Beauty and the Beast
By Rod Van Mechelen
Where love in patriarchy is transformational, converting passion into romantic love and romantic love into civilization, in the emerging matricentric society it is oppressive, reconstituting civilization into savagery, and men into "beasts." - Just something I wrote.
The masculine flaw
1992 Bellevue, Wash. - The essence of the myth of the marriage relationship, as it is endlessly replayed in the timeless allegory Beauty and the Beast, is that marriage transforms the "Beast" into a man, and thereby empowers the "Beauty." But today's reality is that women are helping to transform most men into sex starved "Beasts" by eroticising themselves as evanescent "Beauties," and then promoting their sex as a scarce commodity by making men beg and pay for it.
Every woman who "plays hard to get" or lets men make all the first moves, plays a part in this.
Additionally, pop feminists socially disempower most men by embellishing the myth of the male "Beast." Many women then abuse the power this gives them over men by using it to coerce men into transitory relationships where the goal is not a socio-sexual partnership, but what Cynthia S. Smith calls the "three F's": "(F)ertilization, the fathering figure and financial support." (Why Women Shouldn't Marry: Being Single by Choice, Cynthia S. Smith).
Pop feminists believe men are fundamentally flawed and basically unnecessary, and so Smith asserts women no longer need men for the fathering figure, and the rest of her book is an argument in favor of using men only for sex and money. (Sounds like prostitution!) While we might condemn her objectification of men, the sad truth is her attitudes reflect what is close to becoming the dominant social reality, where women are increasingly objectifying men as nothing more than walking wallets.
A walking wallet personifies money. Money, as Doug Casey, of Casey Research pointed out years ago, is the hours of our lives we spend working for it, and the things we hope to buy with it for ourselves and the ones we love. In a sense, he wrote, money is "congealed life." That is, it is the means by which we exchange and enhance our power to live. In this way, money is also the vehicle of social evolution.
As world commerce evolved, our patriarchal civilization evolved with it. More people had time to learn, reflect, dream, design and live. Within the framework of this evolving patriarchal civilization, the purpose of the feminist movement was to facilitate the evolution of women's roles by expanding their options. But pop-feminists have perverted this to mean placing an ever-growing number of restrictions on men.
The result: where love in patriarchy was once transformational, converting passion into romantic love and romantic love into civilization, in the emerging matricentric society it is becoming oppressive, reconstituting civilization into savagery, and men into "beasts."
No such thing as pop-feminism
2012 Olympia, Wash. - When I wrote this book, I distinguished between "feminists," whose goal was real gender equality, or the freedom to choose one's own path, and pop-feminists, who Rush Limbaugh called "feminazis." Twenty years later, I disagree. There are only feminists. Women who believe in real gender equality and freedom to choose, are equalitarians, not feminists. Feminists--all of them--believe to some degree in female supremacy. And all flavors of feminism are sexist.
Rod Van Mechelen
Rod Van Mechelen is the author of What Everyone Should Know about Feminist Issues: The Male-Positive Perspective (the page now includes several articles by other authors), and the publisher of The Backlash! @ Backlash.com. He is a member of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and served for 9-1/2 years on the Cowlitz Indian Tribal Council.