feminine-primary teaching

The Goddess Movement

Six years ago I wrote a post outlining what the PUA community referred to then as “Chick Crack“. It was a pretty straight forward post that I delved into just to explain why playing to women’s propensity to believe in the spiritual – or what women would consider spiritual – is an effective technique in Game. I always thought it was funny how accurate this presumption about women was when I came across it.

Of all the strippers I’d ‘dated’ in the past every one subscribed to some form of non-mainstream spiritualism. This girl Angie I used to bang kept Tarot cards in her pink lady’s devotional Bible, another professed to be a psychic; in fact the only people I’ve ever known who self-seriously wanted me to believe they were in fact psychic were all women.

[…] For the stripper set this seems to be par for the course, but I wish I could say this chick-crack phenomenon was limited to just women who had some vacuous spiritual/emotional hole in their lives to fill. No, all women (yes I said all) are predisposed to the intrigue that metaphysical imaginings sparks in them. If it smacks of secret, covert knowledge, privy only to a chosen few, then you’ve got an attentive listener in a woman. UFOs, palm reading (always a classic), psychic premonition, ‘gifts of prophecy’, really anything that hints at knowledge beyond the ordinary is fair game. Chick Crack is not just limited to off-brand spiritualisms either, you’ll find that far more women than men will develop (conveniently) an affinity for, and are more invested in, religion than men.

In the wake of the Anthony Bourdain “suicide“, and the scramble to absolve Asia Argento of any complicity in his decision to hang himself, I came across this post about Asia’s penchant for Witchcraft. Apparently Wicca is somewhat more than a hobby for her. As you look at these pictures it’s important to remember that this is a 42 year old woman (and her friends) who sincerely believes in this stuff.

In Chick Crack I also made reference as to why I believe women’s being predisposed to beliefs in the supernatural is a desire for secret power from an innate position of female powerlessness.

Feminine Mythology

Women’s natural pull towards the mysterious and metaphysical has its roots in the sex’s historical characterizations. In keeping with the very useful associations of women’s unknowability and feminine mystique, it’s perhaps unsurprising that we find most mythologized representations of women and femininity cast as brooding, fickle, rapacious and often as a temptress, possessing secret knowledge that foolish men (the mere mortals) are neither capable of, nor encouraged to understand. Sometimes childlike, often conveniently eroticized, women are literally cast as forces of nature – whether sexualized nymphs or tempestuous witches, each characterization relies on women possessing some form of secret or forbidden connection to the metaphysical. Even the commanding presence of Joan of Arc, while leading the armies of France, had a connection to something otherworldly. By their very nature, feminine mythology, by default, presumes women are more in tune with the nature of reality, while surpassing the ignorance of brutish men.

Women revel in their mythology. Since covert forms of communication are the preferred language of women, their affinity for secret information is a natural fit. Ever wonder why gossip seems to be uniquely endemic to women? Look no further than women’s innate impulse to acquire secret knowledge. Take away the Vampires and Werewolves – the metaphysical component – from the Twilight series and what you’re left with is a relatively bland romance novel. Add the otherworldly and you have a runaway hit popular with every female age demographic, from tweens to octogenarians.

In women’s evolutionary past, concealment meant everything. Confusing a man as to the true genetic heritage of his children was often a matter of life or death. Pursuing pluralistic sexual strategies depends upon creating a characterization of women as legitimately unknowable, thus the feminine mystique is instituted. Ergo, the sociological PR campaign over the course of millennia has been to perpetuate the mystery of woman.

From an evolutionary perspective it makes sense that physically weaker tribal women would seek some sort of mastery over the men in their lives who could punish or kill them and their offspring at will. As I’ve covered in many essays, women are biologically and psychologically more attuned to deeper communication and the emotive states of other people. Women have a far greater capacity to understand subcommunications and subcommunicate themselves among their own sex. This is borne out by multiple brain scan studies and research on the architecture of men and women’s brains.

To the blunt, overt, relatively nuance-less interpretive processes of men this subcommunication can be both frustrating and mysterious. It’s the mysterious part that women learned to reinforce and exploit in their dealings with men long ago. This is where we get the idea of the seductress or the ‘keeper of mysterious secrets’ archetype (witch, midwife, nature goddess) for women. It’s less important that women would actually be more in tune with the supernatural, but rather it’s more important that they believe it’s a general truth about all women. Men might be skeptical, or they may buy into that mystique, revere it and encourage other men to believe something similar. Usually how a man adopts or rejects that archetype is determined by his own self-understanding and his Game according to it and his sexual market value.

There are a lot of derivative character archetypes that stem from the basic ‘mysterious woman’ root. That might be anything from a healer, nurturer, mother type rooted in what used to be the mystery of women’s life-giving capacity, to the force of nature sorceress, to the eroticized sexual seductress (nymph, siren) or even the high-priestess of the holy temple of prostitution (an ancient brothel madame). Over the course of history, since our hunter-gatherer beginnings, this means to influence and power for women has coalesced into what we popularly imagine about women’s mysterious nature. Only today we call it a ‘woman’s intuition’ and we make appeals to fortune and fate when a guy get’s “lucky” and a woman favors him with her sexuality. It’s all socialized solutions to evolutionary problems, but if we add an element of ‘magic’ to the equation it makes explaining failures and appreciating successes that much easier.

Today, the belief in this nature is still very much reinforced in society. Thus, we get women subscribing to what amounts to a collective pathology – they are encouraged to believe in their ‘magical’ sensitivities to spirits and forces beyond the sensitivities of (ostensibly) “powerful” men. To fight the mythological Patriarchy women rely on a mythological tool. In Chick Crack I made mention of a stripper I used to have as a friend-with-benefits who was very attuned to the “spirit world”. As such the whole gamut of the supernatural was free game for her to use. She’d read my Tarot cards, my palm, throw in some eastern mysticism and wash it all down with a read through her pink ladies’ devotional Bible. Granted, ‘Angie‘ was an extreme case, but all women are in someway, or say they are in someway, privy to metaphysical understandings which men are not. And today we read and listen to male leaders in mainstream religions adopt and parrot back this “women are closer to God than men” mantra which is directly linked to the ‘spiritual women’ mystique.

The old trope of a Woman’s Intuition is an example of this belief in something beyond the ken of men. And this is also an important aspect of boys’ Blue Pill conditioning – girls/women possess some unearthly connection to God or something supernatural which further cements the idea that they should to defer authority to girls and women if they want to “please God the Goddess”. You might think this hard to believe in our age of technology, but only the context of the supernatural has shifted. Even the most objectively rational boys and men strongly believe in the ‘soul mate myth despite atheism or agnosticism. This belief of the faithless is directly related to the unknowability of the female. Even modern atheists have a tendency to fall prey to the “someone for everyone” religion when it comes to connecting with the opposite sex.

It’s my belief that this presumption of a greater sensitivity to the supernatural is an aspect of women’s evolved mental firmware. Regardless of how false it may be, a woman with the disposition to encourage men to believe that she has some otherworldly connection despite the world or circumstances around them, one that would lead men to venerate her in the long term, would’ve been a powerful social adaptation in ensuring her and her children’s security. No doubt women readers will trot out the reflexive “Well men have been shamans and soothsayers and the patriarchal leaders of churches too”, and this is true, but those men lacked the female elemental advantage in their believability. Even their own belief sets encompassed the ‘spiritual woman’ tropes for better or worse. The wise old wizard is definitely an archetype, but that wizard lacks the feminine mystique and the sexual components only women possess in exercising that power.

Modern Witchcraft

Today we see a distinct falling away from the old order of acknowledging the supernatural. Less and less people subscribe to religion in its conventional sense. The Millennial generation wants nothing to do with “organized religion”, yet they still seek the structure to life it used to provide. So instead we hear the compromise about being “spiritual, but not religious” as if accepting the possibility of the metaphysical is something expected, but the taint of the “religious” is left for older generations. Even in what passes for contemporary religion the influence of the Feminine Imperative is ever-present. The spiritual, the metaphysical, the religious, all are still useful tools for women to consolidate power with. As men abdicate more authority to the feminine, as they themselves are the products of a continuous social feminization, we see a wholesale handover of the spiritual to the direction of women. The male leadership of mainstream religions is itself compromised with the imperatives and priorities of women who are already presumed to be “more in tune with God or the supernatural”. As such they exercise the Feminine Imperative and assimilate women’s stake on the spiritual by being proxy agents for women’s authority.

Today I was linked a story about how Episcopalians have begun to Remove the Man from their religion. Apparently this marks the beginning of rewriting the doctrine of this religion by erasing all masculine pronouns for God. Of course I expect the predictable retorts that Episcopalians aren’t real Christians, but theirs is just one of the more glaring examples of how the feminization of religion progresses. The latent purpose is a wholesale removal of anything conventionally masculine from religion, and/or placing the feminine as the primary connection with the supernatural. Whether it’s mainstream religion or psychic reading, a woman is at the center of that mysticism. If you want a perspective into the things to come for a female-led mega-religion look no further than the teaching of Rev. Shannon Johnson Kershner (dual surname noted). God is not male is the clarion call of the priestesses (and their male ‘ally’ priests) of this new religion.

Why should we view God as female? Well, it’s so that little girls can become pastors, with Kershner saying, ““I wanted to make sure that little girls knew that God could call them to be pastors, too.”

For the MeToo / Time’s Up generation God is female, the supernatural is more aligned with the feminine. I’ve made this observation before (before the #MeToo moral panic arrived) but there’s been a growing push on the part of men to relinquish any spiritual authority from a masculine perspective for decades now. The largely secular impetus of the MeToo movement is now finding its way into a religious environment that has been primed and ready for it (largely due to its acquiescing, complicit, and thoroughly Blue Pill male leadership) for a long time. MeToo was a natural fit for a feminine-primary church that needed its push to consolidate power even in the most patriarchal of religions. MeToo has given women license to finally be overt in their design on religion and spirituality – not unlike Open Hypergamy has been embraced in the mainstream.

In celebration of this conversion of religion to feminine-primacy we get the feminist Beyoncé “worship” services in formerly traditional cathedrals. Millennials may be falling away from the old church, but they fill the new church to overflow-capacity when ‘god’ is female.

The take home message for this essay is this; womankind has been intimately aware of the complicity of men in granting them a default connection to the supernatural. While we may not profess a formal belief in such, men are eager to accommodate female power in this arena – especially if in doing so it endears women to the men who play along with it. Professing a belief in the supernatural is simply good Game. The early PUAs picked up on this and used it to their advantage. However, this abdication of moral authority – an authority founded in masculine pretenses – goes far beyond getting your palm read by an earthy stripper you want to bang. This compromising of moral authority to the feminine by men is just the next phase in conceding all social and political authority to the Feminine Imperative. If God or a ‘higher power’ is the foundation of moral authority, and women are universally presumed to be more in touch with that higher power, the next step is to cede that authority to the sex that has a more direct line to that power.

What prompted me to consider writing this essay was a link I was sent in response to the story about Asia Argento’s involvement in modern day Wicca. I listened to a bit of a podcast by Vox Day recently in which he was asked his thoughts about modern paganism. He said, and I paraphrase, “Paganism today is just kids LARPing to the idea of old world religions. They’re role playing something akin to Dungeons and Dragons with no real belief.” I thought this was interesting in light of the article I was sent on Neo-Paganism and the Feminist Spirituality Movement:

However, some women were not willing to identify themselves as “witches”, and there arose a form of Goddess worship without any of the trappings of witchcraft. As Nevill Drury explains, “Although some Goddess-worshippers continued to refer to themselves as witches, others abandoned the term altogether, preferring to regard their neopagan practice as a universal feminist religion, drawing on mythologies from many different ancient cultures.” This has been called “Goddess worship” and the “Goddess movement”. These terms are frequently used interchangeably with, but should be distinguished from, “feminist spirituality”, which includes the Goddess movement, but also feminist Christianity, feminist Judaism, etc.

[…]

The principal beliefs of the Goddess movement are that the Goddess is a radically immanent deity and she can be experienced directly. The Earth is seen as the body of the Goddess and women are understood to connect to the Goddess through their experience of their own bodies, as well as the “body” of the earth. Goddess feminists also believe that the Goddess is constantly changing, manifest in the changing of the seasons and the human life-cycle, and perpetually self-renewed.

The Goddess movement offers women a new self-image and facilitates women finding their own innate goodness and natural divinity. It enables women to redeem and revalue the “feminine principle” and offers them positive images and symbols of female empowerment.

It may seem easy to dismiss the influence of the feminine on what is re-evolving into a new feminine-world order of spirituality, but I think it would be foolish dismiss the influences of the Feminine Imperative – the Goddess Movement – that is manifesting itself incrementally in the power vacuum left by the abdication of masculine moral authority to the feminine. We read that Millennials may not be “as religious” as previous generations, but that doesn’t mean they don’t seek out ‘spiritual, but not religious’ metaphysical connections. They seek direction, and connection in religion, but they seek it in the secular, gynocentric terms they’ve been conditioned to believe they should define themselves by. A similar parallel exists on the masculine side too. One of the reasons for Jordan Peterson’s popularity is his ‘ministering’ to a generation of “lost boys” seeking direction in life. He is every bit one of the Lords of the New Church in the same way that the Goddess Movement speaks to another demographic of lost souls who seek absolution in the “divine feminine” – also a term Peterson is fond of.

Old Lies

Apparently no one has bothered to let this poor sap (I don’t know who he is) know that the “Toxic” masculinity  narrative has now been replaced with “masculinity is toxic“. I find it interesting that when it comes to the mainstream societal understandings of what masculinity once was and what it is now – or what the mainstream believes it should be now – much of these interpretations are based on fanciful, anachronistic, ideas of what contributed to our understanding of masculinity now. I’ve gone into my own definitions of what constitutes ‘conventional’ masculinity for men many times before so I won’t belabor it now, however, as the popular narrative changes I’ve noticed some very common presumptions that masculinity critics like to use and are repeated over and over.

The first of these, and the most common, is the deliberate misconception that a boy’s learning to be masculine never left the 1950-60s. In the wake of the Nikolas Cruz shooting this rationale surfaced quite a bit. It still is. The idea is that boys are born as these tender, delicate souls, all naturally ready to emote and sensate like precious little girls – that is until the nebulous evil ‘patriarchy’ gets ahold of them and batters them into “being tough”, not crying and told to stop being such pussies. This is the old anachronism that presupposes western society never left the ‘macho tough guy’ preconditioning of boys to raise them to be these future murderers, wife beaters and misogynists.

This is, of course, the “boys are broken” narrative I addressed in Good Humans. It’s kind of ironic when you think that this narrative would have us believe boys naturally wanting to be boys is a net social negative and it takes some strong intervention in their upbringing to turn them into good humans. So what is it? Are boys being their natural selves by wanting to be rambunctious, risk taking, shit-giving, masculine boys, or are they naturally these tender little emo-beings coming fresh out of the womb only to have their ‘genuine’ sensitive emotional souls crushed by “hyper-masculine” fathers, male teachers and school coaches. This is one of the more stupid, but deliberate, paradoxes the Village and the Feminine Imperative conveniently switch between as circumstances require yet one more anti-masculine response.

Lies for Boys

You can see this confusion in the above Tweet.

Our society teaches boys to “toughen up”.

Actually no, the feminine-primary social order that has been systematically feminizing boys into feminine-identifying men for the past 50 years does nothing of the kind. Since the mid-seventies the cultural narrative took a hard turn to the feminine-correct in raising boys into pacified ‘harmless’ men. We’re going on five generations of telling boys it is incumbent upon them to get in touch with their mythical feminine sides if they want to evolve beyond ‘traditional masculinity’. There is no ‘toughening’ being taught to boys in a female primary education system that teaches boys in a manner that presumes they are defective girls.

…which is okay, but not okay when “toughening up” also means suppressing feelings.

Feelings are perhaps the only thing boys are being taught to prioritize in their feminine-primary educations today. This fact deserves a bit of explanation here. Male and female humans process emotions differently. Women in particular process negative emotions in a much different way than men. Men tend to prioritize information through a filter of rational discernment first and then sort out how they feel about that information in an emotional context. Women are much the opposite; girls process information through an emotional filter first and then sort out what the information actually means to them (and after that, how it might affect others). If this sounds like the essays I’ve written about how men’s and women’s communications methods differ you’re not too far off. Men prioritize the content (information) of a conversation while women prioritize the context (the feels she gets) from a conversation. This is how our brains work, and when one method isn’t socially favored above the other both methods can be complementary to the other.

But in a feminine-primary social order this is not how things work. As I mentioned, for the past 50+ years our educational system has shifted to favor the learning methodologies of girls at the expense of boys. This ‘girls style’ teaching has been the standard for so long now that we largely take it for granted that it is the only correct style of teaching. Today, men account for less than 25% of all teachers in the United States. In the UK it’s 25% and n Canada only 17% of elementary school teachers are male. Teaching is a female dominated profession and especially for younger kids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics only 2% of pre-K and kindergarten teachers, and 18% of elementary and middle-school teachers, are men. How do you think stats like these affect the learning methodologies applied to boys and girls?

Yet still this lie that boys are the victims of some overwhelming toxic masculinity in their upbringing is the first reflexive explanation we hear from women and feminized men when a kid commits a criminal act. Why?

Lies for Equalism

Because it sounds right. It sounds like it should be right. The presumption is that boys are, in fact, girls; or at least they should be a functional equivalent of girls when it comes to educations. Over the past 50 years the baseless presumptions of blank-slate egalitarian equalism has not only inserted its lies into our social consciousness, but also into our presumptions about educating kids. I’ll repeat, men and women are biologically and psychologically different and boys and girls are equally different. The ways they learn are distinct to their sex. Yet for the past 4 generations egalitarian equalism has convinced (mostly female) educators that boys and girls are functional equals and gender differences are learned rather than innate.

While equalism informs (mostly female) teachers that boys and girls are the same, the teaching methodology that works best for girls and women is the predominant one today and for the recent past generations. The only way to justify this method as the universal one is to presume that boys are the same as girls – just ‘defective’ girls that must be taught to quash their innate maleness. If boys and girls are presumed to be blank-slate equals then it must follow that boys are just as emotion-prioritizing and sensitive as any girl, and it is through a process of an imagined patreo-misogyny social conditioning that boys psychologically cover over their “true” natures – that of precious little (defective) girls. In essence the equalist belief is that all babies are born as little equal blank-slates, but the ideal template for those blank-slates is a female nature irrespective of the sex of the child.

When a boy’s real, masculine, inborn nature expresses itself the first thing it meets in this equalist-but-feminine-primary education is derision and shame. For as much as boys would be boys they are taught that they aren’t good for being so. They’re encouraged to self-repress, self-deprecate their gender and self-police their brothers. They’re taught that the correct way to think is to emote like girls because that’s correct for the template of a “good human”. Despite the female-centric teaching boys innate nature still find ways for boys to be boys and when this happens an egalitarian (feminine-primary) social order presume the ‘bad behavior’ must be the result of the influence of an evil patriarchy that truly hasn’t existed in the way they believe it does for 50 some odd years.

 

As I’ve detailed in past essays, society only sees fathers as tolerable and superfluous when it comes to raising boys. Single mothers are celebrated as super-human and in the equalist lie that would have us believe that women can not only ‘have it all’ but they can ‘do it all’ we rarely question the necessity of a masculine influence in a child’s life. We give it lip service and parrot back the need for a man to “step up and take responsibility as a parent”. The message to dads is always “do better”, because the pretense for fathers is that they are inherently irresponsible and ‘broken’ just like all boys are.

The Village might even concede that a father is some advantage to a child, but ultimately he’s superfluous – that is until that kid is involved in some kind of criminality. Then the questions become “Where was this kid’s father? Why wasn’t he around to teach this kid some discipline and respect for human life?” The children of single mothers are overwhelmingly more likely to be come involved in criminality, but we don’t look at her half-measure parenting as a possible cause. Remember, she’s a super-hero and blameless, so any blame for this kid’s acts fall on the shoulders of a weak or absent father. Then fathers are necessary. Then the kid needed to ‘toughen up’ and dad should’ve taught it to him. And all of this comes full circle and feeds into the idea of father’s inherent incompetence again.

Lies for ‘Defective Girls’

The next lie is that boys can be,…

…both tough and fragile, vulnerable and resilient. Being vulnerable doesn’t affect your manliness.

I’ve written a lot about the lie of transvaluation and  Vulnerability in the past, but this was really in terms of how women perceive men and require strength and dominance. Another aspect of masculinity that is encoded into women’s mental firmware is to seek out men with superior competency. A woman just is, a man must become is the first maxim of a man accepting his Burden of Performance. Part of this masculine competency involves strength, know-how and determination; all things that have been replaced with feminine-primary emotionalism and naval gazing for boys.

Men are expected to know how to do everything and what they do not know, what they are not competent in is one criteria of how they are judged by women. A lot of guys might think, “So the fuck what? I don’t base my self-worth on the opinions of women.” As well you shouldn’t, but it doesn’t change the truth that if you don’t know how to change a tire when you get flat, or you need another man who does know how to do it to change it for you, a woman sees you as less competent – and by extension less capable of providing her with the security she needs from a masculine ideal. Women evolved to see men as a Jack of all trades, master of some.

A man’s vulnerability (taught to him as a child by his female-primary teachers) most definitely affects his manliness. Vulnerability is, by definition, a weakness. It is a flaw in the design, a chink in the armor and vulnerabilities will be exploited by enemies and rivals to ensure that man fails while a stronger one succeeds in all things. This is Darwinism so simple that to question it seems illogical, but in our equalist utopia toughness and fragility find no contradiction; vulnerability and resilience are bed partners. Again, we must consider that this illogical balance can only exist in the female ‘good human’ template and the idea that everything is learned and nothing is innate about male and female humans. Promoting the idea that ‘vulnerability doesn’t affect manliness’ presumes that the person declaring it is in some way an authority on a manliness that has been already demonized and conditioned out of our boys today.

They hate the very idea that a boy might act in accordance with an inborn masculine proclivity. They hate the idea that a boy might learn to be tough and resilient at the expense of a vulnerability (weakness) because it contradicts the equalist belief set. They hate the idea that boys and girls have innately, biologically, different ways of dealing with emotions that don’t align with their belief in a blank-slate. To force them to accept this would be to force them to abandon deeply ego-invested beliefs that they themselves had conditioned into them by the same feminine-primary education.

Boys don’t naturally emote like girls, but when they refuse to align with the female-correct way of emoting we say that some patriarchal macho man, somewhere, in some movie, in some song, in some household taught that kid not to feel. He somehow learned that allowing his emotions to rule over him, to be vulnerable, to prioritize his feelings above his sense of rational self is what it actually is – a weakness that in our evolutionary past was far likelier to get him killed than to earn the praise of his equalist teachers.

Boys are simply not as emotional as girls – our brains did not evolve that way – but because we value the feminine above the masculine today we say this kid is doing it wrong. We say he learned to be an asshole from his macho dad or he learned to love firearms because of the latest rap song or a toxically masculine society that doesn’t exist. A kid like Nikolas Cruz was bound to happen in a world that teaches boys to prioritize feelings above rationality. He was taught like a defective girl. He never learned the masculine inspired discipline, determination and resiliency because all that conflicts with the lie that vulnerability is ever a strength. All that conflicts with his feminine-primary upbringing.

As such, these ‘defective girls’ are unequipped to handle the rejection of a girlfriend. The participation trophy generation, the one where everyone’s a winner and no one ever has to deal with defeat, never teaches these ‘defective girls’ what to do when they finally do taste a bitter defeat. They never learned how to come back from it because that would mean admitting that vulnerability and emotionalism (the female-correct way to handle it) are in fact weaknesses. So, predictably, a ‘defective girl’ like Nikolas Cruz does what any petulant teenage girl would – he has an emotional outburst. Only his outburst consists of gunning down 17 kids with an assault rifle.

The answer to incidents like this doesn’t lie in gun control or further feminization of boys. It lies in reimagining how we educate boys and how we see masculinity as a net positive that can deter exactly this kind of emotional outburst. If you truly want these shootings to stop it’s time we embrace real men teaching real toughness and resilience in our boys. It’s time we teach boys like they will become tough, strong, invulnerable young men we may need to provide future generations with a much needed security. And the time where we’ll need them is coming faster than anyone today really thinks.