Politics in America

Every teen should read...

Robert Kocher's Politics in America


Excerpt/Summary of Robert Kocher's Politics in America (parts 10-13)

Part 10: Evolution of the Deteriorated Relationship

Between Men and Women

As strange as it first might appear, probably no other factor has affected American politics as strongly as have American patterns of sexuality and what has been termed the sexual revolution of the 1960s. To be certain, there are cultural factors that initially created both the political changes and changes in interpersonal relationships. But the motivations and consequences of sexuality came to develop an independent and dominant force in American culture and politics.

Much of contemporary liberalism is founded on a lack of basic personal integrity and honesty. If you can get a person to compromise their personal integrity and honesty in return for sex, then you've gone a good distance toward compromising their integrity and morality enough to become leftists.

...snip...

Until recent periods in American culture, sex had been restricted to very serious relationships between men and women—marriage. Dating was considered part of courtship and was considered serious business. In what would today seem like science fiction, there was a time in America, just a few years ago, when you were supposed to know something about a person before going out on a date with them. You were expected to know something about a person's values, ethics, morals, goals, and family background before accepting a date with them. What? Yup. It was a person's values which determined worth as a person. It was a person's values and morals that determined the kind of treatment and decency you could expect from them in a long-term relationship. It was values that you would wind up living with over time and that would determine the quality of two people's lives together, the quality of children's lives and the quality of home life. This idea was reinforced by parents and other members of the community.

...snip...

the cultural maladjustment previous to the sexual revolution has been highly exaggerated as evidenced by mental health figures. Every indication is that we have far more psychological problems in this society today than we did 45 years ago.

...snip...

Most of the premarital sex was with fiancÉs a few times. This is almost inconceivable in terms of the present cultural sexual value system.

...snip...

One of these elements was the Playboy-type magazine. During World War Two, there were Betty Grable pin-ups and pictures of women in single piece swimming suits. They were neither anatomically revealing or sexually explicit. There have always been girlie magazines. In the old days they were kept hidden in plain brown wrappers. The women in them looked hard and used. For the price of a magazine, and the considerable difficulty in finding one, one could caught a glimpse of a rumored standard of morality and values kept isolated down on the distant side of the tracks where the red lights were. The looks upon the faces of the women, and the content of the magazines, suggested something bitter, alien, isolated, underground, distant from prevalent culture or values. The old pornography was too immediately identifiable as alien to reflect on the image of American morals or normal American women. As a consequence, it was non-corrupting.

With the Playboy-type of magazine, that changed. The magazines paid big money, whatever it took, to buy women for nude gatefolds and poses. The women featured were no longer worn-out looking whores. It was the girl next door, the girl who could be homecoming queen, the coed from a sorority, the woman who was a freshman in law school, the pretty young secretary, the young nurse, the schoolteacher, the woman a man might have a date with next weekend or eventually marry. One by one, they all sold themselves and were spread out naked in magazine gatefolds with inviting looks and increasing sexual explicitness. There was increasingly less psychological distance between what was taking place on the gatefolds and Norman Rockwell's middle America. The safety and remoteness between the women in the gatefolds and the girl next door was gone. It was the middle American woman and it was becoming the image of the middle American woman's values. The image developed that the morals, values and bodies of the girl next door were being sold and bought, making them subject to considerable doubt. The question became how cheaply and frivolously women would part with their facade of values.

While the gatefolds were tempting, they brought the secondary effect of disillusionment and bitterness. Faith in the American woman's values was being seriously pressured.

...snip...

In some cases, the desire for change represented rebelliousness and in particular a rebellion against empty parental marriages. A coldness and lack of affection or sexuality was noticed in some empty parental relationships and it was assumed poor sex must have been the cause. In fact, the lack of affection and sexual frigidity was the result of a poor relationship, not the cause. Regardless, many among a generation mistook the result for the cause and, in seeking to better their lives over that which their parents had, seized upon sex. Many people are willing to seize on sex, anyway, whether it will better their lives or not. They found a useful excuse in parental marriages.

...snip...

The motivation for this element was simple—sexual exploitation of women, using a woman for sex. Does sexual exploitation exist? This question will elicit smiles of amusement from the over-sixty-five generation who will say it exists. These old-timers will tell you something about a tumescent male reproductive apparatus generating a sense of urgency which renders its possessor temporarily relatively inattentive to moral-ethical principle. It's sometimes expressed in more concrete and earthy language.

...snip...

Because of that urgency, young men once seduced young women. The word seduced was appropriate because it took a good bit of lying and finagling, usually with a woman a man didn't care about. The seduction process was rather simple. The idea was to be virile and attractive and stimulating while perhaps offering assurances of sincerity so that the sum total would overwhelm a woman's reluctance.

...snip...

The image of women was changing so that it appeared as though more women were regarding sex as an amusing episode. Men were beginning to feel like fools for respecting a woman's virginity, only to have it skewered two weeks later on some goof's penis as a joke.

...snip...

The clever man would deviously lay the groundwork by crusading about the countryside preaching, as well as initiating his relationships with, a seemingly irrelevant and diffuse comprehensive intellectual discourse attacking religion, morality, values, marriage, traditional social institutions, traditional politics, the sexual hang-ups of previous generations, and everything else—psychologically undermining and pre-cornering a woman without mentioning sex between himself and her. Thus was founded one of the cornerstones of the counterculture. If the crusade in radical theology was successful, just incidentally, a woman was beaten down, left defenseless and ready for the last step: which was in bed with her clothes off. The same intellectualized gyrations would also subsequently free the man from commitment to her. The attacks and manipulations became increasingly vicious, subtle, and undermining. Women were becoming increasingly confused and hurt by the vicious and undermining attacks. The arguments and the psychological undermining of women became a dominant social institution from which there was no shelter.

...snip...

Young women were out-gunned. They would go out on a date to find themselves facing a highly-prepared entrapping lecture that would last for two days with endless quotes and references to authorities they had never heard of. Propelled by other factors acting concurrently, this pool of rationalization quickly became the dominant force in American sexuality and sexual values, tearing a generation of women to pieces. During the 1960s, the suicide rate of women increased to 150 percent of what it had been—while the suicide rate of men remained constant.

...snip...

It's important to understand, when all this began, no man believed it (it being the series of rationalizations). It was pseudo-intellectual nonsense. In fact, in some ways, it was a test of women. Men were disillusioned, hurt, and disgusted to find out women would be stupid enough to believe any of it. In one sense, it also became a form of punishment inflicted upon women because they were stupid, immoral, or shallow enough either to believe in or put up with it the first place. If women would put up with any of it initially, they were given a second dose as an expression of contempt. The intellectual content was dishonest, laughable, crazy. It was nothing but distorted, completely dishonest trash that misogynic men employed to twist and cripple a woman's mind, get her in bed, then drop her and move on to the next victim. It was an obvious con game to be worked upon women.

...snip...

By 1970, most young people believed in it because they had seldom heard anything else. What started out as a twisted con game became accepted as truth in successive generations. Moreover, as inconceivable as it seems, what started out as a sociopathic con game that nobody originally believed, has now become the mainstream scientific consensus.

...snip...

Something should be said at this point about the relationship between men, women, and the truth. There is a certain complex conspiratorial locker-room code of honor, or rather dishonor, which exists among many men to the disadvantage of women. In the last several decades there has been a change in values and a change in the code of honor with the consequence it is open season and all women are considered fair game. It is socially acceptable to lie to women in the most calloused manner. Many of the deceptions have become socially institutionalized.

...snip...

The point is, there are frequently several versions of what's going on in a relationship between a woman and a man. These versions are worlds apart. Women do not have access to one of these worlds. A woman may see one side of a man she is dating, and may believe him sincere or may believe she is in a serious relationship with a man, when, in the other world, she is a cruel locker-room joke. It is this second unseen world which counts. It is in that world where her worth is made known. That is the world where one hears the truth. It is the world she never hears.

...snip...

Under the prevalent dominant system of morals and ethics, what two consenting adults, a man and a woman, make in the way of arrangements is supposedly their own business and not to be interfered with. Moreover, today, one is not supposed to be judgmental in one's evaluation of what one person is doing to another. Presumably, if the other person agrees to what's being done to them, it removes any degree of culpability or responsibility on the part of the person who is doing it to them. The avoidance of culpability and responsibility is, of course, the underlying goal of contemporary liberal morals and ethics.

...snip...

I remember witnessing an incident in the 1950s when a younger man began to talk of his sexual conquests in the company of some older men of stature. He was told, summarily, to shut up about it. That was the expression of the last of a breed of men, and the last of the remnants of an older value system and sense of honor.

...snip...

While there is honesty about saying what they'd like to do and what they'd like to get away with, there is not honesty about the consequences. Without honesty about the consequences there is no honesty. Admitting intent to do something that will hurt someone or cripple them up emotionally has a certain degree of honesty, but is not a demonstration of character.

...snip...

In the 60s, as in other periods, many of the resentful or spoiled from previous generations who thought their own youth had not lived up to their fantasies, or thought that their youth could have been better, or thought that they had been cheated out of something, or thought that things somehow didn't turn out right, or realized that they were slipping; attempted to rejuvenate their youth vicariously by encouraging the young of the 60s to live their old fading fantasies while also taking their bitterness out on society by pushing the countercultural attack. Intellectual life intrinsically breeds this type of mentality and resentment because much of it is centered at colleges and universities, which are worlds of eternal youth inhabited by people aged 18 to 21. The psychological frame of reference at these places is dominated by youth values. When you're 22, you no longer fit in. To be 35 is to be ancient. The only people in that world who age are graduate students and professors. They are morbidly aware of it and are pushed into looking backward.

...snip...

At the super-liberal progressive woman's colleges, many of which are little more than training camps dedicated to producing borderline personalities, young women were being programmed into participating in all the concepts of social change and progressive new freedoms. They were to graduate as what they were told was a sophisticated, independent, brilliant, liberated, cosmopolitan, progressive woman. As they were programmed, they would mouth to whoever would listen that marriage was not a prerequisite to the enjoyment of sex, and that sex need not be attached to emotional commitment or outmoded concepts such as love, etc. etc.

...snip...

We began to see contemporaries of the elite liberal woman's colleges who—pumped up by empty slogans and generalities, and as a consequence considering premarital sex as a militant exercise in their unquestioning pursuit and expression of something called social change—implemented sex with the spirit, style, precision, determination, and sensuality of a nineteenth century Prussian infantry colonel exercising his troops.

...snip...

If the purpose of their college programming was to endow women with an independence from men, the type of behavior and relationships into which the woman were being channeled would insure a hostility and distance between them and men—which would be mislabeled as being independence.

...snip...

The finding of independence by students is largely a myth promoted by liberal faculties to manipulate students and cover up the fact students are being programmed—or being sadistically abused as an outlet of the various resentments and dissatisfactions of faculties.

...snip...

The tragic thing is, for the last 35 years, almost nobody, and certainly not very many men, would tell a young woman the truth about anything. In the beginning, nobody wanted to. Later, women were surrounded with people who either couldn't face the truth or didn't know it. Many young women would beg and plead for someone to be truthful with them or for someone to make sense, but to no avail. It's torn several generations of young women to pieces. In an act of philosophical suicide, many of them gave up, surrendered their values, and entered an empty existence, feeling there was nothing else. The national suicide figures indicate the suicide was not merely philosophical.

If the idea was to construct a psychological environment designed to destroy women intellectually and emotionally for purposes of sexually exploiting them, it's been done. Almost from the moment she enters puberty, and certainly from the minute she enters college, she is systematically, if not scientifically, attacked, picked at, twisted, browbeaten and undermined. And, if oppositional-defiant and sadistic personality elements in this society have their way with liberal, values-free sex education, the undermining will begin at age five.

...snip...

It is also the habit among some people who have either lost everything or thrown it away, that, in their bitterness and resentment, they resent others who have what they haven't and they work to see others don't have anything either. There is also an old saying, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." That fury is nothing compared with the resentment and fury of a woman who has messed up her life, the woman who is living an empty existence, who is arrogantly and aggressively trying to deny it, and who sees another woman who looks like she has found a chance for happiness. Hence, one source of motivation for the so-called feminist crusade against marriage.

...snip...

Psychiatric literature, and particularly psychoanalytic literature, talk about the nobility and drama of doing psychotherapy with holocaust survivors, what few there are left. The truth is, few things are more psychologically traumatizing than a bad love affair. The reason is the absolute vulnerability in a love affair. A person has their hopes for the future, their ideals, their innermost dreams, their trust, their everything, invested in a love affair. If that is betrayed and destroyed in them, they are psychologically gutted. It often results in suicide or self-destruction in one form or another. It kills a person from the inside out. I'm hard put to understand why more people in the psychological or psychiatric professions don't take it far more seriously than they do.

Many women may have started out nice, warm, and loving, initially, but it didn't last long. About the time they were opened up, disposed of, and replaced a few times, they began to change. Going through it once is enough to leave serious scars and mistrust. Going through it twice is nearly psychologically lethal and emotionally sterilizing. A healthy human being can't be put through it and remain healthy.

...snip...

The arguments and concepts which underwrote the sexual revolution often shared an element of immediate exclusionary focus. For instance, one of the arguments for liberalized sex is built on a simplified concept of immediate transaction or exchange mechanics. That is, if someone enters into a sexual relationship with a woman in which he receives sexual pleasure and she gets sexual pleasure, the transaction is complete, everything is simple, the books balance, and all responsibility supposedly ends at that point. Two people may, in fact, enter into such a relationship.

Focusing on this as an argument for a life style or a moral/value system is shallow and severely over-simplified. It excludes other important factors out of existence. It begins from having pre-adopted a position of emotional sterility or a purely mechanical point of view. Contrary to the simplicity of the transactional argument, in real life there are human emotions involved which continue after the transaction and must be taken into account in the life style. What about emotional injury to other people? What about the wisdom of getting involved in such a situation? Is there a component of psychopathology as a prerequisite to, or as a result of, such interactions? Is any kind of genuine relationship possible with someone who engages in sterile transactions without any emotional bonding? The answer to the last question is, no.

Similarly, focusing on "—two mature people in a mature relationship having the right to enter into whatever kind of relationship they want—" excludes the real issues involved. The issue is not civil liberties, but painful consequences.

...snip...

A number of people wanted to do something unreasonable and they needed to deny reality to do it. Specifically, they wanted to engage in exploitive or permissive sex while denying they were doing it or denying that there were destructive consequences. They either wanted a system of warped reasoning which they could employ to talk someone else into believing there were no consequences, or they wanted to delude themselves that there would be no consequences so as to devise permission.

...snip...

Sexual Bonding
The arguments and conceptions devised as rationalizations for the sexual revolution purposely excluded many normal human emotions. For instance, lately, at least a few psychologists and some other people have begun talking about the importance of sexual bonding. Sexual intercourse tends to induce a type of emotional attachment or bonding between people. This phenomenon is one of the attributes of a mature relationship. It particularly causes bonding in women. Contemporary men demand that it produces bonding in women. If such bonding doesn't occur, they brand the woman as a cold bitch. If it does occur, they brag about being the human equivalent of King Kong. Then they demand to walk off and break that bonding at their convenience if they weren't serious about the woman from the beginning. The inherent grief reaction on the part of the woman is essentially diminished in importance within the scheme. But, in fact, bonding is the supremely important aspect of the situation.

This idea is not new. Everybody knew it previous to the sexual revolution. It was obvious. It wasn't a matter of theory: people could look and see it just as they saw trees, grocery stores, the full moon, traffic signs, or whatever. But, the concept of sexual bonding somehow disappeared and has been expunged from concepts of sexuality because it threatened to throw a monkey wrench into the idea that one could have free sex without consequences.

Pertaining to a parallel form of exclusion, whatever happened to our knowledge of grief reactions? People have grief reactions when relationships break up. These grieving periods typically last from six months to two years, but some last much longer. Since the sexual revolution, the predominant sexual theorizing of effortless going from one to another in episodes of free love ignores grief reactions. One can find, time after time, an absolute refusal to admit bonding or grief reactions existed and played a part in the swinging-single life style.

...snip...

If profound grief reactions and sexual bonding were serious real characteristics of human beings, they threatened the fantasy screw-and-laugh-it-off-and-move-on life style a generation of perpetual spoiled teenagers wanted. Rather than give up the life style, a generation decided to deny reality, including denying serious consequences of sex. If a part of reality, including grief and bonding reactions, threatened instantaneous gratification and convenience, it was excluded in the theories and rationalizations. Instead, attention was focused elsewhere. Any realistic conception of reality could be sacrificed to the desire that all things are possible and nothing need be inhibited by reality or seriousness.

...snip...

the rationalizations didn't conform to reality. Women were going through bonding reactions, profound grief reactions, anxiety reactions, and at the same time they were having their emotions denied or invalidated by being told these things weren't supposed to exist. They would get hurt, then get punished a second time and subjected to severe psychological oppression for feeling hurt by being accused of having various kinds of "hangups" or being subjected to other forms of vicious psychologizing. This punishment and suppression pushed women, and later men, into a dangerous, culturally enforced self-isolation and pathological denial of their emotional selves. Is it any wonder why the mental health statistics are so disastrous in what are now several generations of women?

...snip...

A generation of egocentrically pathological, perpetually teenage men devised a new life style in which they expected to toy with the cream of women's vulnerability at convenience for their own amusement. Women were supposed to forget being disposed of, supposed to forget being criticized for their so-called "hang-ups," then they would be able to move into next month's magazine gatefold relationship. Beautiful, disposable, renewable sexual appliance and plaything was the model.

...snip...

The Emotional Issue
The reality was, it didn't work that way. The new system of sexual values was too hard on the human heart, and this should have been, and still should be, the primary issue in the sexual theorizing taking place. People with genuine feelings of any depth can't survive the demands of the sexual revolution emotionally. Psychopaths or sociopaths can live that way, but genuine feelings of any depth can't survive it. Social change doesn't have anything to do with the moral issue. A pseudo-cause or pseudo-crusade of triumph over Victorian anti-sexuality isn't the real issue. The concocted concept of a grandiose sexual revolution has nothing to do with it.

There never was a sexual revolution in America. What happened is there occurred a period in which emotionally shallow and critically positioned sociopaths succeeded in deleting healthy concepts of emotionality, and any morality which recognized those concepts, from the culture.

The issue is whether permissive sex is painful, whether it is scarring and emotionally debilitating. The issue is whether permissive sex is morally and emotionally desensitizing. The issue is whether an emotional sterility is prerequisite to, or is a consequence of, participation. The issue is the inconsistency and arbitrariness within the permissive sexual value system. The issue is whether, once trivialized and separated from deeper emotional significance, sex can be re-integrated with emotional significance. The issue is emotional violation. The issue is whether a woman who is being asked to bond and unbond at arbitrary convenience for the sake of amusing episodes is being liberated.

...snip...

The problem with free sex is that far more people think they can live it, or say that they can live it, or wish that they can live it, than can actually live it. It requires various combinations of emotional coldness and detachment, psychopathic deviance, emotional shallowness, compartmentalized functioning, and denial. The prerequisites are not trivial and do not facilitate capacity for close relationships. This suggests one is making a degree of sacrifice or inhibition of close interpersonal relationships in this choice.

Women were trying to act it out as if it were not hurting, and many still are today, because that's what they were universally being told by the new theories and social pressures that good liberated women were supposed to be able to do.

...snip...

After they were disposed of, women often did go on to a series of additional relationships. After being disposed of, a woman is hurt, is lonely, is in need of some sort of companionship, in need of comfort, is often desperate for a good word from anybody and needs some sort of love and affection. Exploitive men will sense weakness and capitalize on it. They'll give her just enough sympathetic talk and superficial concern to hook into her needs and desperation so they can soften her up and push her into bed.

...snip...

Nice Guys Finish Last
Development of a common morbid psychological twist compounds the situation. The sexually exploited woman builds and accumulates feelings of anger, resentment and mistrust. The oppressive behavior of exploitive men will control and repress her anger for her. She can't reveal her anger around them because, since they don't care about her, they will tell her to leave immediately. Such men are not very good listeners. They force her to hold her anger inside which has the effect of controlling her anger for her. A man who loves her and who is consequently less repressive, does not control her anger for her. She has more freedom to say what she wants to him and he'll tolerate it. Her repressed anger begins to be expressed under more healthy non-repressive conditions and becomes directed toward him, destroying the relationship. Consequently, she cannot enter into relationships with good men, but only men who are cold, oppressive, and care little about her, so that they maintain her pathological blocking and control her anger for her through threat and instability in the relationship. Nice guys finish last. This dooms her to a cycle of repetitive bad relationships.

The above is one of the dynamics in the relationship between pimps and prostitutes. By his ruthlessness, the pimp controls and represses a prostitute's anger for her and is one of the only men with whom she can have a relationship.

Many women seek cold or exploitive men who will control their anger for them. Such relationships also function as a form of emotional safety. The emotional distance in the relationship is a way of preventing someone from getting close to them and hurting them. They can't trust love. They can only trust or feel secure in sterility and distance. They complete their defense intellectually by relabeling their sterility and distance as liberation.

...snip...

Politically, it also is the key to the Clintons' almost eerie popularity among women. The Clintons were a public support for the pathology described above. By example, Hillary is selling women on their own sterility and pathological defenses. By example, Bill is validating their need for it. Women's groups such as NOW, who one might think would deplore Bill Clinton's abuse and degradation of women, instead support him as an ally in reinforcing the system of thought underwriting their agenda.

Part 11: The Deteriorated Relationship Between Men and Women (Continued)

...snip...

Love Phobia
Another characteristic which started developing to a much greater extent in the new sexual value system was love phobia. When a woman gets disposed of and hurt, she often stays away from subsequent men she could love with any depth rather than take the chance of being hurt profoundly again. Men she could love may raise her anxiety to intolerable levels, so that she runs from them and the potentially profound pain they represent. She dates, and may marry, only people who are exploitive or with whom she is fundamentally incompatible because such people haven't the potential to hurt her profoundly.

There is an tangential dynamic which occurs here. Such women will often look at the cold emotional sterility of male psychopaths as a type of invulnerable strength—which they envy because such emotional invulnerability would make the woman invulnerable to emotional pain. When they seek this type of "strength" what they don't understand is that they are involving themselves with someone who can, and will, cut their guts out with no conscience.

...snip...

This phobia, often merged with an element of hostility, is often encoded in an abstract grandiose language. The language is finely tuned in such a way as to deny the phobic condition and deny the contributing elements of the underlying condition, while portraying an illusion of omnipotent invulnerability and changing the appearance of the issue. Consequently, what are heard are abstract proclamations such as, "—today's women are no longer the property of men—." Granted, this statement brings up some interesting philosophical and constitutional issues, but these issues are not the real issues. The real issue which has been encoded is fear of being hurt and fear of love relationships. Often, there is as much anger and hatred as fear.

In terms of psychological dynamics, property is a substitute word meaning emotional bonding and trust. By substituting the word property for the term emotional bonding, a number of tactics and forms of denial are implemented.

...snip...

It's much less humiliating to express supposed anger over an abstract philosophical/legal issue and to trumpet grandiose proclamations than to admit simple fear and pain.

...snip...

More will be said about other consequences. For now, let it suffice to say the new system of sexual values was producing morbid personality changes in women. Young women were becoming as hard as hookers because they were living like hookers and being treated as hookers. Many young women who began as trusting, soft, warm, sensitive, loving creatures were converted into lonely, depressed, cold, mistrusting, angry, jaded shells—and the single world was, and still is, filled with them.

...snip...

Sex As a Form of Rape
A proportion of women in the women's movement, according to constant public pronouncements, now believe any form of sexual relationship with a man, in or out of marriage or with consent, is a form of rape. They probably do feel as though they have been violated. They have merged the distinction between physical violation and purely betrayal/emotional violation. While the clouding of this distinction is understandable within a generalized feeling of mistrust and betrayal, it precludes resolution of the issues.

...snip...

A 15-year-old girl has no business in bed with anybody because of the emotional and physical consequences. At best, a 15-year-old girl making decisions on the basis of what she feels, is making decisions which have long term consequences on the basis of immature and transient values which will change substantially in the next three years and probably astronomically in the next five.

...snip...

Premature sexual activity concurrent with deficient collateral development has been one of the causes of people viewing each other as sex objects and other problems. If two people are at a stage of development, or at an arrested stage of development, so that they have no maturity, values or personal substance, there is no way for them to relate to each other on the basis of substance.

...snip...

The prevalence of this condition is one of the reasons people are attempting to make sex do too much in America. It's all they have and are capable of.

...snip...

American culture has become fixated at the pre-substance level of sexuality. Many people are in such an arrested state of development that if they met anybody of any substance, it would put them in so far over their head that it would be impossible or they would drive the other person away.

...snip...

Many people in the fields of psychology, psychiatry and allied professions have gone into the fields for pathological, if not subversive, reasons. They are resentful and hostile to the real adult world. They went into the fields with the aim of trying to cure adults and the world of bringing up responsibility and reality-testing. They are attempting to subvert the credibility of realistic adult thinking by attacking it with distorted prejudicial psychological labeling administered under a psychological authoritarianism.

...snip...

What we are dealing with is a reality problem which is rigid because reality is rigid and reality is not arbitrary. Moreover, what we are inevitably dealing with, or rather attempting not to deal with, is an aspect of reality that somebody else doesn't want to face, whether it has to do with drugs, or sexuality, or concrete responsibility. It eventually boils down to a contest of wills where they claim I can't deal with feelings and I counter they can't deal with reality.

...snip...

the reality is that for more than 30 years the system, if you want to call it that, has been producing women who have been relationshiped, bedded, screwed, occasionally getting pregnant, pushed out the door, aborted, traded for someone else, relationshiped again, and so forth until a number of them became little more than angry unstable lunatics by age 24 —as uncomfortable as it makes many people feel to hear it. In other similar cases, women have acquired a feeling of drab resignation in their lives.

As we shall see, this was to have a profound effect on American culture and politics. There would be a steady supply of new recruits to fill in the ranks of the army of madness.

Part 12: The Deteriorated Relationship Between Men and Women (Continued)

...snip...

It has nearly 35 years since anyone has heard a woman concerned about future plans and showing consideration for someone who would love her in the future as though he were a real person or as though he were important or worth sacrifice. Mostly, in the last 35 years woman have arrogantly decreed something they called "personal decisions." Personal means "me, now," and anyone else is under obligation to accept what they are given. The primary concern has been about what's going to be fun that night or that weekend with secondary importance given to anything else. Often no importance is ever given to anything else.

Many of the personal decisions being made were not and are not personal decisions. They may be personally made at that moment, but the consequences exist after the moment. Those consequences affect other people at a later date and are expected to be imposed on other people as a matter of personal entitlement in which other people are to accept everything or anything unconditionally. For instance, if a man has fallen in love with a woman, then finds out one of her earlier personal decisions has left her with a case of herpes, that personal decision she made was one that she made for him to live through.

...snip...

Women were preyed upon. However, their styles of dress, their attitudes, their shallowness and behavior often did not suggest any seriousness or emotional depth. Men were not taking women or their emotions any less seriously than women were acting. Many women were not capable of, or worthy of, relationships incorporating any greater depth than what they were receiving and complaining about. Certain sets of attitudes, behavior, and value systems are mutually exclusive of other attitudes and values. In too many cases their values, their ethics, their sensitivity, were such that they were not trustworthy enough for intimacy, commitment, marriage, or any other serious considerations

...snip...

Many women are cheering and laughing at what women of any seriousness and depth would not find very amusing or wouldn't take lightly. Call it, if you will, an absence of emotional presence and integrity.

...snip...

How much fun would it really be to be one of the "so many women" and find yourself pregnant after one of these episodes? How easy would it be for a woman to abandon her baby to three strangers, even if one might be the father? Was it an act of desperation? If it were an act of desperation, what people, and women, are laughing about is a tragedy.

Suppose it weren't an act of desperation. Suppose the woman in question found it easy to abandon her baby to three strangers almost as a joke. What does this suggest? If she doesn't take abandoning her baby seriously, what does she take seriously? If the women in the audience don't take it seriously, what do they take seriously? As a man, is this the woman you could trust as a prospective mother of your child in your family? How would you like to be the child who is dependent upon a mother who could abandon you at whim? As a man seriously interested in marriage, since this woman hasn't shown any bond or commitment to her baby, does this give you serious cause to wonder whether she has the capability of bonding or commitment to you? Is she going to take you any more seriously than she is her own baby? Would it be wise to become emotionally involved with and committed to such a woman?

...snip...

Whether women have thought about it or not, or whether they turn out to like it or not, they have convinced contemporary men that that's their level of superficiality and that is their value system.

The point is, there has been progressively less about American women that suggests any depth, seriousness or credibility. They show little capacity and/or interest in thinking beyond shallow advertising imagery in their magazines or TV commercials to immediacy of consequences and what is real. Men have been given progressively little reason to view women or their emotions with any seriousness.

Americans have fallen into a too highly developed compliant silly sense of humor in recent decades. They have come to believe they are supposed to be sitting around laughing at everything as though life were a TV sit-com and they are to conform to professional laughers in the audience giggling. Life is more serious than that, and it's time to stop laughing at tragedy.

There is typically no consideration of the whole or the entirety of life. The focus of concern is about humorous punch lines and immediate interest or impulse while the whole deteriorates.

...snip...

There is a class of people of such inherent nature that, fundamentally, if they can't eat it, drink it, drive it, or screw it, they don't understand it and don't want any part of it for very long. It has no value to them. In some cases this can be subject to slight amendment such as, if they can't eat it, drink it, drive it, screw it, or use it to impress others. But the condition is fundamentally the same.

...snip...

Justifying hit-and-run sexual operations is one thing. However, when a man loves a woman, his emotions and values change rather quickly and he tends to look upon her body and emotions with a reverence. That is said with the realization that in recent years many women find this objectionable for a variety of reasons. These women have neither the character or emotional depth to live up to that reverence. It implies behavioral restraints and values on many women that they find an inconvenience and with which they don't want to be bothered. While some women say they don't want to be looked upon that way by men, they also complain quite bitterly when they aren't looked upon that way.

...snip...

Angry and defensive devaluation of sex or detachment of any significance now runs deep in the men in American society. In a sexually permissive society this devaluation or detachment is a form of necessary emotional self-protection against conflicts, and against disappointment and against feelings of jealousy. If sex can be rationalized as being nothing but a mechanical act, then it is not painful that your wife or girlfriend is doing it, or has been doing it, with other people.

...snip...

In reaction, women were becoming directly hostile and castrating on a widespread level. Their attitude was becoming one of, "Here comes another jerk knocking at the door with a hard on," which was just about the truth and they were tired of it—except on alternate weeks when they proclaimed it to be liberation. There were reports on the increasing problem of impotence in men. Some psychiatrists were also noticing impotence was connected to a subtle hostility and callousness on the part of women. I find women will bring up male impotence in social situations with what could be characterized as a thinly disguised air of gloating or victory.

...snip...

Men were now being cut to pieces. While exploitive men were less vulnerable, non-exploitive sincere men were being ripped up. They were developing love phobias and the other characteristics formerly seen in sexually abused women. This fed a new cycle of degeneration in the relationship between women and men.

...snip...

That's not the only thing that was becoming unstable because of runamok sex lives. The sexual revolution produced a diffuse personal dissatisfaction which was sublimated into, and fueled, the political radicalism of the 60s and 70s. Time and time again, young women would arrive at universities or colleges where they would begin to undergo psychological abuse and processing in the classroom as well as socially. At some point they'd get their virginity pierced by someone who would leave them a month later or who they'd find in bed with somebody else. Two weeks after that, they'd have their ears pierced, installing heavy ear rings resembling Chinese gongs that seemed to symbolize the weight of the pain, suffering and depression they were carrying. A short time later they would let their hair grow long enough so that it could be parted vaguely down the middle and allowed to hang down each side, making them look like abandoned suffering war orphans in drab clothing. This seemed to symbolize the fact they had been attacked and made war on and that they were suffering and had been abandoned. A month after that, they would show up in a demonstration displacing their anger by throwing a rock at a policeman, claiming they were angry because of American foreign policy, but it's doubtful that had been what had really made them angry.

...snip...

There were angry pronouncements about how "Economic advancement had occurred but human experience had not benefited!" What that meant was that they had been hurt very badly, their lives were empty and they were too depressed, they were in too much pain and turmoil to enjoy economic opportunities which had consequently not only become irrelevant, but which had become irritating to a depressed state of mind.

...snip...

Part 13: The Deteriorated Relationship Between Men and Women (Continued)

...snip...

We were seeing a generation of people who didn't have enough substance inside them to either form relationships of any depth or hold marriages together. There were too many males who weren't men and too many females who weren't women, married to each other. There were too many angry spoiled children married to each other and trying to raise each other without values. It wasn't working—and it is still a problem today.

...snip...

The Crisis of Adulthood
All healthy adults feel trapped and doubtful at one or more times in their lives. At some point they begin to realize much of their practical freedom of choice is gone because their options have been used up. They go through periods when they feel pressured and backed up against the wall by adversities and responsibilities. They wistfully think back to earlier times in their life and wonder if their choices and compromises should have been different. This is part of the ongoing psychological crisis of adulthood which must be continually resolved.

...snip...

The Age-of-Aquarius Sales Pitch
It was also coincidentally ignored that the Age of Aquarius was made possible by other people taking responsibility by working in factories or fields. If the hated previous generations had simply gone on strike and quit their jobs, the young of that period would have been too busy trying to ward off starvation to engage in any new freedoms. The hippie and youth culture of the 60s and 70s was entirely parasitic. In years to come the movement toward socialism would be adopted to support parasitism.

...snip...

Women had to turn their backs on the generation of shallow, spoiled, irresponsible American men. Women were being crippled and destroyed. The suicide rate among women continued an astronomical rise as testimony to the fact. They were being emotionally crippled, abused, and sexually exploited before marriage. Even if they did get married, their marriages weren't anything and they couldn't count on them. Although they made their own contribution to the conditions about which they complain, they were, and are, put in an impossible position.

...snip...

The third thing woman's lib became, was a collecting organization for vast numbers of spoiled arrogant young women. They wanted a career, but they didn't know what work consisted of in most sections of the country—and most of them apparently believed the median American income is $275,000 per year. Work was thought to be a career as a lawyer, media commentator, administrator, or a "social activist"—careers in which they would be acclaimed and worshiped to appeal to the pathological narcissism becoming widely developed in recent generations. That is the image of work universally portrayed in the media.

...snip...

For most men, the reality of a career was and is a slow track. It meant a life expectancy nearly seven years shorter than that of the average women and consisted of working for 40 or 50 years in a steel mill, a coal mine, a machine shop, a foundry, a slaughterhouse, or a factory, fabricating the material world we see about us. This wasn't the glamour or commitment most liberated women had as a frame of reference when they talked about equality—and it still isn't.

In a late 80s Donahue show young college graduates of both sexes discussed their career problems and what the supposed problems are with American society. They couldn't find positions in their field of study—which were largely four-year-long hobbies they played with in college. They were in positions which were not intellectually challenging or creative. They were not advancing fast enough in their careers or were in dead-end positions. They weren't in positions suitable for their supposed brilliance or educational level. They weren't getting paid according to their capacity. And so on. Consequently, something must be wrong with the country.

What was wrong is not the country, but their frame of reference. Work is not something somebody wishes he or she might like to do. Work is something someone needs done and will pay you to do. If work were fun, you would pay people to let you do it the same way you pay admission to get into Disneyland.

Work Ain't Child's Play
As you drive down the road you see gas stations, fast food stores, factories, department stores, grocery stores and so on. People assume all these institutions will be functioning to provide necessary goods and services. The word is: necessary. Everything in your home, the water you drink, the roads people drive on—even the sewage systems—must all be manufactured and operated. For those business institutions to function, tens of millions of people must work in them and that is what most people wind up being paid to do because that is what must be done. Most work is not glamorous. That is the reality of work. The people on the Donahue show applied for work, and, much to their distaste, they found it. Very few people wind up in glamorous situations or in the magazine ads. America needs fewer people dressed for success and more people dressed for serious work.

...snip...

It is mind-boggling to hear women talking about having a career so they can find "self-fulfillment." They have a shock coming. If they find any marvelous self-fulfillment, they'll have found something 95 percent of men haven't been able to find. This is reminiscent of an incident which happened when Jack Kennedy was running for president. Kennedy was campaigning in West Virginia. An old man in the crowd (he probably had been a coal miner) was going to put this young rich kid who wanted to be president in his place. Confronting Kennedy, he bellowed, "Young man, they tell me you've never worked a day in your life!" Kennedy thought about it for a few seconds, turned on his best movie star smile, then said, "You know, I believe you are right." Disarmed, the old man laughed and replied, "Son, I have to tell you, by not having worked, you haven't missed a damned thing!"

...snip...

In most instances fulfillment in life does not come from glamour or work, but from personal relationships and from family relationships. The purpose of work is to support those relationships.

In the early 90s I heard Barbara Walters complain that women were beginning to quit careers in droves. She, and others, apparently believe this represents an unaccountable betrayal of a hard-won struggle of the woman's movement.

Of course they were leaving so-called careers. They've awakened to find themselves aging, tired, and in lives quite different from the descriptions fed to them when they were 15 and 20 years younger. They are facing the same thing men have faced for generations. The fun is over. The slogans no longer hold up.

Barbara probably can't understand that. For the last 35 years she has been paid more than the GNP of a small nation to live a privileged existence inhabited by a handful of people in the world while associating with and interviewing similar people. She is only dimly aware any other world exists. She's under the quaint belief that it's real life. It isn't real life.

...snip...

Also, while men were expected to be as numb as though they had novacaine for sex hormones much of the time while women were strutting around flaunting their provocative half-naked condition, any man was expected to become an ecstasy-producing sex machine to these non-sex-object females, immediately, at the arbitrary snap of a feminine finger saying it was now time. He was repeatedly made to understand he was dealing with a sexually experienced woman who expected to be multiorgasmic in spite of her own emotional blocks and defenses. Concurrently, there would be abstract wonderment about the wave of impotence in men assigned this contorted task. While the obvious conflict in these messages and demands was simply denied, it was, in fact, exquisite sadism and castration with a vengeance, but nobody dared mention it or dares mention it to this day. For practical purposes, a group of enraged female undesirables, bullies and sadists treed the country.

Sexual Polarization
Now do you wonder why we are winding up with so many gay men? Basically, any factors that polarize the sexes, that produce fear, anxiety, or instability between the sexes; create or augment the psychodynamics of homosexuality. Those factors have been abundant and operating full steam for years. One might be tempted toward the simple conclusion that male homosexuality, as turbulent and distorted as it is, is in the minds of some preferable and less toxic than the wantonness, instability and defiant sadism of American liberal women who are in control of everything but their own minds.

Parenthetically, something should be said about male homosexuality in this context before going on. In a recent radio program on rape, the women on the program maintained rape was an expression of anger and desire to humiliate women while women had no comparable threat on men. That's not exactly true. For physical reasons which should be obvious, it is impossible for a woman to rape a man or subject a boy to the same type of sexual abuse to which little girls can be forcefully subjected. Women don't rape or sexually abuse, they castrate.

...snip...

one aspect of male homosexuality is that it often represents a subtle psychological form of castration. It also represents a perverted form of protest against women in which the protester is psychologically immobilized and the protest is turned inward against the self instead of turned outwardly.

...snip...

The male homosexual's anger, aggressiveness or assertiveness may be more profoundly repressed, passive and/or immobilized. Rather than externally protesting his treatment, or potential treatment, by women, he inverts his protest and turns it in upon himself through both withdrawing from women by withdrawing his masculinity and therefore withdrawing his need for women. Instead of being able to express his anger from his treatment by women, his psychological immobilization causes him to develop and implement a subtle self-hating contempt for, and repression of, his potential masculinity and that part of himself which, if not repressed, would make him vulnerable to that fear and mistreatment. He protests by repressing those potential characteristics of himself which make him vulnerable, afraid, or whatever. He synthesizes an alternate life around this.

I Am Woman
In becoming a quasi-woman, he becomes immune to women while obtaining some of the power of women. In the gay subculture and sexuality there is an exercise of a certain wanton bitchiness and a teasing sadistic arbitrariness which approaches the power women exercise when they are perceived to wield the same characteristics. The gay man gets to play the part of the female who has the power to arbitrarily seduce and reject.

Back in the days before gay was liberation, and back when psychiatrists were not politically prohibited from discussing homosexual origins, it used to be known that gay men often came from a background of a strong mother and weak father. As children many gays early learned who had the power and that men were worthless or beaten-down second-class citizens somehow drawn by weakness to a degrading and humiliating relationship with women. If they had, and have, any doubts, look at any TV comedy and see who the buffoon is —it's the bumbling man. Compare the moral authority and strength of the men portrayed in movies and TV with that portrayed by women. At best, the standard of masculinity has become an insipid Phil Donahue who hid himself in sensitivity, confusion and trendiness, for more than 30 years while the nation was taken over by drugs and other sickness. Much of the last 10 years of the show were also spent obliquely defending the militant Huller Clinton-like mess that he married.

...snip...

In the last several decades, men have become progressively passive and immobilized, often through having been programmed with irrational guilt from various sources as well as through deficient development of, or exercise of, masculine traits. Simultaneously, women have become progressively aggressive and dominating. This, together with the culturally institutionalized hippie-culture repression of appropriate anger along with exhortations upon men to find and develop their feminine side, both of which have been implemented in mainstream American culture, have psychologically immobilized men in a way that form a predisposition to turn the reactions to the castration they are experiencing inwardly against themselves.

...snip...

Heterophobia
To put it another way, American men have been psychologically neutered. This is a profound level of psychopathology. It's a good distance toward homosexuality.

Gays and those at the masculinity-immobilized level of pathology would have the world believe the problem with rejection of gays is homophobia—an irrational fear of homosexuality, supposedly due to fear of one's own homosexual tendencies.

The problem in America is not homophobia, but is instead heterophobia. Within a social psychosis, heterosexual relationships have become more painful than hopeful or satisfying, leading to rejection of heterosexuality.

And the major problem is not homophobia, but one of fear of manhood. Men have the guilt and fear of breaking through their highly-conditioned inhibitions against manhood. In many cases they are incapable of the strength and responsibility of manhood if they were to break through. Contemporary women want males who are innocuous, someone who won't shake their tree, someone who won't demand that they be women, and who is consequently emotionally safe. By adopting pathology and self-castration, a class of males hopes to buy themselves an inside track to obtaining acceptance from contemporary castrating women. After having paid the price for admission, they have no reason to be admitted. They aren't buying themselves very much of a role. Nobody has very much use or respect for them.

...snip...

In accordance with this is a noticeable trend among a number of female psychologists, psychiatrists and other psychotherapists who publicly and in private practice have "—-complete respect for the sexual preference of gay men." During radio talk shows or other public forums they fall over themselves fawning over and praising gay male callers. It has nothing to do with these women respecting or loving these men or doing them any favors. In fact, these women mental health professionals are sweetly vicious and undermining. These gay men are whipped, insipid and castrated. Many of them are ludicrous. These women are going to keep them that way under the guise of some sort of loving care and understanding. They are going to help gay men "adjust to their sexual preference" which is another way of saying keeping them sick, weak, non-threatening, dominated, ludicrous, and castrated as a role model to be pushed upon other men. Gay men will be shown how to adjust to being crippled—leaving women in the position of appearing to be strong superior liberated Amazons by comparison. Those men who aren't gay will be pushed to get into touch with their feminine side, which is good enough to render them crippled and insipid—and the country weakened, sick, and drug-ridden along with it.

...snip...

So, with the advent of the women's liberation movement, sexually exploitive men danced in the streets—-and in beds. Meanwhile, good men who had had their values trivialized, who had done nothing but take abuse for how many years in putting up with an increasing amount of shallowness and trivialization from women, finally lost nearly everything, including hope. It was a bitter time for them—and still is. They got to stand around waiting for cold sterile leftovers after exploitive men had had their way with women and moved on.

...snip...

While everyone else has been busy becoming "liberated," the straight, serious, responsible white male has been a fifth class minority citizen and treated as everybody's fool and punching bag for more than 30 years. Liberated women ridicule, caricaturize, and reject him. Lesbians hate him. Gay men outrank and laugh at him. Liberated "sensitive" men such as the Phil Donahues of the world mock, betray and belittle him. Any word of common sense he utters is immediately disputed or interpreted as "an irrational obsession with male dominance." It's supposed to have been easy for him. There is no public acknowledgment that he has ever sacrificed, contributed to anything, or built anything or has any earthly use. Indeed, many men are now so castrated, sickened and debilitated that they are barely able to do anything or have anything to contribute. They are like drone bees. We reluctantly keep a few of them around for stud because artificial insemination is not a fully developed enough technology to replace them yet in a world "—in which women are finding emotional fulfillment without men" as well as showing an increasingly defiant preference for having children without feeling any necessity for husbands. He's not politically organized. The politicians tax him. He gets no affirmative action for past or present injustices. He gets leftovers from everybody and no respect from anybody. If he becomes angry, he is accused of being insensitive and unliberated. If he holds it in, it turns to depression whereupon he's accused of being unemotional, emotionally withdrawn, or emotionally withholding—which then becomes an excuse for shallow, spoiled, liberated women to do more of what put him in that condition in the first place.

Contrary to images portrayed in television sit-coms, contrary to the assertions in liberal women's magazines or whatever, not all men are stupid. Many men may wish they were stupid so they wouldn't realize their situation and it wouldn't bother them. They may act stupid as a method of attempting to ignore the situation because they feel they have no choice. Protest is useless because there are no alternatives. Many of them are sick to their stomach, disgusted and resigned. The only thing they can do is swallow it, stagger along, and do the best they can with whoever or whatever they have to work with. What dignity they have left, and the only remaining course open to them, is psychological withdrawal.

A universal criticism of men has become their emotional withdrawal, their inability to convey their emotions, their inability to communicate and that they are not good at expressing their feelings. The assumption being made is that the feelings men are suppressing are supposed to be nice feelings and are not to be held back. That assumption is derived from liberated women's egocentric premise that men should automatically be an unconditional source of good feelings at convenience instead of being independent entities. The feelings he's not communicating are supposed be nice because that's what would be useful for other people. That's an erroneous assumption. It's my observation that the nation should encourage this condition of emotional repression and pray to whatever deity is currently in vogue that it continue. If the serious men in this country began to regain their capacity for indignation and express the backlog of barely-controlled wrath they are repressing, there is likely to be an all-out civil war.

I know of two men whose wives are demanding they go into psychotherapy to end their psychological withdrawal. What these women don't know is that if the therapy is successful, their marriage will be over. These men are disgusted, and withdrawal is the method they use of repressing their disgust and staying in the marriage.

Psychological withdrawal by men has been talked about so far, here, in the context of some sort of relationship with women. The assumption is that, no matter what, the man will knuckle under and be thankful for whatever little it is, if anything, he is given under the trickle-down theory of love economics devised by narcissistic liberated women. That is not necessarily true. There is another alternative. A quiet revolution has been taking place in America and probably elsewhere. The answer more men are choosing is simple complete withdrawal from women, physically and psychologically. An increasing proportion of serious men, some of the best men, reject relationships with women in any way whatsoever. They are not interested in marriage. They are not interested in sex. They are not interested in female companionship. They have become convinced women have little to offer and what little they have to offer is not worth the humiliation or aggravation. In an extension of a 25 year trend, the number of men aged 25-44 living alone quadrupled by the mid 1980's.

...snip...

What "everybody knows" about the non-survivability of men outside of marriage is not true. Men are no longer dependent upon marriage for psychological sustenance. They are able to turn away from women and marriage without experiencing the fate threatened by feminists et al.

...snip...

There are good men left. They have left for good. Contemporary women over-played their hand. A growing proportion of serious men are turning their back on the humiliating role of being emotional convenience stores for demanding, shallow, hard-as-nails, self-centered, egotistical undesirables. They have had it with women. Instead of waiting around for crumbs as they were supposed to, they have said to hell with it and left these women stuck with a pool of men who are their moral, emotional, and intellectual equivalents. These women are now complaining bitterly at the injustice of it all.

...snip...

In daily social contacts in the past 15 or more years I see things which would have been almost unthinkable when I was in my early twenties. I see presentable young men who aren't interested in women. Attractive women approach them and are rebuffed with a pleasant thanks, but no thank you. These men aren't gay. The prospect of involvement with a woman produces such dread that they are emotionally deadened toward women. They don't trust women. They are disgusted. Young men are building homes. The homes are not for the prospect of wives. The homes are for themselves. These men are going on about their day to day lives as if women didn't exist.

Comments