The New World Order

This is going to be a negative article about the new breeds of women brought about by modernity and feminism. I am fully aware that some good things came out of these big changes and I am not going to say that the good old days were better, but... I see lost people. I see confusion. When is the last time you met a well-adjusted, happy modern woman?

If women were allegedly lacking an identity before, feminism has not only not succeeded in providing one, in my eyes it has affected the opposite result. Feminism has discarded and derided women's old identities of home-makers, wives and mothers and thrown modern woman into a man's world with male values armed only with questions, new multiple choices, and anger.

The results: numerous adoptions of incompatible lifestyles, confusion, clashing desires and goals, depressions, some ephemeral happiness brought about by the new toys women now have to play with, abuse of new powers which they have not learned responsibility for, out-of-control orgies with new-found freedoms, the inability to objectify their inner turmoil and feelings and separate them from new external responsibilities, etc.

Feminism strikes me as now being in the post-teenage phase. Its days of anger and rebel-without-a-clue attitudes are slowly dying down and some maturity is creeping in, but it's still not there yet.

To be fair, feminism has many forms. Although the current 'post-feminist' movements and third-wave feminists as well as many of the topics for women studies deal with more moderate and even academic issues and aren't after the patriarchy or into pushing obnoxious agendas, the most pervasive forms of feminisms are still the annoying ones. The activism of the second wave of feminism backed mostly by various radical and gender feminists is still swinging, oppression and patriarchy are still the main banners of feminism, and I see idiotic 'girl-power' pop gynocentric femelitists everywhere. Even the original liberal/equity feminists who pushed women out of their homes and into offices were political tyrants with agendas, and they are the ones who started this whole mess.

See there are many opinions in feminism about what a woman should be and what the feminist agenda is about and many agree it's about choice. But the prominent viewpoint that obviously won out is the one that looks down at the choice of home-maker, wife and secretary and pushes women to take on previously male roles whether they are compatible or not. In other words, the popular feminist rule is a form of twisted idealistic communism, not a democracy. And even its democratic party is immature and confused and can't give answers.

And when I say answers, I mean answers to questions such as 'what will make me as a woman really happy?'. The best it can do is actively fight for more and more choices so that women can attempt to find this happiness in a man's world of sexual freedom and business.

I'm tempted to say feminism is the grand-scale equivalent of a woman cutting her hair short on a whim because she needed a change in her life, but then isn't sure whether she likes it herself and why she actually did it.

What is happening now is that women go out into the world with ideas, ambitions and choices, try a few, change their ambitions, try again, and so on, until a decade or two later (if they're lucky) they settle down with what makes them happy (which is often the polar opposite of their original ideas). Sounds like a feminist ideal right? Women can now find themselves and make their own choices (of which they have many). But when the final choices are usually the same ones they've been making 50 years ago and no matter what they are, it takes 10-20 years of adjustment and depression to get there, is that necessarily better?

Note that I'm not saying that women don't find happiness in careers, but that there are more female-oriented careers and that many women find happiness in traditional roles but are too afraid or embarrassed and are socially pressured against exploring these paths.

One famous and very relevant failed experiment is the Israeli Kibbutz. One Kibbutz goal was the absolute extermination of gender roles, exploitation and family and the incorporation of socialistic (collective commune) ideals. Children were taken care of communally, both father and mother went out to work on the farm, all roles and jobs were shared equally and the environment was as closed and self-sufficient as possible. Multiple generations passed and they found that whereas the original Kibbutz women fought to take on male roles, women born in this environment were naturally moving back to classic female roles on their own.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see. A survey done ONLY on 35+ women that feel they have reached their destination and have been happy with it for over 7 years, and the top 10 of these destinations printed out as an aid to women still searching. Also included would be their opinions on sexuality, careers, femininity, etc. Now that would be interesting.

Almost every woman I look at lately seems lost. She is looking for something, often places all her hope in love when the fun of a career quickly wears out, but doesn't know why, she tries her hand at various activities and achieves some gaiety here and there, she changes her goals and expectations yearly, but in general is... lost. This is defined as freedom.

There is survey after survey that reports women are twice or even three times more likely to be depressed than men. Searching for the causes of this phenomenon on the internet came up with these statements:

"Women have a tendency to get more depressed than men because of the stress of handling multiple social roles of employee, wife, mother, daughter." Gee, I suppose this means men never have roles of husband, father and son. Who writes this misandric nonsense? Perhaps the argument should be that women devote a lot more time and work to the role of mother, but one can argue that men devote the same extra time and work to the role of employee.

"Married women have higher rates of depression than unmarried women, but the reverse is true for men." I find this very ironic but it's easily explained if you think that women have higher expectations for the relationship after marriage.

Many researchers point to various forms of social stress and abuse on women as the cause for higher mental illnesses in women (yes the same old patriarchy argument), yet Phyllis Chester says that psychiatrists incorrectly label women much easier as put-downs or means of control. We men are always to blame either way, eh? What about empowering women by blaming them, thus giving women the power to correct their ailments instead of being dependent on the goodwill of men? If men are always to blame, the only way a woman can be healthy is by living in a lesbian commune from age 2 onwards (and indeed some feminists advocate this separatist idea). I say all of this makes women very, very weak.

But enough of this rambling. Without further ado, I present my collection of some of the more common modern female species I netted in the modern jungle:

The Closet Materialist (AKA The Carrie Bradshaw)

Trips, restaurants, bars, shoes, clothes, parties, entertainment, sex, popularity, fashion, shopping, vacations. As to meaning in her life, this woma... girl justifies it by looking for 'love'.

I've seen people admit they they're sluts, that they're losers, I've even seen the very rare person admit that they are bad in bed or lacking a sense of humor. But I've never seen anyone admit they are superficial. This is strange considering how many millions of Carries there are out there. In Sex and the City, Carrie even comes to the conclusion that Mr Big didn't want her because she is too complicated. Now that's comedy.

The Post-Feminist Functional-Submissive

There are so many self-help books for women that give advice on how to ensnare the man of their dreams by playing hard to get and following rules on letting the man do the work so that he'll feel that he's the one in control and the one doing the chasing. I and many other men I know behave the same way when up againt a woman who doesn't seem interested. We will try a couple of times, if we don't get a hint that we are wanted, we will walk away.

Feminists broke the old-fashioned concept of men chasing women and have raised everyone's awareness on how it makes women feel inferior and men into stalkers, but now they want to harness and manipulate this 'natural' drive in men, put on an act of submission and still feel superior by ensnaring their men. That's just crazy. Men are stupid but not that stupid. We know how it works nowadays and that it's not up to us to pursue anymore (unless she's well and truly shy). If a woman plays hard to get we will interpret it as 'not interested' or 'she's playing manipulative games' and we will walk away. End of story. The only men nowadays who will chase you when you put on that act are the stalkers and possessive/obsessive jerks.

The Emotional Slut

So women want to feel special in a relationship, but do they apply the same ideology to men? I've seen so many girls act all sad and lonely to get my warmth and friendship only to witness her act exactly the same with everyone else to the point of using the same hug-me (pick-up) lines and seductive body language.

I feel used and cheap. You women may not go after as many one night stands as men but you sure do have countless one-night hugs. Soon men will tire of being hug-objects and relationship-objects.

The Immaculate Fellator

Not much need to describe this one. Some modern girls are torn between having fun with their new sexual freedom and their old-fashioned instincts to make the sex special. Solution? Define oral sex as meaningless and have as much of it as possible while staying a 'virgin'.

The Politically-Correct Nazi

'Be nice!', she snarls at you with a scowl. Ever meet one of those devout Christian women that makes everyone around her miserable with fiery criticisms and strict, selfless, martyr lifestyle which she sticks in your face to make you feel bad? Well it seems these women still exist in droves only they took up the idiotic political correctness religion as their new cause.

Any possible insult to minorities and the oppressed that can be construed from your words will be stomped into your little toes. Any slightly off-colour joke will evoke intense hatred towards you for the next few months. Any hard word that may offend someone somewhere will be criticized in a memo. Etc.

This species is also often a self-righteous vegetarian (perhaps on her way to becoming a vegan) and is closely related to the Feminazis.

The Hand-Me-Down Innocent

This creature may have been naive, sweet and sexy at one time, but girls nowadays lose this very fast (or never get it in the first place). The problem is, she remembers being loved for it, she admires these characters wistfully in movies, and keeps the act going sometimes for decades even though it's long gone.

Calls herself 'little me' when she's anything but, swings her hips about even though it is now arrogance instead of sexiness, and describes herself as sweet to everyone when a really sweet woman would never grab for attention this way. A pitiable species that's grasping at straws.

Slutus Desperatus

This is a woman who both metaphorically and literally has sex for fun when what she really wants is the cuddle. She may not even realize this herself. Enough said.

The Feminazi

A common species. This creature is selfish and neurotic and has a big chip on her shoulder. She uses the banners of feminism and oppression as a righteous excuse to clobber her perceived enemies when this has all to do with her feelings and nothing to do with justice. She sees oppression and misogyny everywhere, translating her personal feelings of hatred and insecurity into so-called objective feministic issues and throws her neurotic baggage at the world, abusing the newfound power given to her as a woman.

The Fragile Career-Woman (AKA I Am Woman, Hear Me Whine)

Another common species. Dives into the hard world of business and demands to be treated like everyone else thinking herself a tough modern woman, but breaks down and cries or takes things personally when criticized and pressured even as part of normal business proceedings. These creatures always make you feel guilty at work for being so business-like and 'forgetting there's a person in there'. Men are much better at separating business from personal issues and we're used to being able to criticize people objectively at work.

Also gets insulted at debates when things get too fiery and accuses people of using bad tones of voice and insensitive words just when things are getting interesting.

The Little Red Riding Miniskirt

Once upon a time there used to be boundaries of propriety that included rules on proper behaviour for women on where they can spend nights, where they can walk, who they can talk to, etc. These rules were not only about proper behaviour, but also safety. But of course it wasn't proper to call them 'how not to get raped' rules.

Now that they're gone (because they're oppressive of course), some modern women get so confident and reckless, they stay at their male friends' places, make out with guys they hardly know, tease men in public thinking it makes them safe, and share information with strangers. What can I say, I hope these happy fun-loving girls don't learn the hard way, but they often do.

The Black Hole

This woman has learned that women have rights and deserve many things so she has a long list of demands. When asked what she has to offer the answer usually is 'me!'. If walked out on when she gives this reply, she reacts in unpleasant ways. But keep walking or you will be sucked into her powerful gravitational force.

The Hot-Air Balloon

These are creatures that parade about yelling 'Girl Power!' thinking they are some kick-ass female heroine they just saw on a Hollywood screen while leaving broken remnants of male pride behind the wake of their mini-skirt clad objects of power while blinking flirtatiously at the mechanic to change their oil and open their tightly closed jars. A silly species that won't understand what happened when something sticks a needle in their plans.


Humor aside, here's where I think our 20-something year old Feminism should go next (actively, not academically):

- Bring back respect for grandmother's lifestyles and identities as valid choices while keeping the new choices open.
- Less emphasis on selfish quests and rights, and more on responsibility and defining female morals. Women have been given new toys, what about a user manual?
- Keep exploring femininity, its compatibility with various lifestyles and its strengths/weaknesses. Focus less on more choices and more on what specifically makes women happy.
- Education on male behaviour and how to adapt to it.

Women have claimed that men are immature boys and women are the real power on the planet. I'd like to see them prove it because all I see so far are neurotic cries of 'mine!' and 'it's your fault!'.

One-Night Stupidity

Perusing through miscellaneous articles on the internet, I often come across many popular misandric statements or worse: illogical ones.

Some are amusing: "[what women want from a man is that]... he has some incredibly exciting career in which they can experience unlimited financial freedom together." I hope I don't have to translate that obvious one for you.

But I was looking up opinions and surveys on one-night stands and kept coming up with the same puzzling statement: "Men sleep with more partners than women do" or "Men on average have more one-night stands than women" or "Women are now having more one-night stands - almost as many as men".

Now let's think about that for a minute. How is it logically possible for men to have more sex with women than it is for women to have sex with men?

Even if you say that many individual women sleep around less, that would mean there are a handful of female sluts out there who are being passed around like the flu and who are raising the average for women single-handledly. Which doesn't reflect well on the female gender.

Or perhaps these surveys include male homosexuals in which case homosexuals are single-handledly raising the average for men.

Alternative conclusions are that more men exaggerate about their sexual partners (even in phone surveys), or that more women understate their sexual activity. Pick your preferred theory. Either way, these statements are illogical.

What's interesting is that all surveys agree that most women regret most flings and yet more and more women are having one-night stands (here are a couple of sites in case you're too lazy to search: 1 2).

"Young women are trying more and more to act like men," said Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women's Forum. "But the problem is they don't react like men." I couldn't have put it better myself.

One obvious question is, why are women trying to be men when most are obviously not equipped to handle it. I'd say this ties in with my previous contention that women don't know what they want.

Regarding why women have flings, a survey has this to say: "The reasons women gave for succumbing to seduction were too much alcohol (57 per cent), getting over a break-up (43 per cent), chemistry (43 per cent), and ‘why not, we’re consenting adults’ (18 per cent)."

In other words, for women, the vast majority of flings occur because of loss of control due to alcohol, loss of control due to emotional instability, and loss of control due to strong chemistry.

Somehow it doesn't impress me that women have flings despite their convictions and feelings otherwise whereas men have flings simply because they want to have them. In fact, this raises a serious question about a woman's reliability. The popular stereotype is that men are weak-willed when it comes to sex and are easily seduced whereas women don't cheat as easily. The above proves, as usual, that this is hogwash.

The only possible counter-argument is that men are sluttier in intention and that they would have more cheap sex if they could. But when it comes to actions, I'm afraid you women are not only down in the gutter with us men, you are also sluttier and stupider because you are behaving against your better instincts.

Hypocrisy

Here's an article that is one shocking revelation after another. You'd better read it quick before they archive it.

Let's see what insights into the female psyche we can glean from this:

38% of French men surveyed on the phone said "science permitting, they'd like to have carried their children through the nine-month gestation". So what does the female author accuse them of? Insanity and lack of manhood. I'm not saying it's healthy or that these men would actually do so when push comes to shove, but isn't there a glaring hypocrisy here? Women that have the choice to do male things are considered to be empowered and are encouraged (this includes impossible physical things - see the movie Boys Don't Cry). But when men want to do female things, they aren't considered men.

You may argue that getting pregnant is obviously exclusively female and therefore it would be insane for a man to want such a thing. But imagine if they would invent a way for men to carry the baby. Suddenly, a role/activity that was considered purely female would be open to men as well and it would empower them to make a choice. Sound familiar?

Then we are informed of the fact that science is actually closing in on a solution for an artifical womb. Quote: "Already some feminists are concerned about the threat such wombs may pose to abortion rights."

Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.

Women will still have the choice to not carry the baby and protect their body but may no longer have the choice whether to kill the baby, and this is a big problem. Am I missing something here?!

This confirms my fears. Abortion is not about 'my body my choice', but about control to the point of possible murder. If this artificial womb ever works, it may be possible for a man to legally demand his baby, have it extracted instead of aborted (if she doesn't want it), then sue her for child support whether she wants the baby or not. Hurrah! A taste of her own medicine.

It's pretty obvious why feminazis don't like it.

Moving on, we come to another amusing statement: "...we note that only those who view pregnancy as burden and abortion as 'choice' would fail to see the greater insult to womankind. Strapping on our Huxley hats, we easily visualize a brave new world in which women, no longer essential to procreation, are eliminated."

When have men ever declared war on women to the point of 'eliminating' them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only cries for gender holocaust that I remember came from angry fanatical women. Then again, I suppose it's commonplace for closed minds to project their own thoughts or fears on their enemy.

By the way, most cynical male viewpoints would agree that we should at least keep women around for sex.

But let's assume the author didn't mean something this drastic when she used the word 'eliminated'. Perhaps she means women will become completely irrelevant, barred from male activities and generally ignored. A later statement seems to support this: "That rapping sound you hear is the sign going back up over the treehouse door: 'No girls allowed.'"

What is it with you women and wanting to be included everywhere? What is so wrong with male-only clubs? We men often want time alone with other men and not have to deal with women. I'm sure you women can understand that. So why this angry feeling of being left out and wanting to stick your nose into our man-talk? Why aren't you satisfied with your own female-only clubs? And I also resent the insinuation that male clubs are basically immature boyish tree-houses.

And finally: "These 'hybrids' are looking for 'a more radical affirmation' of who they are, and want to 'test out all the barbarity of modern life,' says Pierre Francois Le Louet, managing director of Nelly Rodi. 'Why not put on a pink-flowered shirt and try out a partner-swapping club?'". To which the author retorts: "Wait. Because normal people would think you're a loo-ser?"

Yet more hypocrisy. If they said this about women it would be described as 'exploring their sexuality'.

Orgy on a Leash

Why seek a utopia? Why go to extremes? Why not lead a moderately enjoyable, but safe and simple life?

Does everything have to be black and white? Why describe relationships with such extreme words and why make things so difficult when we can just lay back and have safe, sober fun with minimal maintenance and no dangerous attachments? Why not have easy-going, simple friendships instead of intense romance? Why invest so much in one person and not simply throw a net and catch several moderate pleasures at once? One may even argue that to go for extremes is to increase the chance of failure and unhappiness.

First, as explored earlier, there is the issue of power and its dangers. When playing around electricity, you either follow strict rules, take all necessary precautions, and go the exra mile, or you get electrified. It's very black and white. You can be a mediocre piano player and get enjoyment out of it, but a piano can't blow up in your face.

Then again, perhaps you can say that relationships have different levels of enjoyment and that you are satisfied with the moderate but safer levels. Is it possible to have safe, mediocre, dispassionate but practical and fun relationships? I suppose it's theoretically possible, but I hold that this is difficult and restrictive and usually only suitable to those with an easy-going (i.e. boring) temperament. The truth is, moderating a fire is much more dangerous than the two extremes of putting out the fire or learning the strict rules of living in it.

Also, in many cases, the person living this lifestyle is simply dysfunctional and incapable of fire in the first place, which explains the lack of danger.

And even if it were possible, I dislike mediocrity. Many people wish they were super-heroes but the fact is, all humans have superpowers which are either ignored, or undeveloped, or undisciplined. Man has wings to fly, yet is content with taking the train - is it any wonder he hits his head on the ceiling?

To adequately explain my love for extremes however, we must dig into the concept of pleasure:

Judaism is the only religion I know of that punishes people in the after-life for not enjoying physical pleasures. Not that man is obligated to pursue pleasures or to make pleasure a goal and live the life of a hedonist, but he is punished for not making his work in this world pleasurable. There is a subtle but crucial difference between seeking pleasure, and enjoying what you do. Obviously there are rules and restrictions, but uncalled-for fasting, celibacy, and other forms of fanatical restraint are considered very negative traits.

To do what is necessary with the added value of pleasure has the effect of getting your body to co-operate. It harnesses the pleasure drive and raises the whole package of spirit, body and materialism together instead of forcing the body to grumble and stay detached while you tend to 'more important matters'. In the end, pleasure isn't just for fun, it's for growth and restoration. Judaism doesn't preach that this world is only temptations, weaknesses or even distractions; the world is a toolbox and one must accomodate and involve the body by partaking in pleasures.

Also, to eat healthily is to ingest a variety of foods and vitamins; To grow spiritually is to expand one's understanding; To experience God is to grasp the absolute, unlimited, flowing potentialities of his existence and to note their comprehensive and rich variety of physical instances in the world he created. In other words, a theoretically limited viewpoint and experience is un-Godlike.

A Jew has blessings to recite when he hasn't tasted from certain foods in over a year, and blessings for when he sees beautiful landscapes and phenomena. This both teaches and encourages Jews to take note and experience a variety of pleasures and then to remember their source. But note again how easy it would be to slip from enjoying the richness of life, to pursuing enjoyment or indulging in physical whims. Jews are punished for not enjoying what their eyes see in nature and the supermarket, not for not travelling to Timbuktu to find a new exotic fruit.

There is a framework for pleasure. Pleasure is one of the means, not the goal, and yet, at the same time, pleasure must be embraced and indulged in. It's interesting to note that the word 'orgy' originally had to do with worship ('work') of Greek dieties. Only the modern term took on the meaning of unrestrained pleasure for pleasure's sake.

For me, there's an additional message in the obligation for pleasure which is that mediocrity is a 'sin'. The commandment to enjoy the pleasures of this world is a warning against pursuing safe, one-dimensional lifestyles. You must partake in pleasures and to do so means harnessing powers and letting yourself be thrown into the forge. To stay safe and avoid dangerous pleasures is death. To experience dispassionate relationships encourages passivity. To quell or detach from fiery lusts and romantic passion is to give up power. To marry just in order to have someone to chat and have sex with is unchallenging.

There are two negative aspects to a life of asceticism: The neglect of the physical world, and the abstinence from stimuli.

This lack of extremism also shows itself in the way we date nowadays. More and more people look for 'non-pressured' open relationships, we filter out any potential intensity and challenge by choosing safe, non-complicated people, we postpone the commitment phase as long as possible, and instead of leaving sex to the end as relationship candy, we immediately bite the candy, swallow all of its sugar in the first few seconds, and thus burn the natural fuel that would have pushed us to make the relationship special. To have sex too fast and then work on the relationship is to eat all the sugar before baking the cake.

Note that my goal here is not to preach about 'sinful' sex. Quite the opposite: I'm trying to show that we are not tapping into full enjoyment and power. We are cheating ourselves of deep, passionate pleasure by taking shortcuts. Pleasure is not a prize, it's a benefit and a boost and itself benefits when placed within a framework. If it were the prize there would be no downside to cheating and grabbing it before we run the marathon.

Everyone is in search of the orgasm, the multiple orgasm, Tantric sex, exotic positions and techniques, exciting sex games, sex counselors, etc. but don't realize that to add more sugar only desensitizes you to sugar. To enhance sugar you must work on its context and framework. When attached to powerful goals, the candy becomes sweeter and richer, but when the candy is the goal, the sweetness eventually runs out. When you focus only on new sexual positions to keep the fire going, you are ripping open the golden goose instead of feeding the goose.

So on the one side we have focus and restraint enhancing our power, on the other we have indulgence in pleasure driving us to experience more and to experience it fully. When merged, to restrain is to enhance and therefore indulge, to indulge is to focalize and therefore restrain. The result of both is to intensify.

I don't know about you but in these matters I'm a power-hungry, foolhardy extremist. I'm sick of zombies with fake grins distorting their faces. I want focused passion that will burn through everything but the best. I want to bungee jump into relationships, not amble through them. Perhaps I will fall harder sometimes, but in the end I will wear my cape and fly.

Moderation is a fatal thing... Nothing succeeds like excess.
Oscar Wilde

I have but the simplest taste - I am always satisfied with the best
Oscar Wilde