Author: Nat Godot
It
is
believed
that
a
19th
century
playwright
was
the
first
person
to
write
that
“the
pen
is
mightier
than
the
sword,”1
and
that
adage
is
probably
more
relevant
now
than
ever
before.
Because
in
this
modern
age
of
false
words
he
could
just
as
easily
have
said
‘the
pen
is
mightier
than
the
truth.’
The
‘might’
he
makes
reference
to
after
all
is
the
very
real
power
wielded
by
people
who
succeed
in
owning
the
meaning
and
use
of
words.
So
it
is
very
pertinent
to
the
way
that
feminists
have
usurped
their
own
cause.
Which
means
that
when
we
take
on
the
burden
of
contradicting
the
dogmas
of
modern
feminism
we
need
to
take
back
the
meaning
of
words,
and
one
of
those
words
is
power.
Feminists
like
to
talk
about
power,
but
only
to
say
that
men
have
power
and
women
do
not.
Or
to
say
that
men
abuse
power
and
women
do
not.
But
they
make
little
or
no
acknowledgement
of
the
powers
owned
by
women
to
imprint
newly
born
minds
with
responses
that
will
benefit
themselves,
to
reinforce
those
responses
throughout
the
most
vulnerable
years
of
that
young
life,
and
then
to
call
on
those
responses
when
it
is
beneficial
for
them
to
do
so.
Although
many
men
feel
themselves
to
be
immune
from
those
requests,
the
truth
is
that
many
of
them
who
feel
that
way
still
allow
their
resolve
to
crumble
when
faced
with
a
woman
exhibiting
or
feigning
distress.
So
there
is
a
form
of
power
granted
by
nature
which
is
enjoyed
exclusively
by
women,
and
we
need
to
shine
more
light
on
it.
In
order
to
understand
this
a
little
better
let’s
first
look
at
a
female
power
that
is
not
human,
and
the
peacock
provides
a
good
example.
Although
the
word
‘peacock’
is
sometimes
used
as
a
derogatory
term
to
describe
men
who
overdress,
this
is
somewhat
unfair.
Because
the
extravagance
of
the
peacock’s
plumage
is
not
their
own
choice,
it
is
determined
solely
by
the
preference
of
the
females
of
the
species.
Therefore
the
day
to
day
appearance
masks
the
real
power
that
shapes
the
relationship
between
them.
And
when
we
use
that
relationship
as
a
model
to
understand
gender
power,
we
realise
that
the
grand
appearance
of
the
peacock
is
not
a
demonstration
of
power,
but
evidence
rather
of
powerlessness.
It
is
therefore
a
very
significant
anomaly
of
nature
that
in
the
human
species
it
is
the
females
that
adopt
extravagant
plumage,
and
who
suppress
any
inclination
of
males
to
compete
with
them.
The
actress
and
model
Jacqueline
Fernandez
explains
it
like
this.
“Vanity
is
a
women’s
prerogative,
and
it
should
stay
that
way.”2
Meaning
that
the
pursuit
of
attention
and
admiration
causes
human
females
to
reverse
an
established
pattern
of
nature.
Which
is
an
anomaly
that
we
take
for
granted,
and
a
power
we
underestimate.
Popular
scientific
opinion/myth
suggests
that
females
only
exercise
their
powers
to
benefit
their
children.
But
the
plumage
of
the
peacock
demonstrates
that
feminine
power
is
a
force
of
nature,
and
that
it
can
be
eccentric
and
self-serving.
We
often
hear
men
being
lectured
about
expressing
their
feelings.
But
our
society
is
no
more
willing
to
allow
men
to
speak
about
their
feelings
than
it
would
be
to
allow
the
peacock
to
contradict
the
peahen.
Why
is
that
you
may
well
ask?
It
is
because
the
peacock
would
say
to
the
peahen,
‘you
are
not
doing
this
for
the
sake
of
the
children’.
So
the
enforcement
of
female
choice
is
indicative
of
a
power
that
shapes
our
cultural
perception
of
what
is
good
and
what
is
bad.
This
may
sound
obscure
and
inconsequential,
but
the
distortions
contained
in
such
perceptions
are
intrinsic
to
our
social
discourse,
and
they
have
a
calculated
purpose
which
can
be
explained
by
understanding
the
relationship
between
sentiment
and
power.
We
tend
to
underestimate
the
power
of
sentiment,
but
organisations
that
wield
power
do
not.
Governments
and
corporations
and
advertisers
and
broadcasters
compete
fiercely
with
each
other
to
influence
the
sentiments
of
large
groups
of
people.
They
employ
the
very
best
and
most
well
trained
experts
and
psychologists
to
help
them
for
that
purpose,
and
are
prepared
to
spend
vast
sums
of
money
to
achieve
their
ends.
In
this
respect,
the
stakes
have
been
raised
by
the
ongoing
efforts
to
globalise
the
consumer
economy.
Meaning
that
the
manipulation
of
consumer
sentiment
has
now
become
an
industry.
But
this
also
creates
an
opportunity
of
sorts.
Because
the
illusions
of
sentiment
depend
a
lot
on
obscurity,
so
there
is
a
certain
danger
in
repeating
them
too
often.
We
may
therefore
even
have
something
to
be
grateful
for.
Because
the
flood
of
contrived
sentiment
that
pours
out
of
modern
media
channels
makes
it
possible
to
observe
more
clearly
methods
and
patterns
of
behaviour
that
previously
defied
analysis.
Take
sympathy
for
example.
In
the
eyes
of
many
people
it
would
hardly
appear
significant,
and
yet
when
we
open
our
eyes
to
it
we
discover
that
it
saturates
daily
life.
But
even
though
there
are
times
when
we
should
show
sympathy
towards
someone
we
love,
there
is
never
a
time
when
we
are
obliged
to
love
someone
for
whom
we
feel
sympathy.
So
even
though
sympathy
is
less
obvious
a
feeling
than
love,
its
reach
is
longer.
Therefore
if
our
capacity
for
sympathy
is
addressed
in
the
right
way,
we
can
be
induced
to
do
things
for
people
that
we
don’t
even
know.
In
what
way
this
might
be
useful
to
others
is
not
always
obvious,
and
yet
those
organisations
that
broadcast
news
and
entertainment,
by
whatever
medium,
compete
vigorously
to
influence
the
sympathies
of
their
audience.
So
even
though
it
appears
to
be
such
an
imprecise
feeling,
sympathy
is
measured
with
great
accuracy
by
people
who
have
learned
the
value
of
it.
In
order
to
demonstrate
that
sympathy
is
no
childish
or
accidental
sentiment
bear
with
me
for
a
short
review
of
Ryan’s
Daughter3.
This
is
an
Oscar
winning
film
released
in
1970
that
was
directed
by
David
Lean.
The
story
is
essentially
about
two
men
and
one
woman.
They
live
in
a
small
town
in
the
West
of
Ireland
in
the
year
1916
when
British
military
forces
still
occupied
the
country,
and
their
relations
with
the
local
population
were
very
tense.
The
heroine
is
a
native
of
the
small
village
and
the
daughter
of
one
of
its
few
prosperous
citizens.
She
marries
the
local
school
teacher
and
shortly
afterwards
becomes
bored
with
him.
Then
she
meets
the
commanding
officer
of
the
nearby
British
military
garrison
and
begins
a
sexual
relationship
with
him,
and
the
resulting
sex
scenes
became
a
significant
feature
of
what
is
commonly
described
as
a
‘tragic
love
story.’
The
sympathy
of
the
audience
for
the
heroine
is
carefully
preserved
by
meticulous
adjustment
of
the
two
male
characters
with
whom
she
is
involved.
For
this
purpose,
her
husband
is
portrayed
as
boring
and
insensitive
to
her
need
for
passionate
love
(or
sex),
which
appears
to
justify
her
later
behaviour.
Meanwhile
her
lover
is
afflicted
with
a
severe
limp,
and
he
also
suffers
from
psychological
trauma,
both
of
which
were
caused
by
his
war
experiences
on
mainland
Europe.
So
on
the
one
hand
her
husband
is
excluded
from
sympathy
because
of
his
insensitivity
to
her
‘needs’,
and
on
the
other,
the
sympathy
we
feel
for
the
heroine
is
not
tainted
by
any
dislike
of
her
lover.
Nonetheless
their
affair
is
exposed
in
the
end
to
the
local
community
who
have
no
tolerance
for
locals
who
consort
with
British
soldiers.
So
the
pair
are
forced
apart,
and
the
soldier
lover
commits
suicide.
The
question
is
then,
what
would
happen
to
the
sympathy
of
the
audience
if
we
reverse
the
roles?
We
would
have
a
story
about
an
unemployed
man
who
married
a
hard
working
school
teacher
and
became
bored
with
her
because
she
was
no
good
in
bed.
So
he
then
starts
a
sexual
relationship
with
a
woman
who
is
physically
crippled
and
suffering
from
psychological
problems.
When
this
lonely
and
vulnerable
woman
then
commits
suicide
the
damnation
of
our
hero
would
be
complete,
and
no
interpretation
of
artistic
licence
would
excuse
the
film
maker
from
talk
of
malice,
or
lurking
dangerous
attitudes
towards
women.
Certainly
there
would
be
no
talk
of
Oscar
prizes.
Therefore
when
we
watch
this
film
from
one
point
of
view
it
appears
like
romance,
but
when
we
turn
the
story
around,
it
becomes
a
depressing
tale
that
would
surely
be
condemned.
Which
means
that
film
makers
are
not
free
to
express
any
new
idea
for
the
sake
of
art.
Because
it
is
the
formula
by
which
the
value
of
sympathy
is
calculated
that
makes
it
possible
for
them
to
portray
violence
against
women,
but
not
criticism
of
them.
Actually
their
survival
as
artists
depends
very
much
on
their
willingness
to
conform
to
the
rules
by
which
the
social
taboos
and
monopolies
on
sentiment
are
maintained.
Nor
is
the
value
of
sentiment
confined
to
junk
romance.
Indeed,
experts
tell
us
that
the
equity
and
financial
markets
are
driven
by
sentiment.
So
if
even
the
value
of
stocks
can
be
influenced
by
sentiment,
then
it
stands
to
reason
that
people
who
learn
to
estimate
their
relationships
in
terms
of
value
will
also
naturally
develop
an
acute
awareness
of
sentiment.
Becoming
alert
to
words
and
deeds
that
may
indicate
any
change
in
the
state
of
sentiments
they
have
taken
some
trouble
to
cultivate.
When
we
speak
of
‘value’
in
the
context
of
human
behaviour
therefore,
it
is
not
money
that
is
the
currency,
it
is
sentiment.
Money
and
gold
and
property
of
various
kinds
have
a
value
that
can
be
counted,
and
they
do
exercise
a
powerful
influence,
but
they
must
be
earned,
inherited,
or
stolen.
On
the
other
hand,
sentiment
can
be
minted,
and
when
it
is
properly
crafted,
it
can
be
used
to
obtain
material
value.
In
this
context
then,
the
strategy
of
making
other
people
feel
sympathetic
or
indebted
becomes
both
a
business
enterprise,
and
an
abuse
of
power.
Of
course
the
misuse
of
any
power
comes
at
a
price.
Take
for
example
the
well
known
fact
that
the
display
of
anxiety
or
fear
attracts
attention
and
sympathy.
So
people
who
discover
that
sympathy
has
value
are
also
discovering
incentives
to
be
anxious.
But
judging
by
what
we
see
in
the
public
media,
sympathy
is
as
much
a
female
prerogative
as
vanity.
Therefore
it
becomes
possible
to
predict
an
imbalance
in
the
levels
of
anxiety
between
males
and
females
that
corresponds
with
that
imbalance.
And
indeed,
the
incidence
of
phobia
(an
extreme
form
of
anxiety)
is
known
to
be
at
least
twice
as
high
in
females4
as
it
is
in
males.
But
that
ratio
rises
to
3/1
for
individuals
with
multiple
phobias
and
4/1
for
phobias
relating
to
animals.
And
yet,
in
spite
of
being
bombarded
by
so
much
of
it,
we
appear
to
be
largely
ignorant
not
only
of
how
sentiment
is
manipulated,
but
even
of
what
it
is.
Which
should
not
be
surprising,
since
nothing
about
sentiment
is
obvious,
except
for
what
we
are
encouraged
to
notice.
Think
about
encouragement
for
instance.
On
the
face
of
it
this
is
not
a
sentiment.
In
fact
we
need
encouragement
as
children
and
depend
on
it
for
our
learning
and
development.
But
we
are
supposed
to
reduce
our
dependence
on
it
as
we
mature.
When
we
don’t,
our
belated
need
for
it
prevents
that
maturity
from
reaching
its
full
potential
and
reflects
itself
in
the
mirror
of
our
personalities
as
a
desire
for
attention
and
admiration.
Which,
as
it
happens,
is
magnified
disproportionately
in
the
affectations
and
sentimental
behaviours
of
women.
No
doubt
many
people
will
object
that
men
have
this
need
too,
and
that
is
certainly
true.
But
all
of
these
arguments
are
about
degrees
and
proportions.
So
if
we
take
the
distribution
of
high
street
retail
space
as
a
barometer,
then
we
have
to
conclude
that
women
have
this
need
more
than
men
by
a
very
significant
factor.
This
observation
is
also
supported
by
figures
for
credit
card
spending
in
the
UK5
which
indicate
that
in
the
year
2016
the
ratio
of
female
vs
male
spending
on
personal
items
was
4.5/1
on
the
high
street,
and
rose
to
7/1
for
online
shopping.
These
differences
present
a
whole
range
of
problems.
But
there
is
one
in
particular
that
has
reached
epidemic
proportions.
Because
what
comes
naturally
for
the
child
becomes
more
complicated
for
the
adult.
Meaning
that
we
give
attention
admiration
and
sympathy
to
children
without
any
need
for
justification.
But
adults
who
want
to
keep
these
things
with
them
after
childhood
must
increasingly
find
ways
to
justify
them,
and
this
need
can
exercise
a
powerful
influence
on
their
behaviour
and
relationships.
The
problem
is
though
that
the
dripping
need
for
justification
creates
a
tendency
towards
exaggerated
feelings
and
complicated
accusations.
Thus
we
arrive
at
the
modern
epidemic
of
accusing
behaviour
driven
disproportionately
by
women,
and
egged
on
by
the
agents
of
consumer
propaganda
who
seek
to
manipulate
women
by
flattering
and
indulging
them.
Overall
then,
when
we
step
back
and
observe
the
patterns
of
sentiment
and
behaviour,
we
can
recognise
how
much
the
mechanisms
of
power
depend
on
them.
The
fact
that
women
in
general
appear
to
be
so
proficient
in
the
use
of
these
mechanisms
is
not
however
to
be
taken
as
proof
that
women
have
superior
moral
insight
or
emotional
intelligence
which
men
lack.
It
is
rather
that
women
have
a
material
motive
that
men
do
not,
and
that
they
have
at
least
three
advantages.
The
first
is
their
biological
power
to
suppress
anything
that
might
be
disadvantageous
to
them,
a
power
that
translates
itself
in
the
minds
of
men
as
fear.
The
second
is
their
ability
to
imprint
the
minds
of
children
with
responses
that
are
primarily
advantageous
to
them.
And
the
third
is
their
close
alliance
with
the
agents
who
manipulate
consumer
sentiment.
And
I
haven’t
even
mentioned
sex.
Actually
the
issues
I
have
mentioned
here
are
only
part
of
a
spectrum
of
powers
available
to
women
which
deserve
consideration.
But
space
does
not
allow,
so
I
will
come
back
to
them
another
time.
Nonetheless,
it
should
be
obvious
even
from
this
cursory
look
at
the
close
rapport
between
sentiment
and
power
that
the
image
of
pristine
vulnerability
which
feminists
have
built
in
to
their
vocabulary
for
and
about
women
is
false.
It
is
not
that
men
do
not
possess
power,
or
that
men
do
not
abuse
power.
They
do
that
indeed.
But
they
are
not
alone.
Now
bear
with
me
one
more
time
please
for
a
short
digression.
I
noticed
from
comments
to
my
previous
article
that
there
was
some
concern
as
to
whether
I
understood
gynocentrism
or
not.
So
in
order
to
save
good
people
from
wasting
their
precious
time,
let
me
clarify
the
point,
yes
I
understand.
But
I
am
reasonably
convinced
that
pushing
back
directly
against
the
monster
will
be
a
monumental
task
that
will
probably
take
a
long
time,
and
will
only
succeed
to
the
degree
that
a
lot
more
people
get
involved.
Likewise
feminism
is
locked
on
to
the
same
driving
forces
that
give
life
to
gynocentrism,
so
I
suspect
that
the
struggle
against
feminism
will
also
be
long
and
acrimonious.
In
the
meantime,
I
ask
myself,
is
there
something
I
can
do
that
will
help
the
cause
to
gain
traction?
And
everybody
has
their
own
answer
to
that
question.
In
my
case
I
take
an
oblique
approach
to
the
problem.
Think
of
it
like
this.
How
do
you
convince
a
burglar
not
to
break
in
to
your
house?
You
can
plead
all
you
like,
and
the
burglar
can
give
whatever
assurances
you
might
want
to
hear.
But
in
the
end
the
police
will
tell
you
to
take
away
the
ladder
the
crowbar
and
the
flash
light.
So
for
me
this
is
a
matter
of
personal
interest
rather
than
alternative
paradigm.
I
want
to
remove
the
tools,
or
at
least
make
them
harder
to
use.
I
hope
that
approach
will
become
more
clear
as
I
work
my
way
forward,
and
that
it
will
prove
useful
to
some
small
degree.
But
it
is
not
meant
to
distract
from
the
great
work
already
done.
References:
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30729480 -
http://www.bolegaindia.com/gossips/Jacqueline_Fernandez_shares_her_views_on_stereotypical_men-gid-11605-gc-6.html -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066319/?ref_=nv_sr_1 -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796795000483 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3753812/Women-spend-7billion-year-clothes-shoes.html
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)