A mother in the U.K. (Sarah Hall of Newcastle) recently achieved some notoriety when several news outlets reported that she had called for the story of “Sleeping Beauty” to be banned from schools. Sleeping Beauty, you may recall, does not give Prince Charming permission to kiss her. She is, after all, asleep. Mrs. Hall states: “While we are still seeing narratives like this in school, we are never going to change ingrained attitudes to sexual behavior. In today’s society, it isn’t appropriate.”
The obvious problem here is that Sleeping Beauty is under a spell, and if she is not kissed (non-consensually) she will sleep for eternity (or for 100 years, depending on which version of the story you consult). Apparently, Mrs. Hall finds eternal sleep preferable to being subjected to the unwanted advances of a handsome stranger. And, predictably, the usual chorus of feminist harpies has registered their agreement. There’s some deep and significant (and troubling) symbolism here — and it’s on multiple levels. This isn’t the first time that the Left has objected to “Sleeping Beauty,” by the way. Feminists were outraged by the recent film Passengers (see Trevor Lynch’s review here) in which a prematurely-awakened space traveler, on a decade’s long trip to a distant planet, awakens a female companion for himself, without her permission.
Let’s start with the origins of the “Sleeping Beauty” story then move on to its interpretation.
You will find “Sleeping Beauty” in the Brothers Grimm. Surprisingly, it’s an orally transmitted rendition of a French fairy tale written by Charles Perrault and published in 1697. However, this story was in turn based on sources from the fourteenth century. And these are thought to have still deeper roots. One is the story of “Brünnhilde” immortalized — much later — in Wagner’s Ring. This character is an amalgamation of Sigurdrifa (a Valkyrie) in the Poetic Edda and Brynhild (who may or may not be a Valkyrie) in the Volsung Saga.
Sigurd encounters Sigurdrifa when he approaches a mountain fortress which glows “as though a fire burned there.” Going inside, he finds the sleeping Valkyrie, who has been put to sleep magically by Odin, as a punishment for disobeying him. Sigurd cuts off her armor, and wakes her. In the Volsung Saga, Brynhild (apparently the same character), appears in much the same circumstances. Here it is made clear, however, that Odin has surrounded her with a ring of fire. It is implied (and made quite explicit in Wagner) that he does this to ensure that whoever wakens Brynhild/Sigurdrifa will be a man who is consummately brave and capable — who, in fact, knows no fear. There is no kiss, but it is pretty obvious that “Sleeping Beauty” is indebted to these sources. In “Sleeping Beauty” the ring of fire becomes a forest of thorns.
Later in the story of “Sleeping Beauty” — in a segment omitted from most versions presented to children today — the Wicked Queen plots to cook the King’s children and serve them to him at dinner, a motif taken directly from the Volsung Saga (it is part of the terrible revenge carried out by Gudrun). It appears that the Brothers Grimm retained “Sleeping Beauty” in their compilation of stories precisely because of these Germanic influences, despite at a certain point purging all tales that showed a French influence.
Now, one doesn’t have to be a Freudian to believe that fairy tales have deeper meanings, some of them purely psychological. What does “Sleeping Beauty” have to teach us? Note that in order to kiss Sleeping Beauty and waken her, Prince Charming (he has different names in the sources) must prove himself worthy. He must overcome fear — in this case, he must triumph over the forest of thorns in order to reach her. In Wagner’s version of the Brünnhilde/Bryhild story, this element is displaced: Sigfried/Sigurd feels no fear at all passing through the ring of fire, and feels fear only when, for the first time in his life, he sees a woman.
As it is in the fairy tale, so it is in life. The man is the one, typically, who acts: he must overcome his fear and demonstrate his boldness to the woman in order to win her. This quite often includes what we call “making the first move”: e.g., kissing her without asking her permission. When the man does this, and if the woman desires him as well, then she is “awakened” to herself as a woman. It is the man’s role to be bold; to take decisive action to impress and win her. Boldness of necessity involves not asking first: whether this means leaning in to give her a kiss, or simply asking her out. All men are tested by women in this manner; all women issue a challenge to men: “you must win me” (whether she realizes it or not, as I shall discuss at length).
It is the man’s role to be bold, and the woman’s role (and fulfillment) to surrender to his boldness. (I am assuming I do not need to convince my readers that boldness is a biologically desirable trait in a man, and that this is why women are hard-wired to look for it in potential mates.) This surrender always depends on other factors as well, such as physical attractiveness. (Quasimodo may show himself bold in the end, but Esmeralda is not going to choose him as a mate.) In his winning boldness, and in her willing surrender to it, the man is actualized as man, and the woman as woman. Her submission, as I have emphasized, is fully active and chosen. (Except, of course, in the case of rape — in which case the woman cannot be said to have granted submission at all, and it is certainly not submission based on recognition of the man’s worthiness.)
In yielding to a man’s boldness, the woman blossoms as woman, and fully flowers when she carries the man’s child. The woman does consent to surrender, but only after the man has demonstrated his boldness: only when he has “made the first move,” without asking her permission (again, this is precisely what makes his action bold). In short, what women genuinely want from men, and need, requires the man not to ask first.
Now, state any of the above to a woman and you may be assured that you will bring down a storm upon you the likes of which you have never seen before. Ask a woman to consider any of the above in the abstract, as a theory, and she will be horrified. This is not because women are incapable of rational thought — this is, feminists have rightly said, a sexist myth. No, women are quite capable of rational thought — within certain contexts. The trouble is that while woman has a rational mind, she is not of the rational mind.
Men, by contrast, truly are of the mind: their reactions, and desires, and preferences are much more often the result of conscious deliberation than is the case with woman. And men are much more readily satisfied in life by the use of the mind: it is one form in which man overcomes or conquers the world he is given. To know is to remove the alienness or otherness of the world in thought; to make it one’s own. All the things that satisfy a man are just various inflections of conquering and overcoming — solving an intellectual problem, planting his flag on conquered territory, winning a match, or winning a woman.
Woman has a mind — and some women even have great minds — but they are not, generally speaking, satisfied as women by the use of the mind. Nor are they satisfied, by extension, with any of the other forms of overcoming/conquering of which, as just now stated, the use of the mind is but one inflection. Woman does not seek to conquer, but it is not exactly true to say that she seeks to be conquered. She seeks to be desired — by the best (for further information, see F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power). And with that desire fulfilled, she is capable of creatively birthing and nurturing a whole host of other things.
Woman’s creativity is not, like man’s, a matter of overcoming. This is why there are so few female scientists, philosophers, and explorers. Instead, woman’s creativity is a matter of nurturing or drawing out inner potential from what already is. We see this very obviously in motherhood and in homemaking, and in the professions in which women dominate: nursing (91%), elementary and middle school teaching (81.8%), social work (80.8%), human resources managers (69%), veterinarians (56%), etc. We see it even in the difference between the mysticism of men (like Meister Eckhart) and women (like Hildegard of Bingen): the male, that seeks to penetrate the mystery and know, the female, that seeks to be aflame with it and consumed.
In contrast to men, who are not only much more satisfied by the use of the reasoning mind, but whose lives are (for better or worse) dominated by it, there is a disconnect in woman — no matter how intelligent she is — between her mind and her reactions, desires, and preferences. All men are aware of this — aware that this disconnect is often radical. It is precisely what makes it so hard for the sexes to communicate; this is the “mystery” of woman, that no man will solve. The maddening inexplicableness of women manifests itself most obviously in the disconnect between what women say they want and what they seem actually to want. This is seldom ever because women are being deceptive; i.e., actively concealing their real wants. No, the disconnect between the mind of woman and the rest of her being — including her desires and her ultimate good — is truly real: she does not know, with her mind, what she wants.
This is the reason “no” has become such a problematic word in our culture, when said by a woman to a man (when said by a man to a woman it has been problematic from time immemorial). In the past, men knew that “no” really did not always mean “no” and boldly kissed anyway — aware, in many cases, from other cues that her words did not convey her true feelings. If the woman did not, in fact, want the man she simply made it known — and usually gave the man credit for his boldness anyway. But if the woman did indeed want the man, she would “give herself” to him, in stages — as she gave herself unresistingly to that first, unrequested kiss.
Oh, how times have changed.
If a woman wants a man in this day and age, matters are actually much the same as they were in the past: she credits his boldness (i.e., judges him worthy) and again gives herself to him in stages (and the more stages involved, the more she shows herself to be worthy). However, if today a woman does not want a man, then that bold kiss becomes “harassment” or even “assault,” because she did not give consent! Needless to say, in the case where she desires the man and admires his boldness, she did not give consent either. But, magically, in such a case no “harassment” or “assault” has taken place.
Normally, when we judge whether harassment or assault have occurred, the intent or state of mind of the accused must be taken into consideration. For example, if I lose my balance and fall on you and injure you, I cannot be charged with assault because I did not intend to assault you. But where a man is the accused and a woman the accuser, feminists want to hang everything on the woman’s state of mind. The mysterious, mercurial state of the woman’s mind which she herself does not know. In short: if woman is attracted to man then an unbidden kiss is fine, if she is not attracted to him then an unbidden kiss is assault. If she likes the unbidden kiss, that means candlelight dinners and rolls in the hay. If she dislikes the unbidden kiss, that means the man’s arrest and rolls in the hay with his black cellmate. The obvious injustice of this is lost on many women — certainly on feminists.
That this puts men in a terrible predicament has already been commented on by many who came to this subject before me. What are men to do? Women desire boldness, but think that they don’t. If a man happens to display that desirable boldness it’s anybody’s guess whether he will be warmly received, or be packed off to jail, lose his livelihood, or be kicked out of college. On the other hand, if men give women what they THINK they want and ask “Please, ma’am, may I kiss you?” they will be dismissed by women as gelatinous beta males.
Still worse is what constitutes “rape” in some women’s minds. As has been widely discussed in the manosphere, young women are being encouraged today to believe that if they regret having sex with a man, then they must not really have wanted it; and if they didn’t really want it then it wasn’t really consensual, and if it wasn’t really consensual then it was “rape.” Thus, even if a woman explicitly says “yes” to a man,” there is a possibility she may not mean it — or may later on think she didn’t mean it — in which case she may regret it, in which case she may say she was “raped,” in which case his life will be ruined.
Obviously, this puts men in an awful bind: they must not make any advances without explicit permission, but the woman may not really “mean” the permission, so getting the permission means nothing. There is no way that a man can be safe; no way, in fact, that he can even give women what they say they want. By the way, things like this do not happen by accident: this bind has been created as a revenge against men by a few self-aware, high testosterone women who in turn manipulate legions of comparatively normal, but thoroughly confused girls. Hell hath no fury like penis envy.
Men “going their own way” is the inevitable outcome of this. As well as an intense, seething misogyny. A misogyny that feminism has always seen under every bed, but which didn’t really exist until feminism hatched it.
We are compelled to say, with Howard Beale, this is mass madness, you maniacs. And indeed it is: we are living with the peculiar madness of women who have been “freed” from the boldness of men. That boldness has traditionally shown women what they want — not through reasoning, but precisely through the means women are always telling men they need more often to avail themselves of: feelings. It is the boldness of men that releases women from the state of “not knowing what they want,” and awakens them to their true feelings. It awakens them to their own femininity, to the actualization of their deepest essence.
Feminism has “freed” women from ever knowing that satisfaction. Women have now created a situation in which they are armored (like the Valkyrie) against men — armored against ever coming to know what it is they really want; armored against ever achieving true fulfillment. It is only through the boldness of men that they can ever come to themselves, a boldness they have now forbidden through legal threats and moral recrimination.
Feminists don’t want Sleeping Beauty to wake up. They want her to keep slumbering: the slumber of abstractions, theories, categorical imperatives, and other mental gyrations, all of which are completely alien to the essence of woman. From this slumber of inauthentic intellectualism, woman’s mind creates nightmares, for herself and others. For her: the nightmare of unfulfilled sexuality, the nightmare of barrenness, the nightmare of exclusively dating cucks and beta males who perfectly fit her mental notion of what a man should be, but leave her entirely cold. For him, she creates the nightmares of never really knowing when it’s okay to be a man (to be bold), of having to feel guilt over his natural impulses, of having to fear every time he touches a woman. For both, there is the nightmare of loneliness, and sterility.
What is the answer to this?
It would be easy to enjoin men to be bolder — to wrest control from feminism; to conquer that forest of thorns and kiss her, no matter what she says. But the reality is that that could land you in jail. And no one would defend you. Least of all the other males, who all want to get along with their wives or girlfriends by denouncing you in the Two Minutes Hate just like everyone else. It would also be easy to say “play the game.” Wait until she tells you it’s okay, and hope that she doesn’t regret it later. But if you give women what they say they want — if you fail to be bold — then regardless of what they say, you plant little seeds of contempt: her contempt for you, and your contempt for yourself.
And the trouble with MGTOW is that all these problems are almost exclusively white people’s problems. If we go our own way, women — still always unconsciously seeking what they really want — will look to the bold men of other races. Those men break every rule of feminism but get a free pass because they are not white. Even when they commit rape, as we are seeing now in Sweden. Why are Swedish women, who must now be escorted by police when they go jogging, eagerly welcoming rapey, non-white invaders with those “refugees welcome” signs? These white women have thoroughly ruined and castrated white men in the name of what they think they want. And now it seems as if the deep chthonic power of what they really want cries out for their perimeter to be penetrated by a new, bolder race of men who will refuse to listen to any of their crap (which is what they secretly desire).
Who possesses our women, possesses our future. If we go our own way, our race goes the way of the dodo.
To truly overcome the problems discussed in this essay, there would need to be a radical, societal change — and I mean from the ground up. For the feminist follies are not an isolated perversion. Rather, feminism springs from deeply set modern beliefs that divorce the mind from the body, deny biology, and insist on a radical notion of self-creating freedom without limits. This modern madness is at the root of almost all our problems — not just feminism, but racial egalitarianism, relativism, environmentalism (as opposed to hereditarianism), “transgender,” “social construction,” and much else.
Because feminism is part of the larger tapestry of modern decay — a logical outgrowth of the whole shebang — there is no real solution to feminist blight other than the destruction of the modern world as we know it. Short of this, we can only hope that more women have the sense to see that feminism is incompatible with human happiness (both men’s and women’s): the sense to see that they want and need that “unconsented” kiss. In truth, more and more sleeping beauties seem to be waking up to the fact that feminism has sold them a lemon — but for some, sadly, it’s too late. Feminism promises women only eternal sleep, and eternal sleep is death. The death of sexual fulfillment, the death of relations between the sexes, and the death of our race.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Jonathan Bowden’s The Cultured Thug
Are We (Finally) Living in the World of Atlas Shrugged? Part 2
Are We (Finally) Living in the World of Atlas Shrugged? Part 1
What’s the Matter with “Social Metaphysics”?
On the Probable Salutary Effects of a More Proactive Approach to Schooling
For Lesbians Only
Eva Herman, 17 Years Later
The Fountainhead: 80 Years Later