The Image of Man | Specter of Earth (III)

(a.1) The Image of Man | Specter of Earth (continued from part II)

The realization of the trend-association between The Feminine, The Masculine and The Earth1, from prehistory to (post)modernity, is important in so far as it stands in opposition to synthetic union of the two (male and female) and vice-versa, for no stable and self-improving social ordering (if that is to be the project) can be achieved in the midst of such an eventuality. Thus, a firm understanding of such concepts will allow those who are so inclined to shape the synthesis of these battered, archaic and spectral excogitations.

The Feminine and The Masculine aspects of the manifest image which we have hitherto excavated should not be thought of as mere aesthetic conventions but rather as mutably valid descriptor-encapsulations; that is to say, non-static and continuously snapshoted (and updated) groupings of normative gender behavior. Thomas Haigh’s Masculinity and Machine Man: Gender in the History of Data Processing2 here is useful for the purposes of reifying the validity of our basic conceptual structure. It is a widely held belief that women are rarely to be found within STEM3 work due to the instantiation of exclusionary norms initiated by the western (white) Christian patriarchal monastic system upon which modern universities are based4; whilst there is some truth to this, such a schema can not account in the slightest for gender parceling in science work which has risen up outside of the university system (nor can it account for any other field of work which arose outside of the monastic influence, either past or present). One science field which is not deeply tied to the university system is data processing. In Masculinity and Machine Man, Haigh illustrates the fact that women were present but scarce in STEM computing fields since the inception of the field, citing a 1960 survey conducted by Business Automation which looked at 500 data processing company’s and discovered that out of that number only two companies had female managers and only one company reported a female as a programming supervisor. Slightly under 15% of all programmers in the survey were women. Structural reasons account for the mass of male labor in the field, given that both forerunnering fields to administrative programming – punched card operation and system analysis – were staffed primarily by men; hence, a preexisting gender surplus. Yet, the fact that there are so few women in STEM cannot be adequately explained by only looking to one environmental factor in one particular field at one particular time, especially since women have, in more recent decades, proceeding the 60s, been highly encouraged and incentivized to take up positions in the sciences which were primarily the domain of men. Though the body of research on this issue is vast, much of it ignores potential or realized biological inclinations as a possible reason why, though roughly equally present in high-school science classes, women tend to pursue STEM majors in significantly lower numbers than their male counterparts5. As a general rule, women tend towards people-oriented fields whilst men tend towards mechanically-oriented fields; this is clearly a biological impulse with a number of evolutionary advantages but it is upon the issue of biology that many past and contemporary scholars falter. The aforementioned Mr. Haigh, for instance, only looks to environmental explanations (pay differentials, gender discrimination due to traditionalist attitudes, ego-spatial issues, corporate culture, etc) to account for why so few women in the 60s were to be found in elevated positions within the field of data processing.

For females on the plains of our ancestors, a proclivity towards people-orientation would be required for child-rearing and the mitigation of inter-tribal strife (proto-counseling); for males, a proclivity towards machinic invention would invariably aid the development of hunting, defense, warfare, foraging and domicile construction techniques. Then there is the matter of childbirth; women can get pregnant, men cannot, thus, in so far as a given population has sexual intermingling there will always be coupling and thus pregnancy and thus less women in the workforce, as they will need to take time off to have and care for their nestlings. Before proceeding we must deal with the false binary commonly referred to as “nature vs. nurture” when both attributions are part of a more complex whole; that is, genes express themselves differently in disparate environments6 (hence, race and along great timescales, species), but do not markedly differ along short-timescales. Consider the famous study of mono-zygotic identical twins Harold and Bernard Shapiro, both of whom went on to become the heads of major universities, Princeton for former and McGill for the latter7. Then there is the case of Ann Landers and Abigail Van Buren; not only did both take up careers in newspapers, both specialized as advice columnists and bore remarkably similar political opinions8. Why these cases are so compelling for the purposes of demonstrating the centrality of the composition of the organism is through the fact that mono-zygotic twins are those who developed out of a single sperm which fertilized a single egg, which means they share the same genetic makeup. We shall not belabor the point; the biological expresses itself in tandem with its environment but the biological is the locus of any and all changes which can conceivably take place, whether it is expressed or not. Those who would contest this conclusion can only do so by spuriously trancendentalizing the mind (or biology generally), by reconceptualizing the human brain and it’s production (thought) as something nebulous which is, at most, only tangential to the organ.

1Here deployed as concept, not “as is.”

2Chapter for ‘Gender Codes,’ ed. Tom Misa, IEEE Press, 2010.

3STEM stands for: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathmatics.

4Some worshipers of the Mother Goddess believe that neolithic societies were completely gender-egalitarian due in part or whole to the nature of their religion. Due this belief; they thus look to such societies as models for the future.

5Catherine Hill, et al.,Why So Few? Women In Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, p. xiv

6For further reading on this subject see, Garland Science, Chapter 8, Control of Gene Expression.

7Twin Studies: What Can They Tell Us About Nature & Nurture. p. 1

8Ibid., p. 1

Wymin Resktors


The popular and largely semi-comedic argot thot, meaning That Ho Over There is a acronym which has a decidedly pejorative connotation (stemming mainly from the “ho” part) and is often paired with a “e” (online) such that one can differentiate those “hoes” who “act-out” online from those that do their business largely off of it. It’s a acronym which had found particular popularity within many online circles of the broader dissident right, especially for those with a religious bent who wish to act out fantasy’s of their particular brand of theocracy. These individuals fancy themselves supreme respecters of women and label those females whom they see talking about their pet topics as e-thots should they stray too far from doctrine as they look upon such action as a perversion of the “natural” placing of women within society.

Young woman expresses her disdain for female rejectionism by both leftist and rightist ideologues.

Whilst this may all seem rather trite and unremarkable, memes, just like jokes, often underlie a number of very serious philosophical proclivities. Jon Stewart might indeed be a comedian who makes rather silly jokes but behind the humor is a great deal of conviction and sincerity. Stewart spent the majority of his televised career energetically taking apart the GOP and making them the brunt of the majority of his jokes not just because he thought it would be a good laugh but because he hatred them and blamed them (in many instances rightly) for various conditions of US decay and destruction. His humor was a weapon and one which lionized a whole generation against the Grand Ole Party and everything it stood for. It would be wise to keep this in mind lest one think to themselves “but it’s just a joke.” Jokes are rarely just. This, of course, should not be viewed as some kind of injunction against humor, but simply to remain cognizant of the fact that when humor and politics intermingle, the latter is always using the former in some capacity.


With that said the essential premise of those who utilize this acronym is to “bully” females off of what every platform they are currently utilizing because it is “not their place” whilst simultaneously convincing these very same women that they should drop the “thottery” and just be properly “trad.” It’s rather like walking up to a black man and saying, “Why you gotta be such a nigger? Also, would you mind raking my yard for me whilst I’m away?” It is rare to such a group of people who are so obsessed with persuading and yet so wholly inept at it. These bizarre creature’s ire is heightened when they come into contact with any women who attains a measure of popularity greater than their own. Now, given how scare it is to find a woman willing to, not just talk about politics, but talk about dissident politics, it is only natural that such women’s profiles would rise much faster than any given man’s due to their commonality. In this way women are inherently advantaged and one can easily envision the cries which echo forth from oft ignored content producers: “But this tradthot doesn’t know half the history I do!” It may well be true but should not one simply be happy that more women are talking about ideas which largely cohere with your own? Shouldn’t you be pleased for such success? Shouldn’t you wait to find some evidence for grift before accusing people you don’t in any personal capacity know to be nothing more than whores? I’d certainly say you should if you’ve any semblance of intelligence or ethical integrity. Further more there is the defacto assumption made by such creatures that all of these women are trying to be traditionalists, they just assume it, often without any evidence basis, but if these politically savvy (or attemptedly politically savvy) dissident female commentators are not then the phrase itself is, when there applied, wholly meaningless.

Religious weirdo brags about being so unpleasant towards women that they block him.

If one is serious about one’s political movement, if one wants real change, it should be realized that kicking women out of, not just a movement but politics entirely, for no other reason then the upset of a fragile ego is nothing more than shooting oneself in the foot.