I'm tempted to stop there. Didn't that last line have that nice, "closing line" ring to it? But there's a difference between practical philosophy and oratory.

Getting away from the source of so much of the bad social conditioning of so many in our generations is a start, but it's not enough. One must deal with what is already inside of so many of us, in an environment in which the rules help insure that the discussions will not be over before they even have a chance to begin. Yes, one has a right to speak freely, but that right is not an absolute one, unbounded by any limitations. The golden age of Political Correctness, back during the 1990s, should have taught us that the hope for absolute freedom in this area is an illusion.

We've all seen social pressure brought to bear to silence those who had done nothing to deserve such treatment, using nothing, really, but the misuse of speech itself. Rights cease to be unlimited ones when one person, in exercising his rights without recognizing any limitations upon them, will undermine the freedom of another who seeks to exercise those same rights. Nobody will deny, for example, that one has a right to draw water from a well on one's own property. It does not follow from this, however, that the community should have nothing to say, should one decide to bring in a high power pump and draw water until the soil is dry. In matters of right, one recognizes that there is such a thing as knowing when one has had one's share, sometimes even when dealing with that which is far more intangible than water, such as free speech.

In this, as in so many other areas, what hould be sought is not absolute freedom, but the greatest level of general freedom which can be maintained in the long term. Perhaps you have come across the article entitled "The Universal Base Code of Morality" while wandering this site. In part that article, which refers to a set of minimal ethical expectations common to many cultures, though explored from the perspective of one in particular, is an exploration and defense of the Hellenic dicta (given our theological assumptions), and thus relevant from a specifically Hellenistic point of view. But it also points to a standard of civilized speech that allows us to know when some of us have gone too far, without creating a speech code of the sort which has been put to such oppressive and disreputable use in the last few years.

The minimal (and very traditional expectations) set in place by this code, as we have said, form a good dividing line seperating the ill-intentioned from the misguided, so when speech that is in no real way at odds with these basic values is greeted with an attempt at browbeating, one has to ask why. This would seem to be an offense against the value of civility, as defined here. When this is done on behalf of a philosophy which, like Radical Feminism, teaches that the suffering of men is a good thing because of some alleged inheritence of historical guilt, aside from asking some of these alleged "Pagans" why they seem so desperate to come up with a new form of the concept of "original sin", we should reoognize that this is at odds with the notion of benevolence - it is incivility in the service of Evil. (1) Without hesitation, we will show these people the door. If somebody is a Radical Feminist, she is not welcome here. If she ever was, as far as we're concerned, she has some serious atoning to do. Likewise for other politically correct hatemongers and busybodies.

Not that we're about to pay lip service, any more, to feminism in any form, not even to the notion of gender equality, really. On an abstract level, that sounded like a wonderful idea, but, again, the 90s changed everything. As absurd as Political Correctness became and still is, (2) those who pushed it found that when men stood up for their principles and self-respect and said "no" to the demands placed on them, that they could almost invariably get to those dissidents through the women in their lives. Lean on the girlfriend and the boyfriend crumbles unless he wants the girlfriend to leave him - so went the theory, and it often worked, far too often, much to the delight of the craziest and most corrupt in our midst, who exploited this vulnerability with glee. Let the boyfriend (or husband) suggest that the girlfriend (or wife) should not let herself be bullied or otherwise raise the issue of this practice of using the loved ones of others are proxies, and the stock feminist reply would come "are you saying that I'm not strong?". But that, demonstrably, is what women aren't, the vast majority of the time, regardless of what it may be that we're "supposed" to believe.

In light of this, the moderate patriarchy of our (non-Anglo-Saxon) grandparents, in which the woman was encouraged to have thoughts and ambitions of her own but the man was clearly recognized as being the stronger of the two and was accorded a little more authority in light of this recognition) would seem a prudent thing to return to, and it is what we will practice here. When we see the childish, appeasement-based standards of conflict resolution used at female-run groups like the House of Netjer, we are forced to recognize that the experiment of giving more power to women has not been accompanied by any real growth on the part of the women being empowered, and for this reason has been a failure that only promises to get worse, the further it is pursued. If one can't handle a small amount of power in a mature fashion, how likely is it that one would do any better, given a great deal of power?

There is something to be said for the concept of "man the protector", and "woman the nurturer", however "backward" some may find these traditional roles to be. Abandoning them lead to a grave loss of personal freedom in the short one and public sanity in the long run; to keep them is to take into account the needs (and weaknesses) of all. Those who object to this are urged to go elsewhere. Enough is enough.

As is so often the case, the traditional ways are the ones that turn out to be the most liberating. (Note : more to be added later, as time allows. Now, let us return to Sex and the Single Pagan).

(1) I capitalize "Evil" for a reason, because when one takes off the Neo-Pagan Relativistic blinders, one can see exactly who it is that is served - Eris, the goddess of Discord, who has historically seemed to embody Evil quite successfully.

One should disinguish between the Eris of ancient myth and the Eris of the Principia Discordia, who seems to be more a deity of rebellion, lightheartedness, and practical jokes, than one of spite. (We're speaking of the former, in the passage above). This has lead to the occasional joke that Hermes (whose historical personality is more like the one the Erisians ascribe to their goddess) has pulled the ultimate prank : appeared in drag and fooled the humans into mistaking him for his cousin.

Gods, to be sure, do seem to evolve in time, as outraged as many of the ancients probably would have been by this suggestion. Certainly Ishtar, as she was imagined to be in Babylonian times, was not the compassionate presence that Aphrodite is known to be, even though concepts of Aphrodite derived ultimately from older concepts of Ishtar. Perhaps Eris might evolve likewise, a more human (and humane) deity arising as the force of nature that the old deity was puts on a more human face. But, we would suggest, it is important to remember that the old force of nature, the deity's subconscious (perhaps) is always there and should be dealt with warily.

The ancients would mention harmful aspects of the Olympians who would be asked to depart. I wonder if, should there actually be a new Eris, whether the old one might linger on as such an aspect - one which the worshipper would do well to dispel before seeking any sort of deeper communion with the positive aspect of Eris. One might even consider giving that positive aspect a new name much as, so that one's own subsconscious mind might not be confused. I can report that I've seen a number of people casually seek an intense connection with Eris by name, later on showing signs of deteriorating moral standards and some truly, unpleasantly bizarre thought processes, much as one would expect had they established a bond, not to Omar Ravenhurst's lighthearted deity, but the malevolent companion of Ares mentioned in antiquity (according to Hesiod, mother of Sorrow, Disease, Murder, Massacres, Lies, and a host of other equally lovable children).

This is a point that I think Historical Reconstructionists ought to play up a little more : these beings we speak of may very well be real and the experiences of more than a few suggest that they are. Some of them aren't very nice and some can be dangerous to one's sanity at the very least. Given this, isn't it a little foolish to ignore several millenia of recorded human experience in dealing with the gods, should one choose to do so, oneself? Neo-Paganism, some of us would maintain, isn't so much a religion as it is willful blindness.

(2) elsewhere on this site, I mention the person who maintained that the ancient Egyptians had harnessed electricity and went on the attack when contradicted on this point.