Feb 22
Freud Was Right But It’s Not What You Think.
The rejection of Freud’s drive theory has resulted in adopting a dogmatic, humanistic belief — that humans are good by nature. Now, men can deny being irrational, while continuing to act on their emotions and biological drives, and when anyone asks why they did what they did, they can just say “Uh, I don’t know.”
We live in a society ruled by fear, anger and physical domination on a very subtle level. Our global society permits men to act on their primitive instincts, a society which created systemic methods of repression and denial to covertly enable them to continue. Whenever there is a rape trial, the question of a man’s volition, his motivations and the question whether he has the right to violate other people’s boundaries, by acting on this motivation is bypassed entirely. The question, whether the rapist has trouble maintaining healthy sexual behaviors, whether his poor decision making is the result of low cognitive ability, or other mental hindrances, remains unanswered in the course of the trial. In fact, all that is done in most rape case trials is dissecting and examining the behavior of the victim, as if there was something to be learned about the act of rape and violation, from the circumstances of the crime. But these mechanisms are not used in murder cases. No one tries to figure out how a murder victim could have “deserved” to be killed, or how to rationalize the crime to absolve the murderer from responsibility.
It is peculiar how society abandons all logic when it comes to giving men the benefit of lies, claiming on one hand that men are more rational than women, but then claiming that it’s everybody else who makes him do the things he does. It is illogical to claim, that a man possesses more self-control, reason and logic, and also assume, without any coherent discussion, that a man has no free will at all, and will do whatever circumstances make him do. It seems that when it comes to these situations, men don’t need to perform any critical assessment of the situation whatsoever. It’s as if they are officially freed from the burden of making rational decisions, automatically and without debate.
An ideal illustration of how we all keep ourselves from realizing the truth, is the thriller trend in modern cinematography. In most story lines of thrillers and horror movies, a victim is found and then the entire plot is about finding the murderer. Nine times out of ten, it’s a man. A man killed someone, because he wanted to, because of the deviation of his four primordial drives — this is the final answer to a murder mystery. Still, people call it a mystery and dedicate their time to watching the story.
The destruction drive, turns a man’s life into a series of mini-wars in order to boost his own morale. The joke on women is, that their own projections on reality, prevent them from understanding this dynamic and the losses they suffer within the dynamic. The fundamental question is — if someone gains something at your disadvantage without you knowing about it, does the loss still occur? The answer is yes, the loss still occurs and affects your mood on a subconscious level. Even if your conscious mind rejects reality, on a subconscious level, all the pluses and the minuses of a situation are carefully marked and noted. This is why sometimes we may be confused about how we feel about people or say, that we have “mixed feelings” about someone. It is because their predatory behavior is either very subtle and difficult to notice, or they engage in seemingly innocent behaviors, which would not constitute a micro-domination, if it wasn’t for their intention. Individual drives and emotions become organized, social phenomena. But it’s still the hormones of the individuals, which regulate the entire mechanism.
On a political level, humans have been regulating their affairs with organized physical violence and extermination for all of recorded history and continue to do so today in an act called war. In civilian society, men like to assess their chances of receiving a beating, by seizing up the individual in question, and retract from an altercation or quarrel, when the individual looks like he might be able to inflict injury, regardless if the individual really is able to do so. The size of a person seems to be significant.
Observing how the male society has worked out its own crappy rules of engagement is demotivating to say the least. Human males will not engage in physical contest, instead they will assess the probability of loss, and will let large individuals get away with anything in public. Instead of picking a fight with someone who caused them trouble, they will harass, insult and attack women who look like they won’t retaliate against them. This creates a toxic, unfavorable and psychologically damaging environment for women. This means also, that women will more often be burglarized, treated unfairly, fall victim to financial fraud and have their boundaries crossed on all levels. It is not because they are physically unable to retaliate and cause bodily harm. It’s just because they don’t look like they could. The law of the fist works in a purely hypothetical sphere of action. In today’s civilian society, physical retaliation in response to deeds listed above, is rare, as causing bodily harm is punishable by law. However, the mere possibility of it happening, creates a vast division between how men are treated, compared to how women are treated in society. If women could freely retaliate in response to these crimes and attacks, the probability would be reset to a real percentage and people wouldn’t rely on imaginary hypotheses.
The idiocy of the current legal system expresses itself in the denial of facts and giving women no legal way to protect their life and physical well being. Every country has laws that say what is forbidden, but no country has a recommendation for women on how to proceed when attacked by a male. There is no step-by-step instruction, what to do exactly, when a man attacks you and or tries to rape you. We have the basic right to live, but no approved method of defending that right. The right to self-defense is practically a dead right protected by a dead law. A woman has no way of proving that she was being attacked, and if she kills a man in self-defense it is usually considered manslaughter in most cases anyway. So, women have no right to defend themselves, to set their boundaries, to protect their life from men. Humanistic psychology has done us a great disservice, because it has basically convinced everybody that our primordial instincts don’t need any kind of governing, or directing into non-harmful outlets, because they simply don’t exist. Meanwhile, violence of all kinds has been on the rise, television entertainment has fallen into an abyss of sex, fear and homicide.
WHERE DOES THIS LEAD US? TO THE LAST DEFENSE — THE MASCULINIZATION OF WOMEN
It is inevitable, that the continuous berating, belittling, targeting and picking out women as designated victims, all caused by the male’s faulty, testosterone mediated psychological mechanisms, inspires a trend to become masculine. Women choose to steer away from identifying with female characteristics and the stereotypical female gender model. It is only logical, knowing that the feminine phantom model is treated unjustly, and is considered inferior to the male gender concept, for a sane individual, to choose to identify with a superior psycho-social model.
In today’s society, male psychological attributes are favored and admired. There are many statistical differences between men and women but on an individual level, every limitation can be altered by personal choice. Women can fight for a better pay, evade male assault by learning the art of self-defense and excel in male dominated careers. There is however one hidden male attribute, that makes a difference on a collective and individual level that creates the male power advantage. It’s the special dispensation — society’s permission for men to be illogical and overly emotional, and to express anger, irritation and hostility without any criticism. Men are given the freedom to be motivated by primordial instincts and have everyone else cover for them, by blatantly lying in their defense.
The reason why women don’t engage in violence as much as men, is not a matter of physical strength. The readiness to engage verbal and physical violence is a question of decision and level of empathy. While the male ease to engage in violence, is certainly not a desirable virtue, it regulates how the whole society excuses male cognitive and behavioral shortcomings. The interesting thing is, it’s not just women who are afraid of men and their potential for violence, it’s men who are afraid of other men as well. Fear of open confrontation and escalation, is a common, basic regulator.
If you’ve ever held a vigorous toddler, you will know that toddlers are able to do extremely painful damage, either by biting or flinging their head against their parents nose or worse, their teeth. While it’s not enough to do serious harm, it is interesting that a small human can be so surprisingly strong, almost too strong compared to what is expected. We tend to associate physical strength and combat abilities with the size of a person, but the ability to induce harm, doesn’t always correlate with one’s size. The reason why toddlers can bite or hit someone very painfully, is usually explained by doctors, by their inability to control their muscles the way adults do. When they fling their body, the entire weight of the body is engaged in the movement. As we grow up, we learn to be mindful of our body. The ability to consciously guide and control movement, decreases the force of impact. Some of the greatest martial art masters agree, that letting go of conscious control, retaining the bare minimum to guide movements, is the key to success in a physical fight. So, what does that mean for the dynamic of power, when it comes to male and female behaviors? Knowing that there is a mental component to strength, and that women are in general dissuaded from demonstrating, using and cultivating strength, there is a large self-restraining psychological component, that limits physical strength in women. Imagine you need to chop some wood. You take an ax, and put full force into the blow as you take the ax down on the log. If there was someone watching you, you might be a little hesitant to use your full force, knowing it’s not pretty or in line with societal expectations. Before you know it, your blow becomes weaker, you might even mess up a little and miss it. The subconscious will dictate to your muscles what and how to do it, bypassing your consciousness entirely. The same goes for the self-limiting role of empathy. If you are trying to hit someone and subconsciously predict the pain this person will feel once you’ve hit them, the force of the blow is automatically weakened.
It is imperative to human survival that women AREN’T extremely physically strong, because if they would be, they’d be more likely to accidentally kill their children. This was more relevant in earlier human history, when the law was more relaxed on physical punishment. Now that human society rejected all female virtues, women may feel like they need to build physical stamina, they have to be skilled in fighting, trained in handling firearms, they need to be lethal. And when women become lethal it will be the moral, spiritual and just general end of humankind. For years, men have been selling this weird worldview that women don’t do the things men do, because they can’t. Rest assured, they can, they know better not to, realizing that men are less evolved as humans. Women intrinsically know, that stepping down a step in the ladder of human evolution cannot possibly be a good thing, neither on a personal nor on a collective level.
Aggressive behavior is primitive and leads to chaos and disorder. In a society, if one group of people is allowed to use aggressive behavior and another group is disallowed, it puts society out of balance. We can expect, that society, being a homeostatic system will try to regain that balance. Men like to use anger inspired violence against women, mainly because they feel there will be no retaliation and no push-back whatsoever. They ease with which women become abused is just one of the hidden mechanisms, this world is run by. The fact is, all people who are emphatic, nice and peaceful, become victims of abuse because they are emphatic, nice and peaceful. Why? Because of the ease with which they can be abused, and lack of retaliation. The realization, that lack of vindictive violence is the basic reason why women become abused, will gradually lead to the abandonment of all female values. Women will soon realize, that a peaceful approach to others and embracing female gender stereotypes, invites oppression and abuse. Human behavior is malleable and it evolves on a collective level. The brain has a high level of plasticity and we can develop new behaviors after the developmental phase is finished. Even as adults, women are able to override their biological mechanisms to a certain degree. They can develop a new set of behaviors at any point in life, given the proper incentive, and we all know that self-preservation is one of the strongest motivators.
Men are very well aware that their domination hangs by a thread, and that a small shift in female behaviors can immediately dethrone the male gender. It can be observed, that there is less tolerance for violent behaviors in women. The media, researchers and authors tend to create a narrative, where female killers are condemned for their actions. They pull out details of their personal life and their status to demonize them, rather than rationalize their behavior. Female killers are depicted as evil monsters. In the case of male perpetrators, such a judgment is rarely given. Commentators rarely delve into what might have motivated his actions, blaming the victims, and even making up excuses for the criminal act. Popular documentaries are narrated in a matter-of-fact way, and focus on the circumstances, the victim’s job, looks or vulnerability, which aim to absolve the murderer from their guilt. In extreme cases, difficult childhood stories are brought up. The same information may serve either as a proof of deep depravity or an excuse depending on the gender of the perpetrator. The most disturbing tendency is the trend to subliminally glorify male serial killers, turning their stories into legend, by repeatedly going over what they’ve done. It seems like there is an underlying albeit uncommunicated conviction that “it is what it is” when a man acts irrationally.
The rise of surveillance technology enabled us to look at real life footage that depicts people being killed. Here are some descriptions of a couple of famous videos. A man comes up to another man in a pub and slashes his carotid artery with a small knife. Another man, meets up with a friend and delivers a deadly blow to his temple, killing him on the spot. A mother, in front of a school, takes a gun out of her purse and shoots a man who threatened nearby schoolchildren. In the first case, the advantage was created by technique, tool and the element of surprise. In the case of the man punching the other in the head, he had fighting skills and the knowledge where to throw a punch for a lethal effect. In the third case, the only advantage was having a firearm.
The invention of firearms has entirely eliminated the importance of a physical advantage in a man-to-man contest. While handling a firearm requires training, it can be learned by anyone and anyone is able to effectively shoot and kill other people. Men still cling to the idea, that handling guns requires physical stamina — it only does so to a certain extent, and women are more than capable to train their firearm handling skills. Therefore, we can safely say that the technical side of killing doesn’t require a lot of physical strength. With proper training, weapons and determination, any human is able to kill another. Then why are women not defending themselves properly and still fall victim to assault? The reason for that is, their mental conviction and an internal block, that they have been trained to employ, when in contest with men. They are taught to succumb, to give in, to manifest weakness, and most important of all, to empathize with others. They lack the intrinsic will to hurt and destroy other humans. That lack of this will, or rather the gift of compassion, is the key element, that prevents women from leveling with men in their ability to inflict death and injury. But once all of that is gone, killing another human being becomes a technicality. The readiness to engage in violence and aggression, is the only real advantage men have over women. Society as a whole, guards this knowledge so that this advantage is kept, because once women learn to tap into it, the entire power structure of the world will be rearranged. There are several ways in which women can become equally violent and aggressive as men. One way that is always available to them is the so called “hysterical strength”, when a stressful reaction triggers abnormal physical power. Another, is to train their body and mind, to develop strength, stamina and combat skills. Sometimes women develop these skills by growing up in adverse conditions, such as war zones or high-crime neighborhoods. Women have been able to override their natural empathy throughout history, to survive and protect their loved ones.
The psychological boundary plays a much larger role than physical strength. Human bodies are so badly designed, that a small wound in a key spot can lead to death in an instant. Men like to hold on to the myth, that only men who have a weight advantage, are able to inflict death. They hang on to that myth, as if their life depended on it. Because their life does depend on it. Let’s perform a mental exercise. Imagine if all women in the world all of a sudden stopped being afraid of men, and decided, that if someone assaults them, they will respond by defending themselves with lethal force. What would happen, if all women found a way to bypass the only resource that is stopping society from plunging into chaos — female compassion and empathy? What if they ditched these natural gifts to level with men? They’d be as aggressive or even more aggressive than men. There would be no forgiveness, and no insult would go unpunished. The family wouldn’t be a safe harbor full of nurturing love, it would become as harsh and unrelenting as the outside world. And the world would become a terrible place to live. All male dominated societies and artificial sub-societies such as prisons and military camps are horrible, bland, boring places, burdened with excessive acts of violence and exploitation. Even now, when there are so many women in the army. These microcosms are truly hellish places, and men in those places become cognitively impaired and limited, resembling robots or animals. They become reduced to their four male primordial drives in a grotesque, perverse way, obsessing about women and feminine things in their spare time. It would be an unfavorable outcome, if the whole world became such a place. The paradox of this situation, is that staying in a feminine role model, being non-aggressive and compassionate, dis-empowers women in an androcentric world. But if women collectively decide to abandon their feminine traits, society will regress and all people will be disadvantaged. Neither outcome is ideal.
