The Gynaeceum

    Women can be granted anonymity in British courts while men cannot
Eduardo” argues that in the old gynaeceum, women were the property of rich men; in its modern incarnation, women are wards of the State



The gynaeceum has its origins in antiquity. It is a house, or section of a house, reserved for women. In their aristocratic form, gynaecea were created by the male elite and were similar to Muslim harems. The medieval gynaeceum was described thus:

[Women’s space] was sharply delineated from the rest of domestic space; a distinctly feminine sense of time prevailed within it. In the chansons de toile, women were seen to be dependent and in a virtual state of rebellion against the institution of marriage. Women’s time was a time of waiting; and was experienced inwardly, and in despair.... Women’s space is closely guarded, for within it resided the women in whom the quality of the lineage was vested. In the gynaeceum, a woman was exalted in her role as mother. Men may enter, but only for a limited time. In parts of the household where multiple female functions were on display (lady, retinue, nurses) spatial functions were absent. In the gynaeceum, the child received its earliest education; the segregation is functional... The women’s group has a very distinctive character. It defines itself in terms of boundaries... Withdrawal is another constant.[1]

The gynaeceum was a secure environment for females. Separated from males, they found a sense of security and safety in numbers. Their masters lavishly provided for them, providing luxury beyond what many might otherwise have known. The occupants of the gynaeceum knew that their purpose concerned lineage and reproduction, as directed by the wealthy male owner of the building.

The political elites of Western nations have created modern gynaecea that are “collective” in nature. The basis of the gynaeceum has not changed; its purpose is still the control of reproduction and the children that are produced.

Draconian court judgments

Today’s gynaecea are, in a sense, too large to be seen. Yet the trend is certainly insidious to those who recognize it. Following the campaign for female suffrage, women view their implicit membership of a gynaeceum as an entitlement. They do not appreciate that they have traded their rights, along with their children’s, for the State’s promise of security. In practice they have been cheated into trading a good man for a distant government.

Many men know there is something wrong with the system, whether they can trace the problem to its roots or not. Draconian court judgments against family members and friends in divorce or child-custody hearings have awoken some suspicions. It is obvious that women are given preferential treatment in family courts and at work. Oppressive rulings against men and the media clamor about “deadbeat dads” have instilled fear in a new generation of males, with widespread effect.

Black ghetto as prototype

In the collective gynaeceum, women are wards of the State, under its care and protection. Any beau wanting sexual intercourse with a female must understand that he is dealing with a protected class, the “property” of the State. If the relationship turns acrimonious, the consequences for the male can be severe. Relationships have become like the mating ritual of the black widow spider, in which the male risks his life engaging a larger and much more powerful female. In many ways the same can be said today about the relation of racially conscious men to women. A male risks his wealth and freedom if he chooses the wrong mate, or if the wrong female chooses him and he is undiscerning. Daniel Amneus makes a comparison with Black males of the American ghetto:

If you drive through a ghetto and see groups of idle black males congregating on street corners, rapping, trading dope, getting stoned, plotting mischief, you realize the same thing. Apart from their function as sperm-providers, these street corner punks are so obviously unfit to be parents that if they tried to horn in on Mom’s reproductive enterprise, she would do what the mother-cat would do to the father-cat – shoo him away.[2]

These Black males have been reduced to the status of breeding stock. As Amneus observes, the Black woman is “sexually irresponsible.” She knows she is free to have intercourse with any male according to her whim. For any child she bears, government has become the “male provider” and furnishes her with the income that the male would otherwise supply to support his family. The Negro male, who is often “job-irresponsible,” understands that she has absolute power over him. He is free to copulate for that instant of gratification without consequence. As soon as she doesn’t want him around, she can call the police to remove him and have him arrested. The male will avoid the police because the ghetto became a police state long ago, and a particularly brutal one. There is virtually no chance for the Negro male to be a father, beyond the original donation of sperm. This state of affairs is now being extended to the White American middle class male.

Cult of Lilith

The media, pursuing its own agenda, has beguiled White women with notions that are contrary to their survival as a people. An ancient religion has been resurrected that preaches a matriarchal society. It persuades young women that the sexes are equal. It encourages girls to believe that cultural norms and taboos are secondary to a woman’s “right to choose.” Underlying these destructive oracles the cabalistic cult of Lilith can be discerned. Fringe elements of misandry were fused together and Lilith soon found her place as supreme deity of the lesbian movement.[3,4] This demon-goddess has been resurrected to lead the spiritual usurpation of a once Christian nation and to destroy, once and for all, the patriarchal society. Every young American woman today knows who Lilith is and what she represents. A generation ago this was not so.

According to Jewish legend Lilith was the demonic first wife of Adam, who demanded equality with him. Such teachings are enthusiastically promoted to young, impressionable women in educational institutions and via the media. It is here that females are taught enmity towards males and the patriarchal family. Since women are considerably more cohesive than men, the propagation of any particular “meme” or myth spreads rapidly as a vogue. We now find our children regurgitating legends that were popular in Isaiah’s time and being encouraged to revert to a mythical former era when women ruled; before the time when men supposedly overthrew the “natural harmony and order” of their she-god, whether it be in the guise of Mother Earth, Lilith or Gaia. Militant feminists claim that all men are rapists and that women are superior. Growing numbers of men are refusing to marry because they distrust the motives of women. This distrust has become the fruit of a poisonous tree, and enmity between the sexes has never been higher. Divorce has been made acceptable for the first time in the history of the West.

Federal enforcement

Statutes have been enacted which severely constrain the male. The Battered Woman’s Act was the first of these. In the years preceding its passage, many news reports appeared suggesting that domestic abuse was widespread. But, as with “hate crimes” today, the news reports misrepresented the nature of the problem to advance a political objective. Particularly, they portrayed males as the sole aggressors. However an analysis by Fiebert of 130 studies found that women, in relationships with spouses or male partners, are just as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men.[5] The Battered Woman’s Act might not have been passed if these studies had been publicized. But they were not, because they were not in accord with the hidden agenda. Instead, feminists, with the support of owners of the “prestige” media such as the New York Times and Washington Post, distorted the truth to advance their anti-woman, anti-man, anti-family and ultimately anti-White campaign.

Both these groups – American feminists and media owners – have a very high proportion of Jewish members. An intriguing parallel exists with the following ancient law, promulgated by Constantius II in 339 AD. The usual interpretation of this law is that the gynaeceum referred to is a state-owned weaving factory staffed by female slaves:

Concerning the women, previously occupied in our gynaeceum, whom Jews have led to share their own shamefulness, it is decided that they should be returned to the gynaeceum, and in the future they [the Jews] are to observe that they must not associate Christian women with their crimes. If they do so, they will suffer capital punishment. (C. Theo. 16.8.6.)

Legislation such as the Battered Woman’s Act is oppressive and implicitly targets the White race, because it is White cultural values which it attacks. Such laws are either ineffectual or half-heartedly enforced in the case of non-Whites, but for Caucasian families have a devastating effect. Unlike normal legal procedures the male is required to prove his innocence if he is accused of domestic abuse or harassment. Advocates for the battered women’s shelter, often male-hating militant lesbian types, encourage these domestic abuse complaints. These centers are supported by public money and execute the expulsion of men from their homes, not according to the Christian legal tradition but in a manner which is entirely consistent with the notion of a massive, State-maintained gynaeceum. In effect, females are in the protection of the State, and a male who is obedient to the State might be given license to one. If he displeases the female however, the State withdraws his license.

Battered women’s shelters and the like take children away from the father and grant custody to the State-approved guardian – the mother. These centers actively prevent reconciliation between husband and wife and promote abortion and divorce. The affidavits offered to women to sign are automated for easy filing and processing. Every technical and legal obstacle which might impede the break-up of a family has been leveled. All a female has to do is claim that she “fears for her safety” and an ex parte order will be signed by a judge or administrative officer to remove the accused from his home. Further contact with his wife and children will be prohibited. A “fear crime” is ambiguous and extremely difficult to disprove. Evidence of physical abuse is not required – all that is necessary is for the female to declare that she is fearful.

Braver, a psychologist at Arizona State University, has documented how allegations of abuse are often invented to gain advantage.[6] Yet incarceration of the male based on accusation alone is common. After the male’s release, he is often expelled from his home and ordered not to return. A magistrate will hear the case, but he will not be allowed to return to his house unless she consents. Not since before the Magna Carta in 1215 AD, which guaranteed a citizen’s right not to be ordered from his home, have such draconian laws been enforced. Yet in recent years tens of thousands of innocent men have been evicted from their property and onto the street, often on perjured affidavits. Nobody is ever prosecuted for such affidavits, even when evidence of perjury is abundant.

‘Deadbeat Dad’ laws in America and Britain

In 1992, the passage of the so-called “Deadbeat Dad” law further stigmatized males and subjected them to ruthless new federal hounding. At the same time, it encouraged women to trade their husbands for this newly formed federal safety net.[7] Again, the media afforded Jewish-feminist militants extensive publicity to pressure Congress to pass the law. This Act – federal code 42 USC Section 666 – federalized child support and provided for its administration in Washington, DC. States were offered federal money if they complied with the guidelines therein. Similarly, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (also known as Welfare Reform) requires that all states collect information about new employees. Under new-hire reporting, employers must supply information to a State Directory of New Hires (SDNH). This Act enables the tracking of every new worker and allows for wage garnishment of all child-support payers. The federal government pays each state an average of three dollars for every dollar of child support collected.

Tax revenue is used to fund an ever-growing bureaucracy of battered women’s shelters, advocacy groups, sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, lobbyists, attorneys and consultants. The Department of Health and Human Services has surpassed the IRS in power and abuse. Confiscation of property, seizure of assets, jailing of debtors and suspension of licenses are some of the methods the DHHS uses against males. Women are encouraged to apply for restraining orders and receive free representation and support. In fact by doing so they are formally entering into the State’s gynaeceum. Then the male will be ordered to pay for having known her. If he chooses to fight this process, no longer is he litigating against his wife. It is the all-powerful State that has become her sugar-daddy, providing all her legal representation at the taxpayer’s expense. And he will find he is facing a tribunal: a court without a jury. The judicial situation in Britain, with fathers hounded and payment ordered by the Child Support Agency, is directly comparable.

Long-term goals: Children

The gynaeceum is very deceptive to women. Ostensibly it promises attractive benefits to draw women into its fold. With the constant stream of propaganda coming forth from the media, and the liberal courses taught at universities, it is no wonder that women are quick to abandon the family structure that is traditional among Whites. The Caucasian male has been traduced to such an extent that he has been entirely debunked in some circles as an essential influence in the family. The male instinct to protect and provide for his spouse and children has been denied and supplanted by a perverted government that has set up a cruel and destructive system for raising children apart from their fathers.

Women have been apotheosized to further their role as an emotional vanguard in implementing a deliberate dismantling of the traditional family. A supra-national government has emerged, matriarchal in flavor, which acts to artificially empower and enrich women. These same forces have acted to reduce the status of men. The underlying goal is to control the nation’s children, a process that has been underway for decades.

Good (and bad) qualities of White women

The good qualities of White females – their natural tenderness, sympathy, concern for the young and helpless, and their compassion and inquisitiveness – have been subverted and turned against the White race. These traits, when not confined to their proper spheres, leave White females vulnerable to the surreptitious tug of media lies. White men are built to provide for and defend their women against influences outside of their own families and kindred. The falsehoods being continually delivered by government institutions and through the electronic media negate the female’s quest to find a strong male provider. Instead, White women are encouraged to break away from the norms of family, kinsfolk, race and religion to be fashionable and obtain a spurious, short-term security.

Researchers Lott and Kenny provide evidence that governmental power increased dramatically as soon as women obtained the vote.[8] However, voting is only the symptom. The deeper cause has been the propaganda influencing their voting. Indeed, women are the largest market segment and a sought-after audience largely, perhaps, because of their impressionable nature.

Using women to incapacitate men

Today’s women have been empowered and “liberated”; they have been given the ability to trade their husband for the collective “male-provider” of government. In doing so, they unwittingly commit their children to be chattels of the State. They submit themselves to a collective gynaeceum under the influence of unseen masters. It is Jewish financiers that are the true power behind governments. These wealthy individuals have made women a protected class – protected against the men that were never at odds with them until our governments fell under their malign, alien influence. They have become the masters and ruling class that have kidnapped our nation’s women. Through the legal structures they have created, they have not only set women against men, they have trapped the only real threat to their power, the White man, in a cage.

It has been through White women, and indoctrinated males, that these anti-family, anti-White plans have become a part of our governance. Militant Jewesses and lesbians have been the actual leaders of the feminist movement, whose hatred of males has been disguised as championing “women’s rights.”[9] The message of these feminist antagonists and their fellow-travelers is treated with credibility and sympathy by the media barons. Enmity against Caucasian males in particular has been implanted into the collective female psyche. This bias can be seen everywhere from the school classroom, to television, to family law.

Insidious propaganda has been used on the female herd to promote a Jewish-feminist ideology and further collectivize women. By controlling women, men are controlled. By controlling children, long-term victory is practically assured. The vassal families described in Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha were slaves from birth and were beset by an ill-intentioned ruling class. A similar situation exists today under an alien, feminine government and its gynaeceum.



As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. Isaiah 3:12.




Notes

1. Phillipe Aries and Georges Duby, eds., A History of Private Life. Vol. 2: Revelations of the Medieval World. The Belknap imprint of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1987.

2. Daniel Amneus, The Case For Father Custody, p. 4, Primrose Press, 2000.

3. Judy Weinberg, ‘All You Ever Wanted to Know about Lilith!,’ Lilith magazine, Fall 1976.

4. Eustace Mullins, The Curse of Canaan, A Demonology of History, Revelation Books, Virginia, p. 4, 1987.

5. Martin S. Fiebert, ‘References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Biography.’ Sexuality and Culture, Vol. 1, 1997. Updated on the website of the Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach.

6. Sanford L. Braver, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, Penguin, 1998.

7. Carol Hopkins is the former Executive Director of the Justice Committee, S. D. District Attorney’s Ad Hoc Committee on Child Abuse, San Diego County’s Child Protection Services Task Force, and a board member of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. She has estimated that more than ninety percent of allegations against men are false.

8. John Lott and Lawrence Kenny, ‘Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?,’ Journal of Political Economy, December 1999.

9. Wassily Leontief, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, International Science Press Inc., White Plains, NY, 1953.




      Main Directory      

–– The Heretical Press ––