Book review

Women’s Bodies — Excerpt From Everything You Believe Is Wrong

Today, an excerpt of Chapter 13 from Everything You Believe Is Wrong. As before, this is a brief excerpt from a long chapter which investigates the feminine.

You may also download a PDF of the entire first chapter (with Table of Contents).

Get the book at (Amazon, Barnes & Noble (paper and nook), Alibris (link), ABE Books (at a slight premium).

More about the book here.

The Feminine Form

Sorry, Ladies

Women do not have the right to do what they would with their own bodies. Men don’t either. To say that women have a “right” to do what they want their bodies is the Women’s Bodies Fallacy. To say that only women have a right to decide matters pertaining to women because they are women is the same fallacy, but one usually married to the Voting Fallacy.

If only women can decide laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to women, because they are women, then it would seem to follow that bodily characteristic dictates who gets to decide what. Men only should decide laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to men, because they are men. Women have to shut up in these cases, as men have to keep quiet when women are deciding things about themselves.

Why restrict these kinds of legal apartheid by only sex? There is no rational reason to stop at sex—and, in some actual cases, we don’t. Restricting decision making in certain instances by biological or other characteristics can make eminent sense.

We only allow citizens to vote in federal elections, for example. (Some dispute that, of course.) Birthright, or a complicated legal “adoption” procedure, separates who has the right to vote and who hasn’t. We don’t open the vote for where to go to lunch to the outside world, and only allow members belonging to the office to have a say. We might weight the opinions of seniors greater than teenagers when deciding on reduced fairs for the subway. Many other examples will come to mind.

Sex Appeal

So why is it that restricting rule-making by sex seems odd? Again, why only sex? Why not sexual “orientation”? Pedophiles get to decide on the rules pertinent to them because they are pedophiles? Why not left-handed Asian stamp collectors? Left-handed Asian stamp collectors get to decide on the rules pertinent to them because they are left-handed Asian stamp collectors? We start down that road until we eventually arrive at individuals.

Only each individuals gets to to decide the laws and rules that pertain to him because only the individual knows what’s best for him alone. The result is complete and genuine anarchy. This is the system where there are no rules, no rights, no laws, no rewards and no punishments. Chaos. It is, in fact, satanic. This isn’t hyperbole. The satanic dictum is Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. There is no seeming way to arrest this slippery slope if we allow general rule-making by characteristic. So let’s try something else.

We cannot have each individual decide what is best for her alone, yet at least for argument’s sake, we want to allow women to make rules that pertain only to them and men to men. Yet making this cut only at sex is limiting and arbitrary. We can’t go all the way down to individuals, and we recall we do allow in certain cases characteristic to decide on the line. Aren’t there other lines we can draw?

A Race Not Run

Why not try race? Jews in Israel alone get to decide on the rules pertaining to them because they are Jews. Whites alone get to decide on the rules pertaining to them because they are white. Try either sentence again subbing in black and see how it sounds. If you’re a typical American it has a better ring to it. Doesn’t it? The reason it does is the same reason why it doesn’t sound totally absurd to say women alone should rule over women.

There is a feeling (and often it is no more than an ill-informed feeling) that women and other groups have historically had a hard time of it and suffered through no end of calamities all caused or exacerbated by that well known bogey man, the white Christian man.

He has made enough decisions, the argument goes, and now it’s somebody else’s turn, preferably somebody with a uterus. Well, that’s too obvious a fallacy to be worth refuting, even though that argument does often carry the day. Let’s go after something deeper.

It must be that female persons do not have the right to do anything they want with their bodies. For example, what if a woman, using her own body, decides to slit the throat of her neighbor? Most would frown on that sort of thing. What if a woman takes her body and flings it from a high place onto your automobile? Most would say this is not her right. What if she causes, using her body, the forest to catch on fire? Or to use her body such that the jewelry leaves the store before being paid for?

We’re on the wrong track. It can’t be that people really mean what they say when they say “Women have a right to what they want with their bodies.” That leads very quickly to asinine conclusions. Maybe instead what they mean is “Women have a right to do what they want to their bodies.” Let’s see where that leads.

We’ll see that we immediately have to restrict or ban the slippery slope, else where are back to the Do What Thou Wilt.

Buy my new book and own your enemies: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here

Categories: Book review, Culture

19 replies »

  1. “We might weight the opinions of seniors greater than teenagers when deciding on reduced fairs for the subway. ”

    Fares.

  2. ” We don’t open the vote for where to go to lunch to the outside world, and only allow members belonging to the office to have a say. ”

    I’ll bet there’s an app for that!

  3. But Briggs, if you take away all of the people’s fallacies then they won’t have anything to say. And politicians will have nothing to say to them. And then where would we be?

  4. Ah c’mon, Briggs. Just say it. We all know that “Women have a right to do what they want to their bodies” is just code for “Women have a right to murder their own babies in the womb.” (or outside of it, if the baby’s body parts need to be harvested.)

    Otherwise, to be consistent, they’d all be opposing vaccine mandates! The “My body, my choice” fallacy is now proven, once and for all. Especially for the unborn.

  5. just a spell check, in the last sentence of above, where should be we are. or where are we but, back

  6. You seem confused. Women have the right to determine what happens to their own bodies (the right to bodily autonomy) not because they are women, but because women are people and people have decided (en masse, as a society) that they have the right to determine what happens to their own bodies. I assume that you agree we should have this right, otherwise you can’t object to mandatory vaccinations by appealing to it.

  7. Transgenderism is the key demoralization program being installed in the
    female hoi polloi which started under the Obama regime and ended with scary
    men in women’s bathrooms. The other two legs of the triad homosexuality
    and pedophilia are still works in progress the latter waiting complete
    normalization as has happened with homosexuality and gay marriage legislation.
    Currently homosexuality is being taught to grade school children under the umbrella
    of CRT training as being equivalent to heterosexual behavior and perfectly normal. ?
    Soon to be preferred.

    All of this is directed at displacing the key role women play in holding society
    together as mothers, nurturers, healers, peace makers, and fair minded arbiters
    of justice. The latter fair mindedness was the author of their demise with what
    seemed like a fair minded observation at the time, that is if two people were in love
    they should be allowed to marry. Sounds good until it’s codified into law and destroys
    the long sought protections of alimony, dowry, child support and custodial preference
    that marriage once ensured. Men have completely usurped the traditional female role
    in society; they can marry one another, have babies, breast feed, and compete and dominate
    in any women’s sport out there. (not that real men want to) And now women dare not speak
    out against the evil aimed directly at the heart and soul of what they once were. Just like
    the pandemic this has been planned and executed by the unseen hand in everything.

  8. Socialism seems to work best to women. Their natural caring nature predisposes them to expanding services to all the community, no matter the cost. The flipside is shared misery;
    at least no one suffers alone–which is where we are headed.

    A guy arrives home after a business trip to find 10 (choose the group) camped in the backyard, under the watchful eye of his wife. She promises they won’t be there too many days and excoriates him for his lack of empathy. This is our slippery slope. Women appear to be wired for comfort and safety, men for freedom and protection; which used to work pretty well, before rational thinking became an enemy.

  9. I’d like to buy that book, but wow, it sure needs an editor and proofreader. I’ll wait for the next edition and hope it’s an improvement.

  10. Women are by nature liberals which is why they can not be allowed in any political, leadership, or other important position except taking care of young children and cooking.

  11. And now a reading from the whitest Greekest Supremacist chauvinist politics… according to Aristotle.

    As to tyrannies, they are preserved in two most opposite ways. One of them is the old traditional method in which most tyrants administer their government. Of such arts, Periander of Corinth is said to have been the great master, and many similar devices may be gathered from the Persians in the administration of their government. There are firstly the prescriptions mentioned some distance back, for the preservation of a tyranny, in so far as this is possible; viz., that the tyrant should lop off those who are too high; he must put to death men of spirit; he must not allow common meals, clubs, education, and the like; he must be upon his guard against anything which is likely to inspire either courage or confidence among his subjects; he must prohibit literary assemblies or other meetings for discussion, and he must take every means to prevent people from knowing one another (for acquaintance begets mutual confidence).

    Further, he must compel all persons staying in the city to appear in public and live at his gates; then he will know what they are doing: if they are always kept under, they will learn to be humble. In short, he should practice these and the like Persian and barbaric arts, which all have the same object.

    A tyrant should also endeavor to know what each of his subjects says or does, and should employ spies, like the ‘female detectives’ at Syracuse, and the eavesdroppers whom Hiero was in the habit of sending to any place of resort or meeting; for the fear of informers prevents people from speaking their minds, and if they do, they are more easily found out.

    Another art of the tyrant is to sow quarrels among the citizens; friends should be embroiled with friends, the people with the notables, and the rich with one another. Also, he should impoverish his subjects; he thus provides against the maintenance of a guard by the citizen and the people, having to keep hard at work, are prevented from conspiring. The Pyramids of Egypt afford an example of this policy; also the offerings of the family of Cypselus, and the building of the temple of Olympian Zeus by the Peisistratidae, and the great Polycratean monuments at Samos; all these works were alike intended to occupy the people and keep them poor.

    Another practice of tyrants is to multiply taxes, after the manner of Dionysius at Syracuse, who contrived that within five years his subjects should bring into the treasury their whole property. The tyrant is also fond of making war in order that his subjects may have something to do and be always in want of a leader. And whereas the power of a king is preserved by his friends, the characteristic of a tyrant is to distrust his friends, because he knows that all men want to overthrow him, and they above all have the power.

    Again, the evil practices of the last and worst form of democracy are all found in tyrannies. Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands, and the license which is allowed to slaves in order that they may betray their masters; for slaves and women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies and also to democracies since under them they have a good time. For the people too would fain be a monarch, and therefore by them, as well as by the tyrant, the flatterer is held in honor; in democracies, he is the demagogue; and the tyrant also has those who associate with him in a humble spirit, which is a work of flattery.

    Hence tyrants are always fond of bad men, because they love to be flattered, but no man who has the spirit of a freeman in him will lower himself by flattery; good men love others, or at any rate do not flatter them. Moreover, the bad are useful for bad purposes; ‘nail knocks out nail,’ as the proverb says. It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike every one who has dignity or independence; he wants to be alone in his glory, but anyone who claims a like dignity or asserts his independence encroaches upon his prerogative, and is hated by him as an enemy to his power. Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him.

    Hmmm… it all sounds so familiar…

    Coincidence?

  12. Thank you, Johnno! Found it in Politics by Aristotle. Really interesting!

    And, taking care of young children and cooking and making a home are among the most important works that exist, for the forming of the children in the ways of the Living God, cannot be surpassed.

    God bless, C-Marie

  13. Yair, thanks, Johnno.
    I also saw that on (Ahnn, er, unmentionable Barn head, or Bone heart or something). Of course, no self respecting modern Catholic would ever want to give the impression that “binding and loosing” is a temporal thing irrevocably concerned with duly promulgated laws and precepts.

    We should all know by now that the “Modernist Stream Mania” has infallibly inferred that any aeroplane or “official” waffle by anyone in a white dress can change Apostolic Christianity to suit the “zeitgeist” anytime it suits them. (Also the white dress can be bestowed on anyone at all if it suits the modern version of Scribes and Pharisees).

  14. Swordfish, don’t look for consistency, it doesn’t happen.

    There are no such h thing as rights. Humans invent them.
    God has other ideas and doesn’t wait on cue for an inconsistent argument to come along and show that he’s wrong.
    That mandate question has been hanging in the air waiting to be made here for the longest time.
    Glad it was you, not me. Much projection follows from pointing out truth and logic to those who just won’t use it.

    It isn’t about the right to choose, it’s about the right and wrong of abortion being on offer as a choice,…or option.

    Sadly, this topic does not rest easy on the same individuals who display such callus unkindness in every other element of their commentary. Things are slowly changing for the better in England. There is a less hysterical debate on the subject, which is sorely needed.
    Posted this before but will find it and post again.
    A Christian paediatrician explains why abortion is also harmful to the mental health of women.
    We need more people like this man. Less angry vengeful, misinformed individuals making the situation worse.

  15. Yes, Joyous.
    “Bills of Rights” like those of the English (1688) the French (about 1789) and the Yanks (about the same time as the French) are manufactured declarations of an elitist secretocracy that declare to ordinary people “we the occult with our esoteric and arcane knowledge do bestow these “rights” on the people” the less obvious inference is that if we of unique privilege do not give the “right” then you don’t have it.

    The old Latins had a saying: “What Caesar giveth, Caesar can taketh”.

    Curiously, your much hated Apostolic Authority, even with its recurrent megalomaniac and often morally compromised incumbents, never presumed to devise a restrictive “Bill of Rights”; apparently prevented somehow from contravening Christ’s maxim “Love God above all and love your neighbour as yourself” and St ‘Gus of Hippo’s simplified maxim “Love God and do what you will”. The obvious inference of both these maxims is that everyone has a “right” to do anything at all except to offend God or harm our neighbour. All real “rights” are inextricably an extension of duties defined in the Commandments.

    I assume that “callous unkindness” is what Christ displayed toward the Scribes (the media and “educators” of His day) and the Pharisees (the rich and famous and influential) and the lawyers (which are always “interpreters” (twisters) of the Law to favour the “important people”).

  16. Oldavid,
    “Curiously, your much hated Apostolic Authority,’
    rubbish, the one who exud’eth hate is ‘you’eth’ among other hateth’ers.

    without a cause, too

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.