April 15, 2014 § Leave a comment

© Chinweizu, 1990
First Published 2 October 1990
Second printing 05 November 1990
(1) Who Rules Who – Man or Woman?
In the last couple of decades, feminist propaganda has soguht to persuade the world that women are powerless in society, and that men are natural oppressors of women. It claims that wives are surbodinate to their husbands n the home; and that, outside the home, men have excluded women from political, economic and cultural powe. Some, like Ellen Galford of Britain, say: “Women are slaves and men are masters.” Some, like Andrea Dworkin of the USA, say: “All housewives are economically exploited; all working women are””:; And some women, like Carol Hanich of the USA, have denied that women have power at all. The term men’s liberation was derived, from the the term woman’s liberation and thus insinuates that women have power over men. Its very name infers liberation from female domination and is therefore an inversion of fact as well as ,;vomen’s liberation principles.6 As a rule, those few women have not been taken seriously who have bothered to acknowledge female power over men: like Denyse Plummer the Trinidadian calypso singer, who proclaims that “woman is boss” or like the expartriate Nigerian actress Patti Boulaye, who says: “most men are controlled by women,,;8 or like the Argentinian Esther Vilar, who said: Women let men work for them think for them and take on their responsibilities – in fact, they exploit them.” This great division of opinion among women should prompt one to ask: Which kind of claim is true? Which picture is the illusion, and which the reality? Conventional modern opinion, as well as the social science consensus, would appear to support the feminist picture. It is conventionally assumed that female power, if it existed, would be wielded by women, through some public system of authority. It is also held, by conventional expert opinion, that matriarchs (who would be the natural wielders of female power) are illusory; and that matriarchy (a system of females wielding authority) does not exist. For instance, The Concise Oxford Dictionary (6th Edition, 1976) defmes a matriarch as a “woman corresponding in status to a patriarch (usually jocular)”. The venerable compilers of that dictionary add that the word is derived “from Latin mater mother on false analogy of patriarch”. Treating the notion as a joke derived on a “false analogy” suggests that matriarchs are illusory, phantom figures. However, powerful matrons, often elderly, who dominate family groups and clans, who are patriarchs in all but their gender, are neither unknown nor rare. Similarly, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, (15th Edition, 1986) matriarchy is a “social system in which familial and political authority is wielded by women”. And that repository of conventional knowledge adds that “the consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed.” This is despite the fact that, in some African and Native American societies, women did have their structures of political authority parallel to and countervailing those of men. When a definition will not allow us to acknowledge what is before us, it is flawed. For example, if we defined the sun as a square star, it would then be, strictly speaking, true that there isn’t and never has been a sun. But since such a claim flies in the face of our experience, we would have to reject that defmition for not capturing the reality, and for misleading us into the absurdity of denying the existence of the sun we can see and point at. On similar grounds, we would have to reject the conventional defmitions of matriarch and matriarchy for flying in the face of the examples cited above. In any case, even if no “strictly matriarchal society” ever existed, that would not imply that female power did not exist. Authority is only one of the many types of power; and the wielding of authority is not necessary for the exercise of many types of power. Power without authority is neither unknown nor rare, as is recognized when it is said that someone is “the power behind the throne”. Such obscurantist views from the organs of conventional knowledge suggest that female power has yet to receive the investigation it deserves. Feminist propaganda and conventional knowledge notwithstanding, it seems prima facie odd to claim that women are powerless in society and, in particular, over men… what one wants, then women are far from powerless. Women do get, and always did get, what they want – be it riches, or thrones, or the head of John the Baptist, or routine exemption from hardships and risks which their men folk are obliged to endure. That women operate by methods which often differ from those available to men does not in any way mean that women are bereft of power. If women are not powerless, are they, perhaps, less powerful tha!l men? Some feminists find it in their interest to have the world believe this. And for proof they point to the public structures of political, economic and cultural power, and show that these are almost exclusively occupied by men. But does that prove what they aim to prove? Not at all! All it shows is that in the public structures, which form the domain of male power, women are not well represented. If this under-representation is to prove that women are less powerful than men, it would need to be also true that those public structures exhaust the modes and centers of power in society. Alas, for feminist claims, they do not; for there indeed are other modes and centres of power which women monopolize. Such are the subjects of this inquiry. In those centres, women control scarce resources, commodities and opportunities; and they distribute them. They exercise power through education, propaganda, directives, suggestions, rewards and punishments. They wield instruments of persuasion and coercion. As this inquiry shall show, matriarchs (who wield female power) and matriarchy (an organized structure or institution for the exercise of female power) do exist, indeed have always existed. The power they wield is neither illusory nor a joke. Furthermore, in human society, it is not male power but female power which is supreme. Or rather, to change the imagery, however great male power may be, it is to female power what that one-seventh of an iceberg which is visible above water is to the six-sevenths which lies below the water line. . As we shall see, the male modes of power are actually tributary to the female modes, in as much as the fruits of male power are poured at the feet of women through the workings of female power. That men seek wealth, power, status and fame for the love of women is widely attested to by knowledgeable commentators. According to Esther Vilar: “Man’s work is only done with woman in view’ And from his studies of the human psyche, Sigmund Freud reports: • .. in the greater number of ambitious day-dreams, too, we can discover a woman in some corner, for whom the dreamer performs all his heroic deeds and at whose feet all his triumphs are to be laid. 11 From his own experience, Aristotle Onassis, an ambitious and very successful businessman of this 20th century, confrrms this when he declared: “If women didn’t exist all the money in the world would have no meaning” .12 Moreover, male preoccupation with wealth, power, fame and status in order to win the love of women is quite natural, being rooted in the animal origins of humanity. As Robert Ardrey reports, it would be unreasonable, in the light of our new knowledge of animal behaviour. conclude that feminine attraction for wealth and rank, and masculine preoccupation with fortune and power and fame are human aberrations …1 3 If the natural goal of male power is to pay tribute to women, then male power is naturally tributary to female power. If, however powerful a man may be, his power is used to serve the women in his life, that would make dubious the notion that men are masters over women. Because every man has as boss his wife, or his mother, or some other woman in his life, men may rule the world, but women rule the men who rule the world. Thus, contrary to appearances, woman is boss, the overall boss, of the world. To understand why woman rules man, we need to examine female power and how it operates on men. 2) Features of Female Power “You reckoned without the powers of a woman; they always know what they want and they get it in the end” – Remark at a Nigerian party. Female power exists; it hangs over every man like a ubiquitous shadow. Indeed, the life cycle of man, from cradle to grave, may be divided into three phases, each of which is defmed by the form of female power which dominates him: mother power, bridepower, or wifepower. From birth to puberty, he is ruled by motherpower, as exercised over him by his one and only “mummy dearest”. Then he passes into the territory of bridepower, as exercised over him by his bride-to-be, that cuddlesome and tender wench he feels he cannot live without. This phase lasts from puberty to that wedding day when the last of his potential b􀈛ides finally makes herself his wife. He then passes into the domain of -wifepower, as exercised over him by his own resident matriarch, alias his darling wife. This phase lasts till he is either divorced, widowed or dead. In each phase, female power is established over him through his peculiar weakness in that stage of his life. Motherpower is established over him while he is a helpless infant. Bridepower holds sway over him through his great need for a womb in which to procreate; if he didn’t feel this need, he wouldn’t put himself into the power of any owner of a womb. Wifepower is established over him through his craving to appear as lord and master of some woman’s nest; should he dispense with this vanity, not even the co-producer of his child could hold him in her nest and rule him. There are five conditions which enable women to get what they want from men: women’s control of the womb; women’s control of the kitchen; women’s control of the cradle; the psychological immaturity of man relative to woman; and man’s tendency to be deranged by his own excited penis. These conditions are the five pillars of female power; they are decisive for its dominance over male power. Though each is recognized in popular jokes and sayings, their collective significance is rarely noted. There is a joke which goes thus: 1st woman: The way to a man’s heart is through his belly. 2nd woman: Aren’t you aiming a few inches too high? This joke pays tribute to how the womb and the kitchen control the feelings of men. A man can be controlled by the hunger in his belly, and by the other hunger which flares up just below his belly. Consequently, he can be manipulated by whoever controls the kitchen which feeds him, or by whoever carries the womb through which he craves to procreate. That man abandons the kitchen to woman, and grovels for access to a womb, are not ordained by nature or by god, but result from how woman, who controls the cradle, has chosen to condition boys and girls. We must remember the saying that “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world” .15 That is so because whoever trains a child in its first years shapes it for life. Woman, who rules the nursery, shapes boys and girls for life; and the ways in which she shapes boys make them what they become as men. Women enjoy two other advantages which are the subjects of popular sayings. It is said that a man comes of age at 60, and a woman at 15; which is why, in the eyes of women, men are babies or, at best, little b􀀜s. When Nora Ephron of the USA declared: “Men are little boys”,1 she was voicing a view held, and frequently articulated, by women all over the world. That men are babies or little boys is why a bride can fool her suitor, however much older than her he may be; and why a wife can rule her husband so readily. Being a baby in the hands of his bride or wife, the suitor or husband is rare who discovers the true nature of the courtship or marital encounter before’it is all too late for him; he often does not do so till he is shoved into his grave, leaving whatever he has accumulated, through a lifetime of toil and risk, to his widow to make merry with. It is also said that when his penis stands up a man’s brain takes French leave. Which is why a woman who wants to rule a man first gets his penis to stand up and salute her. How did female power acquire these five pillars from whose tops it dominates men? The womb is evolution’s priceless gift to woman; man’s psychological immaturity and his deranging penis are evolution’s special handicaps on man. As if these natural advantages were not great enough, women have artfully annexed the kitchen and the cradle, and turned them into control centres from which to manipulate men. Of these five pillars, the womb is by far the most important. Because it is of exceptional importance in reproduction, because woman has a monopoly of it, and because of man’s irrepressible craving to use it, the womb has become woman’-s supreme headquarters for manipulating men. It is female power’s ultimate base. 3 Womb, Kitchen and Cradle: Control Centres of Female power “I use my brain and my uterus to achieve my goals” – A Nigerian tycoon’s wife. “What right do men have to infringe on territories most wives have held erring husbands with? (Said apropos of the kitchen)” – Bunmi Fadase “The way a twig is bent, that way the tree will grow” – An ancient saying. Everyday of a man’s life, he is subject to the dictates of womb, kitchen and cradle. The first set to rule him belongs to his mother; the second belongs to his wife. The first rules him in his vulnerable infancy; the second in his ambitious adulthood. His bride exploits his nostalgia for his mother’s set, and manipulates his craving for his future wife’s. Thus it is that mother, bride and wife control a man everyday of his life by playing on his changing needs for womb, kitchen and cradle. The power of the womb is great. It holds the mightiest of men in thrall. Be he a Caesar or a Croesus, a Rameses or a Genghis Khan, a womb will bring him to his knees when he seeks access to it. Consider any man and any woman when they set out to reproduce themselves. She needs his sperm; he needs her egg; without the one, the other cannot procreate. At the level of their complementary biological donations to the child, neither has the whiphand over the other. A fair and uncoerced collaboration is possible. Enter the womb – that factory where egg and sperm, having combined, grow till the featus is ready to be born. Mas, for the man, that indispensable factory belongs to the woman and the woman alone. Woman’s monopoly of the womb loads the mating encounter in her favour. It reduces the man to a supplicant. Since he is driven to survive through his progeny, he will pay any price to be allowed the use of a womb. He has little recourse. Should he seize her factory against her will, by subterfuge or by force, she can thwart him by aborting the featus, or by smothering the child at birth. It is therefore in his interest to yield to her terms, whatever they may be. If he must, he will conquer the whole world and lay it at a woman’s feet in order to be allowed to use her womb. Confronted with her monopoly over the womb, the man is obliged to be her slave if that is the price she demands; and she does. A woman knows that she has the monopolist’s whiphand over her suitor; and she knows how to crack the whip and bow his head. Contemplate this rebuke, from an Igbo maiden’s song, addressed to a suitor: “Have you come, empty-handed, to marry me?” Also consider the scorn in this rejection of her poor suitor by a Bashi girl from Zaire: ‘You want to marry me, but what can you give me? A nice field?’. ‘No, I have only a house.’ ‘What? You have nothing but a house? How would we live? Go to Bukavu; there you can earn plenty of money. You can buy food and other things.’ ‘No, I won’t go. I don’t know the people there. I have always lived here, and I know the people and want to stay here.’ ‘You are a stupid man. You want to marry me but you have nothing. If you don’t go to Bukavu and earn money to buy me things then I won’t marry you.’18 In anticipation of the bride’s demands, and of her monopolist’s veto powers, a man is trained to seek adventure and win the world; by laying the booty at her feet, he can avoid her withering scorn and rejection. Of course, man’s situation is not as terrible as that of the male mantis which is obliged to surrender his life when he mates; but it is close enough: man is obliged to surrender his liberty and his earnings when he mates. From puberty onwards, when procreative hormones take possession of him, the quest for a fruitful womb dominates the male’s behaviour. Its consequences have been known to alter the settled course of history. In the case of England’s Henry VIII, his quest for a womb that would yield him a male heir caused him to seek annulment of his first marriage so he could marry some other woman. When the Pope denied him his wish, Henry VIII broke with the Church of Rome, set up the Church of England with himself as its head, and got his desire. When his second wife, Anne Boleyn, proved unable to bear him a male heir, he chopped off her head, and married his third wife. So intense is the male craving for a fruitful womb that, after a man has found one, he feels obliged to secure it against all other users. This has led many a husband to kill a “cheating” wife, or to kill her lover, and get himself hanged for his trouble. The Trojan war is perhaps the most notorious example of what men will do to maintain exclusive rights in a womb. Menelaus, king of Sparta, made war on Paris, a prince of Troy, for carrying off Helen, Menelaus’s wife. By the time he got her back, Troy had been razed to the ground, and the flower of the manhood of the Eastern Mediterranean lands had perished. Yes indeed! A woman with a fruitful womb is most precious to a man; contrariwise, a woman without a fruitful womb is of scant value to a procreative man, and holds little power over him. O womb, your power is great! You are the biological foundation, the taproot of female power. As the goal net into which a man must shoot if he is to procreate, you are that part of a woman for which he will pay almost any price. And because you are priceless to him, you hold untold power. over him, like a fabulous .gold seam which rules a prospector’s life. The power of the kitchen is also great, for it is the power over hunger. Hunger can break the hardest will; can reduce the headstrong man to whimpering obedience; can scatter a mighty army without wasting even a bullet. Military commanders use hunger against besieged cities; torturers use it; wives use it. Since the power of hunger is terrible, whatever holds power over hunger is great indeed. And the kitchen holds power over hunger. It holds the power to sate as well as the power to starve; and it wields that power every day. As a Y oruba saying has it: “I ate yesterday does not interest hunger”; or as the ancient E􀀛tians said: “Yesterday’s drunkenness does not quench today’s thirst.” 9 The kitchen is the daily operations centre of female power. By feeding him his choice meals, or by not serving him any meal at all, the woman who is the commandant of his kitchen can manipulate any man. Woe unto him who depends entirely on his wife for his meals: a galley slave’s life would be paradise in his sight. Should he offend her, or should he not knuckle fast enough to her whims, he will feel the rats of hunger gnaw through his empty stomach; and should he complain about whatever scraps and bones she eventually sets before him, he shall find himself eating a dessert of heart-wounding words. 0 kitchen, your power is great; and woman, who rules the kitchen, is therefore powerful indeed. The power of the cradle is also great; for the way the twig is bent, that way the tree will grow. The cradle is the boot camp where every raw recruit is trained for induction into the human community, where basic habits are ingrained. Habits are more powerful than commands; for commands can only work where there already is a habit of obedience: the power of the cradle’s commandant can, therefore, never be overestimated. Mothers use their cradle power in the strategic interest of female power. In the nursery, they channel boys towdrds certain kinds of behaviour, and guide them away from others. The boy-child is taught to disdain cooking, child caring and house keeping; but the girl-child is encouraged to learn them. A boy showing keen interest in such skills is branded a “sissy”, or mocked as unmanly or effeminate. The boy-child is also taught to revere and obey mother, and to hunger for her smile and approval. These lessons mark him for life. His disdain for childrearing skills will ensure that, when he grows up, he will abandon the nursery to his wife, so she can dominate it and shape the next generation to suit women’s interest. His disdain for cooking will put his stomach into the hands of whatever woman cooks for him in adult life. His reverence for his mother, and his habit of obeying her, prepare him to revere and obey any woman, such as his future wife, whom he makes into his mother-surrogate. o cradle, you power is great! By conditioning a boy-child’s ego, you lay the foundations upon which female power will build its structures over him. The womb’s basic power, the cradle’s strategic power, the kitchen’s tactical power; to hold any one of these is to have great power; to hold all three is indeed to have overwhelming power. Somehow, women hold all three. God or evolution (take your choice of explanation) gave the womb to woman. But, as feminists quite rightly point out, there is no reason, intrinsic to child rearing or to cooking, why the cradle or the kitchen should be under woman’s control. One must therefore marvel at how woman took control of them. In quietly annexing the cradle, and in seizing control of the kitchen during the original division of labour between the genders (alias the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden!), woman pulled off the most consequential coup in human hist<?ry. That coup guaranteed that, however mighty a man may become, he will submit to be ruled by woman. With these three pillars of power in her domain, a man and all his possessions, tangible and intangible, are woman’s to dispose of. In the light of the above, we must ask: If men are so powerful, how come they allow women to keep control of the kitchen and the cradle? Could it simply be that men are not as clever as women, and so have failed to realize that whoever rules the womb and the kitchen and the cradle rules the world? Could it be that, even if men should understand the situation, they would not dare to overthrow female power? Could it be that the courage and skill needed to overthrow female power would be greater than that which went to make all the political revolutions in all of history? Could it be that, compared to a revolution against female power, the American, French, R􀂙ian, Chinese and other revolutions•would look like child’s play? Even if men found the enlightenment and the courage to challenge female power, its dominion over them would not be easily ended. Woman’s control of the womb is unassailable, and will remain so until such a time as cloning makes the womb unnecessary for procreation. So, if research into cloning is blocked, you can guess in whose interest it is done. Any movement to deprive women of their control df the kitchen can expect to be resisted, with all the methods, devious and direct, at the disposal of women. If in doubt about that, consider the following comment by a Nigerian woman columnist, Buomi Fadase, after she had enjoyed a:man’s’ cooiting: As I licked the last drop (of gravy) off my fmgers, I became a bit uncomfortable. What right do men have to infringe on territories most wives have held erring husbands with? … So there you are girls! When next you are in the kitchen and hubby wants to know what and what you’re putting in the stew pot, shut the lid firmly on the pot. Better still, wake up in the middle of the night to do your cooking. In like manner, any movement to hand the cradle over to men will be resisted with everything women have got. Note this: even the most extreme of feminists do not go so far as to advocate that women abandon control of the cradle; if they did, other women would lynch them. They may insist that the man assist, but they would never abandon the cradle to him altogether. Feminists may demand creches in workplaces, but the creches are still to be run by women – as in the kibbutzim of Israel. The cradle business may be reorganized to accomodate women’s new ambitions, but the reorganization will only be permitted to shift control from some women to some other women, but never to men. Why, despite all this, is there the illusion that a power as durable and ubiquitous as female power hardly exists? Why is there the illusion that power is an affair that belongs exclusively in the male sphere? These illusions are fostered by the contrasting characteristics of male and female power; by a male-centred view of what power is; and, paradoxically, by the very ubiquity and assured superiority of female power. Whereas male power is hard, aggressive and boastfu􀁪 female power is soft, passive and self-effacing. Whereas male power is like an irresistible force, female power is like an immovable object. Whereas male power acts like a storm, full of motion, sound and fury, female power is like the sun – steady, quiet and uncontestable. Against resistance, male power barks, commands and pummels, whereas female power whispers, manipulates and erodes. Of women students of angling it has been said: They don’t use brute strength, but rely instead on technique, which is what learning to cast Properly is all about. Andrew Murray, flycasting instructor. And as with angling for flSh, so with angling for men. Of women rugby players, it has also been said: Women tend to emphasize skill rather than aggression, which makes for a better game – Keith Evans, coach of a women’s rugby team. And as with rugby, so with other games of outmaneuvering aggressive brutes. Generally, then, whereas male power tends to be crude, confrontational and direct, female power tends to be subtle, manipulative, and indirect. Whereas aggressiveness is the hallmark of male power, maneuver is the hallmark of female power. And where man is the great physical aggressor, woman is the great psychological maneuverer. From a male-centred view of what power is, it is easy to be misled into thinking that a female form of power does not exist at all; and even when female power is recognized, it is easy to dismiss it as power of an inferior type, just because it is not hard, aggressive or boastful like the highly visible male form. But just as the sun, from an earthbound perspective, seems to move around the earth, whereas, in reality, it is tl],e earth which moves around the sun, so too with female power when it is seen from the perspective of male power. And just as the air, though everywhere, is hardly noticed, so too with female power: its quiet ubiquity acts like a camouflage. Its vastly greater might is so well entrenched, in both biology and social arrangements, that it does not need to call attention to itself, and so goes largely unremarked. This all makes female power hard to see, hard to challenge, and even harder to overthrow. In contrast, male power, being the weaker power, bullies and bays for acknowledgement, and so appears greater than it really is. Let us turn now to the phases of female power (namely motherpower, bridepower and wifepower) and explore how each is organized and exercised. 4 The Commandant of the Cradle “Women … control the nursery, and because they control the nursery, they can potentially modify any life style that threatens them” – Marvin Harris Motherpower is the least baleful form of female power over man. Of course, a badly behaved boy may be disciplined by being smacked, threatened or berated, or by having his dinner withheld. But, all in all, the exercise of kitchen and cradle power over the boy-child is mild and benign. Because of the sexual incapacity of the baby boy, and because of the incest taboo when the boy reaches puberty, his mother’s wombpower is rarely unleashed on him. Motherpower over a boy is anchored on his awe for the mysterious ability of the person who gave birth to him; on his gratitude to the nurse who cares for him, who protects him in an unfamiliar and often frightening world; and on his respect for his first teacher. It is exercised through the subtle manipulation of his hunger for mother’s warmth, approval and praise; and through the sometimes unconcealed manipulation of his gratitude. Among the Igbo, as elsewhere, The fmal appeal a mother would make to an undutiful and rebellious child would be: ‘Whatever you may become and wherever you may go, I bore you, for nine months, in this my womb; and fed you, till you were weaned, with these my breasts.’ That person must be an exceptionally unimaginative and remorseless child who would not respond with filial repentance and obedience to this irresistible pull at the human heart-strings. Such manipulation of guilt feelings is only one of motherpower’s methods for ruling its offspring. According to Helene Deutsch: Many mothers in their attempts to tie their children to themselves appeal cleverly and consistently to their guilt feelings: ‘You will abandon me, who have suffered so much?’ Others manage to occupy the place of the ego ideal so deeply and permanently that any weakening of the child’s relation to the mother is felt by him to be dangerous for his inner morality. A domineering, matriarchal woman often achieves rule over her children by setting up a common ideology, thus gratifying her tendency to dominate. The techniques of motherpower are perhaps best revealed in those battles where adult daughters fight for independence from their mothers. In some cases, we may be privileged to watch two adepts at female power analyse their game, even as they are deep in it. In one such battle, the daughter lists the main techniques by which her mother had controlled her up until her revolt at age 34! Chief among them were: 1) making “supposedly casual comments” which cast slurs on the daughter’s friends and husband; 2) making the daughter “feel pressured, nervous and incapable of ever pleasing you”; 3) making the daughter feel excluded from a family “club which I don’t belong to, don’t want to belong to, but feel that I should belong to. Also a club that I pretend, in your presence, to belong to, and this pretense makes me feel nervous” 4) making the daughter “feel guilty as hell” if she did something “knowing as I was doing it that I was displeasing you, ‘upsetting’ you”; 5) making the daughter “feel so anxious to please you” ; 6) manipulating the daughter’s “little-girl fear of Something Terrible Happening And It All Being My Fault”; her fear of being wrong and being proved wrong: “And when you get into your ‘bad moods’ (which, from my point of view, are unpredictable), this fear runs rampant”; 7) trying “to pull a guilt trip on me by saying I’m’discarding’ you”, or by “repeating how ‘hurt’ my letter made you”; 8) using “‘the maneuver of calling me ‘unliberated’, or anything equivalent”; 27 9) using “one of the classic maneuvers, used unconsciously by parents everywhere” of saying: ” ‘I want you to know how much you’ve upset me’; ‘I could tell you a few things – but 1 won’t’; ‘After all I’ve done for,You . . .’; ‘If you could remember some of the things you did when you were little . . .’; ‘I see you’ve given up all your (meaning ‘our’) principles’; ‘I see that husband of yours is poisoning your mind’; ‘But, in spite of it all, 1 want you to know that you’re very important to us, that we still love you,.’ Note how these techniques deftly play on the daughter’s fears, guilt, ignorance, remorse, shame, sense of ineptitude, relief at being forgiven, etc. Backed into a corner by this exposure of h.:r tactics, the mother countered: 1 don’t know what to say. If 1 question some of your statements, it might sound as if 1 were challenging you. If 1 ask for clarification, it would sound as if 1 were getting bogged down on petty details. If 1 talk about feeling, it might seem that I’m hurt. If 1 deny what you ascribed to me, it puts you on a guilt trip. If 1 stand on my principles or quote from my heroines or heroes, it might sound pompous or self-righteous. Nonetheless, 1 do have to say a few things. I wasn’t ‘hurt’ (although 27 . 1 may have said that to you). Having here practically admitted that her claim of being ‘hurt’ was a ruse, she goes on: My immediate feeling was humiliation, a powerful wave of humiliation that almost knocked me over. A few days later, this changed to anger. But all the time, I was thinking. I read your letter, sentence by sentence, and made copious comments in the margins. I racked my lousy memory to recall some of the things you wrote about. One bitter day, I listened to a Mozart quintet. Tears dropped into my lap, one after another, and I wrote a note to you and put it in my will. Well, time passed. I erased the comments and tore up the note. We talked a little and saw each other. I know that I love and care for you, perhaps as Johann says at the end of Scenes from’ a Marriage, ‘-in my inadequate way’, and I think 􀀚u love and care for me, too. So what more is there to say? In parading her humiliation, anger, bitterness and tears, as well as her “love and care”; and in hinting at her power to amend her will, the mother inadvertentiy authenticated her daughter’s list of her weapons of control. Many a son is only vaguely aware of being ruled, through such precise techniques, by his mummy dearest. A vague awareness makes it unlikely that he will ever stand up to his mother; and even if, by some miracle, he did, he is not likely to battle effectively against a power he hardly understands. With a daughter, matters are different. As her mother’s apprentice, a daughter learns the game, is privy to its techniques, and could effectively counter her mother’s moves if she got up the courage. The result of such knowledge is that the average daughter can, at some point, shake off her mother’s authority, whereas the ‘ignorant son cannot. Her hold over him usually lasts till his death; even if she dies before him, her hold is maintained through his ingrained desire to please her memory. The classic example of the man who is ruled all his life by his mother is the great macho dictator presented in so many Latin American novels, most notably in Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s The Autumn of the Patriarch. Though a bloodthirsty and ruthless dictator; though a generalissimo and the everlasting patriarch of his nation, he always felt for his mother the obedient, babyish awe he learned to feel for her when he fed at her breast. But what is motherpower used for? The primary objectives of motherpower are to prepare boys so they can be ruled by their future wives, and to train girls to rule their fUlure husbands. To this end, the main tasks of motherpower are these: 1) to lay the appropriate personality foundations in the children: narcissism in girls, and heroism in boys: 2) to secure kitchen power and cradic power for girls; and 3) to magnify wombpower by teaching sexual restraint to girls, through codes of modesty, while undermining sexual self-control in boys by addicting them to the female h0dy, Consider a beautiful girl and a strong boy. When they are successfully reared by motherpower, they mature into their respective genderideals: the dolly bird and the macho. To bring this about, the girl is taught self-worship or narcissism; the boy heroism or self-sacrifice. Her narcissism induces an absolute self-centredness which smothers those self-sacrificing impulses which are fostered in the boy by male codes of honour, gallantry and heroism. When they grow up, the dolly. bird will worship herself; but the macho will worship woman and serve her, even to the point of sacrificing his life to preserve hers. The future dolly bird is trained in narcissism on the principle that a -woman must worship herself if she is to inspire worshi􀂂, and so elicit service from men. Narcissism is taught her by everything around her. The general admiration she receives is explained to her, in the American case, by the children’s verse which says: Sugar and spice and everything nice are what little girls are made of. For good measure, the verse concludes with a thorough devaluation of boys: Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails that’s what little boys are made of. This doctrine is reinforced by the sort of admonitions a girl is usually given: that “boys want only one thing” – the jewel box between her thighs – “and nice girls don’t give it to them”; 29 that her virginity is precious; that to losl”: it before marriage is to dishonour the family; that it must be protected by all, and defended, even to their death, by her male relatives. The general message – that she is precious beyond measure – is driven home by the behaviour of mothers and fathers who mount guard over their daughter, jealously protecting their property’s value. Now, whose sense of her worth would not be inflated by such fussing? Whose sense of self-preservation would not be made absolute by such protectiveness? A beautiful girl so brought up (and all the others who take her as the model of womanhood) inevitably gets the notion that she must be worth all the gold in the world and more; that she is god’s gift to all male humanity. By the time puberty arrives to trigger her nest, she has already acquired that narcissism which will guide her conduct as maiden, wife, mother, widow and dowager. 30 The narcissist personality is what makes a woman take it as a matter of course that a man should offer goods and services to her for her contribution to their joint sexual pleasure. He gives her pleasure, she gives him pleasure, but he pays: to her, that is fair! The narcissist personality is what makes a peasant girl of 15 take it as quite natural that a general or tycoon three times her age should lay all his hard-won power and riches at her feet when he courts her. It does not occur to her to ask if she is worth such tribute: she knows, in her wombsure narcissism, that she is worth much more, that she holds the most precious thing in her suitor’s world, and should be paid for it with all that he has in the world. This narcissist personality enables a divorced woman to have no doubt that it is fair for her to collect alimony for services she no longer renders to her ex-husband. Whereas the mother equips the future dolly bird with a narcissist personality, she equips the future macho with a heroic personality. The hero is a servant who performs extraordinary duties for family, community or humanity: as warrior or protector, as organizer of wealth, or as bringer of vital knowledge. He is, at heart, a sentimental fool who takes great risks, carries out great labours, all in exchange for such vanities as medals, ribbons, statues, and being mentioned in talk and song. In the course of his training, the future macho is taught to regard women as the weaker sex, to adore dolly birds, and to consider it heroic to provide for and protect his womenfolk. He is also taught that being given a beautiful woman to husband is the most precious reward for heroism. If he is a Fulani or Maasai herdsman in Africa, he learns that lesson from the flogging contests whose victors are rewarded with admiration and love by beautiful maidens. If he will fight and be wounded to earn a wreath; if he will fight and die for posthumous praise; how much more will the macho sacrifice to earn a beautiful bride? It is in this way that he acquires that heroic personality which seeks wealth, honour, power and fame with which to pay for the love of a woman. This woman-fixated personality makes a macho consider it right and proper for him to give a woman sexual pleasure and pay her too. It prevents a love-smitten general or tycoon from entertaining the thought that the strumpet he is wooing might not be worth one millionth of what he is deliriously offering her for the right to help her put her womb to work. 31 These two types of personality (heroic macho and narcissist dolly bird) are complementary in serving female power. Narcissism imbues the dolly bird with a sense of her natural right to be worshipped and served by men; heroism imbues the macho with a sense of his natural duty to serve women. She displays the self-confidence and self-cent redness appropriate to an absolute ruler; he the self-diffidence and selfsacrifice of a loyal serf. When a boy so trained and a girl so trained do encounter, isn’t it obvious who shall rule who? . The time-hallowid channelling of girls to home-making activities, and of boys toward adventure outside the home, is a method whereby the mother, as commandant of the cradle] s􀃐cures kitchen and cradle power for her girls. It is kitchenpower that mothers set out to secure for women when they bring up girls to cook, but boys to disdain cooking. As a result, when a boy grows into a macho, he will shun the kitchen, and depend upon his wife to cook for him. And his wife shall then control his stomach. If a man should, nevertheless, learn to cook, and should dispense with the kitchen services of his wife, even his own mother would be unhappy. Consider the story of a Nigerian man who could not even boil an egg at the time his wife walked out on him. Some time later, he invited friends to his home for lunch. According to one of his women guests, the man surprised everybody. Part of the post-prandial conversation went like this: ‘Nice meal’, I complimented him afterwards. His mum snorted with disapproval. ‘Didn’t you enjoy the meal?’ I asked her. ‘Do you think that any woman in her right mind would enjoy bragging. about her son’s cooking when he should have a wife in the home? The sooner he gets married again, the happier I’ll be,’ she said sadly.30 . Thus, as a custodian of female power, the man’s own mother would not be happy at his independence, and would want some woman to rule her son’s stomach! Likewise, mothers secure cradle power for their daughters by channelling boys toward adventure and away from childcare duties. Later in life, should a husband try to be more than an occasional cradle assistant to his wife, he would be mocked and henpecked away. Even the militant feminist who insists that house work and baby-minding be shared by men, when she herself gets down to breeding, wants her man to be no more than a cradle assistant under her supervision. All mothers, feminist or not, know the value of cradle power, and are loathe to relinquish it. For the magnification of wombpower, mothers primarily rely on female sexual restraint as taught through codes of modesty. Codes which teach a girl coyness; which train her not to take the initiative in sexual encounters; which teach her to defer her gratification for as long as possible, on pain of seeing herself (and being seen!) as sexually forward, loose or even immoral – such training makes a girl more sexually restrained than she would otherwise be. In some cultures, this training is combined with clitoridectomy, an operation which reduces the sexual excitability of a WOman. This restraint, regardless of how achieved, gives a woman an enormous advantage in her dealings with sexually deranged men. Mothers magnify the advantage of female restraint by not teacqing boys to restrain their sexual appetites, and even by teaching them to become hopelessly addicted to the female body. Now, weaning is meant to break a child’s natural attachment to its mother’s milk-bearing and warm, comforting body. However, many mothers continue to cuddle their boy children long past weaning time. Some allow them into their beds till they are four years or more. Further training to addict boys to the female body is done quite consciously, not only by mothers, but also by aunts and older girls generally. Consider the following Incident. One evening, in a flat in London, a West Indian woman picked up a 15 month old hoy and tried to teach him to kiss. When she first kissed him, the hoy made a sour face, and tried to break free from her embrace. The woman, undeterred, kissed him a second time, and then a third time. After the fourth kiss, the boy began to stick out his tongue for more, grinning with delight, and tossing his arms excitedly in the air. After watching this for a while, I asked the woman: ‘Aren’t you starting him a bit early?’ ‘Oh no!’ she replied. ‘The sooner the better actually. After he gets to be thirty, you can’t get him this way.’ ‘Ohl ‘ I said. In a flash I recognized the motive behind all that hugging and kissing and penis tickling to which small boys are subjected by mothers, aunties, and the admiring women friends of their parents. A child introduced to carnal pleasures by women’s expert hands will be willing, even eager, in adult life, to do anything required of him in order to get what, for him, would hav€( become the greatest reward on earth. The subconscious memory of that addictive ple􀂬ure will drive his behaviour long after he attains puberty. Addiction to the female body weakens a man’s powers of sexual abstinence; it puts him into the power of whoever can satisfy his cravings. Just as a heroin addict is in the power of his supplier, and will rob or kill to find money to enrich his supplier, so too will the man addicted to the female body do whatever he fmds necessary to get his flX. Given how great is the male biological drive to secure a womb, one might wonder why women bother to reinforce it with an inculcated addiction to the female bpdy. We ought, perhaps, to ponder the possibility that without this extra addiction, the male might be far less sexually desperate. As any negotiator will tell you, the more desperate your opponent is for what you have, the more unfavourable the terms you could get him to accept. Or, as one woman friend told me: “When it comes to sex, the one who wants it less holds the power.” Thus, an addiction which makes a man more desperate for sex increases woman’s power over him. It is by such habits (restrain􀂮 in the girl; addiction in the boy) which are learned in the cradle, that wombpower, great as it is, is culturally magnified. Laying the foundations for heroic personality in boys, and for narcissist personality in girls; training children in role models which secure kitchen and cradle power for girls; and teaching chilaren habits which magnifywombpower – these are the basic tasks which are accomplished by and for female power by a boy’s mummy dearest. A mother who has raised a macho – a heroic son, strong in physique or intellect, inept in the kitchen and cradle, and disdainful of working in them; a mother who has also raised a dolly bird – a narcissist beauty of a daughter who can restrain her own sexual appetite while coyly whetting desire in men, who shuns adventure but is expert in the kitchen and the cradle; a mother who has raised such offspring and sent them forth into the world for the great mating battle between the sexes – the dolly bird all prime to win, and the macho all primed to lose: that is a mother who has contributed her expected quota to the continuation of female power. Great is her joy, and great too is her honour among women. 5 The Powers of Her Body-beautiful “He may well die for me who has seen my beauty” – Girls’ song from 13th century Portugal. “Regular beauty & a smile in the street is just a set_up” – Ntozake Shange From puberty onward, nothing disorganizes the male mind more quickly or thoroughly than the sight of the female body-beautiful. It triggers a craving which overwhelms the male’s self-protective instincts. His lust provoked, he will gladly crash through a wall of ftre, and through thundering ocean waves, to throw himself, panting and out of breath, into the provocative woman’s arms. Male susceptibility to female beauty gives women a great leverage in their dealings with men; this leverage is further increased by women’s artifice. Their determination to make the female body even more provocative has led to women’s preoccupation with that delusive self-beautification which is commonly known as glamour. Glamour bathes the body with an illusory beauty; its purpose is erotic provocativeness; its function, during courtship, is to arouse a man’s aesthetic appetites, and thereby lure him into a trap a woman hasset to catch a nest slave. The sexiness of her own body, as enhanced by glamour’S tricks, is a woman’s frontline weapon in the battle called courtship. Female codes of alluring self-presentation do vary with fashion and with culture; but their aim is the same – to provoke desire in men and lure them into woman’s traps. A woman who packages herself for that purpose, and does so effectively, is said to dress to kill. A woman dressed to kill is not dressed to kill deer, or trees, or pigeons, or other kickers; she is dressed to kill men. She is dressed for the man hunt; dressed to lure some fool man close enough to plunge her love harpoon into his heart, and having smitten him, to drag him off to her victory parade, and thereafter to her nest. Consider a Western woman who walks down the street in a painted face and miniskirt, with her bra-less tits tossing about under a see through blouse. Contrary to the general belief, she is not walking innocently along her way. She is actually a trouble maker, a walking provocatiott deliberately assaulting the equanimity of men, a huntress in battle gear set to disturb the peace of the male world. In a just world, she would be arrested tOt (under)dressing to kill. To appreciate that is to understand the folly of men’s normal attitude to women’s preoccupation with body presentation. When women discuss their looks, clothes, nail polish, make-up accessories, and things like that, men tend to deride it all: men regard it as evidence of women’s vanity and frivolity. When men see a woman fUSSing about her looks – bringina out her make-up kit in a crowed bus, plucking her eyebrows in a restaurant, touching up the slightest run in her paintwork, or tetouchlng the smudge in her lip gloss; when a woman spends half a day picking out clothes that will have her calculated effect on onlookers; when she puts on stiletto shoes that threaten to dislocate her ankle, just because, she says, they make her legs look nicer, men are usually amused, and shake their heads at female vanity. But such attitudes show just how stupid men really are – for, it is neither vanity nor frivolity which drives women to such a dedicated pursuit of glamour. Glamour – the artificial beautification of the body for erotic provocativeness – is serious business. When women discuss their appearance, they are talking shop, discussing the tricks of their most Important trade. The aim of glamour, like all magic and enchantment, Is to confuse the senses of the onlookers, to dull their reason, to induce in them beliefs which the sober mind would dismiss. When a woman trims herself with glamour, and goes looking for her Prince Charming in the swantp of frogs, her objective is to bewitch him out of his senses, o he can blissfully make with her a bargain most unfair to himself, to wit, a marriage contract. A woman’s glamour accessories are some of her most important possessions. That handbag with its mirrors, paintbrushes, paints, oint- and all – it is her magician’s tool box. Have you wondered why it is about the last thing she will part with, even when she has to rush from a burning room? It is to her what his stethoscope is to the doctor, or his briefcase is to the executive, or his tool kit is to the mechanic. In it are the essential implements of her economic activity – namely, self-beautification for the purpose of luring men to serve her. So, when next you notice, at the end of lunch, a woman rushing off to the powder room; when she returns transformed, with every hair in place, with every patch of colour the correct hue; or when she does her repair job at the luncheon table, in full view of all, do not sneer. Take to heart what Ntozake Shange said about beauty being a set-up, and make sure the set-up doos not catch you. _ A woman undergoing glamourization is like a warrior kitting himself out for battle. In contemporary Western fashion, she will shave her legs and armpits; wear curlers in her wet hair; smear thick paint on her face, and let it dry and cake on her skin; stuff her feet into tight, high-heeled and ankle-snapping shoes; diet herself into an enervating twiggy slimness; and then set out to seek battle. After her victim has been hauled home (ot rather, after her victim has hauled her off to his home where she shall eat him), many a woman tends to abandon her pursuit of glamour. When the hunt is over, one must pack up and put away one’s hunting gear, until it becomes necessary to hunt ag􀃜. Such a woman ignores her looks, becomes unkempt, gets splendidly fat, turns discourteous, till her bewildered husband wonders if there is any living connection between the demure beauty he wedded and this raggedy harridan he must bear as the cross of his life. Once upon a time, in London, I heard a British woman talk of having to fetch her flashy dresses out of mothball. When I asked her why, she said that she had to start looking for a new man! The one she once snared using those same clothes had recently gotten away. Her tone was quite businesslike. It was that of a man saying: ” It’s time to bring out my baits and rods and go down to the stream. It’s fishing season again.” Of course, woman’s propensity to glamourization exploits man’s weakness for the female body-beautiful: if men Were not simple-minded dupes who are taken in by dabs of paint and whiffs of perfume, I wonder whether women would so dedicate themselves to glamour. I once teased a Nigerian woman about women’s preoccupation with their looks. I suggested that men were far more interested in women’s more solid qualities, and that women might do better by cultivating those. She replied: “It’s all well and good to cultivate all those solid qualities; but you fIrst have to attract him, don’t you? If you don’t, how is he ever going to fInd out those other qualities?” . . Once we remind ourselves that a woman’s principal occupation is the winning and holding of at least one male slave; and that her looks are among her primary assets for this business, we must realize that man’s condescending attitude to her obsession with her looks is obtuse. Not just obtuse; it is a sign of men’s own folly. Would we look down on a hunter who spends time cleaning and oiling his gun; or on a flSherman who lavishes care on his fIshing traps; or on any man who is carefully tending the tools of his particular trade? What would we think of a magician who neglected his appearance, or who failed to practice the little tricks he must use to manipulate his audience’s attention? A soldier who regards his opponent’s weapons with contempt, or who fails to recognize enemy weapons for what they are, risks his own defeat. Men, clearly, do need protection, both from their own stupidity and from their susceptibility to female beauty. Indeed, one of the best laws ever passed by men, one of the few which male legislators have passed in the male interest, was an Act of the British Parliament of 1770. It said: All women, of what􀂟ver age, rank, profession or degree who shall after this Act, impose upon, seduce, and betray into marriage any of His Majesty’s subjects by virtue of scents, paints, cosmetic washes, artificial teeth or false hair, iron stays, bolstered hips, or high-heeled shoes, shall incur the penalty of the law now in force against witchcraft and like misdemeanours; and marriage under such circumstances, upon conviction of the offending parties, shall be null and void. Predictably, like most sensible laws in the male interest, it is not known to have been ever enforced. It was probably a dead letter before it arrived on the statute books. Had it been enforceable, the cosmetics giants of the world would never have built a thriving industry. Nor would the advertising industry daily use the glamorous female body to raid the pockets of men on behalf of vendors of all manner of goods and services. Among feminists, there are puritan prudes who, in crying down “pornography” , object to advertisers’ use of the female body-beautiful on billboards, posters, magazines and television to sell products. They claim that such iJpages “demean women”. It is doubtful that images of beautiful and sexy girls demean women. It is probably only the plain Janes and ugly duckling who feel demeaned when they compare themselves with the beautiful images over which men drool and lose their self-control. The truth or falsity of that jealous complaint is for women to sort out among themselves; however, it should be noted that if public displays of images of the female body-beautiful do “demean women”, then every woman who displays her own body-beautiful in public places (streets, parties, offices, beaches) also “demeans women”. If certain images are to be banned for “demeaning women”, so too must every woman’s self-disphy of a similarly provocative sort. Whatever the feelings of puritan prudes, the stark reality is that the female body-beautiful exercises over men the mighty power of erotic incitement. Advertisers have merely learnt from man-hunting women to use this piece of female witchcraft to derange and rob men. If men were smart enough to act in their own interest, they would seek protection, in both law and custom, from all public display of the female body-beautiful. They would follow the example of the Ayatollah’s Iran and ban from streets, beaches, parties and other public gathering places all displays of the female body, especially in cock-teasing outfits and provocative positions. They would ban them, not because the displays “demean women”, but because they derange men, bewitch men, and put men’s cocks into the manipulating hands of women. 6 Love: Male and Female “Love makes men lame and tame” – The Kiswahili of East Africa. “Love is not blind. It has four eyes; it has night vision; it sees well by day and night” – Nigerian woman. Male pundits usually talk as if love had the same effects on women as on men. They seem to overlook the small fact that men and women are not identical but complementary, and that the effect of a current on the opposite poles of a magnet may also be opposite. With a folly typical of those who imagine 􀈜he’mselves as the norm, male pundits refuse to heed. those few women who have told what love actually does to women; and they insist on projecting unto women what is true only of men. As a result, many famous sayings about love mislead by not indicating that they apply only to men: . For example; . according to Ambrose Bierce, love is “a temporary insanity curable by marriage,,;35 for the sake of accuracy, he should have qualified that by the opening phrase “In men,”. Similarly, when Francis Bacon remarked: “It is impossible to love and be wise,,,36 he should have added the opening phrase “For a man,”. Likewise, the saying “love is blind” should be taken as shorthand for “a man in love is blind to his best interests”. None of these remarks applies to women. A woman in love is far from insane; she is anything but unwise or blind to her interests. On the contrary, her first sigh of love is like a whiff of smelling salts which clears her head, leaving her with four eyes and night vision; it instigates her to a ruthless pursuit of what she wants. That woman is indeed most rare for whom love is a beclouder of the eyes or a confuse ‘of the head. Love acts on men and women in opposite ways. To see that, let us compare examples of a man in love and a woman in love. When he was hit by some woman’s love harpoon, Willie Carter Spann, nephew of the then US President, Jimmy Carter, put the following advert in a newspaper: To Susan Lynn: I love you so much I would crawl thru 9 miles of broken glass and razor blades to sniff the truck tires that haul your drawers to the laundry. I would fist-fight a gUt-shot polar bear With my hands tied behind my back for a few moments alone with you. I love you, marry me. Willie Carter Spann. “A fellow’s mind has to be unhinged to become a geyser of such foolishness! Hopefully, the marriage” he was asking for would cure him of his Madness”. In contrast to the mush-headedness of the love-smitten man, here is Barbra Streisand’s portrait of a woman in love. In her hit song, “Woman in Love”, she declared: “I am a woman in love And I’ll do anything To get you into my world And hold you within.” Is that not a portrait of a clear-headed huntress, resolute aI1d resourceful? Was there ever a clearer declaration of intent to hunt down and fetter and enslave? Is it any wonder that any man in his right mind would flee from a woman’s love like freedom-loving Kunta Kinte from a slave catcher? To compare Willie Carter Spann with Barbra Streisand is to realize that love is a disease of the heart terrible for man’s liberty, but an excellent pep pill for a woman hunting for a slave: when love smites a man, it turns him into a dazed prey; when it possesses a woman, she becomes a clear-eyed, calculating huntress cooly stalking her befuddled prey. Not only does love act differently”on man and woman; the word itself means quite different things to each. When a woman tells a man “I love you”, she means “I want you to feed me, house me, clothe me, fuck me, get me great with child, and take me as your burden until I catch a better slave”. This utilitarian view is aptly expressed in a moonlight song by Nigerian maidens in which they describe their lovers as “the axe with which I split wood”, then as “the tree that bears money” , then as • “the key with which I lock my door”, then as “the girdle with which I girdle my loins”. 39 . . . In contrast, when a man tells a woman “I love you”, he means “I am eager to be your slave, and ready to do everything I can to make you satisfied and happy” . Which is why, when a woman hears a man say to her “I love you”, her joy is great, for she understands him to mean that he has been knocked out by her chloroform of romance, and she can safely tie him up with social ropes, tether him to her nest with legal chains and, while he is still sprawled out in love’s delirium, begin to make a toiling jackass out of him. The Kiswahili poets are among the few male pundits who have gotten things right: they specify that it is men who are made lame and tame by love. As one of their songs put it: “Love makes 􀂺en lame and tame”. Commenting on that song, Jan Knappert writes: In a few brief words, the song paints a vivid picture of what happens in the streets of Mombasa in the middle of the night. Painted girls wander about, looking for their prey. Woe unto the man who is caught in their snares by their enticing looks and their luring •words. Love covers him like a rash, like shivers of fever. If he is rich, h􀂷 .will ruin himself to please that cheeky little creature; if he is a man of power and influence, he will humble himself for her, there in the open street, to Win her favours, and receive little in retutn except impudent words. The men are like birds caught in a snare, s􀂸ruggling in vain to free the􀂹elves.40 ( ,iven that love makes a man lame and tame, is it any wonder that a woman fires the harpoon of love at a man when they meet in the cockpit of courtship? . . . A visitor- from Mars may be struck by the nonsense which a lovemitten man utters, and by the eagerness with which an otherwise nsible woman listerts to such nonsense. For instance, he will tell a woman that she is the most beautiful woman in the world, and she will iv ‘ ‘very appearance of believing him. All you need do is “look at the uPoly duckling to know that she is no such thing, and that not even in her utmost vanity does she believe the deluded fool. Why then does she pretend to take his gibberish seriously? Well, when he tells her, with a shine in his eyes and heat in his throat, that she is the most beautiful woman in the world, she automatically translates him to mean that he considers her the most beautiful woman in his world. That he has been reduced to saying that shows her that he is sufficiently desperate with passion to become like putty in her manipulating fingers. And that, for her, is the vital aspect of the matter. Another nonsense which is often spouted by love-smitten men, and is eagerly awaited by man-hunting womell, is a declaration of everlasting love. Everlasting? Now, now, nothing is more absurd than-promising to feel love for anybody for ever. , No woman in her right mind (and bear in mind that women are quite down-to-earth) believes that a man could feel love for her for ever, or even till death puts an end to his ability to feel love for anything or anybody. Women know the world is full of changes, and that the emotion of love is one of the most ephemeral. So, when a sensible woman craves a declaration of eternal love from a man, and gives every impression of believing it, what really does she understand by it? A woman mentally translates this foolish man-talk into reasonable talk, and understands it to mean that, in the overcharged state of his psyche, the fellow is ready to promise her anything, even things over which he could have no possible control. This is what makes the ‘ statement delicious and exciting to- her ears. If he can promise an eternal feeling of love, it means he is ready to pledge himself to do something much more ‘Vithin his control, namely, life-long voluntary servitude to her. Now, if she could only get him to make the latter _ declaration in public, before suitable witnesses, her man-hunt would be successfully concluded. For then the fellow would be publicly bound to husband (i.e. slave for) her for the rest of his days . . However foolish it may sound, a man’s declaration of eternal love works on him like an oath of loyalty: it psychologically binds him to carry out the obligations imposed on him by his love for her. After all, a man is taught to take his oaths rather seriously, especially vows made to his mother or mother-surrogate. Assuming that his training by his mother is effective, he is not likely to abscond from his obligations to her surrogate, not even after the love he felt at the time of the declaration has long evaporated. 44 When next we find a woman extracting love-struck nonsense from a man, we should not consider ,her absurd. No woman believes such ‘ nonsense literally. She knows perfectly well that they are lies, and exaggerations, but they give her proof that he is sufficiently out of. his_ mind to pro.m ise her anything, including what she really wants from him: life-long nest slavery. Furthermore, feelings and oaths aside, we must note that, given what a man means by “I love you”, his “I’ll love you forever” means “I’ll slave for you for ever”. And that is surely welcome music to a slave huntress’ ears. A Martian observer might also be amazed that men appear blind to the predatory core of bridal love. As any clear-headed observer can. see, between puberty and menopause, a woman is driven by her nesting instinct. For nest-making, she needs the services of a hardworking ,provider imd strong protector. This biological need gives the nestmaking woman’s love for her chosen man its predatory and exploitative ore. It is this uninviting core that the mush of sentimental love is designed to conceal. But conceal from whom? Certainly not from the woman, but rather from her intended victim who might otherwise flee for his dear liberty. Man, in his sentimentality, may refuse to acknowledge that the love felt for him by the woman who loves him is, at its core, a slaver’s love for her slave. Those who doubt that should consider a woman’s proverbial reaction to her spurned love, or to a mate who deserts her nest. When 􀃑he cries “seduced and abandoned”, .her rage is that of a lioness whose intended dinner has run away. When she cries that her husband has deserted her, her fury is that of a slaveholder whose slave has run away. I f he has run off with another woman, her rage at the other woman is I hat of one slaveholder at another slaveholder who has kidnapped’ her property. Were men fully conscious of the predatory nature and exploitative purpose of a nesting woman’s love for her man, they might be lound each day praying: “God save man from the love of woman! ” That III • n do not is a measure of how sentimentality thoroughly beclouds their 7 Courtship: The Hunting of the Love-smitten Man “A man always chases a woman until she catches him” – Anon. ” The courtship scenario is reputedly as follows: boy sees girl, falls in love with her, courts her, wins her, weds her, and triumphantly carries her off to his hollie to 􀂨e his housewife (or, in the eyes of some feminists,•his domestic servant, resident sexpot, childbearer, child rearer, etc.). The reality is, however, rather more like this: girl 1iees boy and decides to make him her nest-slave. She contrives to attract his attention and to set his heart on fire with a coy glance, a come-hither smile, a painted face, an aloof elegance, the shimmering wriggle of a skjrted waist, or a stylish walk that makes her buttocks throb. When he has been lured to her, and smitten with love for her, the courtship starts in earnest. . She puts him through an obstacle course where he must prove’to her satisfaction that he will be a competent and loyal nest-slave. If he should pass her eligibility tests . for economic ability, nest defence capability, emotional loyalty, sexual loyalty, etc.; and if she has no better candidate within reach, she accepts his application for the job of her nest -slave. She then stages a public display of his enslavement to her, packs into his home, turns it into her nest, and becomes its queen and his boss. In accomplishing all this, the woman is like a judo artist who uses the aggressiveness of the man to bring him down. That is why the perceptive say that a man always chases a woman till she catches him. . . However decorous it may all seem, courtship •is not bliss but battle – a battle to break the free male into a loyal slave. Courtship is a nest -making rite whose ground rules are dictated by the female interest. Its length, complexity and general structure are determined by her need to hunt a virile male, catch him, break his free spirit, and attach him to herself as provider for, and protector of her nest. If courtship were organized in the male interest, it would be a quick game of kidnap, rape and escape; but because it is organized in the female interest, it is an elaborate game <;>f slave-breaking, with the woman as bronco-buster. To see these matters clearly, we must look at courtshiP. in its most revealing contexts: In a society where marriages are arranged, much of the eligibility testing is done by parents, or guardians, or other go-betweens, who have studied the families and the persons they intend to bring together. Furthermore, things like emotional . loyalty and economic commitment do not have to be established before the wedding. There is a social structure which will hold the marriage together while these are slowly established after the wedding; ,and there are mediators to ensure that the expected duties are, in the meantime, carried out. Such supporting structures can hinder insight into the core of the courtship process. In a society whef(� marriages are not arranged (such as urban, middleclass America), it is easier to see the central dynamic of courtship. With minimum support from social structures, the woman endeavours, on her own, to fmd and hunt down the man, break his spirit, and train him for his nest-slave duties before the wedding day. This is why modern American courtship offers what may well be the best opportunities for grasping the basics of courtship. Before the sexual and feminist revolutions of the 1%Os and 1970s, the lone ranger American’ huntress was helped by the fact that her intended victim had been brought up to believe that the marriageable woman should be approached like a goddess perched on a lofty pedestal of chastity. She was to be seen, swooned over, worshipped, craved and laboriously wooed before she could be touched sexually. While wooing her, the man submitted to an exhausting, frustrating, heart-aching obstacle course. He had to pace his effort, and win her (‘ nsent in stages marked by gifts: so many roses for a peck on the cheek;() many dates (outings, picnics, dinners and movies) for a first hug; so many more for a lip kiss; then a pin to secure for him the privilege of light petting; then an engagement ring to bar her from being wooed by III her men; and, at last, a wedding to publicly confer on’him the privilege III mak,e use of her womb. •. To make the obstacle course seem worthwhile to the poor man, a ” Iinbow of happiness-ever-after was painted at the end of it all. He would enter this paradise of eternal bliss at their honeymoon, from the moment he received the gift of her priceless virginity. He was made to believe that, as she wandered through a forest of marauding pricks, she valiantly preserved for him her”vaunted virginity: she would, on their wedding night, present it to him as a unique gift to his victorious manliness. The cunning of it all is stunning! Imagine a hunt in which the huntress takes on the appearance of the prey; in which the true prey enjoys the illusion that he is the hunter; in which he is made to exert himself, alternately suffering pangs of disappointment and spells of exhilaration, while the huntress lead􀁳 him, step by wily step, into her laid trap. And even after she has closed the trap over him, tied him up, and led him off to slave for her; she does not neglect to confirm him in his illusion that he has been the hunter. Still exploiting his hunter psychology, she lays herself out on his wedding bed, and acts the prey surrendering her irreplaceable hymen to his body spear. After plunging it into the prostrate “victim”, he glories in his bloodied spear, like a hunter would after slaying a mighty beast. Well, has a more exquisite game of cunning ever been invented? The structure and dynamic of courtship is dictated by the fact that it is a selection, bargaining and taniing process all rolled into one. As a selection process, the cardinal question that must be answered to the nesting woman’s satisfaction is this: Can this candidate husband niy nest the way I want? That is why a courtship is conducted as a job interview in which he must demonstrate his suitability for the job she is offering. The bargain she wants to strike with the selected candidate is this: he agrees to build, maintain and protect her nest, and to supply it with victuals; she, in return, permits him to contribute his sperm to the making of babies in her womb. Oilce it is understood that he is to pay with”nest duties for the great privilege of inseminating her, the power position in courtship becomes clear: she, who holds the priceless womb, is the boss, and he is merely a suitor for a great favour. In taming her suitor she aims to turn him into her loyal nest-slave As women and all slave holders know, if a slave has just been capture from his original state of liberty, his free spirit has” to be broken, and loyalty has to be attached to his owner, otherwise he will not wear the yoke easily. ” . ” Courtship, therefore, is a combat zone where a woman seeks to establish power over her prospective husband. The point is not to decide whether the woman shall rule the man, but simply how; for if the woman should lose out in the power play, the courtship will be aborted, and fail to reach marriage. The length of a courtship depends on how long it takes the boss to make up her mind about the candidate’s suitability, on how long it takes to tame and habituate him to her domination, and on how long it takes to conclude the bargain. Let us first examine the job interview aspect of courtship. The principal job she needs done by her husband will be economic. He must supply the income to run her nest, especially if she herself is not wealthy; and even if she is wealthy, he will have to manage her wealth. Therefore, her ftrst concern is to administer an economic eligibility test on the suitor. If the man’s social standing is obvious, the test is not difftcult to conduct. Where his social standing is not obvious, and she has to find things out for herself, she does so with professional thoroughness. In urban, middle class America, the preliminary economic interview is the stuff of cocktail encounters. The man is asked: “What do you do?” If he gives an easily interpreted answer (for example, if he says be it a doctor, lawyer, banker, stockbroker, or high executive in a major corporation) then that part of the interview is quickly concluded. If he says he is a welder, bus driver, factory foreman or something like that, that also settles the matter. Either way, the woman has a fair estimate of what she is really after: How much does he earn, and what assurance is there that he will continue to earn at least that much? Sparks may, however, fly if the woman cannot interpret the man’s economic standing from his answer, as in this true life exchange: ‘What’s your name?’ ‘Jerry.’ ‘Mine’s Sybil. What d’you do?’ ‘I talk, I drink, 1 dance, I ogle girls. I have fun’. ‘How do you support yourself?’ ‘Very well, thank you.’ ‘I mean, on what?’ ‘On my two feet, thank you.’ ‘How do you pay your rent?’ ‘That takes care of itself, thank you.’ ‘Where d’you get 􀂯ur money?’ ‘From the bank, thank you.’ ‘Are you independently wealthy?’ ‘As opposed to dependently poor?’ ‘Really, are you independently wealthy?’ ‘Wait a minute! What’s this? When did you earn the right to ask these questions? Look! 1 hardly know you. We’ve just met!’ ‘Forget 1 asked.’ ‘1 will, thank you.’ ‘Where did you go to school?’ ‘Here, there and everywhere.’ ‘Why are you so damn secretive? What do you have to hide?’ ‘Why all these personal questions? Weren’t you ever taught the art of conversation? This is a party, for heaven’s sake, not an interrogation center.’ ‘I like you. I’d like to get to know you. You don’t see me taking an interest in others here, do you?’ ‘Gee thanks! Thanks a million! 1 suppose I’m supposed to feel flattered.’ ‘You make it sound like there’s something wrong for a woman to take an interest in a man.’ ‘No! There’s nothing wrong in that. But I wish you didn’t take that kind of interest in me. It is like all you want is my fmancial report, my social pedigree! You might be better off, actually, talking to my accountant, or to my trust fund manager. Look, I came here to dance, to have a good time, to maybe get laid. I certainly didn’t come here to have my wallet sized up. You haven’t asked me what I Wee to do right here and now. There’s good music going, good food on the table, good wine flowing. But you haven’t asked me if I’m a good dancer, or a good fuck. You haven’t suggested anything one might do at a party to have fun. All you seem to be interested in is whether I’d make a good catch or something like that.’ ‘Boy oh boy! All you men have a one track mind! All men ever want is to fuck, fuck, fuck! Screw every skirt you can lift up, and then scram! Wham, bam, thank you maam! That’s if you wait long enough to say that!’ ‘Hey! Men have a one track mind? And women don’t? All you women ever seem to want is a catch. If you’ve got one already, you’re looking for a better catch. If you don’t have one, you’re hunting for one. If men have a one track mind, so do women: it is just that their minds are on different tracks. Anyway, I won’t allow you even a peek into my wallet. So there!’ ‘Why are you so selfish?’ ‘Selfish? Any more selfish than you? Tell me: if some stranger came up to you and, first thing, said: “Hi! Are you a good fuck?”, how would you feel?’ ‘I’d say he was being rude. Extremely fresh. I’d say that was none of his business.’ ‘Exactly. I’m saying to you tbat you are being extremely rude. My finances are none of your business. You haven’t e<“-‘ned the right to poke your nose into my wallet or checkbook.’ ‘Excuse me! I was only trying to be friendly.’ ‘ Really? With friendliness like that, who would not cuddle a shark?’ Encounters like that, in which the man spurns her test, are most rare. Usually, the man is so flattered by her attention, so keen to slip in between the thighs of an interested woman, that he eagerly submits to her «friendly” interrogation. He’s even likely to boastfully exaggerate his economic condition. But in the above encounter, the woman probably stumbled against a man who was tired of being hunted. As F. Scott Fitzgerald once noted, “Every roung man with a large income leads the life of a hunted partridge”.4 One can understand how such a partridge might eventually rebel and refuse to cooperate with even the preliminary phase of being hunted. Where a man passes the woman’s economic eligibility test (by his answers, or through such items of male status display as his clothes, car, house, etc.), she might then test his abilities as a nest-protector. Does he have military or paramilitary experience? Is he followed about by a retinue of musclebound bodyguards? If not, she may provoke a brawl and incite him to show whether, and how well, he would defend her nest(and her good self) from attack. Women who go for brawlers, bouncers, soldiers, policemen, hig officials of state, or tycoons are reflecting their need for a nest-protector. In unsettled times, this need may become paramount. For instance during the unsettled 1960s and 1970s in the USA, quite a few high place women married their bodyguards. Lynda Bird Johnson, daughter 0President Johnson, married Charles S. Robb, a US Marine Corp Captain, who had served as a White House aide. Susan Ford, daughter of President Ford, married Charles F. Vance, a secret service agent assigned to the unit protecting the Ford family. Perhaps the most prominent example from that era was the media heiress Patty Hearst who ditched her fiance, Steve Weed, after he had, like a weed, failed to protect her from being kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army. She went on to marry Bernard Shaw, a bodyguard hired to protect her following her traumatic experiences. If the man’s abilities as economic provider and nest-protector sat is the woman, she may start to tame him by securing three essenti commitments from him: sexual commitment, emotional commitmen and economic commitment. Of these, economic commitment is central. The applicant must be taught to habitually devote his earnings t maintaining her nest and herself. All other feeders at his trough mus be banished; those not banishable (like his parents, siblings, relative and close friends), will have their access to his income minimized. If he the generous type, his impulse must be curbed, and he must be trained, if need be, to hand his pay packet directly to her each payday. As part of his economic training, a not-so-rich man might be required to give up smoking, drinking and gambling, and any other “vice” through which he might “fritter away” his income. But where the man is suitably rich, she may be content simply to train him to spend most of his income on her good and lovely self. She also makes a point of training him to be sexually loyal to herself. This is partly to minimize the risk of losing his economic commitment to her. As she well knows, male-female attachments are notoriously vulnerable to better sex. Should she fail to ftx his roving eye on herself, or fail to tie down his wandering lust, he might become sexually addicted to another woman after some chance encounter. A woman who grabs his balls away from her could then grab his purse away too. For securing a man’s sexual loyalty, a woman’s main ruse is to get him sexually addicted to herself, whether by heavy petting that doesn’t go all the way, or by full and abundant sex. Once hooked, he is never let out of her sight, except when he goes off to work, lest some chance encounter with another woman should break her spell on him. The man-minder part of this ruse has been perfected by American women under the guise of an insistent and loving “togetherness”. In the name of “togetherness”, she encourages him to come directly home from work, to stop going out with “the boys”, and to go with her wherever he has to go outside working hours. In effect, she makes herself his chaperone, ostensibly because of her great love which could not bear any separation! In fact, of course, it is so that, arm in arm together everywhere, she can keep a jailer’s eye on his genitalia. Ah, togetherness, lovely togetherness! To secure his emotional commitment, a woman will train a man to attach his feelings inseverably to herself. His jealousy and her cantankerousness are great instruments for this task. The more jealous she makes him, the more strongly the heat of his own jealousy bonds his heart to her. In inciting his jealousy to incandescence, a woman’s ways can be quite bizarre. She might deliberately encourage the attentions of rival suitors. If he gets jealouS enough to ftght them off, all is well; if he doesn’t, his emotional attachment to her is judged insufficiently strong, and further inciting is required. But should he, in a ftt of high jealousy, beat her up after chasing off the rivals she encouraged, she has excellent proof that he could not bear to lose her. 53 Similarly, by her cantankerousness, she aims to test if he will stomach anything rather than leave her. She will play hard to get; she will insult and humiliate him; she will require him to flatter her to the point of irrationality. If he abandons his courtship in frustration or annoyance, she might tell herself that “faint heart never won fair lady” . Translation: his passion is not strong enough to weather the harassments and disappointments of nest-service; therefore, good riddance! A further demonstration of this situation occurs in Jorge Amado’s novel Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands: The trifler’s interest must have been very slight to grow discouraged at the first stumbling block. Dona Flor had done much worse things to Pedro Borges when she was single. The student from Para had savoured the bitterness of letters returned, gifts rejected, real insults, and he with an engagement ring in his pocket. That was a true passion, not this one which evaporated with the mere slamming of a window.43 Thus it is that, if a woman’s behaviour during courtship seems mad, seems arbitrary to the point of tyrarmy, there is a simple purpose to it all: to establish and test her power over him. The suitor must be reduced to unquestioning obedience to her, otherwise her hold on him, on which the security of his nest services will depend, might prove tenuous. After all, a slave master must break his slave thoroughly if he is to expect loyal and unquestioning service during the slave’s lifetime. If the suitor’s commitment to her has been found satisfactory in the vital areas, she then has to g«t him to propose, thereby signalling his eagerness to begin slaving for her. If he is not already on his knees, blabbering with impatience, he must be reduced to that position, and then hauled off to the altar where he shall publicly accept the standard contract between nest-queen and nest-slave. For getting him to propose, a woman has many weapons at her disposal – lust, love, romance and motherly care. She can addict the suitor to her body (lust); or afflict his heart with deep tenderness toward her (love); or make him lose his head over her (romance); or accustom him to the comforts of a well-ordered home (motherly care). Each weapon is aimed at some suitably vulnerable part of his being Romance aims at his head, to befuddle it and disarm his common sense lust aims at his nerves, to train them to rush to her body for calming dips love aims at his feelings, to make her the preferred object over which to discharge his tender feelings; motherly care aims at his enjoyment of physical comforts, such as he once enjoyed •in his mother’s nest. For each of these weapons, a book of tactics could be written by observing the l>ehaviour of women. However, let us consider here only some of the tactics of lust and motheriy care. To soften up a man to the point where he proposes, a woman can either withhold sex from him or lavish it on him. In the .sex-Iavishing tactic, the woman gives him sex, quite readily and freely, till he is addicted and can no longer do without his regular dose. Then, like an expert drug dealer, she can make him pay any price for what she supplies. And her asking price? A trip to the marriage altar. A woman who uses this tactic tends to lose all interest in sexually servicing her husband soon after the wedding. This phenomenon gave rise to the following joke in San Francisco: “How do you make an Irish woman frigid? Marry her!” The sex-withholding tactic was much favoured before contraceptives became commonly available. It is probably as old as the missionary position, if not older. It is still favoured by diehard puritans who regard sex-before-the-wedding as a mortal sin. The aim is to frustrate the man to the point where he becomes obsessed with having sex with the woman. Claiming that she is not a cheap woman, she proves her costliness by not yielding her alleged virtue for anything less expensive than marriage. At its most bizarre, the hapless fellow gets conned into her way of seeing things, into her way of defining virtue, and joins her in regarding readily available sex as “cheap”, as devalued by the very ease with which it could be had. When converted to her frustration theory of value, he values her even more for her very refusal to have sex with him. He can become so obsessed with her that, in terminal frustration, he capitulates and accepts her terms for sleeping with him, namely, a wedding! The pop band, Meatloaf, has expertly parodied this tactic in the song “Paradise by the Dashboard Lights”. This tactic was much helped by the cult of virginity which venerated the virgin bride. She held out, it was claimed, in order to give him the honour and pleasure of receiving her with her hymen intact! In practical ( erms, the poor sod was sex-starved into buying unsampled goods. If (he sex turned out lousy, or if her frigidity ruined the honeymoon, or if her vaunted virginity proved to be fake, tough luck for the hapless chap. The woman would by then have filed her title to his labours at the court. There being no refund clause in the marriage contract, he could not ask for release from his sworn obligations to his new boss, no matter how lou,sy she proved in bed, no matter if she proved incapable of bearing children. The motherly care tactic is based on the christianly notion that she who would be your queen, let her be your house servant. Accordingly, the woman maneuvers to take over her suitor’s cooking, house cleaning and house keeping. Her opening gambit is to relieve him of the chore of cooking for himself. She will tell him that he will feed better on her cooking than on his, and will march into his kitchen to prove it. If the bachelor, has no kitchen of his own, and d¢pends on eating out, she is not daunted. She will offer to cook for im at her “wn ki􀂁chen. Should he try to resist, excuses will spring readily to her honeyed tongue. The cost of eating out! Or she will complain that there are no places to go for a decent bite after midnight, or after whatever hour the local eateries shut down. She Will persist until she has lii:m feeding off dishes she herself has prepared. That opening move accomplished, she will contrive to have them live together in his house 9r hers. The ostensible objective is to see if things will work out, if they can share each other’s’company for long without suffering cabin fever. Or it is simply to save the inconvenience of commuting from one dwelling to the other. Once they move in together, she gives him the VIP treatment. She showers him with smiles at every opportunity; she covers herself in glamour from waking up in the morning to bedtime at night; she offers him meals when he wants them, where he wants them, even serving him breakfast in bed, and even spooning the delicacies into his watering mouth, should he as much as hint at wanting that pleasure. She will darn his socks, sew on his missing buttons, mend his shirts, wash and iron his clothes, fetch his sLippers, and even give him a nightly bath if he as much as hints that he did enjoy such treatment from his mother. She will do all the shopping and bar him firmly from the kitchen. She will pamper him even more than he ever was pampered when he was his mother’s precious brat. She will persevere with this plan till she gets him used to not cooking for himself, to not cleaning his house, to not taking care of himself. She will persevere till the fool begins to imagine how wonderful it would be if this could go on for ever; till the mad fool begins to believe that this cosy life would continue for ever if only he married her! If he does not get down on his knees fast enough to suit her schedule, she will start giving him hints, subtle at first, then more loudly later on. If he still is slow, she might suddenly take off to visit some aunt she’s never visited in her life, some aunt she had never talked of before, but who conveniently lives on the far face of the moon. The man, by now helpless, cannot stand the prospect of doing without her, for even an afternoon, let alone for the weeks she would need to travel to see her most cherished aunt. What is the now dependent fellow going to do? Crisis! He begs her not to go. But she goes off anyway. And the moment she returns (following periodic phone calls to hear how inadequately he is coping without her), it would be a miracle if even a court injunction, or an order from his employer, would keep him from falling on his knees and proposing to marry her at once. Of course, these weapons, and the tactics for using them, are usually wielded in combination, depending on the skill of the man-hunting woman. They are normally adequate to bring even the wildest, freedom loving bronco of a man to his obedient knees. Sometimes they do fail, and the woman has to resort to rough tactics. Before the sexual revolution undermined it, one ofthe most popular of rough tactics was the shotgun wedding. This worked best, of course, if the woman had lavished sex on the suitor. All it then took was to urreptitiously get herself pregnant. If he did not then capitulate, if he didn’t offer to slave for the nest to which he had already contributed his genes, her father and brothers would arrive with their shotguns .. and march “the prisoner” to the altar. I n these times, when there is no premium on unbroken hymens, shotgun weddings have declined in frequency. Without the cult of the virgin bride, shotgun weddings lose their rationale: it was that, having damaged their daughter’s or sister’s worth by breaking her hymen, the fellow had to hold on to the goods he had damaged. Other tactics, a bit less rough, are still available to the woman who wants to hurry her suitor to propose. She can end his reluctance by hinting at, or even producing, rivals to whom his ego would be loathe to lose her. When such a woman seems determined to flirt with other men in her suit or’s presence, her game is clear. A particular white American variant of this is for the girl to show keen in some black male in the presence of her dithering suitor. From such examples, the dispassionate observer cannot but be impressed by the woman’s superior position in courtship, and by the cleverness with which she uses her weapons. While the fool man imagines himself the aggressive, powerful hunter tracking some weak prey, she hunts him down and carts him off. It might be wondered why men do not usually tell the truth about courtship. Why don’t fathers, and perhaps grandfathers, warn young men about it? Well, male pride for one. The hunting code requires a man to crow from the rooftops about his victories, not his defeats. This means that no husband will be eager to admit that he was tricked, and defeated, and enslaved by his little wife. Secondly, those men who have an interest in declaring the truth, the successful career bachelors, are very few. And even if they bothered to tell the truth, how many men would believe them? The reputation which women have woven for then (as inadequate, undesirable failures whom no woman would marry would prevent them from being believed. To those conditioned to believe that being a husband is the natural, god-ordained, and happening destiny of every man, a bachelor’s account of the perils of courtship would sound like sour grapes. Thirdly, a sense of futility contributes to men’s silence on the topic When they consider all the men who fell into women’s traps all through the ages, those who might be tempted to warn others are driven to despair. What’s the use? Driven by his craving for progeny, the average man, forewarned or not, would still fall where his betters fell. 8. Wedding: The Bride’s Triumph Ceremony According to some feminists, a wedding ushers a woman into that prison, that house of domestic slavery, that vale of misery which is marriage. As one of them has put it, marriage is “the hardest way on earth of getting a living’,4S – which would, presumably, make it harder than plantation slavery! Another feminist, Sue Bruley, has said of it: Someone coming from another planet and looking at a marriage contract and the semi-slavery it entails for the woman would think it insane that she should enter into it voluntarily. 46 If weddings ushered women into semi-slavery, into the hardest way on earth of getting a living, women would, indeed, be mad to enter it voluntarily. That women do enter it, not just voluntarily, but eagerly, suggests that either women are daft or they are not the ones enslaved by marriage. Since women are the more down to earth and sensible of the two sexes, one must conclude that this talk of slavery is pure feminist propaganda. In fact, a look at the realities, including the actual behaviour of men and women, would give the lie to the feminist claim. If indeed weddings ushered women into exploitation and hardship, why is it that the bride can be counted upon to appear for her wedding looking radiant and joyfully expectant? Why do bridal songs celebrate her happiness? If a bride is judged happy by women because she has found a hard worker (as is stated in the Ethiopian song quoted above), 59 who then is going to be exploited in the subsequent marriage – the hard worker or his owner? Of course, the bride is happy because the wedding is her triumph ceremony marking the end of her man hunt, marking the beginning of her retirement on the earnings of her husband. She has spotted a suitable male, and disorganized him with the effects of her body-beautiful. She has sparked in him a craving for her womb. She has smitten him with love, put him through the obstacle course of courtship, broken his wild spirit, attached his emotions to herself, and taught him his commitments and duties. She has gotten him to propose, and is about to bring him before the public to accept to be her nest -slave. Why should she not be happy after such a successful campaign? Why should she not be radiant at the prospect of her fme reward – to live on his earnings for the rest of her days? If she is less than perfectly happy on her wedding morning, there are usually two main reasons. First, of course, is that she now has to leave her parents and friends and set out for that new abode where she shall make her nest. Parting from one’s home cannot be entirely joyful for anyone. But its sorrows are nothing compared with the joy of, at last, having her own nest. The balance of any mixed feelings she might have are on the side of leaving her mother’s nest for her own. As a “Song of Bridesmaids” from Rwanda says: We did not do it to you, We did not want to see you go; We love you too much for that. It’s your beauty that did it, Because you are so gorgeous . . . Ah, we see you laugh beneath your tears! Good-bye, your husband is here And already you don’t seem To need our consolations . . .4 7 The second reason for any unhappiness on her wedding morning is anxiety that the true picture of his future condition m ight have penetrated the bridegroom’s befuddled mind. What if he should then fail to turn up at the celebration of his own defeat? And what if he showed up, but balked at saying his “I do!” before the assembled witnesses? Consider the following n ews reports: 60 Antonio Iorillo giggled when the priest asked: ‘Do you take this woman for your wedded wife?’ Then he said: ‘No.’ There was pandemonium in the little church at Santa Maria Goretti, Italy. The bride sobbed and one bridesmaid fainted. Hastily the bridegroom explained that he was only joking, and asked the priest to continue the service . ‘You have committed sacrilege,’ the priest told him. ‘Only a bishop can put things right.’ Fortunately, the bishop was an understanding man. He told the priest to go on with the ceremony, which was delayed for more than two hours. There was a shorter hitch at a Suffolk wedding when a nervous bridegroom became tongue-tied just when he should have said ‘I will.’ The bride, a hefty woman, nudged him and muttered: ‘Say “I will, ” you fool’, and her partner blurted out, parrot-fashion: ‘I will, you foo1.;48 In each case, what gives any bride anxieties had happened; luckily, disaster was averted, and all ended well for each bride. The reactions to these balking bridegrooms reveal that it is the woman who is all set to exploit the man in their post-wedding life. Would the Italian bride have sobbed, or would her bridesmaid have fainted in sympathetic shock, if women looked forward to being enslaved in marriage? Wouldn’t the bride, and her bridesmaid, have rejoiced at her fortuitous escape from a terrible fu ture? As for the Suffo lk bride, she reacted with the decisiveness of an alert slave-owner who thwarts the escape bid of a slave she is buying. So much for fe minist dis information about who is set to be exploited within marriage. Any intelligent man who plays participant observer at his own courtship realizes that he is being tricked, cajoled, bullied and pricktwisted into staying the course. He realizes that the wedding, in which he is about to play his bit part, is simply a public celebration of his own defeat, and of his bride’s victory, in the great battle of courtship. He wil l recognize that the wedding is a public triumph where, like a victorious Roman general, his bride will parade him as the captive from her manhunt. He will recognize the non- reciprocal (and inequitable) terms of the contract which the offici ating priest will ask him to consent to, especially those clauses which require him to share with the bride all his wealth and the fruits of his toil, but whieh do not ask her to do iikewise . Any wonder then that an observant and intelligent man would balk at saying his “I will”? Anyway, who in his right mind and full liberty 61 would attend a parade which advertises his capitulation? Any wonder some bridegrooms just don’t show up? Don’t some defeated generals commit suicide to spare themselves the ignominy of being paraded in their vanquisher’s triumph? Any wonder why that Suffolk bridegroom who couldn’t stay away (like a general whose captors did not give him a chance to disembowel himself, or to bite on his cyanide pill) was far from ‘enthusiastic at the ceremony? Perhaps the true significance of a wedding dawned on him too late, probably right there at the altar, and he took fright, and got tongue-tied!. Balking bridegrooms, and those who go AWOL (Absent Without Leave) from their weddings, recognize that a wedding is not a triumph for the man. But most men either are too daft to recognize that, or are too intimidated to do anything about it. What, it may be asked, about brides who bolt from their own weddings? That does happen, but it is most rare. In societies where marriages are not arranged, it is rare because, as the employer, the bride calls the shots, and settles only for the best available candidate. She does not agree to any wedding unless she is sure the bridegroom is the best available to her. But when she does bolt from her own wedding, it is usually because she has spied a much better prey, perhaps a previous lover with whom she had lost touch, who suddenly turns up and indicates that he is available. Where marriages are arranged, a bride bolts from her own wedding if a man she finds revolting is being forced upon her by her parents or guardians. In that case, her action is a rebellion against parental insensitivity or tyranny rather than a manifestation of fear of enslavement within marriage. To avoid incidents of balking, tongue-tied or no-show bridegrooms, some societies have built into the wedding process rituals like bridesnatching. Bride-snatching is designed to reassure the bridegroom that he is the victor in the courtship battle; it confirms his feeling that he has been the hunter, and that the bride is his prize. According to psychological experts: 62 (The wedding ritual) is essentially a woman’s initiation rite, in which a man is bound to feel like anything but a conquering hero. No wonder we fmd, in tribal societies, such counterphobic rituals as the abduction or rape of the bride. These enable the man to cling to the remnants of his heroic role at the very moment that he must submit to his bride and assume the responsibilities of marriage.49 Such counterphobic rituals are a tribute to the profound disquiet which the prospect of marriage, and of his sworn duties within it, provokes in the intelligent male. It also shows the lengths to which the male administrators of the female interest will go in devising con games that will trick a man into accepting his own enslavement. The sensible male (and any fair person) has to admit that the bridegroom is the one person with every reason to be unhappy at a wedding. Everyone else is usually genuinely happy – the bride, the officiating priest, the parents of the bride, the bridesmaids and other hopeful brides-to-be, the groom’s parents, and the merrily feasting guests. They have good reason too! The married women, like generals who have had their own triumphs, are glad to welcome another to their ranks. The unmarried women are having their hopes renewed, with each probably thinking: “If that silly girl can get herself a slave, so will I, sooner or later.” The married men are there to enjoy the discomfiture of yet another lad: after all, misery loves company! In any case, why should they be unhappy at a feast? As for the unmarried men, the fools among them are hoping to be next in line for what they have been taught is bliss; while the worldly wise are rejoicing that it wasn’t them this time. They probably say to themselves: “Another sod bites the dust, but I’m still free!” And thus it is that a wedding is a grand and heartless conspiracy against the bridegroom. Poor fellow! As he leads his bride home and shows her off, you can guess why that radiant smile shines from her face. You can imagine the woman in her (what Virginia Woolf called the “Angel in the House”) popping up in her head and singing the victory song of bridepower: Now the hunt is over; The prey is in your net. Show his head to the cheering crowd And flash your victory smile. You can almost read the thoughts in her mind as she hugs and kisses him in front of the wedding guests: “Poor fool, I caught you at last! You may think you are stronger; you may think you are cleverer; you may think whatever nonsense makes you feel good, but you are now my official nest-slave! And if ever you try to escape, all of society, all these people who have witnessed this day, will restrain you.” / 63 Which is why a woman who won’t enter into marriage without a wedding knows precisely what she is after. She knows what insurance she is insisting on obtaining against possible desertion by her soon-to-be- over-exploited nest-slave. 8 The Husband Managers “It is only stupid women who cannot command men” – Marie Corelli The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness and kindness, can be trained to do most things” – Jilly Cooper “I have a manager: officially, they call her my wife – A London man at a Brixton Fair, 1989. Now she has married him, moved into his house, and settled down to manage her “hard worker”. Husband management, the grand preoccupation of wife power, has as its prime objectives: a) to keep the husband productive 9f enough wealth, status, power, fame, etc. as will satisfy the wife’s own ambitions; and b) to keep him from running away, however harrowingly she exploits him. To achieve these aims, a wife brings all her skills in manipulation. In the art of managing men, rare is the male Caesar who can match th.e average girl of seventeen. Girls learn it by observation, or through co􀄯versation with their mothers or aunts, or during initiation rites in those societies which still practice them. The result is that, by puberty, if not before, the average girl can manipulate a situation so as to receive as gifts. whatever she desires, even without explicity asking for them. This skill, which she is ready to use on her male slave, demonstrates a much higher order of managerial craft than order-barking prefects, captains, generals, presidents, tycoons and other male-style com- 66 manders ever attain. After marriage, she keeps her skills sharpened through refresher courses, alias kaffee klatches or gossip sessions, where women talk what, for them, is serious shop. To the management of her husband, a wife brings the highest possible professionalism. If the essence of professionalism (in contrast to amateurism) is in doing what one is doing for monetary or other economic reward and not for fun; at as high a level of skill as is possible; and with a singleness of purpose that is intolerant of distraction or frivolity – then it is in husband management that women show the highest professionalism. Indeed, compared to a career wife, the socalled career woman of today (who wears a suit, carries a briefcase, commutes to an office daily, does her nine-to-five stint, and hurries home in the evening rush hour) is not a professional at all, but a high dabbler on the turf of professional men; for when the going gets tough, any but the hardiest of these tomboys is liable to quit and concentrate on her marriage. Once the nest slave has been brought home, the poor fellow is managed ruthlessly. He is given his assignments and made to perform them. He is routinely henpecked and spied on. If he is particularly recalcitrant, he is threatened with starvation, with loss of peace of mind, or with loss of sexual privileges. He is subjected to the full force of what some Nigerian husbands call bedroom terrorism. The weapons of the bedroom terrorist range from those of agitators to those of assured rulers. The repertory includes praise, blame, flattery, guilt tripping, nagging, putting in the wrong, sex strikes, the big and the little lie, the silent withdrawal of approval, the ruthless manipulation of male insecurities and fears, the shattering of fragile egos, incitement to rivalry, misinformation, disinformation, deliberate confusion and disorientation. In using these weapons to get whatever she wants out of her husband, a wife has the support of her professional colleagues – her circle of female friends and relatives. They act as her spy network, informing her of her husband’s activities when he is out of her sight. And in their kaffee klatches, where they gather to natter about how to run their husbands, they teach one another how to make any intractable husband’s life so hot a hell that he would prefer to toe the line laid down by his wife. The wives of elite men are, of course, the best husband managers. These are the gran des dames or grand matriarchs who expertly manage the foremost male managers of vast organizations. They are the type 67 referred to when, at testimonial dinners, it is said that behind .every successful man there is a woman. But what, it may be asked, does such a woman do to her man from behind? As we all know, behind every successful boxer, athlete or pop star is a trainer/manager. Likewise, the wife behind a successful man is his trainer/manager. She drives him on like a charioteer drives a horse that is pulling him along. In her hands she holds the reins of criticism and admiration, of sexual rewards and punishment; with these she controls his ego and guides his efforts. She also has at her disposal the entire set of social arrangements, cultural values and psychological forces which, for millennia, have been organized for the exercise of wife power . These include the facade of patriarchy, the double standard, man’s fear of woman, man’s silly soul which is full of sentimental illusions, their almighty baby, and man’s fear of divorce. In using these tools and resources of husband management, an elite wife is a pastmaster (pastrnistress?) among women. Given such mastery, it is no wonder that elite wives are wont •to maintain that men are babies – naive, ignorant, bragging, hard-working, oversize babies; and that any woman worth her tears can manage any man. In this, elite wives differ from most feminists; the latter tend to be bewildered and inexpert at man-management, either because they escaped a thorough grounding in traditional female arts of manmanagement, or because they are contemptuous of such arts. To the discerning observer, the assurance with which elite wives manage their husbands is no different from that displayed by ruling class grandees toward those they habitually rule. These behind-the- scenes trainer/managers of tM lords of public affairs, these Livia’s 52 and Lady Macbeths of the world of power, are indeed the ultimate rulers of the world. Each community, however small, has its local crop of them. 68 9. The Facade of Patriarchy My husband may be the head of the house; I am the neck that turns the head. – An American housewife. Many mammal societies once thought to be run by a dominant male are now known to be matriarchies. Elephants are a good example. Because the big bull – the Alpha male – is always the most noticeable and the most threatening, he was always mistakenly thought to be the leader. But the true herd ruler is the Alpha female, who has swiftly and quietly led the group away to safety. She is the one who takes all the decisions. 53 – Anne Rasa, naturalist and ethnologist. Contrary to feminist propaganda, which alleges that most human societies are, and have been, patriarchies, human societies are no exception to the rule of matriarchies ope.rating covertly behind a facade of patriarchy. Indeed, patriarchy is a facade, most soothing to the male ego, for wife rule. That this is so is confirmed by women from some of the most dissimilar cultures in the world. Take what an American housewife told me during a wedding reception on a boat in Boston Harbour, quoted above, about the neck that turns the head. And take what a Saudi Arabian woman professor said on the BBC World Service: “The traditional Saudi wife runs her family and runs her husband.,,54 It may be tempting to say that even if patriarchy is a facade for matriarchy in the home, it couldn’t be so in public life, which is almost exclusively a male turf. But alas, whether in the home or the public arena, matriarchy is the law of life. This proposition may be demonstrated by first looking at some societies where matriarchy is not entirely covert, but operates, in part, through formal, public institutions. 69 In many traditional African societies, men and women have long had parallel organizations and complementary institutional powers. It usual for the king, the queen (who, by the way, is not the wife of the ki but the head of the women’s parallel branch of public organization), t war marshal and the queen mother, with their respective councils an officials, to exercise separate and countervailing powers. Viewed from that world, much of Western political practices can be quite puzzling Zulu Sofola, a Nigerian playwright and researcher into African tra tions, once retold the following conversation which had taken pIa between herself and her mother. It occurred at a time when Margar Thatcher, Prime Minister of Britain, was embroiled in one of h political battles. Zulu Sofola’s mother, who lives in the traditional Ig milieu, asked her: ‘Everybody is talking ill of Margaret Thatcher. Why doesn’t she her powers to stop them?’ ‘She has no powers other than those of men,’ Zulu replied. ‘But where is their Otu-Omu (the council of women)? The 0 should take the matter up and set these men right. Who do th think they are?’ demanded Zulu’s mother. ‘White people don’t have Omu,’ Zulu explained. ‘Ah! Who speaks for the women?’ her mother wondered. ‘In the white man’s world, nobody speaks for women,’ Zulu told h As part of the intricate system of checks and balances in so traditional African societies, women exercise the most effective san tion against misrule. When a king becomes intolerable to his subjec a procession of grandmothers will march naked to his palace. No rul survives this fmal and dramatic repudiation by the mothers of subjects. Usually, the threat of this march is enough to bring erring dictatorial rulers to heel. In the West, where parallel male and female public institutions a not the norm, women nevertheless operate a covert matriarchy. society matrons, Western elite women control political parties fro behind the scenes, from places where they are safe from politi shrapnel. Those very few (like Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir) who insist on savouring the risks of political combat, have run the men around them like nannies run their packs of little boys. For example, here is how Margaret Thatcher, by manipulating men’s fear of women, manages the male politicians and civil servants around her. According to Anthony King, Professor of Government at Essex University: Mrs Thatcher is, in her personal dealings, a considerate person. She has no trouble in winning the affection and loyalty of those in her immediate circle, principally at No. 10 Downing Street. Nevertheless, in her relations with her fellow ministers, civil servants and Conservative MPs, her distinctive weapon – far more than in the cases of men like Chijrchill, Macmillan or Wilson – is fear . . . In Mrs Thatcher’s case, the use of fear as a political weapon does not imply the use of the chopping block or of the garrotte. On the contrary, those who Mrs Thatcher politically executes can look forward to a knighthood if they are lucky, to a life peerage if they are luckier. Rather, Mrs. Thatcher uses fear in two less malign ways that are nevertheless equally effective. The first is by means of face-to-face fear: ‘fear at first hand’. Mrs Thatcher has a formidable personality, and she is capable of hectoring, cajoling, threatening, wrong-footing, bullying, embarrassing and even humiliating her Ministers and officials . . . She puts the fear of God into people, and they usually respond well. Of course, there is no need to use this particular weapon very often: fear of being on the receiving end of a Prime Ministerial tongue-lashing – or even merely of Prime Ministerial froideur – is usually adequate to the purpose. One specific aspect of her use of face-to-face fear is worth mentioning. Mrs Thatcher long ago observed that most wellbrought – up Englishmen – especially, though not only, if they went to a public school – have no idea what to do with a strong, assertive woman. Not only are they brought up not to be rude to women: they find it very difficult in general to deal with women in the same matter-of-fact, direct way that they deal with men. Women to them are mothers or nannies to be feared or sisters to be bullied (or, alternatively, adored). The average Englishman of the middle and upper classes simply quails in the presence of a formidable female personality, torn between the desire to strike and the desire to sulk, not knowing what an appropriate response would be. Mrs Thatcher long ago noticed that such Englishmen found it hard to stand up to her – and conceived a considerable contempt for the whole tribe. As one of her former Ministers, Sir John Nott, said in a recent television interview, she thinks all men are ‘wimps,.55 While the Maggie Thatchers are very few, it is more usual for ruling class matriarchs to run ruling class patriarchs who run the affairs of the world. Recall the case of Mary Cunningham of the USA. In the late 1970s, she had used what Nigerians would call “bottom power” to rocket to Vice-president for Strategy at Bendix Corporation, and to become its effective second-in-command. In speaking about her controversial relationship with William Agee, the Chairman of Bendix (whom she later married), she noted: The indirect ways are powerful . . . I’m building the chairman’s faith in me so I can sit at his shoulder and influence 􀀘 for the good of society.56 Yes, of course! Only for the good of society! Perhaps the best recent example of how grand matriarchs run the grand patriarchs is that of Winston Churchill, the great 20th century war leader of the British. A woman neighbour of mine in London once claimed that men were babies. In disbelief, I asked her if she thOUght that even leaders like Churchill were babies. “Churchill was the biggest baby of all,” she replied. Not long after, I read Mary Soames’ biography of her mother, Lady Clementine Churchill, and had to agree that Winston, if not quite a baby, was a standard patriarch – outwardly _ strong, dominating and masterly, but in fact a champion coached and managed by n􀃨ne other than his wife! On the jacket blurb of the biography, I read: 72 Clementine Churchill was the perfect wife for Winston. For 57 years she supported him through the triumphs, disasters and tensions which ruled his public and private life . . . Always Winston trusted h􀃩r completely and she became a valuable counsellor and companion. He invariably wanted her opinion – but did not always take her advice. She believed in him passionately, and in his destiny – standin􀃂 beside him in public seemingly serene, cool and detached. Now, that passage could easily describe any famous manager-athlete relationship, like the famous Angelo Dundee-Muhammed Ali combination. Of course, as Winston’s coach-manager, Clementine, her coaching done, would sit by the ringside and look on, cool and detached, or even stay away from the bloody fight, while her ward battled it out in the political ring. For Clementine, coaching and managing Winston was a conscious and dedicated career. Here is how their daughter, Mary, puts it: Winston was to be Clementine’s lifework. Her concentration on him and his career consumed the cream of her thought and energy.58 One should therefore not be surprised at Clementine’s summative remark the night after Winston’s funeral. By Mary’s own report, before she went to bed that night, Clementine turned to her and said: “You know, Mary, it wasn’t a funeral – it was a Triumph.,,59 Well, whose Triumph? Clementine’s of course! She had managed Winston for 57 years, and at his death the world came to pay tribute, ostensibly to him, but as far as she was concerned, to her success as wife-coach-manager of his successful career. Now that we have an inkling into women’s true role in the management of the world, it should be a sobering realization for men that our official bosses and leaders, even the greatest among them, whom we all look up to as the masters of the world, are each under the guiding thumb of some woman or other, usually his wife. Whenever we gaze in awe at a head of state, or at a head of household, we should gaze in even greater awe at the little lady by his side who controls him like a puppeteer does a puppet. Appearances should not be allowed to mislead us as to where the balance of power lies between them. We have seen how matriarchs rule men in public life – the Otu Omu, the naked grandmothers, Maggie Thatcher, Mary Cunningham, Clementine Churchill. But how do wives generally use the patriarchal facade to control and exploit their husbands at home? Just consider some of the tasks a wife is able to shift over to her husband by appealing to his ego as patria,rch or official head of her household. 73 “0 husband mine!” she tacitly says: “You are the official head of this house; you are my leader, my lawgiver. You are the strong one. Won’t you feed and protect me and our little child? Won’t you-see to it that our child is well behaved?” In this way, she deftly assigns him the job of nest provisioner; the job of nest protector; and the job of ogre or disciplinarian of the nest. If he fails to provision the nest to her satisfaction, he suffers her contempt, as well as his own, for not living up to his macho expectations. If thieves attack her nest and he cannot fight them off, he suffers her contempt, as well as his own, for not carrying out his macho duties. If he dies defending her nest, she weeps for a day or a week, and sets about recruiting another nest guard. She can discipline the child in his n􀁾e, or frighten it with his image as bogeyman (Wait till your daddy Comes home!), without herself earning the child’s resentment. By directing its resentment towards its bogeyman father, she can retain the child’s image of her as the “sweet mother”. Ifhe declines to act as the disciplinarian and ogre; if he prefers to earn the image of “sweet father”, she resents it. As one \vife, Natalie Rogers, complained: My husband preferred the role of playmate to the kids when they were young, rather than accept his share of the disciplining. I felt like the ogre.60 If the wife became the overt head of her own nest, she would have to do all that for herself; and she would have to do far more. There is an Igbp “Widow’s Lament,” based on farming life, which details the six occasions when a widow recalls the death of her husband and cries uncontrollably. The first tbTee are when she needs him for farm labour (planting, tending and harvesting), for each of which she now has to hire and pay labourers. The fourth is when there is a meeting of the kindred: with her husband dead, “who will inform the widow of the deliberations?” The fifth is when there is a festival, and she has to buy her own fowl to cook for the feast. The sixth “is the day she is drenched in her unrepaired thatched house; that day she knows nothing is as painful as losing a husband. Let us consider the fourth job listed in that lament: his job as her political emissary to the arena of public affairs. It entails much more than reporting back what transpires in the assembly. As the ostensible head of her nest, he participates in politics in order to protect her and her nest from those dangers, social and natural, which her society combats through public measures. When it becomes necessary to protect the society by violent means, he goes to battle and even dies that she may live on in safety. As her voice in public affairs he contributes to deliberations which make laws that serve her interest. In Western societies in the days of male franchise, the husband, as voter, was his wife’s political emissary. He used his vote to elect male law makers who passed laws in his wife’s interest, laws which often punished the natural inclinations and delights of men, and helped to trap men in nest slavery. Some of these laws, passed by all-male legislatures, are monuments to female rascality and misandry. For example, long before women got the vote in the USA, there were laws against prostitution, a service which men needed to lesson the tyranny of frigid or sex-striking wives. Also, there has long been an anti-husband bias in the marriage and divorce rules of the Western W orId, a bias which, in some cases, gave the family house, custody of the children, etc. preferentially to the woman. Women did not have to have the vote, did not have to become the majority of lawmakers, for such misandr-oys laws to be passed. They were passed by male law makers, who wer-e elected by male voters, all of whom acted as instructed by their wives and mothers! Oh yes! How readily a man will sacrifice men’s interests for women’s once his patriarch’s.ego has been puffed, or his penis has been twisted! But why does the average woman prefer covert to overt matriachy? Just consider the matter from her standpoint. Overt leadership would give a woman duties which expose her to too many pressures and risks. As she well knows, uneasy lies the head that wears the croWD. She therefore concedes that onerous role to the patriarch, and saves herself a lot of hassles. She makes him .the formal” leader of her nest, and shifts unto his shoulders the burdens of decision-making, the anxieties of wielding authority, the dangers of defending her honour and her life throughlights, lawsuits and wars. When she declares that she is weak, and lays her head on his chest and weeps to prove it, and lets him make the decisions, she simultaneously massages his ego and exploits him. She offloads high-pressure -and high-risk jobs unto the patriarch, and takes for herself the superior but safer position of the power behind the throne. Thus, behind the patriarch stands his matriarch: she runs her world by running the man who runs the world for her. Under this arrangement, a woman has everything to gain and nothing to lose, except little vanities. Being far more down to earth, she prefers the substance to the shadow, the power to the glory, the rewards to the exertion. Behold the matriarch, the great queen bee, in all her power. Hers is the power to manipulate from hidden and protected places. She is the back seat driver, giving instructions from the owner’s corner. She is the supreme executive, excellent at delegating the most burdensome and dangerous jobs to her chief lieutenant, alias the patriarch. And the patriarch? He is simply her foreman, a glorified foreman, who oversees the work in the fields. With his ego well massaged by the trappings of nominal leadership, he gladly supplies his matriarch, to the best of his abilities, with wealth, honour, status, and fame. Each day he spends eighteen hours or more as her agent in the great, wide, roughand- tumble world; for an hour in the morning, and an hour and a half at night, she inspires and instructs him to make forays into the world for her. And while he is in his office, working up hypertension or a coronary, she lounges at her sauna or her hairdresser’s; or she enjoys herself shopping, spending his money, or nattering away with her fellow queen bees at the bridge table. His are the risks and hardships; hers the leisured enjoyment of the rewards. Her motto, in effect, is this: o patriarch, 0 husband mine! Suffer the burdens of leadership, But hand me its choicest fruits. Should he ever tire of being a figurehead, or should he, horror of horrors, threaten to quit his job, the little wife has fine ways of intimidating her huge, figurehead leader. In a letter to her daughter, one British wife demonstrated just how easily a wife can quell a rebellion by her husband should he even hint at it. Writing to her daughter Kate, she told the following story: 76 On that evening your Dad leaped out of his chair at 8 o’clock, collected his wee bag full of empty Coke bottles and I thought Oh Christ – here we go again – lemonade, big spender. I said I didn’t want any – that did it, he said he would get pissed by himself and for three hours the air was Blue. I got the usual old guff about how the daughters I loved have spent years pleading with him to leave me – owing to me being sick in the mind, but he couldn’t leave me because A) he is the loyal type and he made up his mind to make the best of me and B) he was worried about leaving his children in my care. He was roaring with laughter telling me he had put in his resignation and was leaving his job on December 31st and once he got that gratuity in his hands, life was going to be all women and gambling, I would get nothing out of it. All the people I think are my good friends, he said, have all advised him to leave me. I thought it all over for two days – not having said one word that evening – on Sunday night I said to him very quietly – ‘You are not going to do what you said you would with your gratuity and savings – I sweated blood all those years for you, to save and see that you never went without anything.’ I said, ‘you just try it mate and I’ll get a heavy mob (Kate’s feminist friends) on to you, that will leave you so that you won’t look in a mirror for the next twenty years and you tell me just one more time that I’m sick in the mind and I’ll kick your teeth so far down your throat that they will come out the dther end.’ I banged the table saying ‘do you understand?’ He was literally shaking like a jelly. Since then he has been very nice and I’m almost certain his shouts about leaving the job (my fault) were a come-on to get his own way. Anyway as I said, everything is now very pleasant.62 Yes! When this nest-slave threatened to abscond with some of the proceeds of his life-long toil (the gratuity and savings), he was brought to heel by his owner. So much for the notion of the husband as boss to his wife! But why do men settle for a patriarchy that is, alas, a mere facade? The answer is quite simple. A facade is the most that their rulers will allow them; and a facade is the least that will make the male ego feel good enough to endure the burdens of his alloted role. Furthermore, should men try to subvert matriarchy in order to substitute a genuine patriarchy, women will thwart them. Men, therefore, settle for a figurehead patriarchy simply because they must. 10 The Silly Souls of Men “Masculine woolly-mindedness has been a source of female power for a long way back” – Robert Ardrey The head of the average man is packed with silly beliefs about men and women. Like fumes of booze that boost the ego, these beliefs cloud up man’s perception, and leave him swaggering and staggering through life like a hopeless drunk, to be taken advantage of by any woman who wants to. Among the most notorious of his beliefs are that women are weak and fragile; that men are cleverer than women; that women are fickle, passive, irrational, helpless and sentimental; that men are superior to women in the natural order of the universe; that women are mysterious. These beliefs are so palpably silly that any clear-eyed and fair-minded observer can only agree with Marie Corelli who spoke of the “silly souls of men,,70 by which women entrap them. A sober look at the actual world yields quite a different picture. It shows that women are far less fragile and weak than they pretend to be; that women are cleverer than men; that their fickleness, passivity, irrationality and helplessness are calculated instruments of power; that women are far less sentimental, but more down-to-earth, cynical and ruthless than men; that, in so far as a natural order exists, women are, within it, superior to men; and that women are not mysterious at all, but only appear so owing to male foolishness. Let us go through these popular male illusions and see how badly they accord with the realities, . and how women use them to exploit and rule men. Are women weak and fragile? At any rate, are they as weak and fragile as male pride imagines them to be? As we could all verify for ourselves, some men are physically stronger than some women, and some women 􀃭e stronger than some men. Even if it is true that, on average, and in specific a􀂟oects, men are stronger than women, the difference is routinely euggerated, by men so as to boost their egos, and by women so as to get men to do things for them. I was once helping a friend help his girlfriend move her belongings out of a New York apartment. After taking a heavy trunk down to the moving van, we were huffmg and puffing our way back up the stairs. As soon as the woman and a girlfriend of hers saw us, they dropped a mattress they were carrying to the elevator, and began to complain that it was too heavy! Yet, before they saw us, they carried it with no visible difficulty! The idea of the stronger male is often dramatized by the image of a weak, defenceless wife cowering before blows from her huge husband. Yet incidents of husbands who are battered by their much stronger wives abound. Much is not heard of these for two reasons: male pride would not advertise the fact, and women’s dissembling often gives the impression that the husband-battering wife is herself the battered wife. Here is a story of a dissembling bedroom terrorist, as it was reported in the Nigerian press by a woman columnist: Just recently, a colleague recounted his experience with one of his neighbours. Cotenants used to look at the husband of this woman with distaste – what with her constant shrills of pain and cries that her husband was beating the life out of her. On the day in question, my colleague could no longer stand the woman’s heart-rending cries for help. He tried the couple’s door; it was locked as usual. Out of desperation, he climbed through to their balcony to try to appeal to the callous man through their bedroom window. He told me: ‘I was surprised to find the woman riding on the back of her husband and giving him a good pummelling, and at the same time screaming at the top of her voice that she was being beaten to death.’71 As in the matter of physical strength, the customary contrast between female fragility and male sturdiness enables women to push unto men as much as possible of the world’s tough and risky jobs. Because it helps them to e”Ploit men, women have a vested interest in making themselves look more fragile than they really are. In fact, one of the perennial objectives of female fashion is to heighten the illusion of female fragility. 86 The devices used for this purpose have ranged from foot binding in old China; through tight corsets that produced on the women of Victorian England the illusion of an hourglass waist, just waiting to break; to the high-heeled shoes of the modern West. The Victorian illusion of female fragility was given both a physical and a psychological dimension, through a self-presentation which combined a thin waist, a pale skin which showed every blush, and fainting fits which called for smelling salts. Such a woman would appear so fragile in body and soul that any gallant man would feel obliged to reach out and support her. In 20th century Western fashion, the high heel is the foundation for the elaborate disguising of female sturdiness. Consider a woman who has dieted herself down to twiggy thinness; who stuffs herself into a skirt that is tight about the knees or ankles, hindering her from taking long and vigorous strides; who then perches herself on stiletto heels, to produce an overall effect of a tall, thin, willowy masquerade walking on wobbly stilts. The impression she has carefully created is of an adult who cannot balance firmly on her own two feet. Like an invalid who can hardly stand up straight, her figure cries out for help, for a sturdy man to sweep her off her feet and carry her across a windy street, or up a hill path; or better yet, for some gallant who will pull up beside her in a Rolls Royce and save her the obvious difficulty of walking down the street. Given her self-created image of helplessness, what man would be so ill-mannered, so ungallant as to ask her to carry a heavy, bulky box and step across a gutter? A man once got a woman to take off her high heels and her knee-tight skirt. As she stood on her stockinged feet, as firm and stable on the ground as one of Degas’ dancers, he exclaimed: Look at those ankles! Look at those calves! Where is the fragile, willowy woman who was staggering in the breeze a while ago? So that’s what those high heels are about? So that’s what tight-kneed skirts are about? At which the lady picked up her handbag and struck him, drawing blood from his lip! Yes, women’s craftiness in hiding their sturdiness and strength is extraordinary. Women may not be as weak or fragile as they look; but aren’t men certainly cleverer? Now, now; men the cleverer sex? These creatures that women fool with a bit of face paint here, some finery there, and a smile under dimmed lights? These gulls who can be subdued with a trickle of actress’ tears, or confused with a sliver of thigh showing through a split in the skirt? These fools who, down through history, have been stuck with clearing the marshes, digging the coal, and getting bloodied i n battle? They the cleverer sex? R idiculous, simply ridiculous! Lest we forget, cleverness is not demonstrated by getting stuck with the hardest, dirtiest, riskiest jobs in the world, but by dumping them on others. Even in the routine matter of winning a living, any woman who doesn’t want to be bothered with it manages to dump it on some man: beither her father, or her lover, or her husband, or her sons and sons-inlaw. Yet who are so stupid as to claim that they are cleverer than women? The very same men who serve women! In the West, some of these men, especially the brawny robots who are so easily manipulated by women, will go so far as to speak of the “dumb blonde” as the ultimate in human stupidity. Yet, to look into the matter is to discover that the allegedly dumb blonde is no such thing! She lives rich by expending little more than the yellowness of her hair. She uses her yellow hair to rule the heart and pick the pocket of some blonde-obsessed macho with more money than sense. She laughs her way through an easy life and into a hefty inheritance. If anything, she is a great maximizer of returns, cleverly getting the best of life with the least effort. Frankly, the proverbial “dumb blonde” is probably the cleverest thing in the world. And if a “dumb blonde” is actually stupid at things which need intellectual sophistication, well why not? In her world, all the mental calisthenics she needs is to say her wish and some blonde-struck macho would move mountains to satisfy it. Any wonder if she should fail to exercise, let alone build up her brainpower? Anyway, however dumb a “dumb blonde” actually is, she is still cleverer than any man she rules through his worship of her yellow hair; for how can one be cleverer than one’s ruler? In any case, the degree of a “dumb blonde’s” dumbness is a direct measure of just how little brains it takes a woman to rule even the cleverest of men. It must be conceded that a beautiful woman does not need much brains to get what she wants in life. As the Igbo say, beauty is woman’s wealth. Stupid though a beautiful woman may be, when she presses the appropriate button on his ego, some big, clever robot will do her bidding. If she says: “I bet you aren’t man enough to lift that rock,” his taunted ego would respond: “Not man enough to lift that little pebble?” 88 And to prove that he is indeed Superman, our Samson will sprain his spine and risk a hernia to lift a ten-ton rock all by himself. Faced with the chore of doing the family accounts, she will slip out of it by saying: “Darling! You know I don’t have a head for numbers. Be an angel and give your brilliant attention to these bank statements.” And to live up to the flattery, he will work all night on the accounts while she gets her beauty sleep. Yet, all that notwithstanding, the robot actually believes that he is cleverer than his manipulator! Women, alas, are not stupid. But being brilliant manipulators, they choose to appear stupid so as not to wound the male ego with the truth. As a result, men appear cleverer than women, but only in the dumb male’s eyes. And whenever a woman is sorely tempted to stop dissembling, and to show just how clever she is, the female superego, alias “The Angel in the House,” would whisper to her (as it reportedly did to Virginia Woolf): Be sympathetic; be tender; flatter; deceive; use all the arts and wiles of our sex. Never let anybody guess that you have a mind of your own.72 And why should she not obey? What does she lose by allowing her slave to believe whatever nonsense makes him work tirelessly for her? Men do need to look with skeptical eyes at women’s show of stupidity. When men do, they will discover, probably to their shock, that it is a calculated stupidity in the service of cupidity. And they must concede that it takes great cleverness to feign such stupidity successfully. Men claim that women are fickle, passive, irrational, helpless and sentimental. To the extent that these claims are true, these characteristics are not the marks of weaknes’s or inferiority which men presume them to be: rather, they are proof of women’s supremacy, and they also serve as tools of female power. Isn’t fickleness a trait of arbitrary power? Any subordinate soon learns not to be fickle toward his superior; fickleness in a subordinate is called unreliability, and it is one luxury he cannot afford unless he wishes to be fired. Only male despots, like Stalin or Louis XIV, can be as fickle as the average woman. And isn’t passivity a mark of enormous power and privilege? Note how the ceaseless activity of worker bees serves the passive queen bee! 89 And isn’t much of woman’s show of irrationality a part of her power play, a ruse to frustrate men into yielding to her whatever is at issue? She puts on an act so irrational that the exasperated man, in exchange for some peace and sanity around the house, grants her whatever it is she wants. When seen in their proper light, her fickleness, passivity and irrationality are not signs of weakness or inferiority, but rather testaments to woman’s superior powers. They are, indeed, not the traits of serfs, but the privileges of princesses. The illusion of female helplessness is also a handy weapon against men. It ought to be pretty obvious, especially after the triumphs of women in previously male careers, that anything man can do woman can also do, except inseminate women. So woman is, intrinsically, no more helpless than man. But exaggerating her helplessness serves her well: it helps to get men to work for her, from opening doors to fighting wars that safeguard her interests. On the domestic front, she frequently takes the most outrageous advantage of her alleged helplessness. For instance, consider this case of a man who discovered his wife’s infidelity. Confronted with the evidence, she eventually confessed, but added: “I shan’t see him anymore; if you left me, 1 wouldn’t know what to do”. With his gallantry thus triggered by her alleged helplessness, he let her get away with her serious breach of their marital contract! The male illusion that women are sentimental probably derives from the fact that women are given to such emotional displays as hugging and crying, indulge in baby-talk with babies, and are avid readers and prolific writers of romances. It is therefore presumed that they are not ruthless, tough-minded or cynical. As usual, the realities are rather different. In a letter to Madame Mohl, an old family friend of hers, Florence Nightingale, the famous Lady with the Lamp, said: You say women are more sympathetic than men. Now if 1 were to write a book out of my experience, I should begin, Women have no sympathy. Yours is the tradition – mine is Annie is a hard wee nut, don’t get taken in by her tears, she can turn them on at the touch of a button?4 That should make us wonder at any woman’s ever ready river of actress’ tears! And in comparing her father, Pandit Nehru, with herself, Indira Gandhi said: I am less romantic and emotional than he was. Women are more down to earth than men.15 These claims are borne out by a recent research on European and American women by Professor Donald Kanter. According to a press report, Kanter, a psychologist at Boston University, conducted a survey of 2250 European women for an advertising firm. He uncovered layer upon layer of ‘staggering cynicism.’ Eight out of 10 women thought most people lie to get what they want, more than 80 per cent agreed that people inwardly dislike putting themselves out to help others, and that it’s harder and harder to make true friends. ‘I’d expect the gentler sex to be softer, more charitable,’ Kanter concluded. ‘The responses we got showed most European women tPink people are liars, reality is money, and an unselfIsh person is a pathetic ‘figure. That’s why they despised Jimmy Carter.’ Kanter has now fmished a new survey of middle class American wives and is dismayed by the results. About 50 per cent believe that most people are just out for themselves and nearly two-thirds agree with the European women that by and large human beings are selfIsh, mendacious and money mad. ‘The central tendencies are quite alarmin1,’ Kanter said. ‘I never expected to see numbers so large.’7 Poor Professor Kanter! One of his cherished illusions about women seems to have been shattered, and he seems quite shocked! One may well marvel at the sentimental education which blinded him to women’s basic cynicism. Anyway, if Florence Nightingale and Indira Gandhi are to be believed, Kanter’s fmding is not outlandish, and the cynic in Mrs Pfmerica is the cynic in every girl. 9 1 Man’s belief that he is naturally superior to woman is perhaps the greatest tribute ever paid to male conceit by wilful blindness: evidence to the contrary is everywhere. Just consider this. All that a woman has to do for sex, whether for pleasure or procreation, is signal her availability and, unless she is unspeakably ugly and stinking, there will be a stampede of men competing for the chance to service her. The poor devils must show their credentials, and must pass whatever test she sets, or she will deny them access to herself. Yet it is these very males – who have to fight and claw at one another; who have to woo, cajole, beg or even resort to rape to gain access to her – it is these very pitiful males who proudly declare themselves superior to her! They conveniently forget (for their own ego’s sake) to ask: What would they themselves say of candidates who claimed to be superior to those who . . interviewed, judged, selected and admitted them to positions for which they went down on their knees to beg? The notion of male superiority is a noisy myth, a compensatory boast, born of men’s acute consciousness of inferiority. Rather than being inferior to man, woman’s superiority is incontestable, and is based on the womb. After all, the achievements of even a Caesar are but credentials which he tenders before a woman when he competes with rival suitors for the use of her womb. Man’s sense of woman’s mysteriousness was there at the dawn of history, and persists till this day. Ancient Pharaonic Egyptians recorded it in the saying: “One does not ever discover the heart of a woman anymore than one knows the sky.” 77 A 19th century Britisher, Coventry Patmore, echoed them: A woman is a foreign land, Of which, though there he settle young, A man will ne’er quite understand The customs, politics, and tongue. 78 And even Sigmund Freud, the great explorer of the human psyche, confessed: 92 The great question . . . which I have not been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is ‘What does a woman want? ,79 And on any day, you will find some man somewhere baffled into asking the same perennial question: “What does a woman want?” Why do men find women so baffling? The answer, as a German woman, Eva Figes, put it, is that “man’s vision of woman is not objective, but an uneasy combination of what he wishes her to be.’,80 Of course, this lack of an objective view is precisely why woman, who he does not allow himself to see as she is, baffles man. If he ever took the trouble to observe and study woman, instead of projecting his fantasies and wishes onto her, he would fmd her much less of a mystery. In my view, men would understand women much better by avoiding one subjective error. Because men’s chief interest in women is sexual, men are prone to think that women’s chief interest in men is also sexual. In so doing, they overlook the point that men and women are biologically complementary rather than identical; and that, therefore, their main interest in each other would be complementary rather than identical. This elementary error is the key to men’s historic inability to understand women. When women’s behaviour is analyzed from the standpoint of men’s interests and needs, it becomes incomprehensible, and quite rightly too. Women, of course, do not make a similar mistake; they do not confuse men’s key interest in women with their own in men. Having grasped men’s key interest in women, they use it to analyse men’s behaviour, and that is why they find men so transparent that one woman, Jackie Robb, could say: “You can tell all you need to know about a man by the way he peels an orange.’ ,81 By the way, that women so easily understand men, and that men fmd women so baffling, is additional evidence that women are cleverer than men. However, it should not be too difficult for those who have understood the mysteries of the universe, including evolution and quantum physics, to understand women, provided they look and see and think. If men start from the complementarity of the sexes; if they accept that men pursue wealth, fame, honour and power for the love of women (i.e. in order to trade thes(f for access to a womb); if they heed the Igbo saying that beauty is woman’s wealth and wealth man’s beauty, then they would realise how natural it is for women’s aim to be the trading of their womb and .beauty for a share of men’s wealth, fame, honour, power, and status. By focussing on women’s key interest, women’s behaviour becomes readily understandable ‘and far from mysterious. In brief, woman’s mysteriousness is projected unto her by the muddled male mind. 93 On the whole, contrary [0 wen’s ego-boosting illusions, man may be the brawnier and braiuier sex; woman is not the weaker but the wilie! sex. However helpless and sentimental women may appear to be, in those things which matter to them they are less sentimental, less naive, more cynical, more ruthless, and more tenacious than men. If men could be even half as fickle, passive or irrational as women are, wouldn’t their lot be easier? As for the dogma that women are a sex inferior to men, it is simply stupid. Nobody who knows the ways of the world would accept it. Ask Chaucer, ask Boccaccio, ask the Chagga Elders. And as for the mysteriousness of women, it is a shadow cast upon them by male fuzzymindedness. All these silly male illusions enable women to manipulate and rule men; and that is why mothers, and all other women, would rather encourage than dispel them. And on any day, you will find some man somewhere baffled into asking the same perennial question: “What does a woman want?” Why do men find women so baffling? The answer, as a German woman, Eva Figes, put it, is that “man’s vision of woman is not objective, but an uneasy combination of what he wishes her to be.”8O Of course, this lack of an objective view is precisely why woman, who he does not allow himself to see as she is, baffles man. If he ever took the trouble to observe and study woman, instead of projecting his fantasies and wishes onto her, he would fwd her much less of a mystery. , In my view, men would understand women much better by avoiding one subjective error. Because men’s chief interest in women is sexual, men are prone to think that women’s chief interest in men is also sexual. hi so doing, they overlook the point that men and women are biologically complementary rather than identical; and that, therefore, their main interest in each other would be complementary rather than identical. This elementary error is the key to men’s historic inability to understand women. When women’s behaviour is analyzed from the standpoint of men’s interests and needs, it becomes incomprehensible, and quite rightly too. Women, of course, do not make a similar mistake; they do not Confuse men’s key interest in women with their own in men. Having grasped men’s key interest in women, they use it to analyse men’s behaviour, and that is why they find men so transparent that one woman, Jackie Robb, could say: “You can tell all you need to know about a man by the way he peels an orange.”Sl By the way, that women so easily understand men, and that men fwd women so baffling, is additional evidence that women are cleverer than men. However, it should not be too difficult for those who have understood the mysteries of the universe, including evolution and quantum physics, to understand women, provided they look and see and think. If men start from the complementarity of the sexes; if they accept that men pursue wealth, fame, honour and power for the love of women (i.e. in order to trade theSe{ for access to a womb); if they heed the Igbo saying that beauty,is woman􀄎s wealth and wealth man’s beauty, then they would realise how natural it is for women’s aim to be the trading oftheir womb and beauty for it share of men’s wealth, fame, honour, power, and status. By focussing on women’s key interest, women’s behaviour becomes readily understandable ‘and far from mysterious. In brief, woman’s mysteriousness is projected unto her by the muddled male mind. 93 On the whole, contrary to en’s ego-boosting illusions, man may be the brawnier and braicicr sex; woman is not the weaker but the wilier sex. However helpless and sentimental women may appear to be, in those things which matter to them they are less sentimental, less naive, more cynical, more ruthless, and more tenacious than men. If men could be even half as fickle, passive or irrational as women are, wouldn’t their lot be easier? As for the dogma that women are a sex inferior to men, it is simply stupid. Nobody who knows the ways of the world would accept it. Ask Chaucer, ask Boccaccio, ask the Chagga Elders. And as for the mysteriousness of women, it is a shadow cast upon them by male fuzzymindedness. All these silly male illusions enable women to manipulate and rule men; and that is why mothers, and all other women, would rather encourage than dispel them. 94 You heard his answer. You struck him, turned him into a frog. You set him to dwell in the middle of the garden, where he can move neither upward nor downward. So you’d love me in my turn and, as with them, set my fate.85 When Gilgamesh, having learned from the fates of his predecessors, turned down Ishtar’s advances, what did she do? Feeling spurned, she caused her father Anu, god of the heavens and father of the gods, to create a heaven bull which devoured Gilgamesh’s warriors, killing hundreds before it was slain by Gilgamesh and Enkidu, his partner in arms. Ah Ishtar, terrible Ishtar; cruel, callous and capricious goddess of love, whose embrace may neither be accepted nor spumed without danger! Ah Ishtar, personification of the terrible core of woman-inlove, as men experience her! Odysseus, in his encounters with the Sirens, with Calypso and with Circe, survived attempts to lure, trap and hold him prisoner by womanin- love. First, who were the Sirens? They were lovely sea maidens who lured men to destruction with songs which men could not resist. Outside of mythology, a siren is any woman on the street, any seductive and destructive femme fatale, who fascinates a man with her eyes, her voice, her bearing, or some other riveting action or attribute, and lures him to his ruin in one form or another. Odysseus survived his encounter with the Sirens by waxing up the ears of his ship’s crew so as to make them deaf to the songs, and by having himself tied tight to the mast of his ship. He was thus able to enjoy the enchanting songs of the sirens as he sailed past them, without throwing himself into the sea and swimming to them and to his doom. And what about Calypso? When Odysseus landed on her island, the nymph received him kindly, looked after him, proposed to marry him, and planned to give him immortality and ageless youth, if only he would remain with her for ever. Why did all that not persuade Odysseus to stay? He had other plans. After his years away at the Trojan war, he was keen to get home to his wife and son. Calypso had no sympathy for that. Hoping to habituate him to herself, she plied him with hospitality, and kept him on her island for eight years, kept him there a “cold lover with an ardent dame” (after) “the nymph had long ceased to please.”S6 She might have kept him prisoner for the rest of his life had Zeus, king 97 of the gods, not intervened and ordered her to give him up. Now, no man who loves his liberty, who has other plans for his life, would welcome being held against his wishes, however gently and sumptuously, even with a promise of immortal youth. Circe was the sorceress who turned men into swine. When Odysseus came to her island, he sent his men out to explore it. They found the home of Circe. She welcomed them, fed them pottage, and then, with a wave of her magic wand, turned them into pigs, and ordered them off to her pigsty for later slaughter. Only Eurylochus escaped to tell Odysseus what had happened. After consulting his gods, who told him how to resist Circe’s charms, Odysseus set out to meet Circe and rescue his men. Let us consider Circe’s tricks and how Odysseus countered them. Her fust trick was to serve him drugged pottage, which would weaken his resistance to her magic, and then to wave her wand and order him off to the pigsty. When her pottage and wand technique failed, she didn’t give up, but tried another trick. She shrieked, fell on her knees, burst into tears, and invited him to her bed, where she planned to rob him of his courage, and so render him susceptible to her magic wand. To counter her tears and sex appeal, Odysseus drew his resolute sword. When capitulating, Circe praised Odysseus, saying: “you must have a heart in your breast that is proof against all enchantment.”S7 That was high praise indeed! She added: “I beg you now to put up your sword and come with me to my bed, so that in love and sleep we may learn to trust one another. The encounter between Circe and Odysseus illustrates that, when tangling with a woman’s desire, a man is embattled with a predatory goddess whose appetite is implacable. Any man who would thwart her needs all the guile and discipline of an Odysseus, plus the good counsel of his gods. Any man who would keep his freedom must also be prepared to use violence if need be. Woman, like the slave hunter, wants to live. If you don’t want to be captured, you must make it clear that an attempt on your liberty will cost the attempter’s life. Nothing less will make her back away and leave you alone. Note also that it is only in defeat that Circe finally accepts a relationship based on love and trust. Only when a man-hunting woman is persuaded that she cannot enslave you is she prepared to settle for a friendship which, to her nature, is only second best . Alas, a beast of prey does Dot take easily to fair exchange; a parasite does not take easily to symbiosis. Men who insist on fairness in relationships with women must have a resolute heart proof against all enchantment, as well as a sharp and ready sword, and the will to use it on any would-be enslaver. The man-entrapping spirit of Calypso and Circe is echoed in Barbra Streisand’s famous lines about a woman in love who would do anything to get a man into her world and hold him within. Man’s fear of that entrapment is expressed in this Japanese poem: Take me in your arms, said the woman. The man took her. And remained, for the rest of his life, Between her hands. Women may delight in such a prospect; men, naturally, fear it, and therefore fear women. The most important lesson from Odysseus’s encounters with these women is that the lot of a man in the hands,of a woman hungry for a consort depends on him. If he allows himself to be trapped and tamed, his lot will be enslavement; if he stands his ground, he could escape, or at least exact an equitable and s’ymbiotic relationship. It is perhaps significant that though Odysseus was able, with advice from his guardian gods and goddesses, to scheme his way out of the fangs of Circe, he had to rely on a direct order from Zeus, the all-powerful, to effect his release from Calypso. Does this not suggest that it is more difficult for a man to rescue himself from a courteous and gentle weakener of resolve, like Calypso, than from the not-so-gentle Circes of the world? A woman’s soft approach, being less resistable, may be more dangerous to the liberty of a man. Nevertheless, if a man must choose between a Calypso and a Circe, which should he choose as his mate? Better a Calypso than a Circe, for Calypso’s heart is not a block of flint. She knows what pity is; she has some sense of what is fair; and one could negotiate a deal with her. Which is most unlikely with a Circe, whose style of domination is not amenable to negotiation or compromise, not until she is decisively defeated, and perhaps not even then. The wonderful thing about the adventures of Odysseus is that he is a master of ruses, one from whom many survival tricks may be learned. His encounters with the Sirens, with Calypso and with Circe ought to be used to teach standard lessons to adolescent boys as they begin relationships with predatory women. The Hebrew myth of the Fall of Man is usually read as the story of the fall of the human species, male and female together, from paradise and of its banishment to a life of toil and hardship outside the primeval Garden of Eden. But it includes a much more specific fall than that. Its kernel is the story of the fall of man below woman ; of how Adam, originally lord and master over Eve his consort, was pushed, fell and became Eve’s slave. It is the story of a brilliant coup whereby woman, pleading the hardships of pregnancy and childbirth, caused a division oflabour which dumped upon man the hard economic tasks and risky adventures of society. For eating the apple given to him by Eve, Adam was condemned to eke out a living by the sweat of his brow, and to sustain his children and his child-bearing consort. Eve’s crowning subterfuge was to fix responsibility for the new arrangement on the serpent, Adam and God. It is only natural that man should fear woman for the success of her fundamental coup. It is natural for man to fear a femme fatale who turned the tables of power on him, and consigned him to a life of risks and toil. Given the very !:trong aversion all primates have to snakes and snake-like forms, it is even more natural for man to fear a person who trafficks with, and is a confIdante of, snakes. These myths encapsulate the male experience of woman as consort. They are sometimes experienced as Ishtar, whose desire may neither be satisfied nor spurned without danger; or as Circe, the enslaving magician; or as the Sirens, the deadly enchantresses; or as Calypso, the gentle imprisoner and weakener of resolve; or as Eve, the temptress who communes with snakes and reduced man to a life of hard labour. Their common lesson to men is: FEAR WOMEN! The average man reacts to them thus: If Adam, the father of all, fell before Eve, who am I to resist a daughter of Eve ? Yes, Gilgamesh and Odysseus overcame those dangerous women; but do I have the talents and resolute wills of those heroic men? Yes, indeed, FEAR WOMEN, and if and when they catch you, obey and serve them. A psychological climate of fear greatly helps the arbitrary ruler. Just as the many, though implicitly stronger, are inhibited from overthrowing their ruler and his handful of guards, so too the cowed man, even if stronger than his woman, is inhibited from freeing himself from her rule. Man’s fear of woman establishes a psychological climate in which female power can hold sway without brute force. The operative principle is: Cow the spirit, awe the mind, And you don’t have to whip the body. Dr Chinweizu on Masculinism If the standard privileges of women make the world of elite matriarchs the closest thing on earth to parr.dise, then men; on whose risks and effort women’s privileges rest, are the helots of woman’s world. Even the grand patriarchs are but headmen among the helots; each is merely the chief public agent for the grand matriarch whose nest he serves. When some in paradise rebel against their condition, what should the helots do? Would it be unreasonable of them to revolt? To understand why men have not yet revolted in the wake of feminism, we ought to note that, in their attitudes to women, there are three basic types of men: the macho, the musho, and the masculinist. A macho is a brawny, and sometimes brainy, factotum who has been bred for nest slavery,_and who is indoctrinated to believe that he is the lord and master of the woman who rules him. A musho is a henpecked version of the macho who hangs like a bleeding worm between the beaks of his nest queen. A mascu/inist is a man who is devoted to male liberty, and who would avoid nest slavery. All through history, the overwhelming majority of men have been machos; a henpecked minority have been mushos; and very few have been masculinists. As feminism won prominence, and brought greater social accept,ability to termagants, more and more men have come under their influence, and become mushos. On the other hand, stung by feminist accusations, a very tiny minority of men have re-examined the male condition, found it to be nest slavery, and have rebelled and turned masculinist. The macho (or male chauvinist, or manly man) is a strutting factotum with bulging biceps, stone-dry eyes, brains that are ruled by his gonads, and an ego indoctrinated to believe that he is the lord -and master of the woman who rules him. His psyche is primed to defend his woman’s supposed honour from other men’s advances. Thoroughly conditioned to serve women, his life satisfaction comes from loyally serving his nest queen. Naturally, he is the matriarchist’s ideal man. When young, he suffers from the delusion that he is stronger, cleverer, and naturally superior to the woman who controls him. However, an older and wiser macho, if obliged to confess the truth, might say: “I am the captain of this ship, and I have the permission of my wife to say so.” But by then, it is too late for him to be anything but a habitual macho. The modern musho (the new or feminal man) is one of that breed of diffident men who have been bullied, guilt-tripped, ego-bashed and penis-twisted into pram pushing, diaper changing and breast envy. He is the befuddled, henpecked male who lacks the wit to recognize his male interest. He is one of those male wives of female husbands who have been described, in Julie Burchill’s apt phrases, ‘as the “bleeding hearts” and “cryin® males” who make up “the walking wounded” of the modern sex war.1 The more articulate musho even becomes a missionary for his hen’s anti-male views. This pathetic wimp is, quite naturally, hailed by feminists as the “new man”. He is the termagant feminist’s ideal man . . The masculinist belongs to an altogether different species from the macho and the musho. He does not suffer from most of the illusions of the macho; he is not drawn to macho ambitions; and he views the musho with robust contempt. In keeping with his commitment to the liberation of men from nest slavery, the masculinist would end the psychological, social and legal conditions for that slavery, and create instead conditions for equitable relations between the complementary sexes. If men have not yet revolted in the wake of feminism, it is because there are still two few masculinists around. This is so because motherpower still produces far too many machos; and because termagants have taken so many lapsing machos in tow and made them into mushos; and because far too many men are ignorant of female power and its ways and means. Consequently, the liberation of men depends crucially on the spread of the masculinist understanding of male-female relations. The masculinist is a libertarian. His commitment to m􀁣e liberty, and ‘ his understanding of the conditions for male liberty, shape his beliefs. The mascurist accepts that, contrary to what the macho believes-. – and the feminist claims, it is a woman’s world, and not a man’s. The masculinist accepts that, contrary to feminist propaganda and macho illusions, the arch enemies of feminism are not men, but that vast majority of matriarchists who do not wish to give up their traditional powers and privileges. Since patriarchy is but a facade for a basic matriarchy, the men whom feminists claim as their enemies are simply fall guys for the matriarchists. Masculinists, therefore, would redirect the feminist arrows to their proper destination, namely, matriarchy. The masculinist accepts that, as the calypso songs say, “the woman is smarter” and “woman is boss”. The masculinist accepts that men are the biologically more dispensable sex – which is why societies train men for high risk occupations like hunting and war, whereas wombs (and their carriers) are protected to maximize a society’s reproductive capacity, hence its chances of survival. The masculinist does not believe in being owned by any woman; nor does he believe in owning any woman. He recognizes that the owning of a human being by iUlother was abolished long ago, and quite rightly too, and he has no interest in having the practice revived in any form. In his encounters with women, the masculinist’s role model is not Adam, who he has little reason to respect; he takes after Gilgamesh and Odysseus, who knew women well enough to defeat their schemes and survive their revenge; who demonstrated that the resolute man, who understands woman, has little cause to fear her. The masculinist believes that every woman has every right to do whatever she wants with her body, except enslave a man with it. If she wants to hoard it, and tender her unbroken hymen to the worms in her grave, that is her prerogative. If she wants to give her genitals to any man, or to twenty men, or to.a thousand; or to a chicken or goat or gorilla or horse or hippo or elephant or polar bear (in that alleged order of mounting vigour) – that too is her business. The masculinist does not believe in clitoridectomy; he sees it as a great strategic weapon against men. The uncut clitoris, he knows, would make women as randy as men, if not more so; it would end that sexual restraint which gives a woman power over the sexually desperate male. The masculinist is not prepared to sell his lifelong labour to any woman in exchange for her ova and her womb. If he decides to rent ova and womb, he pays the going rate or even better; but he will not enslavement (to a nest, just for the illusion of owning ova and womb. He cannot wait for the day when cloning will make the womb obsolete, and womb renting superfluous. The masculinist has no quarrel with love itself. He knows that a woman’s love, when she is not nest-minded, when she is either pre-pubescent or post-menopausal, can be quite safe and .pleasant for a man. But he also knows that it is rare, most rare, for a woman, between puberty and menopause, to indulge in non-nesting, non-predatory love. Being a seasoned realist, a masculinist is, in Diane Wakoski’s words, “a beast of the jungle and knows better than to disregard the natural of an animal” Therefore, When he tangles with a nest -age woman; When she gushes ‘out she loves him, He cannot but wonder which arm or leg The lovely shark is after. To the masculinist, a wedding is a ceremony in which a woman is issued with a public licence to ride piggyback on a man and exploit him. He therefore does his best not to wed. He does not believe in marrying to obtain househelp. Unijke the macho; he fmds it cheaper (fmancially, emotionally, mentally) to rent househelp than to marry it. The masculinist does not subscribe to gallantry. He does not believe that a man should open doorfi for, or gi’:’t; up his sellt to, a woman, not unless she is infirm from age or disease, in which case she gets the same considerateness as aged or infIrm men. He does not believe that it is for any man to defend any woman’s honour: he believes, that, if her honour matters to her, a woman is quite capable of defending it herself. The maliculinist believes that every woman should point out herself. She should learn karate and other martial arts to defend herself. The masculinist believes that if it is all right for women to be feminists, it is all right for men to be masculinists. What is ood for the goose is good for the gander: each should, therefore, define and protect its own interest. But what is the male interest? Or rather, what are the sorts of things that are NOT in the male interest? It is not in the male interest to be society’s specialists in violence, war and other dangerous pursuits. So long as these pursuits are necessary, men and women should equally engage in them. The proposition in February 1980, by US President Jimmy Carter, to draft men and women for military service;1 l2 and the decision, in February 1989, by Canada, to integrate its armed forces and make women serve in wartime combat roles, including infantry units, l13 – these are both in the male interest. It is not in the male interest to maim or slaughter one another in their competition for wombs. It is not in the male interest to be killed by a woman when a liason between a man and a woman breaks up, or when the woman, like the notorious Jean H arris, fears the man might leave her. It is not in the male interest to live in an environment that is polluted with sexual stimulants which weaken men’s bargaining position in transactions with women. It is not in the male interest to be exploited through alimony payments and other rackets of divorce. Now, how do matriarchism, feminism and masculinism relate to one another? Broadly speaking, feminism and masculinism are two different revolts against matriarchy. Feminism is a revolt by some women who are bored or frustrated within the matriarchist paradise; masculinism is a revolt by some of the helots on whose backs that paradise rests. How does masculinism regard matriarchism and the tendencies within feminism? Matriarchists have been the expert exploiters of men since the beginning of human society. Their ideology, matriarch ism, still demands the same thing from men: obedient and uncomplaining ser; vitude. Since they are dedicated to nest-slavery, matriarchism and matriarchists are most dangerous to masculine liberty; they are, therefore, the focus\of the masculinist’s freedom-loving scrutiny. From the masculinist point of view, the demands of tomboy feminism are understandable, negotiable and mostly reasonable. Equal opportunities in the world of their brothers and fathers for those women who prefer careers in that arena? Yes. Equal pay for equal work? Yes, of course. But why, the masculinist wonders,. do tomboy feminists limit their clamour for equality to the soft, white collar jobs in the erstwhile male sphere? If, as they insist, equality should replace complementarity as the overriding principle in the gender division of labour, risk and status, then why do tomboys not demand that both genders be equally drafted into infantry platoons or coal pits? Should gender equality stop short at the edges of swamps, mine pits and battlefields? Until tomboys demand equal access to the nasty and strenuous jobs which men do, the masculinist can only be skeptical of tomboy feminism’s good faith. To the tomboy feminist who advocates gender equality, the masculinist would address this vital question: Is it fair to reorganize the centres of male power to accomodate women without also reorganizing the centres of female power to accomodate men? Upon the answer received would depend the masculinist’s attitude to the tomboy feminist. The demands of tarmagant feminism are another matter entirely. They are not demands with discernible remedies, but rather excuses for guilt-tripping, harassing and mauling men in the unhallowed tradition of harridans and shrews. To termagant feminism belong those manhaters who would legitimize man-killing for nest desertion (Jean Harris and her supporters), or even man-killing for spurned love (Ishtar style), on the implicit ground that a man has no right to choose whom to love, but must submit to any woman’s offer of her embrace, like a slave to a tyrant’s wishes. To termagant feminism belong the palimony racketeers and the alimony extorters; and the man-humiliators who demand: “Love me, love my menstrual blood” (even in this age of aids?). Of termagant feminism, all sane males must beware. Paradoxically, the tomboy is the masculinist’s least uncongenial type of woman. She is his partial ally in revolt against matriarchism; and, temperamentally, she is like a buddy with whom he could have sex and children. The termagant, though sometimes quite deadly, is the least problematic to the masculinist: her nuisance can usually be avoided from afar. Being determined to obtain his liberty, the masculinist looks at nest slavery with unsentimental eyes; for only by understanding man’s condition can he hope to change it. He accepts that man’s subordination to woman derives from the five pillars of woman power. He knows that, with man’s loss of control over the kitchen and the cradle, he really has never had any chance of being anything but the slave (glorified when necessary) of woman. As a realist, he accepts that woman’s control of the womb will remain unassailable until cloning techniques are perfected. He knows that probably nothing can be done about woman’s relatively greater psychological maturity. But he also knows that much can be done, through cultural training, to whittle down woman’s control of kitchen and cradle, and to reduce the deranging powers of the erect penis. He therefore welcomes feminist demands that men be obliged to work as baby-minders. When men get control of the cradle, they will be able to train children in the male interest, and so reduce the numbers of machos and mushos in the world. When men get control of the kitchen, female power over man’s stomach will diminish. A man who cooks cannot be half-starved into submission, on any matter, by his wife. The masculinist believes in bringing about the revolt of the helots of matriarchy. Ah, what a different world it would be if only the macho ego would give up its ingrained stupidity and respond to the masculinist call: Men of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your macho illusions and your nest-slave burdens!


Where Am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for April, 2014 at Magudvu.