This is not because women are my equals that they must have the same rights as me, it is not a matter of physical or intellectual equality.
They must have these rights because I am a rationalist being, and therefore empathetic, that I recognize that living beings, in spite of and because of their obligation to exist, must enjoy the world in well-being, enjoy their sensitivity and their intelligence, whatever their value, and to let me do the same.
Why and how do women occupy a subordinate position in society? The subordination of the weakest occurs throughout the animal universe. The "natural complementarity" of the sexes for reproduction is an animal vision of the living world.
The human being possesses a little bit more intellectual which allows it to control its actions, and even its deepest instincts, be it the woman or the man. The society recognizes it by the notion of responsibility of each (man or woman) in equal manner before the Law.
This implies that this bit more we possess on the animals from which we are born and which enables us to control this animality is sufficient to say that women and men are equal in all areas of law, that right which we have invented and which is therefore outside animality.
If we have recourse to the law for a man or a woman, then we are equal outside animality, outside our morphology and our anatomy, therefore outside our sexes. Personally I am a "sapiens analensis", and not a simple “sapiens sapiens”, how then will your Law treat me?
The human brain generalizes, and it can thus classify men and women into two separate groups, making the female or male target easier to designate, and we have added by accentuating the slight morphological difference by clothes.
Male dominance probably took place according to the same principle of domination from one hand to the other, right to left, there is little or no difference at the base, but a simple habit, make the other hand less expert, so less and less used and less and less expert.
Women have been gradually dominated all over the world on the same principle. The relative weakness of the female body during pregnancy a short time is enough to engender the gap and customs of masculinity that have established gradually.
Today it is no longer necessary, especially since women are increasingly taking care of women (and men) without men having to intervene, and this in all areas. Women are competent in everything in our societies, even as a soldier.
And as a politician perhaps we must remember the super-competence of the Queen-Empress Victoria of England.
Humans are so preoccupied with struggles of classes, genders, ideologies, beliefs, that they forget the essential, which is the impossibility of free will and the obligation to exist. What use is it, madam, to make an existence for this existence that you make, before it exists, of course? It is of no use to it, but to you, what use?
If this is useful to you, then it is a servant you make, a slave or a baby-medicine for your psychopathology in this frightening and harmful world! Life is an absurd and morbid vicious circle that our understanding can break.
One cannot base Human rights rules on natural principles since Nature is not interested in the fate of the living. Nature has no Law, Nature has no moral or ethics. It has only mechanisms.
Nature makes in the "perenniality of approximate replication" by its mechanisms, and we humans exist according to this principle of perenniality, but temporarily, because the human will remain as pseudo-species very temporarily.
Machismo and feminism are ideologies resulting from old behavior, coming from a very ancient animal evolution. The removal of these ideologies is the responsibility of all. To control our animality, to escape from all our ideologies, will be the responsibility of each one.
The state of the present culture must be analyzed from the evolution of "species" in the same process of cultural continuity that began as soon as the nervous systems of the animals from which we are born have been sufficient to serve to other things than to handle solely the survival of the animal.
This additional memory makes it possible to record the behavior of the companions, the perpetuation of the improvements being made solely by the continuity of the existences of successive generations.
And as far as we are concerned, we humans, this memory allows us to store a very large amount of data on the world and to realize a quantity of actions that have very little to do with the simple survival, although it is necessarily linked to this survival, hence the machismo of human culture everywhere on the planet.
It seems that we are, thanks to feminist awareness at a turning point in human civilization.
For feminism to be established, women (some) must have the feeling of belonging to a community of women, therefore different and opposed to a community of men, and the feeling that this community of women is oppressed or subordinated by that of men, but also a third sensation which is that the two communities belong to the same whole, humanity.
The law that empowers women in the same way as men with respect to offenses and crimes, and which prioritizes responsibilities according to age and circumstances, recognizes this principle.
It remains to Justice to recognize the impossibility of free will and to admit that we are all, living beings, constrained to exist, and that this constraint of existence even imposes on us handicaps of birth which must be compensated when they cannot be repaired.
There are three main types of machismo: intellectual machismo, economic machismo and political machismo. The three types of machismo still exist on the planet, but the most difficult to dismantle are economic and politic machismo.
It is easy to understand why the intellectual abilities of women are accepted since it serves society directly, while any pretext is obviously good for any boss not to pay people according to their ability,
as far as political machismo is concerned, it is only a stupid and retrograde sexism which has even less reason for being than others, since for the good of the country all intelligences must be used according to their competence, the honest politician should understand and accept.
Machismo originated from the male domination upon females with the consent of the latter, who needed protection in a dangerous nature when they were pregnant (probably every year).
It was advantageous, then, to let the males believe that they were the owners responsible for the offspring (hence the term "seed") whereas according to all appearances the work was performed by the women. Machismo is a rationalization of this animal behavior.
Machismo is no longer necessary to be today, especially since, if women are to be protected, it is no longer against Nature, but against men, these males full of themselves with the culture (of males), whose women are themselves the great dispensers.
For, you, ladies, were carrying around a masculine culture in your brains for thousands of years! It is up to you to do the sorting if you see a necessity, because the mixing of human cultures of nations and genders will take place whether we like it or not by globalization.
The men, at least the most educated, have realized that they were not the real sowers of life, but perhaps they want to retain some power!
Marriage is culturally a religious act where man takes possession of a woman in front of society. Civil marriage, which should be only a contract between two persons, equal before the Human rights and the Law, contains, in underlying manner, this cultural heritage.
When two persons wish to draw up a contract, they usually do so before a notary, but not before the mayor. Marriage is still considered in a special way, for it is necessary to treat other persons, that are children (to come or present), as objects which have no say in the making of their existence, whatever the result of this fabrication, whatever the qualities or defects of the parents themselves who consider themselves narcissistically, whatever the environment and the place where this progeny will live, whatever the society and the culture.
Children are not legal persons. They are not entitled to any particular individual contract, yet they are, each, persons brought, under constraints, in a society that they have not desired.
Civil marriage is a wholesale contract between two adults. It is not individual, since the children are not named in this contract (have not signed and will never sign), and therefore it is not fair, it is outlawed and above all Outside of Human rights.
Every woman and every man are sensitive, conscious and intelligent beings, each decides the life that others have imposed upon him. This sentence seems to make sense and consistent with what feminism demands, and I am perfectly in agreement with it, and if I propose it to a woman, I suppose she will agree.
But in this case how does she see the imposition of existence on something that will become a person like her, and half the time a woman, who will suffer the consequences of her femininity in an unhealthy world for all and even more for her?
Can you complain about being a woman if you allow yourself to make a child who has the risk of being born a woman when you do not appreciate this sexist world? Why not rid the world of sexism before installing a person.
The way to abort of men is simple, not recognizing the child. And since men abort, women must have the same right that is not just giving childbirth anonymously, but a real abortion. And reciprocally if women can abort, men must also have this power.
Social acceptance of abortion is the recognition of sexual error. Humans have the right to make mistakes even when they do something that resembles procreation, but is not one.
The right to abortion recognizes that a woman and a man may not want to procreate while practicing the sexual act, and that the forgetfulness of protection does not force one and / or the other to make a child . Both man and woman may abort.
How does the abortion of women is the business of men, nuns, postmenopausal women, and all those people who will never give birth? Men do not have to legislate on abortion of women, they can eventually legislate on the abortion of men.
If men meddle in the management of abortion or not of women, this means that it is a social issue, and the women's body does not belong to them, and in this case why would men's bodies belong to them?
The women open their legs and welcome a man (one at a time) if they wish, they resort to the sperm bank if they wish, and make an abortion if they so desire. They are therefore totally responsible for themselves, and only themselves, for the manufacture of existences, and for my existence in particular.
Women have control of their bodies, therefore of all that penetrates it, which is not rape, and all that comes out of it, possibly a baby, also called another person. In this meaning, they give man a very secondary role, hence the fear of males and a possible revival of religious machismo.
They thus assume responsibility for the existence of humanity, and, of course, all the human misdeeds on the planet, overpopulation, the perpetual war of humanity against itself, misery, famine, pollution, and so on.
It is necessary to think first of the handicapped of birth that you ladies make (with the complicity of the males) who until now took full responsibility, now this responsibility returns totally to you. Making a baby is a crime.
Men will find it easy to legally attack women when they have taken total responsibility for their body, their person, in front of the Law, since each man was forced to exist by a woman responsible for this act of absolute dictatorship.
The sperm banks cancel the genetic paternity, since the genitor can be anonymous, only paternity of contract is therefore valid.
Women do not want to be raped, but they force people to exist, and to exist in very risky conditions, without any ethical problem to them…
Today (as tomorrow), more than 800 women are condemned to die for having fabricated an existence by simple incompetence.
More than 300,000 women die each year by giving birth to a child. If it is winning the Paradise that interests you, then play Madam, there is much more probability of winning at this morbid game of Life than at the lottery.
To avoid the problems of childcare after divorce, the couple should sign a contract before marriage about this possible childcare. That is, they should know before they get married why they are going to conceive a child.
For millennia, women have selected men for their virility and educated their boys to be aggressive in order to send them fighting for their defense. Today, the women make them feel guilty about being aggressive towards other women, who are sometimes themselves.
A woman lives 8 to 10 years older than an average man, but this does not seem to be enough reason for males to try to change sex.
If the women had the slightest intelligence, they would demand a lot of money from society to bring a child into the world. I assure you that if the child was worth much for society, education would be perfect, and there would never be a need for prison to correct the errors of education, for there would be none.
And the associates, that we are all, would be cajoled throughout their lives by the leaders. Is it not your duty, for the good of your future child, to enter into a contract with society: “If you want my child, if you want a partner, I want you to guarantee his life, his well-being.”
And if society refuses, offer it to another society, you will find one that will accept. Make a union of women to defend your rights and especially those of your future children. It is your duty to give your child the best possible life…
Today a man, to reproduce, must seek permission from a woman. While women can resort to science to do it without a man.
A society is made up of associates. Why do some members, the women, have the right to introduce new associates into society while others do not have that right?
Women hide behind male authoritarianism, but for there was an authority there has to be an accepted submission. Women (like men) have the power to take a gun when they are raped.
If they do not take up arms, it is because they admit their inferiority. One can always fight until death, and the death of women is the death of men.
It is amusing that the notion of equality is only examined from the point of view of social success. Women have the creative omnipotence of the species. They are the decision-makers with regard to the manufacture of humans. And the planet is overcrowded!
All criminals have a mom. All the idiots have a mom. All the disabled have a mom. All the dictators have a mom, and even Hitler had a mom. Being healthy and sound of mind is normal, but all these others, who brought them into the world without taking their defense?
Who did not get involved? Who let it happen? No life, no risk. Why conceive the male that will hit you? Why give birth to a female who is going to be hit? Why give birth to the one who is going to dominate you, the one that will be dominated?
Women want all power. That of creation, they were not even able to manage it soundly. Overpopulation is the cause of all human problems. Let them first deal with the problem of child slavery before thinking about women themselves.
Putting a child into the world, when they are not well in this world, is stupid, even ignoble. The Earth is the cradle of humanity. What are they expecting to clean the cradle before nesting?
The brain of men and women is not identical. The brains of men are not identical with each other, and the brains of women are not identical to one another either.
The way in which information and meanings are stored is not identical, and above all it has no relation to the way in which the structure gives information or meaning. This means that the differences in structure between humans and between sexes have little influence on the content, and especially none on the meaning of the content.
For example, the apple object, its name, and its meaning are all three stored with the same type of memory, which are most certainly neural networks, neural networks that do not have the same structure in any brain whatsoever for men and women.
The believers are perfectly locked, which demonstrates that perfection is of this world. On the one hand, they want us to believe that free will exists and therefore that everyone is responsible for his actions, and on the other they want us to believe that gender is superior to free will, and thus that it cannot transcend gender, which thus nullifies free will.
The real question is whether mental capacities can transcend gender, and whether society can put men and women in the same egalitarian bag, are they equal in will and decision-making, in memory capacity, and so on? And thus grant them the same rights and duties in all fields.
After having made us believe that soul and free will exist, believers want to make us swallow that soul and free will do not transcend the feminine or masculine gender, and that there would therefore be a specific spirit and free will for each gender, which would lead to not managing people by the same laws, and therefore not giving them the same rights…
If one counts only the imprisonment following a crime, men are the majority (more than 96%) to nearly 9 million in the world.
But the women who are imprisoned by their men and by the patriarchal Islamist laws are much more numerous, they count hundreds of millions in the world without having committed any other crime than having been forced to exist with the female sex by Mother, a woman raped patriarchally.
The abolition of masculinism and feminism must go through the following recognition: before being a woman or a man, even before being a human or a transhuman, I am a sensitive, conscious, intelligent being, I want to be considered so in the first approach, after it is according to my good will, and it is up to nobody else to decide for me what I am intimately.
The obligation to exist, possibly handicapped, must make forget all ideologies to the benefit of the empathy that the sentient beings, that we are, should have towards these people who were born weaker and for serving, whereas it was absolutely no need to force them to exist and even less handicapped.
All humans individually and human society must ask themselves the question of the validity of imposing existence, and how they intend to compensate the person with a disability or weaker than others intellectually or physically?
"Reproductivism" is an ideology even more putrid than machismo or feminism. Let us unite to fight "reproductivism".
It is normal that a woman decides herself whether she wants to engender a child or not. She takes mortal and morbid risks to bring an innocent child into the world.
But in this case, since the question of risks is raised for the person in question, why is not this choice to exist even envisaged for the being whose existence is created without any mastery of what it is going to be and become? It is he/she who runs the most risks, is not it?
If there was only one question, that all those who want to produce a new existence should ask themselves, it should be this one:
“Now that I have fabricated a suffering being, how can I undo suffering?”
Dead end
E. Berlherm (December 2016)
