serve as our very own penis dialogues. Lol
That is but one of them. There are more!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanamara_Matsuri
However, I have also been to a shrine in Kyoto which celebrates vaginas and sells vagina coins as lucky charms. Still, if either reproductive organ has been traditionally more celebrated in Japan, it is the Phallus! Heck, even the long noses of the “tengu” are said to be phallic symbols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengu
Mr Tawil,
Your fine post has me flushed with interest and you might like to know that “The Penis Monologues” has been crafted and uploaded by Adam Abels here on Artists Against Misandry.
http://www.artistryagainstmisandry.com/upload/The%20Penis%20Dialogues.pdf
Feminism has stomped on any riposte to their repulsive “Vagina Monologue” piece which glorifies the raping of a thirteen year old girl by a “cougar.”
So, how about one of us download that tripe and reverse the genders in it and see how glorious it sounds then eh ?
Anyway, my thinking is to do another version of Mr Abels fine work and do it again, but differently, as his stamp is already there with his angle. It’s a piece that would do us all well being told again and again with different voices and their different accents as it were.
Feminism is the mother ship that has delivered via megaphone to our social consciousness the pairing of dicks = oppression there’s no doubt about that.
A delightful offshoot, or fringe benefit for the femmoturds is our ‘recent in history’ homophobia because of their pinning of the “yukky” tail on the “donk.”
Fukk ‘em.
Our bodies.
We make the damned rules with this one thank you very much.
One day Adam was sitting all alone in the garden of Eden when God came to him.
“You are alone and it is not good for a Man to be alone!” said God. “Therefore I shall create for you a mate, a woman. She will be subservient, youthful, beautiful, intelligent, have a great sense of humor, cook wonderful meals, keep an immaculate house, and raise perfect children…”
“Wow!” said Adam. “That sounds great, but wait a second… What’s all this gonna cost me?”
“An arm and a leg.” God replied.
After a moment of thought Adam responded;
“What do I get for a rib?”
Not sure I should do any serious commentary after Dr F et al have done such a great job on the humour.
TB and JTO, I was beginning to get uneasy with the F word and misandry before my journey bought me here via Shrink4men as I sought to understand the experience of my beloved as he experiences the misandry inflicted by the family court.
We are both Quakers from the liberal and unprogrammed tradition. We’ve both had to wrestle with the reality of our faith community stating that one of our core testimonies is equality (Friends having been so active in the abolition of Slavery) and yet the actions of our community has been highly misandrous to him making the assumption he is the bad guy leaving his marriage – despite his CB EX breaking both peace and truth testimonies through her lies and violence inflicted on him.
I’ve been starting to speak out on the issues here in wider forums within Quakers and have had a wide range of responses…including approaches from other male survivors of abuse in marriage and families of origin. I also have had a conversation with the Elders of my own meeting, who are supportive of my actions because in our own meeting we have at least two male survivors.
I’m hoping and praying a Quaker man steps forwards to take this up as a concern to carry out more open activism…again, as a female MRA I want to support, not put a gynocentric spin on an activity, no matter how good my intent, these two X chromosomes do orient my thinking!
Excellent work you are doing there, Helen. Thank you.
kiwihelen,
I believe there’s a huge gulf between dominating male spaces and using your emotional clout as a woman to enable men to create their own spaces.
The way you could use your strength as a woman here is to set up a support group for men but quietly exit stage right if it gets to the point of self-sufficiency while remaining it’s community liaison to keep the blue noses out.
It’s better to have a woman sympathetic to men and their need for their own space at the helm protecting it as a male space then have men open one up and have a bunch of busy-bodies muscle their way in and then start throwing their weight around. (Male spaces that don’t have an obvious entry way point from the community don’t need this sort of protection, of course.)
You are capable of stopping female encroachment at the door.
TB, this gives me something to think on, I realise in part my reluctance to act is cultural to my family of origin…the men of my family have been blessed with supportive male-aware women, so exhibit a fair bit more agency in creating male space than men who have never had this…so they get their “hunting/shooting/fishing” time as strictly mens only time when we are together on holiday (it is a proud moment for one of the boys when he is considered fit and strong enough to go along on an expedition – usually at about 11 y/o)
I’m hoping that my beloved will get a chance to do this within my family context sometime, he has met ‘the usual suspects’ separately but not in a family gathering, and I have started explaining that there is no need to be successful in the attempt to get fish/rabbit/deer!
Within the context of the Quakers, I will have to start exploring how men’s space could be formed. We have some challenges due to meetings being independent and self governing, so anything where men from other meetings wanted to come together in would come to notice of women who might wish to interfere…it will need to be thought through
My beloved belongs to a separate meeting and got blocked on a very perceptive but poorly executed attempt to invite a man who can’t make Meeting for Worship into his embryonic Men’s group (there are 4 of them who meet monthly). A female overseer got uppity about the idea that this man not attending in wider community events…grrrr!
Where I live and work now, I play in a local brass band and I’ve just started realising this is strongly male space, even though there are a fair number of women players…I probably need to think more on why the band ‘works’ as male space and see what can be applied to the creation of other male spaces.
Thanks for the article guys. Ill be praying for both of you.
@Carlos
I disagree that atheists have “faith” that God does not exist. If I get a bunch of babies, and raise them on an island with no contact with the outside world, I can make them believe anything exists that doesn’t exist. And it is them that has faith that these entities I’ve invented actually do exist. Because they have no evidence of their existence, only their belief, which is due to what i tell them, of which I can show no evidence to back up. That is faith.
If I tell you that there is a invisible fairy who has sat on your shoulder your entire life….and watched your every move…..would you believe me? Would you say that not believing me is an act of faith…..or simply an act of using your brain to weigh up the pros and cons of the likelihood of this fairy actually existing.
But then, if I indoctrinated you to believe in this fairy since you were born…..you would have faith. And the only thing that would shatter that faith is if I could prove that fairy didn’t exist….which is impossible. The bottom line is that anything you can dream up that can’t be detected via any means…..could actually exist. I can just make up any great spirit or supernatural entity of any kind, and it could possibly exist. Christians will laugh just as hard at the beliefs of others in various supernatural beings….but the only thing that is different about their chosen supernatural being that they believe in, that is faith. But faith doesn’t make something real. You can’t make reality be believing. That fairy on your shoulder is just as non existent weather you believe it exists or not. Faith is choosing to believe in something with no evidence. Faith is not choosing not to believe in something with no evidence…..that is merely a lack of faith.
“And the only thing that would shatter that faith is if I could prove that fairy didn’t exist….which is impossible.”
That’s exactly Russell’s teapot argument: “Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong.”
From Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot