A Common Phrase Corrected. One so often hears phrases like ‘sonofabitch’ on TV and elsewhere these days that it is almost tempting to take them for granted, never questioning their validity. But, being something of a thinker in my own right, that is something I find difficult to do - and with good reason! For, as demonstrated in a previous entry, bitches and sons rarely hang together, in contiguous phenomenality or noumenality, but the Son, together with the Father, is in some sense expressive of a revolt against the antimanly and/or antigodly positions of antisons and antifathers which happen to be sensually contiguous, down a plane in each class case, with either devils or women, that is to say, with either Devil the Mother (hyped as God the Father) and the Daughter of the Devil or, in the phenomenal context, Woman the Mother (hyped as Mother of God the Son) and the Daughter of Woman. Therefore far from sons stemming from devilish or womanly bitches, we should be thinking in terms of antisons and antifathers stemming from such hegemonic postulates as accord with a female first mover in either metachemistry (noumenal) or chemistry (phenomenal), the antisons and antifathers of antimanly and/or antigodly disposition according with their ‘fall guy’ dupes and, in some sense, victims. Hence the above-mentioned slang term could be modified to ‘antisonofabitch’ if one were intent on being logically credible and not merely impulsive. And, likewise, one could conceive, across the sensible divide, of antibitches in relation to sons and fathers, whether as ‘antibitchofason’ or ‘antibitchofafather’, depending whether soma or psyche were the prevailing factor. For sons and fathers have a lot to do with men and/or gods in phenomenal and/or noumenal sensibility, and therefore not only with the repudiation of antimen (phenomenal antisons and antifathers) or of antigods (noumenal antisons and antifathers) but, no less significantly, with the ensuing subordination of the female to either antiwomanly (phenomenal antimothers and antidaughters) or antidevilish (noumenal antimothers and antidaughters) antibitchfulness, so to speak. And this antibitchfulness, whether antichemical or antimetachemical, is the under-plane complement to the male hegemonies typifying sensibility, whether on the phenomenal plane of physics or, more importantly, on the noumenal plane of metaphysics. For females – more properly antifemales – in tight skirts or dresses are not to be thought of as bitches if their behaviour mirrors their sartorial constraints and confirms either an antiwomanly subservience to men (at least in planar theory if not always in axial practice) or an antidevilish subservience to gods, as it were. For only the manly and the godly are truly male, and this compels an antifemale correspondence which if not always sensible will at least suggest the likelihood of antisensuality. How distinct, then, from the antisensible correspondence of antimales, whether as free somatic antisons or bound psychic antifathers, to their female overladies or, more correctly, somatically free and psychically bound bitches whose familial metaphors have more to do with mothers and daughters than with their converse, and whose hegemonic influence is such that their gender-subordinate counterparts soon become akin to what has been described as if not antisons then antifathers of bitches, whether or not – though I guess especially when – their sartorial attire mirrors, in some degree, the flouncy looseness of its female counterpart, a flared-pants situation likely to accord with some degree of antibullgas under cowpuss in the case of antimetaphysics under metachemistry and, down on the phenomenal planes, of antibullshit under cowpiss in the case of antiphysics under chemistry. For you can no more be subject to bullgas when subordinate to cowpuss than to bullshit when subordinate to cowpiss. Bullgas is the metaphysical prerogative of the godly and bullshit the physical prerogative of the manly, the one making for anticowpuss in the antimetachemical antifemale and the other for anticowpiss in the antichemical antifemale, since the existence of cowpuss under bullgas is as unlikely as that of cowpiss under bullshit. Therefore the respectable ‘lady’ under the respectable ‘gentleman’ is a creature constrained, in bound soma and free psyche, to either anticowpuss or anticowpiss who simultaneously pays lip service to the bullgas or bullshit primarily emanating from her male counterpart in either metaphysics (if godly) or physics (if manly). She may not be the prime mover in such bullgas or bullshit, since even the beautiful approach to truth has to be distinguished from truth no less than the strong approach to knowledge from knowledge, but she is obliged, by convention and certain male-imposed strategies, to go along with it, and that is what makes, believe it or not, for all that is best in civilization, whether with a civilized bias governed by bound soma, as in the case of phenomenal sensibility, or with a cultural bias led by free psyche, as in the case of noumenal sensibility.