mailto: blog -at- heyrick -dot- eu

The reality of Man

Sorry guys, but the purpose of man is, essentially, to be subservient to women.

Biologically speaking, a male and a female should pair up. The female gives birth and nurtures the child. It is our job, as a male, to nourish, protect, and care for the female.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a one on one arrangement, however the balance needs to be fairly even as one man would likely struggle to care for twenty females, and twenty males with one female is just not viable. However multiple couples joining up gives a strength in numbers, both for protection and also for hunting. And thus, was born civilisation.

Now, before anybody talks about the Ls, Bs, Qs, and all of the other sexualities referred to by letters and symbols, I wish to point out that such things are completely irrelevant in evolutionary terms. Indeed, we should consider ourselves lucky that our society is functioning well enough that it is even possible for people to fall in love with others of their own gender, or to consider that they would feel happier in life living as the other gender to that which they were at birth.

But, there's more to even this. At the moment Anna is lying on the ground. Rear pressed to the ground, tail raised, with little "erp erp" sounds. She is basically inviting me to screw her brains out.
Simple. She's female and she has eggs. I'm male, I have sperm. The fact that I'm a different species and an order of magnitude larger doesn't factor into things in a cat's brain. She needs fertilised, I'm the closest entity with male hormones, let's make whoopee.

But do you think Anna loves me? She might feel emotions such as satisfaction when I walk by with a pouch of Felix, or relief when I rescue her from being stuck on a roof. But love? No, there's no love here. It's simply a biological response. If one of my male readers should sit down in my place, she might be a little startled by the sudden appearance of somebody she's never seen before, but once she gets a whiff of those male hormones she'll be doing her "let's get butt naked and..." dance for you. There's no love whatsoever here, just millions of years of evolution. Plus, in case you weren't aware, cat impregration is basically being taken multiple times by multiple males that she may never see again. It's not rape, exactly, as she's perfectly willing, but it's not at all any sort of loving relationship.

So with that in mind, we, humans, should feel blessed that we even have such a thing as love. Whether it be male with female, female with female, or whatever. Perhaps love, too, serves an evolutionary purpose. It keeps us humans together. Because, god knows, the male cat doesn't hang around once his job is done.


The God delusion

The problem with being a self-aware species is that we have the ability to realise this situation and to disagree with it. And rather than understanding that the females are important, man instead created religion.
Our Father, the creator of life being a male. The big deals in the book being male (Cain, Abel, Moses, Jesus etc etc) with the females not only being created from man (which is completely back to front) but also generally being a problem (Eve being tempted by the snake and being responsible for all of humanity being cast out of paradise, Delilah betraying Samson; Lot's wife looking back; Salome, Jezebel, Herodias, etc etc).

And, as such, a book was created. Not all at once, though a long passage of time. It was a book with bits of actual history, bits of corrupted pagan ideas recycled into their male-oriented belief, and of course it didn't shy away from the hatred, misogyny and violence that would be expected in a book created by humans, not some omnipotent magical sky fairy.
The sheer difference in outlook between the Old and New Testaments is astonishing, as are the tortuous mental gymnastics that some go to in order to try to rationalise everything.

Of course, there are plenty of believers who will tell you that the bible is more a spiritual handbook which should be taken in the context of the time is was created... whilst at the same time quoting carefully chosen passages in order to weild the bible as a weapon.
Perhaps the most famous is the one about not suffering a witch to live. It is quite likely that this was a complete mistranslation (coupled with King James' paranoia of witchcraft) and it might have originally referred to somebody who used herbs to make poisons. None of this had any bearing on the action of men who used that one line as a justification for murdering many women in the name of superstitious nonsense.
Right now, conservative evangelicals in America have gone over scripture with a fine toothed comb to look for any and all references to motherhood and wombs in order to justify their position that "abortion is murder". The problem is, there is not a single reference in the bible to abortions, and as such there is no reference to abortion being equivalent to murder. This is a modern mentality. It is particularly interesting because, if one reads Exodus 21:22 it actually says more or less the direct opposite to what the crusading Christians would have you believe. It says that if people are fighting and somebody hits a pregnant woman who gives birth prematurely but without serious injury to her, then the offender should be fined. If, however, the woman should be seriously injured or killed, then it's life for life, eye for eye, et cetera.
In other words, causing a miscarriage is "meh, just fine him". Causing the woman to die is "put him to death". It would appear to be clear that there is a distinction between a living person and an unborn foetus.


Roe vs Wade

Back when I was born, an influential legal case - known as "Roe vs Wade" asserted the right of a woman to be able to have an abortion.
Now, thanks to a largely conservative leaning Supreme Court, it looks as if this situation may be reversed, with several states already lining up ways to make them illegal.
If this all sounds crazy to you, do remember that the United States is a Christian fundamentalist country. Conservative Republicans are basically the Taliban with a different book and healthcare.

Overturning Roe vs Wade is something that they are pushing for. Not because any one of them actually believes in the sanctity of life, but because they're scared pathetic middle aged men that fear femininity. They want to exert control over women, to make decisions for them, all based upon the teachings of their beliefs that males are superior and females exist to please the men and... not a lot else.

The real danger here, of course, is that if they are successful in curtailing this, what will they attack next? Woman's suffrage?


Why it's all a big lie

Those fighting to end the right to abortions will scream MURDER!!!11!!!ONE!!!1! until they expire of heart failure. But it's nothing to do with preserving life. Here's proof.

North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
West Virginia


On the left, green, the states that are pretty much expected to ban abortions.
On the right, dark yellow, the states that have carried out the death penalty in the past ten years.

And, in light red, the states that are pretty definitely going to ban abortions (if it hasn't already been done) and have executed in the past ten years, with Texas being by far the stand-out for numbers of executions.
But if you're wondering why Texas is in bright red, it's because GOP lawmakers in the state want to make the murder of an unborn child (abortion) punishable by murdering the woman (the death penalty). It's not possible to reconcile that with anything that passes for functional logic.

The four in italics at the bottom are additional states considered likely to ban abortions.

You will notice, of course, a huge overlap in the states that are pro-life when it comes to babies but quite anti-life when it comes to criminals; again with a slow handclap for the insanity that is Texas.


The solution to the question of abortions

The long and the short of it is that there is no simple solution. Legislation cannot say "it's permitted" or "it's banned" and consider that to be a suitable outcome. The best that can happen is that "it is a permissible option".

Clearly, somebody that enjoys a lot of unprotected sex but doesn't want to deal with the consequences... is abhorent.

But, on the other hand, if a young girl is raped (perhaps by a family member), it would be abhorent to require her to continue through the pregnancy, especially if termination carries capital punishment. And, yes, do note well that the GOP is mostly campaigning right now for a no-exceptions attitude to abortions, so this is a very real possibility.

To my mind, there should be only five/six people involved in the discussion around whether or not to make a termination.

  1. The mother-to-be.
  2. Her parents, or at least her mother.
  3. A (female) gynocologist.
  4. A (female) psychologist.
  5. The father-to-be (however in the case of rape/incest, he forfeits all say in the matter).

No celebrities, senators, religious leaders, journalists, campaigners, or anybody else who isn't directly and entirely related to the one who is pregnant. They will never bear responsibility for the child, the mother, or the mental state of either, so honestly the entire lot of them should stop meddling with some supposed biblical moral superiority. Oppression, fear, and hate is no form of superiority.

Together, those four-six people can work out the various possibilities and options, and arrive at a consensual decision that is the best for, primarily, the one who is pregnant. Which may be to terminate the pregancy. Or maybe not. It should be a possible option. Not the only option. And religion has nothing to do with it.


As for my own personal feelings on the matter... I can't help but think that a eighteen year old that drank too much and got off with one of the jocks on Prom Night should probably have to live with the consequences, whereas a nine year old that got jumped by her stepfather should not.
But, ultimately, it's never going to be up to me so nobody should give a crap about what I think and feel.



Your comments:

Please note that while I check this page every so often, I am not able to control what users write; therefore I disclaim all liability for unpleasant and/or infringing and/or defamatory material. Undesired content will be removed as soon as it is noticed. By leaving a comment, you agree not to post material that is illegal or in bad taste, and you should be aware that the time and your IP address are both recorded, should it be necessary to find out who you are. Oh, and don't bother trying to inline HTML. I'm not that stupid! ☺ ADDING COMMENTS DOES NOT WORK IF READING TRANSLATED VERSIONS.
You can now follow comment additions with the comment RSS feed. This is distinct from the b.log RSS feed, so you can subscribe to one or both as you wish.

Gavin Wraith, 27th May 2022, 21:41
I agree completely. Robert Graves thought that most stone age societies were matriarchal, and that patriarchy is a relatively modern aberration. Read Seven Days in New Crete if you can find a copy.
VinceH, 28th May 2022, 00:54
Overpuddle is a bonkers country. That's all.
J.G.Harston, 28th May 2022, 10:56
A contributing factor in all this nonsense is both sides forget - or deliberately ignore - that they live in a federation, and - supposedly - a democracy. If Thing is so important to you that it should be legal, vote for and legislate for Thing to be legal. Ramming it into federal law in a federation is the wrong way to do it, and - even worse - ramming it into the *constitution* is appalling. A constitution is about the system, about the foundational structures that ARE REMOVED FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. The exact opposite of democraticly debating the issue and balancing pros and cons and coming towards consensus solutions.
Gavin Wraith, 28th May 2022, 11:52
"It is never going to be up to me .. " non-sequitur I am afraid, Rick. Your idea of the five or six concerned individuals seems very sensible to me. In a small community it might not be needed, but in today's societies mother and foetus need a protective shell to keep out harmful meddling. I would like to see your principles enshrined in law and practice.

Add a comment (v0.11) [help?] . . . try the comment feed!
Your name
Your email (optional)
Validation Are you real? Please type 87008 backwards.
Your comment
French flagSpanish flagJapanese flag
«   May 2022   »

(Felicity? Marte? Find out!)

Last 5 entries

List all b.log entries

Return to the site index



Search Rick's b.log!

PS: Don't try to be clever.
It's a simple substring match.


Last read at 14:39 on 2024/07/16.

QR code

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional
Valid CSS
Valid RSS 2.0


© 2022 Rick Murray
This web page is licenced for your personal, private, non-commercial use only. No automated processing by advertising systems is permitted.
RIPA notice: No consent is given for interception of page transmission.


Have you noticed the watermarks on pictures?
Next entry - 2022/05/29
Return to top of page