A few years ago one Robert Byrn, a 40-year-old professor of criminal law at Fordham University, took it upon himself to represent all human fetuses between the fourth and twenty-fourth week of gestation scheduled to be aborted in New York municipal hospitals. Byrn was himself represented by attorney Thomas Ford, who made the following statement: "The fetus might well be described as an astronaut in a uterine spaceship". As Ellen Frankfort aptly comments:
It takes a certain kind of imagination to assume guardianship for something lodged within another's body — a rather acquisitive proprietary imagination that fits right in with the conception of a woman as a spaceship and the contents of her womb as an astronaut.
The astonishing Byrn incident and the analogy made by his attorney merit some attention for the light they throw on the deceptions of male myth. Since an astronaut is perceived as the captain of a "vessel", there is a desire to see a fetus as controlling the woman. Moreover, the image of the astronaut in a spaceship is interesting also because in this image the "captain" is very much controlled by other males outside the spaceship (for example, politicians, economists, scientists, flight surgeons, engineers). This makes the analogy particularly "appropriate" in its perverse way, for the fetus is maintained in control of the woman by males outside (for example, politicians, legislators, priests, doctors, social workers, counselors, husbands, "lovers"). Moreover, the analogy involves deceptively circular reasoning, making it doubly appropriate in this doublethink context. For here, a biological event — the presence of the fetus in the uterus — is imaged as "like", that is, imitative of, a technological event — the presence of an astronaut in a spaceship. This elicits an obvious question: Is the astronaut in the spaceship an attempt to imitate the situation of the fetus in the uterus? Elsewhere I have shown that there is (unacknowledged) evidence in ethical writings on abortion of a widespread male tendency to identify with fetuses. This merits further analysis.



There are clues about the source of this fetal identification syndrome (which is frequently fatal for women unable to obtain needed abortions) in Frankfort's description of Byrn as "a childless man who seeks to guard unwanted fetal tissue". Males do indeed deeply identify with "unwanted fetal tissue", for they sense as their own condition the role of controller, possessor, inhabitor of women. Draining female energy, they feel "fetal". Since this perpetual fetal state is fatal to the Self of the eternal mother (Hostess), males fear women's recognition of this real condition, which would render them infinitely "unwanted". For this attraction/need of males for female energy, seen for what it is, is necrophilia — not in the sense of love for actual corpses, but of love for those victimized into a state of living death.

Frankfort's description of Byrn as "childless" also merits scrutiny. For it is the condition of all males to be childless, and there is evidence that this condition is experienced as disturbing to those who are obsessed with reproduction of the male self (which should not be confused with any genuine desire to care for and energize another being). Indeed there are male authors who are very willing (perhaps too willing) to attest to the anxiety of males over their childless state. Philip Slater, for example, writes of "this vulnerability of the male in the sphere of worldly immortality which gives rise to the concept of the 'external soul', so prominent in magic and mythology".

According to his view, a woman need not guess whether something of herself continues on in a new organism, for she can see the child emerge from her own body:
Thus if one translates "soul" in these stories as "that part of me which will live on after I die", the woman initially holds her "soul" within herself. It is only the man whose "soul" always resides outside of himself.
Thus "as men have been lamenting for centuries, his immortality is out of his own control".



According to this view, then, males identify the "immortal" soul with biological offspring, and women should feel fortunate in their roles as incubators, shells, hotels, youth hostels, homes, hatcheries for human souls. I have already suggested that it is dangerous for women to accept reductionist theories about the male propensity for "womb envy". Thus it should arouse suspicion that Karen Horney's "womb envy" theory (with which she countered Freud's proposition of "penis envy") has been eagerly adopted by some liberal males (for example, Philip Slater). The problem with such a theory is that the implied criticism stops short of being a genuine feminist analysis. Hags must learn to double-double unthink (Andrea Dworkin's phrase) — that is, to go past the obvious level of male-made reversals and find the underlying Lie. Thus it is a pitfall simply to reverse "penis envy" into "womb envy", for such theories trick women into fixating upon womb, female genitalia, and breasts as our ultimately most valuable endowments. Not only disparagement, but also glorification of women's procreative organs are expressions of male fixation and fetishism. These disproportionate attitudes are also demonically deceptive, inviting women to re-act with mere derivative fetishism, instead of deriding these fixations and focusing upon the real "object" of male envy, which is female creative energy in all of its dimensions. Male hatred of women expressed in such fetishized forms hides the deeper dimensions of envy, which remain unacknowledged. Thus we hear one male say of another's "project" or invention, "That's his baby." We also hear men describe the books, papers, articles of other men as "pregnant" with meaning. Such deceptive expressions provide clues to the deeper levels of deception. They suggest that the procreative power which is really envied does in fact belong primarily to the realm of mind/spirit/creativity. Yet this envy is not necessarily a desire to be creative, but rather to draw — like fetuses — upon another's (the mother's) energy as a source. Thus men who identify as mothers (that is, supermothers controlling biological mothers) are really protecting their fetal selves. They wish to be the fetuses/astronauts and the supermothers/ground commanders, but not the biological vessels/spaceships which they relegate to the role of controlled containers, and later discard as trash.

Ultimately these two roles — male fetus and male supermother — are connected (even identical), since both roles are contingent on a parasitic relationship to women. The male "mother's" spiritual "fecundity" depends upon his fetal (fatal) fettering of the female to whom he eternally attaches himself by a male-made umbilical cord, extracting nutrients and excreting waste (as he does also with "mother Earth"). The penis, of course, is both a material and symbolic instrument for the restoration and maintenance of this umbilical attachment.



It is impossible to miss symptoms of this male fertility syndrome in the multiple technological "creations" (artificial wombs) of the Fathers — such as homes, hospitals, corporate offices, airplanes, spaceships — which they inhabit and control. Moreover, these male-constructed artificial wombs are ultimately more tomb-like than womb-like, manifesting the profoundly necrophilic tendencies of technocracy. Here Erich Fromm's description of necrophilia is applicable, although misleading. Writing of the 'Futurist Manifesto' (1909) of F.T. Marinetti, he states:
Here we see the essential elements of necrophilia: worship of speed and the machine; poetry as a means of attack; glorification of war; destruction of culture; hate against women; locomotives and airplanes as living forces.
What is described here is a mechanization of life, a robotizing regression, the patriarchal pathology, which exposed itself in the mid-seventies in the Heavenly Homosexual Hitching as a metapathology. But Fromm's description is deeply deceptive, for, although some essential elements of necrophilia are noted, the core cause, "hate against women", is mentioned only as a detail on an itemized list, rather than being shown in its prior causal relationship to the other times. woman hating is at the core of necrophilia.



Thus it was utterly appropriate that the American spacecraft in the Celestial Spectacular of 1975 was named "Apollo". For Apollo was the personification of anti-matriarchy, the opponent of Earth deities. His name is said by some to have been derived from 'appollunai' meaning destroy. Jane Harrison points out that he is the death-dealer, most deadly of all the gods. She also shows that he is a woman-hater. Moreover, Kerényi points out that Apollo's real enemy was a female creature, a dragoness named "Delphyne" — a name connected with an old word for womb. Apollo killed her immediately after his birth. With perverse appropriateness, his temple was built at a place called "Delphi", functioning as his artificial womb. Significantly, upon this temple was engraved the maxim: "Keep woman under the rule."

Although Apollo was fathered by Zeus and had a mother — Leto — he could well be described as "not of woman born". Fittingly, he was born in a place of Not-Earth, a floating island in the sea named Delos. Fittingly, too, he encouraged matricide. Slater observes that "the myth of Apollo seems to express an infinite process [sic] of doing and undoing, of affirmation and negation of the maternal bond." The more accurate term of course would be procession, for this is a deadly circle.

It should also be noted that the myth of Apollo functioned to legitimate male homosexuality in ancient Greece: "Apollo had relationships with many youths, the first of whom was Hyacinthus; the summer festival Hyacinthia commemorated this relationship." Another scholar cites an inscription hewn on the rock wall beside the temple of Apollo Carneius on the island of Thera (Santorin) in the Aegean. It reads: "Invoking the Delphic Apollo, I, Crimon, here copulated with a boy, son of Bathycles." We read that "the sacred place and the name of Apollo make it plain that . . . we are being told about a sacred act, steeped in solemnity and honor."



The mythic associations of the "union with Apollo" displayed in the space spectacular were deceitfully manipulated. Clearly, the culture does not plan spectaculars to legitimate "gay liberation". The astronauts and cosmonauts were obviously "family men" with "family pictures". What was legitimated was male power bonding, while the erotic component in male mating was concealed and denied. The fact that the erotic component was present on a mythic level but concealed made the apparently nonerotic power bonding message more effective. While overtly promoting the oppressive ideal of the nuclear family, this space spectacular subliminally appealed to erotic fantasies allegedly taboo in heterosexist society. This deceitful taboo titillation tactic is employed widely in patriarchal propaganda, reaching hysterical heights in the hidden messages of advertising.

The products of necrophilic Apollonian male mating are of course the technological "offspring" which pollute the heavens and the earth. Since the passion of necrophiliacs is for the destruction of life and since their attraction is to all that is dead, dying, and purely mechanical, the fathers' fetishized "fetuses" (re-productions/replicas of themselves), with which they passionately identify, are fatal for the future of this planet. Nuclear reactors and the poisons they produce, stockpiles of atomic bombs, ozone-destroying aerosol spray propellants, oil tankers "designed" to self-destruct in the ocean, iatrogenic medications and carcinogenic food additives, refined sugar, mind pollutants of all kinds — these are the multiple fetuses/feces of stale male-mates in love with a dead world that is ultimately co-equal and consubstantial with themselves. The excrement of Exxon is everywhere. It is ominously omnipresent.