Do females have a Y-chromosome?  No, they don’t.  Then why should they have or be given names that begin with a Y, like Yancy or Yogini or Yulia or Yasmin or Yoni or Yoko, or whatever.  To me, it is on a par with what I call hair-hype, as and when females have their hair brushed or combed back in patent denial of a fringe.  One would think they were subjective, introspective, and so thoughtful that anything remotely objective-looking like a fringe, never mind a youthful pudding-basin style of hair, could only be psychologically irrelevant!  More could be done to discourage females from playing God, especially since it saves males from having to exert themselves on that account – though that is probably the way most of them like it.


As for me, I could never take any interest in a female who had her hair combed back, even if she didn’t also have a forename that began with Y or constantly dressed in jeans or pants in a blatant rejection of her gender.  Neither could I accept one whose name was Grace, or even Joy, even if she didn’t also consider herself blessed and worthy of Heaven.  Either males have been largely ignorant of the true nature of females or they have covertly if not overtly encouraged them to give themselves divine airs and graces in order not to have to face up to their own responsibilities in that regard and/or in order to have a better opinion of women than the facts – if they were known – would warrant. 


Doubtless the back-to-front religious traditions that place God – as Creator – at the beginning and are paradoxically rooted in the delusion of Devil-the-Mother hyped as God-the-Father, or metachemistry hyped as metaphysics, or cosmos hyped as universe, are partly if not largely responsible for this self-deceiving state-of-affairs.  Yet anyone with an ounce of original intelligence and male self-respect – and I don’t just mean great exceptional men like Baudelaire – would hesitate to worship as God a creator who not only makes men in his own image but also made women, and made them after men moreover!


The trouble with simplistic unitary creative explanations of life, including not least the human, is that while they may work on and even be needed by children, once having adopted such a course you are stuck with it for ever – certainly long after your rational mind might have told you that a Being responsible for both sexes was singularly unworthy of the slightest respect, since ‘He’ or ‘It’ can only be a moral contradiction in terms, partial to holiness on the one hand and open to clearness on the other, given to grace one moment and partial to evil the next, capable of wisdom in the service of grace and also of crime in the service of evil, and both blessed with salvation and uncursed by damnation!  Even if it were not entirely diabolical, such a creator would be considerably less than divine!


Bah, enough of this!  Let us rather look forward to the day when all such unitary and creator gods, unworthy of the slightest credence, are systematically consigned, along with their bibles and symbols, to the ‘rubbish heap of history’, in order that what is truly divine, and I might add pseudo-diabolic, can be cultivated independently of all such traditional obstacles to religious progress and inherent moral contradictions, such ‘best of a bad job’ starting-points of civilization and infantile explanatory cop-outs.


But, of course, the divine will have to be cultivated by metaphysical males and the pseudo-diabolic, in contrast, by pseudo-metachemical pseudo-females, and not as ends-in-themselves but, more correctly, as godly and pseudo-devilish starting-points for heavenly and pseudo-hellish ends, the joy and pseudo-love of primary (male) and secondary (pseudo-female) church-hegemonic free psyche, coupled, be it not forgotten, to the woe and pseudo-hatred of their state-subordinate bound somatic counterparts, which will issue as much from the illusion and pseudo-ugliness of the bound will of each gender … as the joy and pseudo-love from the truth and pseudo-beauty of each gender’s free ego.  Yamen!