Why does a man have short nails and why does a woman have long nails? Is it because the man was a worker? He needed them short for functional work reasons and to visually demonstrate that he was a worker. Neither would he wish to be seen wasting money on male personal adornment. He should only ‘waste’ money on adornment for ‘his’ woman. Women had long nails because they could. Long nails do not add to the beauty of the female form in the eyes of a male. The nails were talking to other women: “I have money and I don’t need to work.” Long nails were a sign that the woman did not need work. They might paint them to show they did even less work. She was a woman of status because she did not work because a man was working for her. She had a man-slave — not that the man was aware that he was her slave.
As males, we are not attracted by the long nails of a woman. No man is interested in her painted nails, other than a conversation starter, so it was not a decoration to attract males. It was a status feature amongst other women. (Although a male may think that he has a woman of high status amongst other women!) This puts oppression in a different light. If women were oppressed by males, females would have short nails and would have been sent out to work the fields whilst the men would take the easy life. This is the exact opposite to the words of the propaganda machine.
If women were oppressed by males, women would not be able to say: “No.” in the bedroom. Males would not require ‘consent’. If women were oppressed by males there would not be so many women in cafés. The cafés would be full of males whilst the women were at work in the factories. Under the current epidemic of women wishing to work, women are working well for us, although they tend to be heavy users of psychiatrists and anti-depressants.
This situation is summed up in the Beatles song. The lyrics explain what was happening:
“It’s been a hard day’s night, and I been working like a dog.”
“It’s been a hard day’s night, I should be sleeping like a log.”
He got up before sunrise. He walked to work in the dark. His face was black with coal dust with sweat lines as the drips fell from his brow. He had soot in his sandwiches. He walked home in the rain after dark. The next line gives the reason.
“But when I get home to you I’ll find the things that you do”
“Will make me feel alright.”
She smiled. She smiled and he felt good again. All she did was smile at him and he was happy again. He worked all day down a coal mine with black dust up his nose and in his ears. Sweat poured down his face making lines in the black coal dust. There was coal dust in his sandwich. It was dark when he went to work in the frosty morning and it was dark as he walked home in the rain. When he entered the door, she gave him the ‘big smile’ that only a happy wife can give and he felt good instantaneously. He worked all day and the reward was the flash of a smile from his beloved wife. The power is in the smile. It is the emotional power that women have over men. Men have logic and physical strength but women have emotion that is used to control men. The key to that power lies in the smile. The next line indicates that he was working for her benefit:
“You know I work all day to get you money to buy you things”
He does a soul-destroying work-shift, walks home in the rain, but he is happy because he gets a smile. The purpose of the work is to supply her with money. The trade is a smile for a day’s work. This is ‘The Secret’ — known only to women. Women used men’s insatiable desire for women to control men. They controlled from a position of weakness. She would use all her womanly tactics to control the big strong man. A key element is the woman’s ability to smile and pass emotional messages in each smile. The control is also affected by the control of access to sex. Women, as a group, maneuvered themselves into a position to control men. They gave themselves the power of “No.” and they trained the little tiny male children to defer to women.
We descend from a line of violent animals. The male has the ability to be a violent lustful beast and the male was the violent version of the human. With anything that has the potential to be violent, he has to be ‘house-trained’ at an early age to be useful in society and that duty was usurped by mothers. Mothers train their little boys: “You never hit a girl!” and “Don’t answer your mother back!” Just watch little boys following mothers around in the shopping malls. Everything is deferred to their mother. They are entirely reliant on their mother. Mothers were careful not to teach boys how to cook lest they become less dependent on females. The boy is trained to be emotionless so that he is reliant on females for emotional guidance. He is allowed to be logical as logic is useful to women in the maintenance of society and its working apparatus. Males are trained in logic because it helps women. Women use male logic for women’s benefit. Males are good at logic.
In the presence of a woman, a man is embarrassingly weak. His resolve can easily be broken by a woman. The world weightlifting champion can remain unchallenged by any male, yet a woman can wrap him around her little finger. He could physically pick her along with the rest of her family up in an easy lift but he is weaker than putty in her grip. She can hold him by the little finger and drag him wherever she wants. The secret is — she uses emotional force against his physical force. If she tells him to stop fighting, he stops fighting. If she says she wants a baby, she has a baby. If she wants a bigger house, he gets her a bigger house. His desire for her beauty makes him weak at the knees. His heart flutters when she looks into his eyes. The secret lies in the ability of the woman to manipulate the emotions of a man to her advantage. From a position of physical weakness, she takes his power. She plays on his pride. She can strip his pride and rebuild his pride at will. She can augment his life or ruin his life. Although he is physically stronger, her manipulative skills utterly outclass his logical brain. The male sets goals that are bigger than himself as he dreams of great outcomes but the woman has the intuition to influence through subtle means. She says “Tut. Tut.” and he immediately goes silent. He may be the prime engineer on a technologically-advanced aircraft, but she has the skills to guide and control him by means of which he is totally ignorant. You can see the couples in the restaurant and she taps lightly on the table three times and he immediately silences himself. He spends his life saying: “Yes. Dear.” In the words of the joke:
“Man always has the last word. ........ ‘Yes. Dear.’ ”
This is ‘The Secret’ — a secret only known to women. But under the current clamour of idiotic chatter, it has been lost in a bitter battle of illogic. Just like the Ken Dodd joke: “I left my heart in Liverpool — or was it, I left my liver in Hartlepool.” There is no connection. Women lost the plot. Women lost their power. The cartel has been broken — broken by afluent males that run corporations that funded the propaganda through the ‘Mainstream Media’ that is run and funded by other afluent males that run media corporations.
Women were told they could be freed from the kitchen. Kitchen sounds quite nice to me, even though I cannot cook. I see kitchen reality programs on TV with no oppression. No locked doors. The only mental chains are in the minds of those obsessed with winning. I’ll come second, thank you, and let someone else enjoy their obsession with success. Women could be ‘freed from the kitchen’ and they were given a choice. But there was an illogical catch in the choices available. The choice was work, work, work, or work, none of which embrace freedom. There was no choice of ‘more leisure time’. There was no choice of ‘more time with the children’. Quality illogic of the highest form. Work is work. Who would work if they did not have to? Who wouldn’t take six months holiday a year? Women were freed from freedom to be put in mental chains of work-servitude and the process was called “Liberation”. It was one of the biggest advertising coups in history. It was the biggest twist since the Bolsheviks called their coup d’état a "Revolution" and imposed cruelty that was sold to the masses as a ‘workers utopia’. As the girls collapse at work, there is a friendly psychiatrist to put them on anti-depressants.
Women have long nails because they can twist men around their little fingers and send them out to bring money home for them so they can go and get their nails painted to show off to their girlfriends. But, apparently, they had to be freed from men. In another masterstroke of appalling illogic, men with short fingernails were apparently oppressing women with long fingernails in something called “Christian Patriarchy”. The traditional definition of ‘patriarchy’ is: “a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, ...” The man was led to believe that he was in control but the woman controlled the man by other means. She might say very quietly to her man: “Wouldn’t it be nice to go to Bali for a holiday.” He goes away and looks at the books, but there are insufficient funds. So he takes on a Sunday shift at work to bring him up to six days a week. At the family dinner, he makes a big announcement in a very commanding voice: “We’re going to Bali for a holiday.” The children run over and give him a big hug and tell him how wonderful he is — and the mother smiles.
The Greek mothers teach their daughters:
This is ‘The Secret’. The women did not need to work because they got the men to do it. Women did not need to take on the stress of running the nation because men would run the country for the benefit of women. Men signed up for the draft but men excused woman. Men stayed on the deck of the Titanic in full aware that they were to face an icy death as they loaded the women and children onto the life-rafts. Men worked and ran the country for the benefit of women. Patriarchy technically meant that males had total authority, but it also meant that they had total responsibility. And responsibility is a heavy burden for males. John Davis writes it this way:
“The whole point of ‘patriarchy’ was to make the man responsible for the entire family, and, at the same time, responsible for their care and protection. That is the only reason the Father was given authority over his family members . . . .
What feminism has done, is completely remove all authority from the men, and, place that authority in the police state. Unlike the men in the patriarchy, the police state has absolutely no responsibilities to anyone.” [zzz]
A book on Islam has this to say:
“Some Muslims assert that man’s superiority did not occur because some partiality has been shown to males over females, but rather out of necessity predicated on the nature of the two sexes. Women of all places and ages have sought man’s strength, superiority, steadfastness, and constancy.” [Islam, Gender, & Social Change]
There is an element of stroking man’s ego by telling him he is good at something but it is woman’s talk to get men to do what women want. It is the woman’s tactic: “Oh! Darling! You always look after me so well.” Being a ‘good man’ is always defined in terms of how it assists women. In the Bali example, it is useful to women that he refuses to go to Bali if it involves debt for the family, but he doesn’t mind the self sacrifice of a sixth day’s work for the benefit of the family. Do not forget that writing is a form of logic which is man’s primary strength, whilst women use emotion to skilfully manipulate the situation. So man’s logic, as exposed in the words, is only part of the story. Keep those men working! Let the men think they run things! Men have the ‘responsibility’ to look after women before men. The Islam passage later contains:
“Therefore, there are disparities between the genders because God has endowed men and women with different qualities to perform different tasks. A woman must bear children, for which God has given her the quality of compassion.” [Islam, Gender, & Social Change]
and continuing:
“...has endowed man with more than woman... making him responsible for her. This is not an honor but a burden involving responsibilities and duties.” [Islam, Gender, & Social Change]
Man is burdened to provide for woman. A man not capable of supporting a woman did not get to breed. Women enforced this by choosing only men that could provide. In a sub-quote, we have:
“[Man] is superior over woman by nature and physical constitution. This is not a special privilege for man as much as his grave responsibility... ” [Islam, Gender, & Social Change]
The text refers to the requirement that the male shall provide for all her needs. This was a serious responsibility. This leads to the situation where the males earn most of the money but most of the money is spent by women. He is required to provide physical protection for her life in an environment where he is expected to sacrifice his life to spare hers. He is expected to sacrifice his life to spare her children. In the extreme, he is expected to sacrifice his life for any female. Although it is true that almost every male is stronger than almost every female, the value of every male life is lower than that of any female. Under patriarchy, the male cherishes his wife more than his life. This is embodied in the next sentence:
“It also places the burden of jihad on him to protect his homeland and his home.” [Islam, Gender, & Social Change]
In other words, he has to die before she dies. Or even more dramatic — all males should die before any female dies.
It is also argued that Islamic laws guarantee the woman’s control of her household. As a school child in Gloucester, England, I only once visited a dysfunctional household where the male was giving orders to the female. The orders were inappropriate and appeared to be given to demonstrate complete control as in slavery. It was ugly and I was uncomfortable and I remember it from fifty-two years ago. Every other household, I hear the words: “Yes. Dear.” and “No. Dear.” Out of interest, some Islamic texts argue for polygyny — multiple wives. Their reasoning is as follows: The practice exists in all countries, in all ages, whether manifested as multiple wives, or multiple mistresses. Christianity has led to three dangerous plagues: prostitution, old maids, and illegitimate children.
In the same text they claim:
“Shaban insists that not only is male superiority inherently the case, women prefer it that way.” [Islam, Gender, & Social Change]
Don’t forget the double bluff. I play the same trick. I let people think they are better at something than me and complement them, and they do it in place of me. When I ran the bigger bus company, I would ask someone their opinion on whether something was possible and they would proudly answer: “Yes” and the job would get done beautifully. Woman’s skill over man is to get men to do it. Very very clever. The quoted book argues against the stereotype that Muslim women are repressed, passive, and lack initiative. Which hints at woman’s support for Muslim patriarchy where men support women. Just watch those little Muslim boys following their mother’s every instruction. In everyday life, women confuse men with the man’s own logic. It may be that it is written that man is head of the family which is clear in man’s logic but a woman has an extra understanding and lets him accept all the responsibility whilst she ‘helps’ him with every decision. He, being a responsible head of the family, makes the decisions that are in favour of the woman. As girls are going to school, college, and work in offices, they are falling for male logic. They are losing woman’s intuition. Woman is now competing with man in an environment that was setup to make males compete with each other for the benefit of society which meant that they toiled to service women and their offspring. Now women do not like the competitive environment that they set up for their benefit. It was an environment where men competed against men in a ‘dog eat dog’ environment where the loser suffers. The progress of society relied on hiring the best person available in this harsh competitive hierarchy. “If you get the job done, I pay you. If you don’t, I fire you.” There was no concern for feelings. Male’s concern is to ‘get the job done’ even if it means lying under a leaking fuel tanker on the side of an ice-bound motorway at four in the morning. The males yell and scream at each other, but at the end of the week, they all congratulate each other on surviving a tough week. But most of all they congratulate each other for ‘getting the job done’. There are no concerns for feelings, nor are there safe spaces where fragile persons can escape the harsh verbal environment. There was no room for ‘offended’ persons. The males were competing for male status where the reward was a better female. Women entering this environment, not only makes it hard on the female participant, it damages the reward structure that made males work so hard. And the women are working for money that their male captives would have brought home for them anyway. Why work when someone else will do it for you? I’m off for a week’s holiday in Indonesia next week and I have already had four months of overseas holiday so far this year. Patriarchy was so tough on males that if the wife did something wrong such as accruing debt, the male went to prison. The male was punished for female misdemeanours!
Here are some notes by Dan Rickman in the Guardian about Jewish Patriarchy.
“In all Orthodox synagogues men pray separately from women and in many women are relegated to an upstairs gallery. Gender hierarchies are entrenched in Jewish thought: a blessing orthodox Jewish men are required to say everyday thanks a God ‘who has not made me a woman’...
A clear example is the case of ‘chained’ women whose husbands refuse them a religious divorce and who cannot remarry.
... the Talmud says that teaching one’s daughter Torah is ‘frivolity’”
Another article [1] talks of a marriage crisis arriving in the 1970s which is a continuity crisis meaning that there is a Jewish recognition that Jewish marriages are not occurring with the result that Jewish children are not being born. Western Christians have a similar problem.
“Marriage, inmarriage and fertility rates among American Jews all were declining, while women’s aspirations for careers, for public power and for control over their bodies and sexuality all seemed to be on the rise. Marriage, inmarriage and fertility rates among American Jews all were declining, while women’s aspirations for careers, for public power and for control over their bodies and sexuality all seemed to be on the rise. ...
Most troubling about the data-driven mode of Jewish continuity conversations are its patriarchal, misogynistic and anachronistic assumptions about what is good for the Jews. We learn that single women, queer people, unwed parents and childless individuals or couples are all problems. And we learn that the Jewish community, should it want to survive, must step into the role of calling out and regulating those problems.”
If I read this right, Jewish studies have classed single women, unwed parents, and childless individuals or couples as problems to the survival of the Jewish community. The reports led billionaire Michael Steinhardt to “publicly admonished women in professional contexts to procreate.” He ... encourages “sexual regulation and control as the key to a felicitous Jewish future.” I say similar that promiscuity destroys society. Promiscuity in Western Christian nations will allow the Muslims to dominate.
The conversation makes me think of my religious version of Darwin’s Theory. Religions made the rules for the operation of society. Any religion that did not make functonal rules simply disappeared. Thus, all the established religions survived because they got things right. The ‘Woman’s Cartel on Sex’ and the ‘matriarchy masquerading as a patriarchy’ eliminated promiscuity and created a continuing society.
In 1971, Esther Vilar wrote an interesting book: ‘Der Dressierte Mann’ in German, which translates to ‘The Manipulated Man’. In this book, Esther suggests that women are not oppressed by men but rather - women controlled men to their advantage. She explains that women in industrialized cultures are not oppressed, but exploit a system where men are manipulated. Esther writes:
“Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours, men are given periodic use of a woman’s vagina.”
Jinna writes
“Because matriarchies are weaker in comparison to patriarchies. In a war between the two, the patriarchy will always win. Patriarchies produce more children, more technology etc.. because they are more efficient. The social structure of a patriarchy uses both male and female output to a greater extent than the social structure in matriarchies that is why matriarchies only exist where resources are abundant and they die out as soon as they enter war with patriarchies. Biology seems to favor matriarchies when resources are easy to get and there are no wars though (and yes that is an oversimplification that biology favors it).. but we trend more towards it because in times when we can humans put themselves before others.”
As in all patriarchies, the ancient system of patriarchy was all about protecting women physically and sexually.
Dan Rickman recounts that there is a deep conflict between Judaism and feminism. Even though a very high proportion of the feminist speakers, funders and promoters are Jewish and are influencing an audience that is of a majority Christian background. He tells us that “in all Orthodox synagogues men pray separately from women and in many women are relegated to an upstairs gallery. Gender hierarchies are entrenched in Jewish thought: a blessing orthodox Jewish men are required to say everyday thanks to a God ‘who has not made me a woman’ ”. Conservative Rabbi Judith Hauptman describes it as a: “Benevolent Patriarchy”. So Christian Patriarchy is described by Jewish feminists as “Oppressive Patriarchy” - but Jewish Patriarchy is described as “benevolent patriarchy”. Dan Rickman talks of women whose husbands refuse them a religious divorce and who then have a problem if they wish to remarry. The Talmud says that it is not appropriate to teach one’s daughter Torah. Israel, the Jewish country, does not allow women to get divorced without the husband’s permission. Furthermore, there is no civil marriage or divorce in Israel. Few men or women wish this to be changed as religion plays an important part in state-building. Laura Duhan Kaplan, a philosopher, a teacher of women’s studies, a rabbi, and a mother, talks about “gender disparity” and “institutionalised patriarchy”. But, she sees cracks in the plaster. Maternity leave is embedded in the Torah. She writes that “women subvert gender expectations”. She explains that “women manipulate with calm demeanour”. Anyway, Judaism is a patriarchy. Deena Shanker talks about Yael, who slays Sisera, a Canaanite general, by driving a tent peg through his skull as he sleeps. She idolises him as a symbol of female power, but it fails to match my standards of decency. What was she doing with a sleeping Canaanite general and driving a peg through his temple whilst asleep is the depths of deceit. This is a big difference to Christian standards of decency. Documentation has it that Yael slept with Sisera seven times to completely exhaust him before the deadly deceit. It would appear that deceipt is accepted under Judaism but not Under Christianity. And thus the two religions will always be incompatible. This type of religious cultural difference is a major reason why ‘multicultural’ is an oxymoron. If one religion lauds deceit and the other reviles deceit — there can be no compatibility. Judeo-Christian society is an oxymoron.
Deena Shanker even mentions: “preventing them from getting a divorce without a husband’s consent.” But even she says she decided “to participate in this patriarchy on my own terms.” She decides to accept Judaism but not “acquiescence to the patriarchal dicta”. This was always the woman’s method. In the synagogue, the women cannot go down to pray with the men and it is not going to change anytime soon. But one person’s reason was “Because men are weak. Men have difficulty concentrating on their prayers when women are nearby to distract them.” This is a ‘weakness’ on the part of men. It reminds me of stories of men only associations and clubs. If men are out for the night at a men’s association, they are not going to be led astray by other women. Wives could be happy that their man was not going to be whisked away by a younger female. As a male said to me: “Women get old, but men get distinguished.” At eighteen, the girl has the upper hand in desirability, but by thirty-eight, he is the more desirable. The thirty-eight-year-old girl is all but invisible, unless she has children, in which case her desirability has morphed into respect.
It appears that the Sumerians were patriarchal, as were the Babylonians. It appears that patriarchy started about six thousand years ago, when the concept of fatherhood took hold. I usually word it that women realised that if they tied one man to one woman they harnessed the sexual energy of the male for the benefit of women. Men became willing servants whilst being given dignity and responsibility. An elaborate system of training evolved. A secondary benefit was that girls could walk through the forest with less fear of being ravished. When patriarchy breaks down — the safety of women evaporates. On societal collapse, men revert to their wilder origins. I use a misused feminist sentence to illustrate male thinking without female-protecting patriarchy: “I own, I use, I explore, I exploit, I control. What I do is what matters. What I want is what matter is for. I am that I am, and the rest is women and wilderness, to be used as I see fit.” [Out of context Ursula Le Guin]
Hindu Patriarchy also trains for gendered roles. Vaishnavi Pallapothu tries to reconcile feminism and life in a religious community. Her words: “It is very tricky to reconcile gender roles and religion because many religions rely on patriarchal structures and the near-blind acceptance of them.” The religion creates an “inclusion and connection through a common belief in the community.” Religion, thus, creates a structure to the community. It creates a set of rules that are separate to the rules of the nation-state. Some of the Hindu gods are genderless and some female. As in Christianity, sex a taboo topic. To me this seems to be a way of controlling the male’s sexual impulses. Christian wives say: “All you ever think about is the ‘s’ word.” In a speech to a group of women students in Lahore in July 1934, Gandhi remarked: “When I was in South Africa, I had realized that if I did not serve the cause of women, all my work would remain unfinished.” In other words, if it does not suit the women, it’s not going to happen. The mother in the family is powerful. The man might stand tall and proud, but the woman is making the decision in the background. Even in the truly Matriarchal societies in some parts of India where a matriarch rules supreme “over a uncontested head of this tarwad, a sprawling matriarchic residential complex with several buildings, its own temple, granary, water-well, orchards, gardens and large land holdings” [Source: Choodie Shivaram] the male is still respected. “women were able to keep the men under their thumbs”. The males were still warrior-class and respected. Men were not allowed to be warriors inside the house. But all over India, the mother is treated with reverence even if younger girls are not. A mother receives the highest respect. Now, mother-in-laws in India are, by all accounts, something to be feared. Again, it is a mother wielding power in a fearsome manner. Bhatla recounts: “A bride is the most vulnerable member of the family because she is new to the household and often the mother-in-law is the face of the patriarchy.” Venugopal tells us that “mother-in-law’s tyranny crosses every section of society, from high-caste Brahmins to the untouchable Dalits, from Hindus to Muslims and Christians, Bengalis to Gujaratis and everyone in between.” Bhatla tells us that marital rape is legal unless the wife is under the age of fifteen or the couple is separated. This limits the power of ‘No’ given to Western women. If a wife can constantly say ‘no’ to sex, how are we ever going to get males to marry? The Muslims have rules on the woman’s power of ‘No’. Venugopal says: “Mothers raise their boys with the notion of ‘I know when you get married you are going to turn against me and your wife will tell you bad things about me,’ so they’ve been raised to defend their mothers before they meet this future wife.” [Hamida Ghafour at ‘The Star’] Whether you agree or not, it is still mothers indoctrinating their sons. It is still: ‘Matriarchy disguised as Patriarchy’. Madhu Gadia, a cooking author, talks about love being transferred through the food. Food plays a strong role in keeping family bonds strong. Thus the male is reliant on the female for the standard of food that he is used to. Cooking is a control tactic and women are highly regarded for some specific recipe.
The Mormons claim to be opposed to ‘Oppressive Patriarchy’ but supportive of ‘Benevolent Patriarchy’. ‘Oppressive Patriarchy’ exists in cultures where men can beat or rape wives and where women have no control over reproductive decisions. ‘Oppressive Patriarchy’ tends to view women as a threat to men, making them dress conservatively and stay within the home to prevent them tempting men. ‘Benevolent Patriarchy’ is summed up in the saying:
“Snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails, That’s what little boys are made of. Sugar and spice and all things nice, That’s what little girls are made of.”
If males created patriarchy, they did a terrible job of privileging males:
[Chris on Libertennial ‘10 Winning Arguments Against Radical Feminism’]
Patriarchy is a system that harms men. It is a system that makes demands of men.
‘Christian Patriarchy’ is considered to be a system of expectation given to men to step up and be leaders. I tell boys to create ‘principles’ and stick to them. Thus they will not be led astray in difficult times. It puts a damper on any girl that suggests that he be led astray. Thus, the girl and the boy become maintainers of high moral standards. ‘Christian Patriarchy’ puts more demands on males and barely mentions women. It demands a male leadership role which lifts the male from his natural violent and lazy nature. His upbringing under patriarchy imposes responsibilities. It is observable that men work well against the load of responsibility. Responsibility is the key to male control in society. The principle of Christian Patriarchy is that the “differences between men and women are embraced and celebrated as complements to each other”. [John Piper] John Piper, discussing males and females, continues with “The differences are too many and too deep for such a superficial explanation.” In his discussion he exhorts: “Christlike, humble, loving, sacrificial men are to take primary responsibility for leadership, provision, and protection.” He continues with: “the primary responsibility for initiative and leadership in the home is to come from the husband who is taking his cues from Christ, the head. And it is clear that this is not about rights and power, but about responsibility and sacrifice... No abuse. No bossiness. No authoritarianism. No arrogance.” He points out that Apostle Paul says that couples should: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” — which requires mutual submission. This is hardly ‘evil patriarchy’. There is no systemic active oppression. If there is an evil patriarchy it is that of radical Islam with its rape-culture. One article, with the title ‘Infidel Women: Spoils of War.’, points out that non-Muslim women tend to be its greatest victims. The ‘Open Doors’ report shouts: “Christian women are among the most violated in the world”. And states that six Christian girls are raped each day. Thus, again we have been fed the wrong enemy. It is not Western men and Christian Patriarchy that are the problem. Christian Patriarchy is a system that controls men for the benefit of women. It puts immense demands on males.