Patriarchy: Forgetaboutit!

Edition #47 — 12 Aug 2003

I make no apologies for this newsletter — evolution wouldn't put the brakes on for anybody standing its way either. Your acceptance will depend upon how much you value truth over tradition. If you value tradition, you're going the way of the dinosaur — and I'll just say good-bye to you now, in advance: Goodbye dino! It's been a blast!

Here's my topic, and it's now a hot one: gay marriages. It's a long piece, so you'd better go to the bathroom first.

Gay Marriages Are So — Gay!

First question: Assuming that you're a heterosexual, what do you have to lose in terms of your individual rights, freedoms and overall quality of life if the society you live in allows for same sex marriage?

Think about this carefully. To not think about it would be a crime of negligence, especially if you already have a strong opinion based only upon the shadowy remnants of a childhood prejudice. If you don't think about it, you might react to this or any other social issue with only the same old spastic knee jerk anger that hasn't seen a good dusting off since you first began separating yourself from the world by judging it.

Only by confronting our long standing prejudices will we leave the dark ages of social order behind us and keep such futile and destructive practices as armed warfare out of our future. Wars don't end because we run out of bullets or people to shoot at. Neither does intolerance of sexual differences end by trying to force heterosexuality upon everybody. For one thing, it's not natural. If you don't realize this, then stop watching American/Canadian Idle and put on the Discovery Channel. I know first hand that they have cable TV in the bible belt. No excuses now, George B. — you know who you are!

But think about the question carefully. What will you lose? My own conclusion was that I will lose nothing by the introduction of gay marriage into my society. I will have gained because society would have to become less afraid and more understanding.

The Sanctity Of A Lousy Marriage

I'm seeing TV commercials for an internet-based match-making service called Ashley Madison (I can double check it for you if you like...) which allows people "already in committed relationships" to save themselves the hassle of leaving the house to find someone to commit adultery with. Ah, nothing like a happy coupling in the eyes of God.

The church, that obscenely hypocritical enforcer of the moral good of society, is big on marriage. They don't believe in it for themselves mind you, but it's plenty good enough for the peasantry. Used to be that knocking up your girlfriend constituted undeniable proof that you'd had sex without the church's permission. So aside from coat hangers, the only remedy was to head for the nearest church and get a sex license. Not without fear, guilt and shame of course, but at least now God the beaurocrat was happy.

Marriage gave the church another invasive avenue into people's private lives. Furthermore, church sanctioned unions never stopped either partner from playing show and tell with "non union" members. Thus, the term adultery was invented...

...and Ashley Madison said it was good.

Adultery — it sounds so Ward and June Cleaver. Latin bugs me anyway — it makes dumb words appear intelligent and doctors, lawyers and clergy seem smarter than the dull, non-Latin speaking lower castes. Nonetheless, the Vatican lets everyone know that adultery pisses off the Catholic God. I don't know if wife beating, alcoholism or gambling does, but sex without marriage is not considered an "in" thing by the Vatican.

That one's marriage has the seal of approval from the church is hardly worth celebrating. After all, these are the same folks with a long history of genocide, aiding and abetting pedophiles, amassing obscene wealth, turning a blind eye to Hitler, and also having a certain hankering for world domination through brain washing and "cultural deprivation" — ask any "savage"; the same bunch of old, sexually repressed men who decide which of us is "good" or "evil" and who's worthy of an eventual "meet and greet" with their God. (Do they own GOD.com by the way?)

It always made me wonder who the real beast was.

So in the clear-minded and rational context, one would have to exclude the church from any serious debate about either morality, love or homosexuality since they lack sufficient experience in all but the latter.

(Oh, stop whining and join the Buddhists, will ya!)

A Woman's Place — Is Beneath A Man?

The church, aside from having sexy Latin words for "doing your wife's sister", also has a history of beating down women and all things feminine — remember those Salem witch trials? That's why you won't see a female pope until the Vatican freezes over. But that's coming.

Apparently the church, both on and off the record — and even God for that matter — has "issues" with womankind. Like trained circus bears, our society now has those issues too — not to the extent that some of those Middle Eastern religious tyrannies do where they throw blankets over women's heads, or cut their clitorises off — but issues nonetheless. We call our innocent little bias against women "misogyny". Because of it, women are now only half of what they could be; men, a mere quarter.

Just to be extra sure that I know what I'm talking about — test me! Call some guy a "pussy" — then consider why the insult is effective only because it's gender-based.

Congratulations — you've passed misogyny 101. A pussy is a weakling, yet why does it refer to female anatomy? Is a vagina weak? No, a vagina is receptive — it allows penetration. A "real man" is impenetrable. You'll need this insight later, Hercules...

The Adventures Of Wonder Woman?

mysogny hides the desperate truth: men are afraid of women because they are the more powerful and dominant gender. Women are simply stronger in more ways than men are, period. In my book, An Invitation To Humanity - which I hope to finish sometime this century — I get forensic on society's bias towards women. What you're reading here is just a sampling.

Statistically, I've learned that women are biologically superior because men die younger, have more stress-related diseases, and their infancy mortality rate is higher. Men are genetically inferior from conception until the last gasp. That's a medical fact. Men start life as female embryos but with less genetic material — due to the Y chromosome. Their vulnerability may attest to these lost genes. Mentally? How many female serial killers do you know of? Suicide? Men buy far more rope. Violence? Men start wars. Multi-orgasms? Sorry, those are reserved for women. (Hmmm, I'm thinking maybe God's a chick!)

All in all, a few extra muscles and the ability to pulverize someone doesn't make men "superior" by any means. Yet physical might is all men have had to assert their "dominant gender" ranking. Coincidentally, the undertone of most religious teachings is that women are the ethnics to be cleansed by the morally superior master race of man. John Lennon said it best: "Woman is the nigger of the world." It's as if we're treating Martin Luther King, Jr. like Kunta Kinte. (the "Roots" guy, remember?)

We enlightened men of the new millennium, we think we're "past all that" misogyny stuff, but we're not. As for tolerance, less than 50 years ago we were still hanging "niggers" from trees. This spiritual evolution stuff takes time. In the meantime, who's making your dinner tonight? Probably a woman — with a day job.

Hey — Girly Man!

Institutionalized fear/hatred of women is also transferred to homosexual men since they express woman-like behaviours ie. they are "pussies". (Ah, now you've hit pay dirt, Hercules!)

By definition, a man is gay when he willingly submits to being "penetrated" by another man's penis. This puts him in the same traditional sexual role as a woman. But it's not so much the sex but the act of submission that so reviles homophobes — those men who fear gays. Men expect submission from women, but they don't want to see it from men - and voluntarily at that. It hits too close to home.

Submission bothers "real" men only because it contradicts their illusion of being the dominant gender. Homosexuality reminds recruits for the cult of masculinity that being "girly" is always just a deep knee bend away. Ironically, even gays treat "submissives" with the same disdain that some heterosexual men show for women — seeing them as inferior. The moral of the story is "it's not cool to be on the bottom!"

If you are offended by gays — why are you? Do you hate women for having submissive sex with men? There is no remotely tangible reason for a homophobe to hate gays, except that male submission undermines his delusions about masculine power and authority. For those still nostalgically clinging to that lifeless ideological corpse, you're probably siding with the Vatican on the issue of gay marriage. The church, ironically enough, doesn't bash its own gays. Go figure.

Mano A Mano?

Although I'm not gay, I'm more of a "delicate" male — inclined more toward artful self-expression than violent conquest for my pleasure. I'm OK with a world not ruled by the "fist in mouth" laws that only mutant psychotic gladiators (did I say Mike Tyson?) can uphold. This is also why guns are so popular as surrogate muscles for those who can't fight. Imagine George Bush going three rounds with Saddam Hussein — mano a mano, as they say in the Vatican. Forgetaboutit!

I suspect that a submissive gay man — or "anti Man" as they're called in the caribbean — is not as likely as his heterosexual equivalent to point a gun at another man's head. Consider then that since time immemorial, the sexual energies of young heterosexual males has been recruited for violent warfare. Watch the news: who's throwing all the rocks in Palestine? Not some old rich fart but a bunch of young virile males he's recruited; teenaged boys ready to dominate some female pussy, mark their territory, plant their seed, or die trying.

Worldwide, young men are exploited by old, rich men, for power and money. The young man dies, the old farts get richer. If you're gay, you're probably too busy doing your nails to throw stones. If you're not willing to be violent for the good of our nation — you're a liability to those who profit from violence and the conquest of new territory. George Bush doesn't need ya — you big fag!

See the problem?

Being submissive, besides being anti-God, is now also anti-war and anti-progress. By being gay, men threaten not only to ruin the whole economy but also to throw the whole "me Tarzan, you Jane" thing out the window for millions of "tween" males about to bust a pube and waiting for their turn to reach for the holy grail of manhood — pussy — by conquering new territory. For better or worse, the world has been shaped through male violence. So the short solution is simply to "gag the fag" and continue with our John Wayne film festival.

That's where we are now.

If you need to go to the bathroom, do it now. But hurry up. There's lots more to digest. Consider this a "super sized" McNewsletter.

marriage — One Gender's Interpretation Of Nature

Thankfully times are changing. But marriage is still the norm, as is infidelity. Why? Because people still marry for the wrong reasons: tradition, loneliness; sharing costs; to hide from self-loathing; for social or economic advancement; to please one's parents, etc. One would hope love was the only factor, but it's often the most overlooked. Often the only common goal of a man/woman alliance is to simply be "married". That's when you call Ashley Madison and start flossing again...

Anthropologists suggest marriage was a women's idea; a way to secure her future once impregnated. Bullshit. Elephant herds are entirely female. Lion prides too, female. Many of nature's social patterns suggest a "harem" like arrangement is best — much like what some lucky Saudi Arabian sheiks enjoy. We humans are essentially animals too but for our talent of mentally separating ourselves from nature and each other. The denial of our kinship with all things is what brings us so much hardship - and death.

In nature — where homosexual behaviour abounds quite naturally — the larger groupings of mammals are often entirely female with generally one male around to act as both security guard and resident sperm bank. Women don't need men for childbirth, or to feed their babies, just like the lioness doesn't need the "lion king" to do anything but stay out of her way and not eat the kids. In nature, the herd (aka your family and relatives) will protect the pregnant female, not some guy on his knees holding a ring, and hoping for a blowjob later in the day.

So much for the "dependency" argument.

Logically then, that leaves marriage as useful for two things:

1) as a vehicle by which two people can do long term business based upon a mutual agreement wherein 50% of one's assets are defaulted to the other partner should there be a breach contract and,

2) as a vehicle for publicly declaring the depth of two people's love for one another. Awe.

The Alpha Male Boy's Club

The cult of masculinity's control over societal power structures extends to controlling women. Women were forced out of self-sufficiency into dependence upon men a long time ago. This system of control, known as "Patriarchy", also explains why most religions are male dominated.

Diluting the violence/territorial invasion aspect of patriarchal rule with female "submissive" thinking is a great threat to current male dominated power structures — even more so for less developed "theocracies" around the world which haven't developed ways of controlling women beyond stoning, shooting and beating them in the public square. In the west, we use psychology: we just make women insecure about their beauty, so while she's "fixing her hair" — he's taking the better job. Winner: man.

Let there be no more secret why "the system" is anti-gay — look at the whole concept of business: where competitive and hostile domination of territory is the norm. Think about how closely the church worked with the invading forces of kings and political leaders. Besides fear, guilt and shame, killing has been the church's most effective currency for conquering new territory. Submission was nowhere on the map.

Another way to see it is to consider how accommodating, nurturing and giving women are as a gender — compare that to how self-centered, competitive and "taking" men's behaviour is — now ask yourself which gender's energy has infested "the system" of human commerce and the politics of survival. Men, baby — YEAH!

As for the "sanctity of marriage" issue that patriarchs are always crowing about, that concept sewered when the first fundamentalist husband beat his wife to assert his dominance after he'd been caught boinking her younger sister. "Family values" generally means: "Shut up you stupid bitch and keep cooking!"

Here's a quick hint: hypocrites are the easiest to find — just look for someone condemning other people, but louder.

The Home Stretch (No Anal Sex Jokes, Please).

I just read a great news item that mentioned the obvious but much overlooked fact that most gays and lesbians are the product of a heterosexual marriage. Quite ironic really, considering the prejudice same sex couples face when trying to adopt children who society says will be "sexually corrupted or disoriented" by having two mommies or daddies. Even in the deepest, darkest, most red-necked recesses of my brain, I'm still not thoroughly convinced that heterosexual marriages should be banned because they lead to homosexual children.

(Now, if I were a pharmaceutical company, that'd be considered scientific thinking right there).

But seriously folks, at one time Roland Kriewaldt (that's me, apparently) was quite a homophobe. I don't know why I was afraid of homosexuals; I didn't have a reason to fear them. But like most men brought up in the "no fag zone", I just did. After meeting and befriending some gays and lesbians I discovered that they are people no different in their desire to live and breath and have orgasms than anyone else. Oh, and homosexuals didn't invent anal sex either — that was my great, great grandmother, Astrid Arschfoll (sorry, non-Germans, you missed a pun)

So the question is: what's the big deal? Because two men aren't gonna have a baby they can't be married? I know lots of childless married couples — should they be fined for not procreating...or having sex? Maybe their marriage licenses should be revoked for marrying under false pretenses. That's for future generations to decide. In the meantime:

Borders, Boundaries And Beaurocracy

Suppose there are two gay men who live next door to you called NED and FRANK (not my brother Frank of course — so he can stop squirming). They are both sexually active, but neither has a vagina. What to do? But when NED and FRANK aren't having sex, they work day jobs, watch TV, eat fatty foods and neglect to floss once a year like the rest of us.

NED and FRANK met 10 years ago and still love one another very much. But for a sheet of paper — duly authorized by some married guy who's having an affair with his secretary — that declares each will forfeit 50% of his assets if he breaches the contract — they are "together for all eternity" as they say.

When NED and FRANK pass heterosexual couples on their suburban street, neither knows if the other loves their partner more, or if one does or doesn't. No one knows who's kinder, more caring, richer or poorer — and unless they've got webcams hooked up, no one knows what kind of sex life they're having behind closed doors.

No matter who they're with and what their sexual preferences are, they all see the same Ashley Madison commercials on TV, and they all have the same temptations and frustrations in life. All of them living, breathing and ultimately passing on like all things must in this world. And while they're here, all they're hoping for is to be happy. If not now, then soon.

Now grow up and give these guys their fucking paperwork, for God's sake!

Heterosexually yours,

Roland Kriewaldt

P.S. The pope is not God — he's just pretending.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE — FORGETABOUTIT


Subscribe to free newsletter
Search Realitycheckers.com