When, some years ago, the ILP user known as MagnetMan claimed that women make better rulers than men, I partially agreed with him. I suggested that that applied in times of peace or stability; in times of war or crisis, however, men make better rulers. This corresponds to the exoteric order of rank found in Hindu society:
[size=95]From the exoteric socio-religious point of view, Vishnu is superior to Bhairava, who is no more than the terrible policeman god protecting the boundaries of the socio-religious community and, as door-keeper, the access to its temples from hostile external forces. [Source: Chalier, The Apollonian Vishnu and the Dionysian Bhairava". Note that, in Harihara, Vishnu occupies the same place respective to Shiva as Parvati does in Ardhanarishvara.][/size]
According to this article, that is because:
[size=95]The terrifying divinity of transgression can never become the object of public cult as such, and the only means for him to receive communal worship is by transforming himself into the equally terrifying protector-god for a more central pacific and benign divinity. [Source: ibid.][/size]
I however contend that this, too, only applies in times of peace or stability. This contention is actually supported by another article by the same writer(s):
[size=95]Vishnu embod[ies] the vector uniting the profane [i]kshatriya /i with the pure pole of Brahmâ to generate the religious image of the king as the protector and even pivot of the socio-religious order (dharma), and Rudra incarnat[es] the vector linking him with the transgressive pole of Brahmâ to generate the equally religious image of the king as the savage destroyer in the impurity of the hunt and the violence of battle. [Source: Chalier, “Mitra-Varuna and the niravasita-Bhairava”.][/size]
The police is the intrasocial counterpart of the military, which is intersocial. Now whereas in times of peace or stability, it suffices to regard the police as an indispensable servant (“To Protect and Serve”), in times of war or crisis, society’s survival requires that everything be openly subordinated to the military:
[size=95]On Carthage’s horizon, the joys of love and peace were rare luxuries; the abiding reality was war, the terrifying threat of extinction by her enemies. During those threats, “filled as they now were with hatred, they turned frankly towards Homicidal Moloch and all forsook Tanith.” “Moloch was in possession of Carthage.” During one of Carthage’s perpetual military crises when “the tyranny of the male principle” reigned supreme, even Tanith’s chief eunuch priest abandons her for Moloch. [Source: Neumann, “Liberalism’s Moloch”, quoting from Flaubert’s Salammbo.][/size]
Now it cannot be overemphasised that this subordination occurs ultimately for the sake of Tanith, “the female principle”:
[size=95]Moloch exists to protect the realm of Tanith. In endangered cities such as Carthage, this protection was a perpetual need. The Carthaginian woman was responsible for the domestic hearth while her men fought to preserve its sacred flame. […] The Carthaginian woman did not enjoy equality of rights although—or because—she was at the heart of Carthaginian life. She was the center of the home for which her men fought their perpetual wars. [Source: ibid.][/size]
But liberalism’s Moloch—as opposed to a non-cosmopolitan Moloch such as Carthage’s or Sparta’s (Ares)—“is satisfied with nothing less than that realm’s extirpation, the obliteration of its sacredness.” (ibid.) Note that Yahweh is actually Israel’s war god, i.e., its Moloch, who under Christianity became the cosmopolitan Moloch. The step from Christianity to Humanism is simply the next step in the liberalisation process that began with early Christianity but whose seed was already sown by Israel’s refusal to let go of Yahweh after its complete military defeat which led to the Babylonian Captivity (see my “Nietzsche Contra Wilders”).
Because of that liberalisation process, the Western woman now enjoys equality of rights—most notably the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I contend, however, that her liberty ultimately thwarts her pursuit of happiness. Insofar as she still has a woman’s instinct, she at the very least feels that her liberty must be compensated for by some kind of—bondage… She feels she deserves to be punished. And indeed, in The Laws of Manu (VII.25), Punishment is described as stalking about with a black hue and red eyes. This suffices to warrant an identification with Bhairava.
[size=95][F]rom the esoteric standpoint of transgressive sacrality, Vishnu himself recognizes Bhairava as the supreme divinity. [Source: Chalier, “The Apollonian Vishnu and the Dionysian Bhairava”.][/size]
This is like saying that the Western woman wants to submit, in private, to a real, i.e., a dominant, man, who is to discipline her for her public libertinism. And indeed, it’s no coincidence that Fifty Shades of Grey is so popular!