I climbed into a public transport bus a week or so ago; and the ease with which at least two of the women that were to share the ride with me instantly took the opportunity to reveal parts of their bodies usually well-clad in public, made me realise how apt my assessment is of a woman's reaction to money and power - when in a man; as the women obviously thought was in me, and as it usually is in a man. However, the air - some time into the ride home in that bus (not only disappointed, but disgruntled) - with which the women then covered up those parts of their bodies that they had initially thought me worthy enough to leave unclad in my presence (covered up, obviously, after they had realised that I was most probably one of those that the more lousy in our generation would call "losers;" and who are usually poor, weak, and downtrodden) that disappointed air was just a little bit rather unflattering, the instant I noticed it; and amusing, days later, when I stopped to recollect the incident.
Money-maker. That is that which certain young musicians in the United States once labelled the woman's body as. And the honest human behavioural scientists will all agree with me when I state that a woman's instantaneous reaction to a suitor (real, or imagined) is with the question, "Can he take care of me - be it with money, or with power?"
Even women older and supposedly more respectable (for usually being grandmothers) are not left out of this charade. On that very same ride I have referred to above (and bringing in a spiritual aspect to the incident, which consists of the nudity of my mind which at least a couple of the women in the bus were privy to) one of them - old enough to be a grandmother, carrying a baby in her arms - had another (the young mother of the baby, sitting right next to her) say unto her concerning a young woman (a girl, then; a young housemaid in what was then my home, a very long time ago) that I could not help remembering often, being she whom I first knew - in almost all aspects and ramifications of the Biblical sense - and who I was thinking of at that very point in time, "Even that housemaid may now be a respectable woman driving her own car."
And the "respectable grandmother" with the baby in her arms then gave to the young mother a brief two-minute lecture on the work men had to do, in order to be men - obviously to make me (with her being certain of how clearly I would overhear her words) to make me learn why those of the women in the bus that had initially flaunted flesh now had their bodies properly clad, and accompanied by a disgruntled reaction to any glance of mine in their direction.
The incident may not have amused me as much as it did (proving - as it does - the word "money-maker" not being mere abuse, but apt description) had it not culminated in an aspect that proves even more conclusively my words concerning homosexuality and heterosexuality in both the man and the woman. For, as the journey proceeded, one of those that had flaunted flesh - initially (who, until she got to her destination, could not keep her eyes off the young mother) then gave - just before she alighted - what I knew to be a "come on," to the young mother; by granting what an innocent onlooker would take to be a good Samaritan's conscientious act in removing dirt from the latter's hair. And the "come on" may not even have been unwarranted, for it came just after the "respectable young mother" may have been reacting to the good Samaritan's "all eyes' " attention; by beginning breastfeeding, with no attempt to conceal the thereby exposed bosom.
"Come on's," in the male homosexual community, usually consists of rather gross means such as taking a bit longer than it took to urinate; to display in a public space the penis it took to urinate. But between lesbian women, come on's are subtler - as was that which I just wrote of; which would not have the average empty-headed man wonder why, between two absolute strangers, in a public space. Subtle enough to prove that which I write concerning women, money, and power; which is that the former considers the last two in a potential sex partner, only when the partner is male. When female, and with the lesbian bent; all that is taken into account is the other women's sexual orientation.
Which makes me wonder no more why the disappointed and disgruntled air with which the women in the bus took pains to conceal their bodies only after they had realised that I was bereft of money and power, yet uttered not one word concerning the obvious come on that would not have been a secret to the average one of them as the "green light" it obviously was; and that has me amused when I remember the grandmotherly words with which the "respectable grandmother" sought to have me learn - with words she knew I would overhear - that heterosexuality in me could be approved by the women in the bus (at the very least) only if I was a "respectably hard-working man;" but that lesbianism (even in a woman breast-feeding) could always be condoned by each and every one of them.
The word a woman would use is "smart."
The word a man would use is "brave."
The difference between the two marks the cunning with which the average woman strives to con a man into business, rather than battle - the pursuit of money, regardless of how emasculated the shoes he wears (be it as respectably as an employed intellectual, or as pitifully as an unemployed university graduate) rather than the pursuit of the power that marks the difference between a man and a woman. And, if you believe the words with which Fela Anikulapo-Kuti once criticized one of the richest womanisers that ever emerged from Nigeria; with absolutely no regard for the honesty with which even money should be earned.
How the cunning of women and the hypocrisy of men often strive to deprive a naive man of strength, even after he has seen through their antics enough to have acquired power; is not only a source of amusement to me, but of disdain - however contradictory that may sound. From the "You no need am" cunning (even from a woman supposedly wanting the best for me as much as a mother should) that has robbed me of over a decade of my life, if I do not count the years before I saw through the hypocrisy; to the war that even the foolish amongst them can wage on me (due to my being emasculated) and that the wicked have begun to wage on me because they have realised I will wage war on them for their being the rapists, the robbers, and the fraudsters that then sought to deprive me of even that strength - and (even more despicable) as much as the products of my sweat - it is obvious that the scribes and the Pharisees that locked The Christ out of life remain ever with us; when we're foolish enough to listen to mothers that want to emasculate sons, and fathers that would that a boy be not a man.
It takes a whole lot more than the vagina to give birth to a child. And the women that are lauded most for the agony of that child birth are even more usually the ones that are least willing to give birth to a child, most especially when male. Had Mary not been she that actually offended Jesus, women would not be they that beg God most for the offence today - under the pretext of being Christians. And they obviously suffer most the trials and the tribulations that they often mistake to be the products of sexism (even in a society that has apparently approved of their graduation from being liberated to being empowered) because The LORD God has seen through their antics.
The Virgin Mary, one of the most respectable of such women, from a generation preceding theirs, murdered Jesus so successfully (both with all the cunning characterising her gender, and with all the hypocrisy characterising that of the male) that he is known today by such as those that crucified him as "The Shame, Yesterday, Today, And Forever." And then, when they're in the presence of the simple religious, they replace the word "shame" with the word "same." As though a God that forgives can ever be said to be the same.
In this generation, they would have simply called him a loser - even when on their knees, in church, and supposedly worshipping him.
My own God is GOD, The Creator; and I can worship no other God: for we are told even by one of the sacred books that we should "Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come, and the years draw nigh, when you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them.' " He is my God, because He is the only God that knows in what an important part of life the "pleasure" should be most valued.
And that says a lot for the "You no need am" cunning that women are never forward enough to put into such words, concerning the pleasure that is their domain - and that they always believe is a man's goal once he begins to strive (however old he may be, however nigh the evil days are) for the independence of manhood. And on the side of the usually more blatant means by which men strive to drive the "You no need am" hypocrisy down the throats of other men, the "You no need am" hypocrites that locked The Christ out of life would receive the same condemnation today; even should they come as the respectful lawyers that then had him addressed as "Teacher," they would be told....
"For you have taken away the key of knowledge."
Human history amongst such of the wicked and the hypocrite is yet to know which words will be the final judgment concerning I, Ikoro Iyineleda; between the word "shame," and the word "same." Last year, while living the year in a house paid for at my mother's expense, it was more of the latter - according to those women who always want a man to be a neutered Alsatian carrying out the battles of life for them. Today, I ignore them with a fanatical passion. And by the end of this year, after having begun the year by moving back into a house built at my father's expense (and with the hypocrisy of heterosexual men having been made even more obvious by their tongues not being as troublesome) I will see whether I will eventually end up being judged by humanity as sternly as I know GOD, my God, will judge the hypocrisy of emasculation by the always heterosexual barbarians that call themselves men. For true manhood has absolutely nothing to do with the raging that is the forte of the bully.
Paul once lived in Rome two whole years at his own expense. He was not living with a father. He was not living with a mother. He was not emasculated. And neither can any man be emasculated who realises that even the word applies only to men.
Women are never emasculated. They never have a manhood to lose.
Men? They often deprive another of it.
I will not say more, for now.
The Lords In Fairy Empires is a fraternity that was found partly for such others with a homosexual orientation, or/and emasculated; be it by the cunning of women, or by the hypocrisy of men, or by both; that they may have not just a life, but L.I.F.E. - rather than being locked out of life by the "lawyers" that take away the key of knowledge.
L.I.F.E.
Lords In Fairy Empires.
titi lai lai.
No comments:
Post a Comment