Brian Holden’s depiction of male as warrior, rapist and destroyer would have to include himself. Or maybe he does not consider himself “male”.

A fuller picture of males would also include artist, musician, builder, architect, worker, doctor, farmer, nurse, explorer, discoverer, parent and lover.

It is incredible how someone who has been through the education system (and was once a teacher) can hold such a bigoted and prejudiced view of the male gender as Brian Holden.

But with feminist policies and courses being run in the education system, such bigoted and gender prejudiced views now appear quite common, or are the norm.

“The best male-female relationships are usually between gay men and straight women” – to be candide, that may be so; but pairs of straight men and straight women might think that bending to accommodate their mutual needs is an activity that takes some beating; - and that the life of Bryan might have been a little sad.

Men are angular. Women are spherical.
If you paint women, you paint the entire universe.

Every woman is a particularization of the one thing--the "She", or the universal Spirit-Energy, which manifests as the entire World Process.

A woman's body rotating expresses the unity of existence. "It" is all just "She".

Everything about Woman or Shakti -- in other words, everything about the domain of feeling and the senses, and pleasurable association with the feeling and sense domain -- is corrupt at the present moment, and opposed. It is not just the Divine Spirituality that is opposed -- Woman is opposed. That which Woman IS, that which she incarnates, that which her pattern is about, requires humankind to be integrated with it, as the core of life.

All is Energy or Shakti--and Energy Is all there is.

But you are using Energy or Shakti, and hence the entire world, as if it were mud.

Consequently Humanity, and the Earth-world altogethger, is like rubble in its present state. You are destroying the Divine Gift.

You are at war with the body.

Devious, double-minded, rejecting the body and yet craven for it.

Let us analyse the evidence before us.

The law of evolution cannot be compromised just like the law of gravity.

The male and female both evolved with predefined roles.

Feminism is a failure because of the very low birth-rate. One of the results of going against what evolution stipulates is the dying out of the human species with modern Western life-style. The role of the woman is primarily to bring up children.

Same-sex relations is a choice, a deviant behavior different from what is natural as determined by evolution.

"Without the cornerstone of a biologically inevitable reproductive sexuality, there would be no mechanism to guarantee the transmission of genes, and that is precisely the point of biological determinism. The biological inevitability of reproductive sexuality is the principle without which biological determinism would fall apart. Reproductive heterosexuality is not simply another trait that is genetically transmitted; it is the foundational principle of the entire theory. It must be presumed as the imperative of life itself for the transmission of biological traits to even be possible. Given this fundamental and exalted position, it is difficult to see how reproductive sexuality and homosexuality can ever be presumed "equal" but "different" within a biologically deterministic framework. The logic of biological determinism can only debase homosexuality as deviant—precisely the position Isay is striving to counter."

—Ona Nierenberg, "A Hunger for Science: Psychoanalysis and the 'Gay Gene,'" differences, Vol. 10, No

Oh my, the twaddlers are all coming out to play!

The birthrate doesn't fall because feminists revile the female principle - whatever that is. Birthrates fall because governments do not give enough support to women who choose motherhood, and societies do not do enough to make governments give that support. Therefore it becomes increasingly difficult to actually be a mother in this culture.

But how much easier it is to allege that we're in this position because of some esoteric clap trap, rather than to deal with the reality that western society is increasingly anti-child and anti-motherhood.

Briar rose,

I would disagree that governments do not give enough support to motherhood. Australia has one of the highest rates of family allowance in the world.

There are also generous (perhaps too generous) amounts given to single mothers, despite the now considerable evidence that single parenting is a very serious risk to children.

There is also generous (perhaps too generous) amounts paid out to IVF, despite the fact that IVF treatment is now being given to single women leading to single parenting.

In all, I would think governments and society are in support of motherhood.

I would think many women are now not in support of motherhood, and the anti-marriage and anti-motherhood indoctrination of feminism is a primary reason for that.