Baldovin Concept censured on Facebook

(ro- for English scroll down) Baldovin Concept a fost pentru o perioada in imposibilitate de a fi publicat pe Facebook. Probabil ca unii dusmani ai sigurantei femeilor au fost deranjati de articolele scrse aici in ultimul an, si l-au raportat masiv ca spam, desi continutul sau nu contine reclame si nu vinde nimic. La rugamintile mele, dvs. cititorii ati contraraportat ca spatiu sigur care nu incalca standarderele comunitatii, pentru care va multumesc.

Eng- Baldovin Concept was for some time banned to be published on Facebook. Probably some women's security enemies were disturbed by the last year's articles I wrote here and received multiple negative spam reports to Facebook, although its content doesn’t contain advertising or any kind of commerce. But due to my asking for help, you the readers counter-reported this space as safe, not going against the Facebook Community Standards, so I thank you for that.

29 mai 2021

5.9. Good parts in the radical feminism ideology

5. The Feminism as a reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

5.9. Good parts in the radical feminism ideology

Click aici pentru varianta in limba romana

I used the general psychoanalysis method within the limits of the private data protection rights

In the articles so far I have criticized and rejected most feminist-radical ideas (not to be mistaken with the justifiable moderate feminism ) with sociological, political, legal or psychopathological reasons. But, as I mentioned in the introduction, I did not write this text to demolish feminism but to strengthen it. I was interested in a public approach to psychoanalytic psychotherapy, with unveiling some internal psychic mechanisms of those involved in this movement but without pointing it to a specific person. So there was no individual's right to privacy violation. Apart from some individual public examples already famous in the social media, to which I made some psychoanalytic incursion, I did not make public any individual, unknown cases, which would cause frustration to those involved. Due to the celebrity, those cases targeted by my analysis have meanwhile developed a certain emotional shell about the negative opinions that have been circulating about them from various users of online social media. So it is very likely that my alleged "wild psychoanalysis" that targeted them will not even reach them. In fact, my psychoanalysis had another destination: it was meant to get to those anonymous people who identify with these cases, whose emotional intimacy is fully protected. In the same way, the general psychoanalysis made to the various groups that constitute the general feminism or the radical one in particular is an individual guide for the women involved to find themselves in my descriptions and to self-analyze towards a personal psychotherapeutic evolution.

The radical feminism psychopathology does not equate with the scientific error

I didn’t mean with this text to point out that the feminist-radical ideation towards psychopathological predisposition would be something incriminating, as the classic mentality does. I made this feminist-radical ideas psychopathological analysis because in this way we can better understand its supporting perseverance despite some solid counter-arguments, such as those expressed here and here   . Existenta acestui acompaniament psihopatologist nu infirma calitatea logica sau stiintifica a ideilor pe care le genereaza, desi le influenteaza. This psychopathologist supervision does not negate the logical or scientific ideas quality it generates, although it influences them. Exactly this phenomenon made me detach these influences and describe them in detail as in this chapter or in this article   and this one   . There is no absolute truth and absolute error; imprisonment in certain ideas, without the ideological evolution natural fluidity, without response to counter-arguments, shows a negative psychopathological influence on one's mentality. Its description can mean a drainage channel and retroactive communication of this ideological mass with the outside.

Such a psychopathological background also exists among anti-feminists, the general feminism ideological opponents. Many of them are the humanity itself biggest enemies. They are the murderous sadists who do not want women to be given more rights so to have an easier way to perpetuate their morbid vice. So I also described the antifeminism psychopathology, as sharp as Michel Foucault described the classical society’s tortures, not so much in this text, but especially in the other texts I have written and will continue to write. Its symptomatology is so vast and diverse that it does not occur in this text. Compared to the sadistic antifeminism psychopathology, the radical feminism described here seems harmless. Therefore, there nobody can blame me that I would have used psychopathology as a tool for building an ad hominem sophistry against feminism.

I exclude Karen Straughan and her followers from this debate as they make a moderate antifeminism, generally based on arguments. But, despite a seemingly cold analysis, there is also a psychopathological background that paradoxically risks becoming misogyny and does not recognize any merit from the feminism. Being a person and not a current, it is not deontological to look through its biography for psychopathological data and to describe them here. There are personal things that I did not expose as well when I described the radical feminism psychopathology. I only described these classes of people (in general) and not the first and last name individuals. I think that the counter-arguments power is enough to counteract this idea that she supports.

The inopportuneness or the logical or scientific falsity of some feminist ideas does not in any way mean its abolition, not even in its radical version. I do not support the classical mentality of absolutely true ideas, which would come from God, while the false ones would come from the devil or from human imperfection. Misconceptions are an important part of the very science history itself, being a generative part of the truth. And this is exactly the role of this chapter last article, namely to show the radical feminism good parts as well. As mentioned in the introduction, the error has a clearly recognized role for epistemology in the scientific truth genesis. It is a stage of truth. Well, according to this principle, in addition to the opposition I had in this text to the radical-feminist ideas, now is the time to show its the good parts.

Ideas directly inspired from the radical feminism rhetoric

The fact that I ended up doing this study is largely due to certain radical feminists. I hope that the society will overcome the prejudices inherited or taken over from the social customs, as I did, and take action against these globally planned crimes. That's what happened to me. The premise of combating the radical feminists excesses led me to deeper theoretical analyzes than I had previously done on one subject or another. In some cases, they led me to more precise principles that I had previously adhered to. This is the case with the clearer expression of the social norms preceding the court that I have theorized here   and here   . In other cases, trying to infirm them and looking for objective data, I radically changed my position and adopted their ideas. This was the case with the analysis the risk of rape and sexual violence from the sadists on the middle-class and lower-class women.

Then, despite its many mistakes, the feminism radical wing is still primarily beneficial for women themselves. The accusatory expressed feminist-radical ideas, such as "all men are rapists," are offensive to those of us who have not raped anyone. But still, applied in their behavior, these ideas make them much more cautious and less likely to fall victims. I have constantly criticized in this text the support for the radical-feminist ideas such as "all men are rapists". Pointing these ideas accusatively randomly towards one man or another, in the absence of solid evidence, is an abuse. However, I support and recommend all women to quietly adopt these ideas on a behavioral, discreet level, without baseless accusations. Many of them do, which is good for their safety. The women are in danger and the authorities are trying to disguise it. The today media controlled by sick and perverse elite contributes to a much too artificial good image to a certain part of society, which is actually the origin of these horrors. For this reason, despite its errors I have described in this text so far, radical the feminism is beneficial because it draws attention to this pact that the social system makes with criminals.

On how the radical feminism inspired me to describe the moderate and the murderous sadism

After trying to reject these radical feminism cautious prejudices, I came to support some of them. I discovered the conspiracy that the system supports to hide the serial killers extreme sadism that later I wrote about here   . This conspiracy blinds us all. Although the serial killers reality, such as Jack the Ripper, has been known since the 19th century, the world wide authorities keep fooling us to forget about this psychopathological scourge specific to the wild capitalism and, more recently, to the neoliberalism. The most used and well-known psychopathology treaty, namely "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (DSM) or the "International Statistical Classification of Diseases" (ICD) say absolutely nothing about these upper-class sadism monstrous morbid manifestations that ends up in breaking news cases. In the United States alone, between 400,000 and 600,000 people, mostly women, disappear each year according to the FBI itself. We are not talking here about the 3-rd world countries semi-dictatorial systems, but about those with important "democratic tradition". These women are not kidnapped and killed for robbery, as is the case with men. These women are kidnapped by the extreme sadists who monstrously kill them in sexual acts that even the most radical feminists can not describe. Those sadists are part of the repressive institutions and know how to erase their traces in order not to get to the newspapers front pages. And yet some of them come to the surface from time to time.

A journalist has to do a real investigative job to find these official credible statistics. There are several web-sites like this   , in which such statistics are published, but no official source is cited. It’s impossible to tell whether there is indeed an official source and the statistics are not falsified, or whether that source is an official one.

Obvious sexism in the psychopathological descriptions of the main mental disorders classification models

I have been studying psychopathology for 20 years and during this time I couldn’t make a simple connection between the moderate sadism described by these treatises and these monstrous crimes that explode in the mass-media every few decades. The psychopathologists who edit these treatises obediently follow orders from the society masters. I made this simple connection only after I confronted the radical feminists’ ideas under the first impulse to reject through these statistics. It was me who was coming with a carefully modeled by the official media lies prejudice on the alleged excessive rape fear subject; but actually the statistics showed me that the women are not afraid enough about it and the authorities indeed hide this dramatic reality.

Besides paying attention to the serial killers protection conspiracy, the radical feminism has led me to note that psychopathology does not treat the emotional abuse done by the histrionic men in the same way as the histrionic women’s. The traditional psychopathology did not take into account the Casanova-type seducers emotional abuses for which I made a summary here . I knew about the seductive hysteroid women’s emotional abuse on men that the psychopathologists have exposed in detail over time. I also knew about the emotional abuse caused by the hysteroid male on women but they are not described as important and in the same level of detail in these treatises. I have read about these abuses in the several tens of pages long descriptions, in those very voluminous psychopathology treatises. But I do not remember finding a detailed macho Casnaova description in the synthetic psychopathology treatises that I have studied, in which this behavior was recognized as psychopathological and abusive. In the traditional culture, this is recognized as high standard male behavior norm. The traditional psychopathology did not show its abuse appearance but evaluated it as men normal behavior. These behaviors were given the appearance of “others” and were not kept when the symptoms were summarized.

For example, DSM 5 treats in a very sexist manner the “Histrionic Personality Disorder” (code 301.50). The diagnostic criterion number 2 is:

„(2) ) Interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior”

We find in this criterion the seductive behavior of the histrionic woman but not that of the histrionic man. Casanova also dresses sexy like the histrionic seductress but he is not constantly provocative so as not to be confused with the homosexuals, whom he generally delimits himself from. Besides, any kind of male sexual exhibitionism of his only culturally hidden anatomical part brings the perception of being a rapist, which he constantly avoids. He can be more or less exhibitionist like a histrionic woman at the pool, at nudists or other places like this. He can also become a bit more exhibitionist exclusively in the presence of women. But a male body worked at the gym is not as sexually challenging as the histrionic women. His exhibitionism is more about possession, namely cars, clothes, luxury watches and other expensive clothing accessories, usually rented. But the DSM does not say in any of its editions about this male exhibitionism in a certain criterion, nor in the more detailed description that follows. All the DSM editions have similar criteria for this disorder. This fact is also found in criterion number 4:

„(4) Consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self”

Also, these criteria have more detailed description like this one:

„They may embarrass friends and acquaintances by an excessive public display of emotions (e.g., embracing casual acquaintances with excessive ardor, sobbing uncontrollably on minor sentimental occasions, having temper tantrums) ”

We can see in this criterion rather the histrionic woman description. The histrionic man rarely bursts into tears. Also, at criterion number 8 there is again a specific feminine form:

„(8) Considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are.”

Indeed, both the histrionic man and woman make close friends with people on a higher level of the social ladder. But the histrionic man is rather arrogant than close to those around him, contrary to the histrionic woman. In the more detailed description of these criteria you can read:

„ Individuals with this disorder often consider relationships more intimate than they actually are, describing almost every acquaintance as “my dear, dear friend” ...”.

Somehow, the traditional psychopathology even tends to praise his macho behavior, which shows a traditional androcratic, abusive, conquering mentality, which thus justifies its own mentality and its own privileges, exactly as the most radical feminism claims. When analyzing Casanova's adventures , the traditional psychopathology ironically reveals the seducing women failures rather than criticizing his predisposition to emotionally abuse them through the seduction and then sudden abandonment. We ca see here that the feminist theory of men entitlement through education or the discrimination culture is fully covered in the way that the psychopathologists have reflected the histrionic behavior abuses. Although the consumerist culture promotes this image, in reality there are very few women who appreciate the Casanova man with his endless attempts to have intimate relationships with as many women as possible. Well, the complaints of both radical and moderate feminism must change this popularized perception build by the neo-slavery mentality intention to make men work more so to have more women. So the description I did later was simply a reminder of those voluminous treatises broad descriptions found in the radical feminism accusations. I believe that the description I made of the hysteroid man should be adopted by the summary descriptions psychopathology treatises such as DSM or ICD. So in this case their generally unfounded accusations also have a beneficial part.

The antifeminism: a social privileged ones strategy to undermine the feminist movement

The main purpose of perpetuating the classical slavery, today modified into a false free trade relationship   , is exactly what the most radical feminism describes. It pointed out that there is a media education into the disguised prostitution culture supported by the social privileged ones. And indeed, those who run the society not only do not take efficient actions to stop these crimes causes but perversely encourage and promote them, just as the radical feminists say. Through this prostitution culture promoted among the common mentality, the socially privileged ones want to put into practice in the future their sadistic impulses (including murderous), and get away with it. At the top of the social pyramid, the sexual harassment is practiced at an imperceptible level, where even the most radical feminists fail to see it. Then, such a mentality paves the way for fleeting relationships with married or unmarried women for the social top pyramid businessmen. Hence, the feminism critique (including the radical one) is fully justified when applied globally and not individually to a particular man.

The social pyramid top does not want to give up these abusive privileges. Based on certain errors, especially at the political level, the Marxism and feminism are generally recognized as harmful by these sadistic interests’ mentalities. In the same way the sophists had their excesses, as how the Marxism had. But the sophists were authentic visionaries   even if the history of philosophy and science ignored their decisive contribution. In the same way, the social exploitation theory with which Marxism was identified remains valid during the new type of slavery practiced by the neo-liberalist society, even if it is also taken over from the ancient sophists. The block rejection of sophist, Marxist and feminist theories, without detailed analysis of their proposals, is explained precisely by the interest of the socially privileged ones not to lose their abusers advantages over the rest of society.

So, for leading me to these clues, I think that the radical feminism is also doing a good job, although we are still opponents of the issues outlined above. For the friendship I have with some of them, I am willing to support in the short term some radical ideas including those I criticized here on a purely theoretical level. The purpose of such a thing is exclusively to draw attention to the inequitable society in which we live today, which is a danger to women. But, I repeat, I do not support these long-term solutions proposed by them because of the arguments I have already set out in this study and others that I will set out later in the next chapter. Many might as well become aware of the problems and risks to which women are exposed. From this point of view, I am also a radical feminism excesses supporter. However, I do not know if it is more beneficial to even involuntarily draw his attention to the crimes tolerated by the sadistic social system on women or is rather negative the rejection reaction towards the moderate feminism wrongly mistaken with the radical one excesses. But that's another topic of debate. This was the chapter on feminism. In the following one I will describe the long-term solutions to stop the general criminality and that against women in particular . 

30 aprilie 2021

5.8. The feminism can live separated from the Marxism

5. The Feminism as a reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

5.8. The feminism can live separated from the Marxism

As several critics have noted and as I mentioned in some previous articles, the radical feminism has somehow "borrowed" some Marxism prejudices. I analyzed in the previous article the primitive tribes’ matriarchal organization prejudice, which is actually meant to avoid incest but not to maintain the supposed primitive women superior political power over men. In addition, the general feminism was seduced by other Marxist prejudices and adapted them to its ideology. For example, the Marxism "class struggle" has become under feminism the "sexist struggle"; it substituted the Marxism exploitative bourgeoisies with men in general. The result was a kind of inverted sexism Marxism, after which 99% of women would be "good" and 99% of men would be "bad." This is how it came up the idea that 99% of men are abusers and rapists (or even all, according to some). This idea comes directly from the Marxist theory that all employers are law breakers or immoral.

By changing the Marxism bourgeoisies for "patriarchy", the radical feminists thus brought out the same political current, with the same resentment tendencies. Well, just as it happens with the "primitive heaven" which loses its magic after being directly experienced, so it does with closely known communism. The communists removed experienced people from their positions and replaced them with amateurs, insufficiently trained and incompetent. The private initiative eradication by the Marxist policies has led to the economic stagnation and terror. Then, in their blind permanent revolution, they continued the "hunt for capitalists" among their own comrades, as was the case with Stalin, who thus eliminated his rivals for the Communist Party leadership out of this kind of suspicions of betraying communist ideals. This is the picture in which the radical feminism “matriarchy dictatorship" frames into by blaming all men as rapists and emotional abusers. The radical feminism thus risks repeating the same Marxism political errors on the sexist level. Instead of identifying the social profiteers or major sex offenders, they carry an ideological microscope with which they observe a false sexual harassment or a false misogyny in jokes or innocent gestures made by men.

The moderate feminism is thus influenced by the radical one to resume the Marxism political problems (communist dictatorship). Of course, the radical feminism is a minority; its followers are few but it is worth showing here what risks the moderate feminism assumes if it is seduced by this rhetoric. The moderate feminism can exist without this "dictatorship of the matriarchy ", as a sexist form of Marxism that proposed the "dictatorship of the proletariat". This is why I want to point it on the moderate feminists’ attention, with whom I empathize and to whose ideology I subscribe, to the risks they are subjected to, without a more critical analysis of certain radical ideas that seduce them in a way or another.

The mistaking patriarchy with the slavery

The radical feminism main theoretical problem is that they interpret the today's civilization social neo-slavery as male oppression. But the patriarchy is not a big society’s problem, as feminism in general considers, nor the Orthodox Church Patriarchate. The human society’s problem is the war and slavery practiced by the classical warriors, as still the basic institution of the so-called civilized society functioning. Even though fewer citizens are directly involved in the weapons handling, the war threats still affect us all day by day in and hour after hour. In the modern era, the slavery has been given a false aspect of free trade between the one who orders and the one who executes the orders, as I have shown here   . Instead of the slavery threats of beating or death, we have now the by senses harassing slavery for extra consumption, which has led to the mental disorders modern explosion among the population.

I have constantly said in my texts that the traditional culture is an artificial consent abuse culture. This false consent was artificially snatched from both men, by recruiting into a hierarchy, and women, by the pressure to accept love affairs. But, on the other hand, the traditional society has also meant an evolution from a violence or robbery culture to that of natural consent, and courtship rules show exactly that. The general feminism has described this type of society by the "rape culture" phrase.


The "rape culture" theory with which the general feminism characterizes the traditional society is the direct expression of inverted sexism. It excludes men from this trauma machine, because men were much less raped than women. As they were told many times, the abusive or honest men were also victims of these initial abuses in order to create them a predisposition to execute orders. But the strong ones abuses against the weak are not only sexual by nature, but also the hierarchical subordination or instinctual harassment one, through advertising messages. This type of abuses victims can be both women and men.

The strongest men suffering caused to the weakest is far bigger than the sexual crimes and the emotional abuses against women; raping women has a mirrored in death itself, for men. The number of women burned at the stake on charges of witchcraft is much lower than the number of men killed in the wars. The modern wage slavery abuses are bigger for men than for women. The murderous sadists produce fewer casualties than the modern work accidents, in which the majority of those who lose their lives are men. The missing women number, probably killed by sadists, is much lower than the general deaths among men. There is a whole debate on this subject in the West, regarding the suffering degree that the rape has towards women in relation to that produced by men by the masters or conquerors of new territories.

For an objective, non-sexist society critique

Of course, as I personally mentioned in this text and as other theorists said, the women did not care about this issue, due to the pact between warriors to protect women and children, or the modern mentality that the women should have a job easier than the men. All these facts are feminist demands that the traditional, "patriarchal" society has adopted at the cultural level, during the civilization evolution. From a female point of view, the rape is the only negative aspect of this warrior culture, given that the warriors made this early pact for the protection of women and children. Even today, the main traumas suffered by women are sexual by nature. Otherwise, their lives are protected from the traumas to which most men are usually exposed, according to their traditional specialization. In order to avoid the reversed sexism, the warrior societies of the past or those exclusively profit-oriented specific to modern era, should simply and comprehensive be characterized by the feminism under the " abuse culture" formula and not only by that of the "rape culture". Such a sexist-reversed attitude tends not to give a damn about male suffering.

Equally, the profit that some women gain from this abuse culture should not be overlooked. The war was also practiced in the primitive, supposedly matriarchal society, even if without a slavery social system. Most of the new slave owners are men, indeed. But there are also women who benefit from this social system criminal convenience that convinces one part of society to execute the orders of others. Believing that belonging to the female sex * absolves them from the guilt of supporting the current system is a comfortable naivety. It comes from the guilt of participating in this oppressive system in which we live, projected exclusively on men. Excluding women from this state of affairs, as feminism in general does, is a typical reverse sexism manifestation. It is based on the deep mind perception, which I mentioned in the previous article, that the father (patriarch) would be bad and the mother would be good. This theme of good and bad parents has been described in detail by the psychoanalysis.

The radical feminism proposes replacing the traditional abuses with the modern ones, just as the communist dictatorships became popular because they promised to set free the wage slave (the worker). As I said in the previous articles, the contemporary lifestyle, like the primitive one, is rendered in far too optimistic colors, compared to the classic, traditional one. But, if we look more closely, we will see that the "mess" was only swept under the carpet, not exactly solved. Indeed, the "modern family" no longer needs a man to fix things in the house or household. Today there is a steward, a bricklayer, a plumber, a cleaner, and so on, who comes and does this in exchange for money. The family no longer needs an abusive father, but the abuses have moved to the new type of slavery, the wage slavery. Those plumbers, stonemasons, bricklayers or cleaners used for a time for the interests of a few such "modern families" will come home tired and frustrated and point their frustration on their families. And this will eventually lead to its destruction, the loneliness and antisocial acts. So the modern society solution of patriarchy “repairing” actually only hides the problem and sends it into the future.

This is the main point of disagreement that I have with most feminists in general. Some of them have a Marxist vision about the evolution of humanity towards moral and political perfection, considering history as a process of "liberation" the marginalized. I also support the individual freedom and getting out of despotism. I also blame the classical slavery. But, unlike them, I believe that the classical society means not only empires (slaves), but also free zones that could live in freedom most of the time. The 19th century bourgeoisie and the contemporary capitalism mean not only abuses, but also mentality evolution through the very technological evolution that conditioned it. Any technological initiative could not be made in history without the male specialization outside the living space, just as the species itself could not be promoted without the female specialization inside it. The traditional patriarchy cannot be equated with the classical slavery and the empires that practiced it, but with the traditional specialization of gender itself. Except for the issues listed above, I believe that these communities have been the standard for peaceful coexistence and the very civilization values consolidation. And these communities had a patriarchal organization.

Yes, the classical society has abused its people, both women and men. To blame its patriarchy actually means to blame the entire technology and civilization that men in particular have created through gender specialization. Personally, I am a great opponent of the traditional abuses that are still practiced today in the contemporary society, by default. But when appeared in history, they represented that specific technological and cultural level. Yes, the contemporary civilization has its problems. Yes, the cities are overcrowded and we feel uprooted from the way we lived thousands of years ago, for millions of years. Yes, the human civilization is still eugenic, practicing the marginalized ones discreet elimination. Yes, the human civilization is gradually poisoning the planet. Yes, the ever-expanding human civilization is destroying wildlife and endangering the rest of the species. There are painful things to be solved in the future. But these horrors are totally accepted by the primitive mentality. Except for the practiced from inside eugenics, done out of the confrontation with the rival species, all these are every species ideals of development. It is the very civilization that has made us change our mind about the primitive mentality. The rape, the sadistic passionate women killing and the emotional abuse are also contemporary society big problems to be solved in the future. But not through the past. The past alternative solving to these problems is the direct fight with rival species, which is much more traumatic than rape.

These are the main points of disagreement I have with the moderate feminism and especially with the radical one. With the first I have much more in common. And I also feel the specific to the psychopathologist empathy regarding the radical one, despite the criticisms coming from my sociological, political, psychological or legal moral beliefs. For this reason and from my predilection for scientific objectivity, I will also highlight in the next article the radical feminism good parts including in the errors I have criticized so far.

* Some feminists themselves have a prepsychological mentality that they project and then criticize it in the traditionalists, according to which gender is dictated by the genitals. From this prejudice they deduce that there are as radical differences between women and men as the two organs look different. Psychology has dismantled this myth long time ago. So, having female genitals, they consider that they would be automatically different from masculinity. But, as can be seen, they are very masculine in vehemence, pouring their masculinity into this kind of militancy.

31 martie 2021

5.7. Ideological problems in the of the “patriarchy”, “patriarch” terms pejorative form

5. The Feminism as a reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

5.7. Ideological problems in the of the “patriarchy”, “patriarch” terms pejorative form

This article continues the previous one  

The main feminism theme, either moderate or radical, is the patriarchy. It is described under the unilateral-demonic image that subdues the woman by the abusive and even raping man. In fact, as I have shown in the previous article, the medieval burning witches practice shows that there is some justification for such a thing. As in the case of radical feminist accusations against all men as rapists, the classical society persecuting women as a whole is also exaggerated. In the previous article I described how the Marxism and the feminism tend to idealize the primitive and to demonize the classical society. In the first case, these political currents overlooked the horrible parts and ignored the positive aspects from the other.

In this ideological context, the term "patriarchy" has somehow taken on a different meaning under feminist usage. As we see in the Oxford dictionary, the patriarchy originally referred to the common type of family-based social system in which the man is the "head of the family," that is, the very model of the traditional family. The children bear the father's name and the woman can rarely keep her maiden name after marriage. In the feminist view, the patriarchy, as a social organization, has become a kind of traditional sexism. If we judge with the values of today's traditional society, then we will invariably find sexism there. But in those times the difference between the male and the female activities was consolidated, according to the each sex role in the classical family. In this type of society there was created a traditional and multimillennial gender specialization: the man used to work outside the living space and to bring inside what was necessary for a comfortable living; the woman used to work inside the living space with what the man brought from outside.

Indeed, the traditional patriarchy excluded women from political decisions, as feminists noted. But these decisions were part of male specialization. As others have said, the traditional sexism has been primarily positive, pro-women, that is, an incipient, traditional feminism. Women were delighted not to go to war and not to get involved in building homes or other dangerous, typically masculine activities. The only traumas that the women were exposed to in this lifestyle were those of several births, or the rape. Such an event could affect their future as a result of a fatherless child and generally unwanted by men according to their social status. In the first case they could do nothing. In the second case they could use the head of the family protection, as the father, the brother or the uncle to defend it against such sexual aggressors. The only condition was to stay inside the living space. The feminism says that such a lifestyle is a kind of prison. But if we think about that time fortresses walls, almost the entire classical and primitive lifestyle was a prison. The man had to protect himself from other men attacks in the classical period and from the competing species animals for resources in the primitive period.

Remaining indoor, the women specialized in cooking, cleaning, perfumes, shopping, home decoration and making clothing products, in addition to for keeping eye on children. The modern woman is not far from such a thing either, although it is an insult to recommend her to change her interest towards such a thing if she is interested in masculine activities. For a masculine woman, such a perspective seems like hell, just as it is uncomfortable for men to deal with those activities. But for those who are attracted to giving birth and raising children, such a lifestyle is not bad at all. It brings many benefits. In the classical period when cities were besieged and women had to endure the conquerors rapes, the men were killed by them or marginalized, while women kept their social status if they did not become politically involved. The women "submission" was in fact a kind of neutrality in the struggles of men. As several feminism critics have pointed out, the women's indoor activities specialization is much lesser risky than that of men. The classical man bigger political power was settled according to these risks and with his administrative-economic competences deriving from them.

The traditional sexual specialization has been inevitable for traditional societies

Too radical a gender specialization was inopportune for the human species, as did a constant state of alertness and fear of war with the other hostile communities. The contemporary peace treaties as well as the gender specialization blurring have tempered this masculine-feminine split. Today we judge these things with the contemporary society’s values. But the changes in modern society are bigger than the traditional ones; we have conquered the nature, we have eliminated any rival from other species, and there are peace treaties between most countries. Raping the Western woman is also punishable in Iran and North Korea, even though these countries have not signed cooperation treaties with the West. All these were not possible in the past precisely because the primitive drives were not yet tamed by the civilization. And these impulses have not yet been completely civilized. This is why the women need to take extra precautions against these risks. Much of what contemporary feminists interpret as traditional patriarchal oppression against women was in fact positive discrimination for them in the previous ages. So, in fact, the sexism was originally a traditional protectionism, a classic feminism, as much as it could be at that level of the civilization evolution.

Of course, there were exceptions with men mistreating their wives, using power to abuse. But they have been a negative example in the community ever since. There have been historically recorded court sentences against them. This proves that the abusive practices were not as common as moderate and radical feminists say. The “rape culture”, by which they describe the classical society, is not exactly true as long as rape has been constantly condemned. In addition to the previous article, I also showed in this article the traditional society negative parts  , which are generally abuses against the human rights, whether woman or man. But, as I mentioned in both, the feminists see primitive society in too optimistic colors, as well as they see traditional, patriarchal society in too gloomy colors.

It is easy today to blame from the car wheel the fact that the traditional man forbade the woman to leave the house and held her in the kitchen. But then it was ridden on horseback or in a cart or cart. Let such a radical feminist go one day on the horse saddle or in the calash shaking and then choose where it was most comfortable for the woman! Was it in the house or outside? And that was possible only if the woman was a noble class family member. Otherwise, people walked on rustic roads (there was no asphalt back then), through mud or dust, cold or heat, without proper clothing or footwear. Because, indeed, back then the big clothing and footwear companies did not yet exist and everything was done by hand. And so the clothing was very expensive.

Blaming a social organization specific to a certain historical and technological level is absurd. The paradigm of Kant's pigeon, which is believed to be entangled in air in its ambition to fly higher and faster, fits here as well: without air the pigeon can neither fly nor breathe; in the same way without classical society we cannot have the comforts of modern society. Yes, we can blame the outdated attitudes of repressing the marginalized, left from the traditional society to the contemporary one, which has a different technological level. But it is absurd to blame these behaviors in those moments of evolution of civilization. That means to blame predators for killing the prey they feed on. What was normal then is perceived by modern society as abusive, by the virtue of the mentalities evolution towards a less oppressive and more permissive society. The submissive woman or even the submissive man, as was normal in those days, rarely exists today, as that society remains in the contemporary. The nowadays freedom denies these power cores. It is natural to campaign for the political power reduction for each of us, in order to stop the risk of abusing the weakest, but not to turn the abuses upside down, from woman to man, relying on the supposed woman sanctity who would not fall into this abusing power excess.

The inverted sexism role in the traditional-classical society demonizing

The traditional society blaming Marxism can be seductive, given that the freedoms brought by social evolution were constantly increasing. Then, the traditional, patriarchal society overly blaming by the feminism has a psychopathological explanation. Such an idea comes from the blaming the father, which is generally specific to radical feminism and then spread into the moderate one. Some of them personal experiences as daughters or lovers to such abusive traditional men have created this phobia towards the traditional mentality. Others have a problem with their own discordant perception towards their eccentric sexual orientation, which is then identifiably projected (in the psychoanalytic sense) into the others. If we think about the accusatory superego of these eccentric sexual preferences women from the radical feminism (not all radical feminists have eccentric sexual preferences), such a pejorative terminological meaning makes sense as identification with the aggressor. The basic accusatory father's blame for the (son / daughter in particular) eccentric sexual preferences proves to be an extension of the same prejudice specific to radical feminism that all men / fathers would be rapists. So, we can understand this prejudice deeply embedded in the feminist mentality after the superego self-accusation logic: "you accuse me of being different; I accuse you of being a rapist."

But there are enough women who have experienced the traditional society good side or do not have eccentric sexual impulses that bring guilt feelings. Precisely because of this, the women with a traditional-conservative mentality are the feminism opponents , including the moderate one. From this adversity was born the idea of blaming traditional society and patriarchy as the man external specialization model. However, the matriarchal social organization proposal found more sympathy among the traditional-conservative mentality women, but somehow seduced by the perspective of power.

Patriarchy versus matriarchy in love affairs

As showed here  , I do not support absolute andocracy in the couples construction. The man excessive role in the couple's relationship; the woman exclusion from the decisions regarding the couple and the family is specific to the warrior societies. But, to the same extent, the opposite extreme is not viable either. The women's contribution oversizing to love relationships, as proposed by the radical feminism, is the same abusive tendencies expression that the social dominators usually exercise. Some women inherit and practice them nowadays, as we can see. If in the abusive or violent societies the women were excluded from the couple decisions, on the contrary, the radical feminism wants more or less to exclude men from this equation.

With modern automation, these traditional gender roles, with the outdoor male specialization and indoor female specialization activities, have faded. The modern man does a part of the woman traditional jobs and vice versa. But this does not mean in any case that the modern woman must become a "traditional contemporary" man, or conversely, that the modern man must become a traditional like submissive woman. The radical feminists accuse the traditional-conservative mentality men for medieval behavior and not adapting to contemporary society. But they themselves are drove by the same outdated habits. The original masculine predisposition to diminish the partner role in the couple's relationship is inherited directly by these radical feminists. Leaving the couple construction exclusively to the woman is an opposite pole excess to the traditional excesses. It is natural for both partners to participate in the couple construction, with a slightly bigger contribution from the man, in accordance with his biological status. The male libido inherited by them on the patrilineal line, with (more or less) sadistic drives makes them behave (grandiose) bossy to potential partners, just as patrilineal ancestry behaved with their partners.

The exclusively female courtship initiation theory is a typical manifestation of this radical, sexist feminism, to which some moderate ones might adhere. It practically repeats the Casanova seducers abuses or the clumsy men who offend the woman by too fast emotionally approaching her. I have shown that too direct, too explicit courtship initiation of a woman by an unknown man violates the 4th preceding courtship rule , and the 5th (acceptance) stage  . But, to the same extent, the exclusively female courtship initiation theory violates the 2nd stage (the discreet sign) and the 4th stage (the amorous cultural production). This affects the normal libido of both heterosexual normal women and men because it excludes the man's second stage response and the 4th stage of his submissiveness to the woman's indecision. As the abusive masculinity, the radical feminism tends to abuse the both sexes enhanced biological and traditional cultural behavior.

This is understandable for the eccentric sexual preferences women. I have shown in the articles linked above that those lesbians or disguised prostitutes that are part of the radical feminism core (not all of them) have primarily a purely sexual or financial interest in initiating the courtship or in not being approached by uninteresting proposals. They want to turn upside down the sexuality biology and psychoaffectivity, according to their own libido. The radical feminists want the male role to become as passive as the Casanova men want the role for the woman. They want a doll man, to respond to their commands like a robot. About the same way the Casanova men want from women. They want to just change the sign and the bad sexist tradition, replacing the traditional abusive man with the modern abusive woman. Just as the traditional abusive man imposed his will towards his submissive wife without accepting her answer, in the same way the abusive woman wants to decide everything in the couple relationship. That is why we can say that the radical feminism is an inverted traditional sexism. As mentioned above, this idea is then taken up by moderate feminists in the absence of satisfactory counter-arguments both for themselves and for the wide society.

But, paradoxically, most men agree with such a thing on a phantom level. A woman who comes in a whirlwind and takes care of everything, hangs us unexpectedly on the street, takes us to her house and kidnaps us there is a divine miracle for most of us. Let's look at Per Gessle’s dreams! That's pretty seductive, isn't it?


When Karen Straughan complains about the few men raped by women, trying to fade off the women's grievances about the rape trauma, she does it from a female perspective, not a male one. If the male rapist perspective is hell for most women, on the contrary, the female rapist perspective is heaven itself for most men. There are men who pay prostitutes to play these roles and are desperately looking for a partner with some sadistic pulsions. Unfortunately for them, this is exactly what the radical feminism that supports the exclusively female courtship initiation theory  does not want to do ... There are some nymphomaniac prostitutes who can do such a thing for their own libidinal interest and thus make a living out of their libidinal disorder. But those disguised prostitutes who support the radical feminism (not all the disguised prostitutes are radical feminists) simulate sexual arousal and the intention to control everything in a false relationship with a rich man, who pays a considerable amount at some point for their "service". Until such an occasion, the supposed hot radical feminist seems to be more a sexy bitterness for her social rank men, without any interest in sex playing the female officer…

Even less those lesbians from the radical feminism (not all the lesbians are radical feminists) are willing to play this role. And the histeroid women, who represent the third psychopathological group that supports the radical feminism, are not by nature interested in love relationships. This is exactly the exclusive female courtship initiation main problem, namely that the radical feminism actually does not do it at all… What it is trying to do with this proposal is not the actual courtship but prostitution, revenge and histrionic, pre-genital libido.

There are classical poetic impulses that make normal women resonate with the feminist-radical ideas. The Marxist prejudice of primitive heaven metamorphosed into the feminist prejudice of female heaven. There are enough poets who have described such a thing after falling in love. I have already mentioned in the previous article that some moderate feminists (that sometimes fall into the radical feminism spell even if have no lesbian or steroid psychopathological constitution) are looking for such an experience with a certain unrecognized poet. I will return with arguments in this regard in the other chapter, when I will describe several cases of women who have fulfilled their family and found a suitable partner, and who later give up feminist militancy. In anticipation of a "movies" or as in classical literature love, they try to overlap as faithfully as possible over this image described by those poets already established in the history of literature. For this reason they behave exactly like in their poems descriptions, respectively as goddesses, or as some higher species members, perhaps extraterrestrial. But we must remember that these periods of lucidity loss out of love are still rare. The female Eden Garden withers off after its direct experimentation and even poets have seen this on their own skin…

In the next article I will continue the process of separating the moderate feminism from the Marxism.

26 februarie 2021

5.6. On the feminist prejudice about the primitive society as matriarchal

5. The Feminism as a reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

5.6. On the feminist prejudice about the primitive society as matriarchal

This article continues the previous one  

So far in this previous chapter I have largely described the radical feminism behavior as influenced by the common psychopathological interests of the social groups that adhere to this ideology. I will continue this decrypting process, particularly in the radical feminism ideology landmarks and less in its behavior. In the next two articles I will describe the two specific to feminism ideas in general, but which derive from the radical feminism psychopathological constitution. The first one is the Marxist theory about the primitive society as matriarchy. The second one is of traditional, patriarchal society and family description in much too darker colors than they actualy were and are. The moderate feminism has adopted them also due to the predisposition to mythological judgment of the human being in general, and less from the political or the scientific arguments. Both are based on the feminism visceral hatred or contempt for the classical, patriarchal society. There are many negative parts of classical society, and I will highlight them immediately in this first article. But the positive ones must also be shown. In the same way, the primitive society also has its negative aspects that both Marxism and feminism have overlooked. Based on this lack of objectivity, the mythological prejudice about the primitive society as matriarchy the wide feminism consolidated its absolute demonizing of the classical, patriarchal society. I will detail these ideas below.

Negative aspects about the classical society and family

The traditional family has certain issues that that the feminism has objectively described in its critique of society. The thorniest of them is the traditional mentalities periodic appetite for war. Although the civilization was built because the human being discovered the benefits of peace, the traditional mentality is periodically short-circuited by these strong warrior impulses. Participating in a war for several years carries with it major risks of developing the so-called "PTSD", which results in marginalization and the appetite for crime. The PTSD descriptions in the psychopathology treatises show only its depressive form. It is the psychopathological extreme of the depressive form of the Traumatic Complex depressive form , as an instinctual unit (behavioral and emotional) of the human mind. But the Traumatic Complex also has an aggressive form, which leads to disorders such as sadism itself. And this leads to an antisocial mentality, as can be seen for decades in the wars veterans that the USA were involved in. The person that suffers from it has the impression of being normal and sometimes it is even perfectly physically healthy. But its passion for killings of all kinds, and especially eccentric libidinal tendencies, should give some questions about it.

In addition to the human lives loss and many families destruction, the war culture has been found in the men sexual appetite increasing  . Such a sexual appetite distortion comes over a male-female difference that still exists at the biological, primitive level. The civilization was created with these traumatic horrors that people did to each other. The result was the lack of concordance between the human female and male sexual appetite, as I have shown here  . There are no winners in war; everyone has to lose from the traumas they are exposed to.

The result of this male traumatic specialization specific to the human civilization is more dramatic than the sexual appetite discrepancy between the partners that involves the couple's relationship deterioration. Forcing women through various means to have a more intense sex life than they felt, according to their husbands' appetites, is not even the most serious problem of the traditional family. The most serious libido distortion under the traumatic factors that men undergo is the tendency towards the eccentric sexuality   , which rarely agrees with what the partner wants. The medieval witch hunting is a phenomenon that derives directly from this discrepancy in the sexual appetite. Women who refused marriage risked being killed on charges of witchcraft, as I mentioned in the previous article. Most "witches" were single women, never married or widowed, who did not marry after their husbands death. Against them, the indictments were created simply on the verge of psychotic delirium, under the influence of the sadistic murderers who thus objectified their crimes by demonizing the victim. I always want to point out that the radical feminism absurd reactions and ideas that provoke our indignation are in fact the result of these traditional persecutions of eccentrics in general. So there’s more empathy needed for these women, even if they can be very aggressive in language and behavior.

Positive aspects of the traditional society and family

So the war and the sadistic education tendencies are the traditional family main problems. In addition to these, there are others related to the traditional civilization development degree, such as diseases and infant mortality, or the slaughtering animals in rural areas horrors. These are ugly things that haunt us from the depths of history like ghosts. The traditional society and family evaluation in a too optimistic note, and the modern one evaluation only from a negative perspective, as anti-feminists and anti-pacifists in general do, shows a unilateral vision, devoid of objectivity. The church and other social organisms that go around it are the first to be targeted here, all the more so as it has numerous errors in its narratives. Those who mourn the "man feminization" today and offer examples of stone faces traditional men, that luck emotion and empathy, should also take into account these horrors that hide behind these "statues."

But the traditional family evaluation only from an exclusively gloomy perspective, as wide feminism does, is again an exaggeration in appreciation at the opposite side *. In fact, both characteristics interfere each other; the traditional family has those minuses but it also has pluses. In spite of all its negative aspects, it is the model that most people refer to in terms of personal balance. The traditional family rest moments don’t exist anymore in the contemporary lifestyle, despite its specific well-being or even wasting goods. The modern man no longer knows how to rest. For him, to rest means to have fun, to search for satisfactions and pleasures as a reward because he sold his freedom and accepted the slavery of subordination to the hierarchical superiors orders .

Negative aspects of primitive society and family

The feminists have the same one-sided view but in a positive sense this time, when they overestimate the primitive lifestyle. The feminism has extracted from the primitive life only the idyllic, beautiful parts. The same mistake was made by Marxism itself, long before the so-called second-wave feminism (from the 1970s). It was more or less justifiably criticized for this Marxist affiliation. Of course, the Marxism political failure does not mean that the whole philosophical current is wrong in everything that has argued. In the same way, neither the feminism should be considered as wrong as a whole, even the radical one, even if it cannot objectively justify its ideas.

But the Marxist theory about the primitive society idyllic perfection is one of its biggest errors. The evidence provided by anthropologists has raised many questions about the objectivity of the Marxist description of primitive society. Today the documentary TV channels show many surviving professionals extreme experiences in the wild, which bring a more objective perspective on primitive society. The cultural anthropology has shown that the primitive lifestyle is not very different from the classical one. The wars between primitive tribes existed back then as well, though they were less frequently. The discrepancy between male and female sexual appetite is not as big in the primitive society as in the classical or modern one but it still existed back then due to its biological specificity. And the most discouraging of all is the fact that man-made horrors towards the animals were considered normal back then. This shows that the primitive man was "good and wise" because of his lack of means to be evil and selfish. The primitive weapons low efficiency brought addition trauma from the animals that could fight back. Many anthropologists have testified about the observed primitive people delight about the modern weapons. The first idea they had watching these weapons performances was to attack the rival tribe…

The couple relationship traditional problems reflected by radical feminism

The mythological theory of the primitive man absolute purity decisively influenced art itself. Since 1907, when Picasso introduced figures taken from African art in his painting "The Young Ladies of Avignon", the artists kept inspiring from the primitive and childish way of creating the image. But art does not seek to achieve the common good such as politics but to stimulate emotions. In the same way, the feminism was seduced by this idyllic perspective on primitive life. If it were just this mistake it would have been fine. But radical feminism, as much as a part of the moderate feminism, took over other Marxism dubious ideas and adapted them to sexist-inverted ideology. One of these is the primitive idyllic image theory extension, respectively the matriarchal theory on the primitive era and the primitive lifestyle in general.

Marx argued that the primitive era was based on the women political power and called this social system organization a "matriarchy." As I have already mentioned here this idea is rather mythological than scientific. The cultural anthropology has shown that the maternal image in primitive matrilineal totemism does not have an administrative-political function but one meant to prohibit mainly the sex relationships both between parents and children as well as between the brothers and sisters. The belief that the woman played a more active political role than the men in this stages of human evolution is a mistake. There is no primitive tribe today in which women have a greater political role than men. There has been talk of the Chinese Mosuo community, which is seen as a matriarchy, but it is in fact organized according to the same primitive model reported by Claude Levi Strauss and other anthropologists.

At min 12. 43 in the following video we are told that men are engaged in war, hunting or slaughtering domestic animals, that is, everything that means killing.

At min. 16. 50 we are told that in fact the most important decisions are still taken by men, respectively older uncles and brothers, just like in the primitive system narrated by Claude Levi Strauss. So in this community there is no difference from the classical Western patriarchy, that has the outside male and the inside female specialization.

I have shown in this article the fact that in mammals (and not only), the male has a slightly more active role in initiating mating but also in negotiating territory with other species or with fellow species. According to the biological status of male sexuality in mammals, the males have the role of promoting the species both genetically and ethologically in mastering nature or adapting to its conditions. In the vast majority of mammals, the male takes the risk of natural selection, struggling with weaker specimens to pass on the best-performing genes to the offspring. One exception is given here by the hyenas (and this is due to their brutal and ancestral conflict with lions). In the same way, men hunted or fought in wars and women waited for capture.

The sexual-dominant predisposition of certain lesbians that are part of radical feminism (not all the lesbians support feminist-radical ideas), perfectly mirrored in this Marxist prejudice, namely the primitive society matriarchal theory. So they hurried to support the specific to radical feminism inverted sexism. Given the contemporary mindset power appeal, other women were seduced by this prospect of controlling everything and making the world compatible with their own interests. Everyone wants something like that. But the world must be divided and the rules must be made in the interests of all. And I am convinced that the women can govern a better society than those ruled by misogynists, under the condition that they do not support the radical, resentful feminism. But the men can do the same not just the women. About the men excessive blame under the theory that we the men would all be rapists, as well as about the classical patriarchy I will detail in the following article .

*As an artist myself I have had such moments when I saw civilization only as a chain of suffering But art sometimes exaggerates. It comes from the depths of the soul which is influenced by the individual or transgenerational traumas through which it was formed. A rational, "cold" analysis shows that there are many good parts that we lost with modernity but also other good parts that we discovered only because of modernity.

31 ianuarie 2021

5.5. The radical feminism predisposition for revenge on normalcy

5. The Feminism as a reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

5.5. The radical feminism predisposition for revenge on normalcy

If we go down into these radical ideas depths we find there that the revengeful factor towards normality, which is explainable by identifying with the aggressor, which I previously analyzed here  . Any kind of tendency towards lesbianism, prostitution or histrionic personality in general implies the self-accusing ideation that later turns into accusatory, vengeful ideation towards the normality. I have shown throughout this text how the normality has its problems with the tendency to eradicate the marginalized. But the same prejudice is used by the radical feminism. It also wants revenge on the normal… good normalcy. I do not mean by this that any popular idea or behavior is good only because it belongs to the majority. But there is still a biologically grounded normalcy in the majority. I say "still" because it becomes clearer day by day that, through the social engineering it conceives, the capitalist system perverts the human being into becoming eccentric. The radical feminism does not only hate the strong character of the normal man, whom it considers abusive, criminal, non-empathetic. It also hates the normal woman gentle heart and considers it stupid, soft, cowardly. This attitude is caused by their eccentric libido which is repugnant to normalcy as it prefers incomprehensible sexual behaviors for the heterosexual ones.

I have shown that the explicit courtship initiation as a unknown man violates the preceding to courtship 4th rule and the 2nd stage , (the discreet sign) and the 4th one (the amorous cultural production). In this article  I showed that the discomfort towards an unknown man courtship initiator is much exaggerated by radical feminists. The anger of the sexual minorities women towards the unknown men light or more explicit approaches on the street is not caused by the natural discomfort that a normal woman feels when face such a thing.

The fact that radical feminists and even a few moderate ones dramatize the victimization (professional victim) has been observed by several critical voices of the feminism. Exaggerating the discomfort is a commonly used strategy because it generally brings "the secondary benefit," as described by psychoanalysis. I previously described here, here  and here  what are the general primary and secondary benefits for different groups of women that tend to equate the unknown man courtship initiation as sexual harassment. At this point, I will spot the light to another three more primary benefit interests to criminalize the unknown man courtship and exaggerate the emotional pain caused by him to be equated as sexual harassment or attempted rape. They can go separately but also together in the same person. The psychological "over-determination" meaning of this symptom does not contradict the basic explanation, but complements it; the psychical phenomena have multiple meanings as I have shown here  . Each of them differs depending on the psychopathological configuration involved in this exaggeration symptom. A histrionic psychopathological configuration tends toward mendacity while a libidinal-eccentric one tends toward sadism, as I described in the previous article.

These three psychopathological impulses have the role of over-incriminating and demonizing the normalcy, especially in terms of the light courtship initiation, as it was traditionally constructed. The first of these is the stardom of victimization. The second is the envy on the easy ways that the heterosexual relationships are initiated. The third is the attempt to justify one's own sadism (objectification) through the victim alleged pre-aggression. I will further analyze them individually.

The female pain exaggeration from the male courtship initiation as caused by the victimization stardom

The valuable and beautiful things can be abused and must be protected in today's world. So it is with feminine beauty. Some feminists have this stardom in their subconscious when they look for signs of sexual harassment from men. Complaints about too frequent approaches from the unknown men are justified by very attractive women, the movie, music, TV stars etc. But most of them have gotten used to this problem. It comes as a coin flip side with the star's life privileges. But there are some feminists who live ambivalently this desire to be and not be approached by the crowds with their love… I don't want to post such videos now in which very unattractive feminists complain about too frequent approaches from men. They exist online. These women are dissatisfied with the way they look and take refuge in this feminist theatrics through which men struggle to reach them like males in animal documentaries. The exaggeration of these frustrations wants to highlight this fake stardom with which these less endowed by nature women get drunk, believing themselves to be some kind of popular media stars.

The female pain exaggeration from the male courtship initiation as caused by the envy on the easy ways that the heterosexual relationships are initiated

The second psychopathological impulse is the envy for how the heterosexuals create love relationships, while the sexual marginal ones have to search hard to find a suitable partner. As I mentioned here , LGBT people have been and still are persecuted. Because of this, many people with such sexual orientations hide their preferences out of fear for unpleasant consequences. On this matter the society must change its attitude towards them because in this way it creates or maintains artificial conflicts in a world that is already so conflicted. Naturally this group of marginalized people will develop hate towards the heterosexual majority. So for such people, an unknown courtship initiator man, who shows heterosexual behavior signs, is over-perceived as a sex offender even if his approach is very light and polite. He can be an emotional abuser if the approach is too explicit, because it does not give women a role in building the couple and he only decides to build. But still he is not a sex criminal, like a proper street harasser or a rapist, just because he initiated courtship as an unknown man.

Well, this resentful predisposition towards the normal heterosexuals can make the LGBT communities members exaggerate the frustration produced by this courtship initiator. We observe here the same attitude as the haters towards the eccentric couples themselves. Just as the homophobes accuse the LGBT people of spreading a phantasmagoric virus that converts the world to homosexuality, so they tend themselves on this turn to incriminate the normal heterosexual sexuality behavior. A special case is represented by those radical feminists, especially those who practice the disguised prostitution (not all the radical feminists practice it). They take huge emotional abuse risks followed by skipping the traditional courtship stages after an exchange for a financial or other reward. But they complain about being sexually assaulted when a man tries a soft courtship sign specific to the second stage, such as compliment or greeting.

This is not uncommon for histrionics in general; and with that I move to a different kind of envy on heterosexuals from the heterosexual position. The histrionic personality disorder can also be associated with a sexual orientation attraction to the same sex. But most often it overlaps with a normal, heterosexual attraction, if it can be verbalized like this in their case. In both cases there is a hysterical behavior of explicitly Oedipal form. I have briefly described the histrionic psychopathology here  or here  but I recommend reading even more detailed descriptions from the psychopathology treatises. There is an unconscious desire of the hysterical psychopathological background to ambivalently penetrate into other couples. The histrionics appetite to stand in the doorway of welded couples is the "couple" variant of the seductive behavior they practice towards people who do not have a sex life. They do not necessarily want a relationship with this couple man rather than standing between the two, like the child between the parents. This is a true cenesthopathic voyeurism (the phrase is poetic, not scientific). If the male sexuality genuine voyeurism has the satisfaction of the couple's distant gaze, on the contrary, the histrionic voyeurism already enters the couple like the creatures in the psychotics’ cenesthopathy hallucinations that are felt inside the body. In the same way, the histrionic woman sets in like an emotional tick inside the relationship between the two, sucking their happiness sap and leaving behind an itchy feeling in the couple that can turn into a bump, if it is scratched. In this case, the histrionic woman may disproportionately interpret this couple man or even woman slightest affection sign as an attempt to sexually harassing her…

The female pain exaggeration from the male courtship initiation as one's own sadism justification

Finally, the third psychopathological impulse to exaggerate the emotional discomfort of courtship initiating is to justify one's own sadism, as I described in the previous article. This social manipulation mechanism was practiced at a high level in the Middle Ages and even closer to the present day through the torturous public punishments or the delusional-collective accusations against unmarried or undesirable women, who were labeled witches. We observe here an interesting psychic mechanism for justifying one's own abusive and even criminal tendencies by implanting evidence to demonize the target. They falsely demonstrate a victim previous aggression and then justify a punishment response (objectification). (Check out my later documentary "The International Politics Sadism ")

In the same way, any radical feminist with sadistic psychopathological tendencies (and not only) tends to justify her aggression against someone through the crimes committed by others for which he is held responsible. The feminism in general rightly rejects the blaming victims strategy argument made by the emotional abusers and sex offenders. But the radical feminists use to the same manipulation mechanism on the normal men over whom they exercise their own sadism. Any aggression by radical feminists on a limp and harmless man is then justified by the crimes that other men have committed in the past or elsewhere against other women. We notice here firstly a personal revenge on behalf of those assaulted women towards men who were charged with crimes they did not commit. That is exactly the argument of blaming the victims used by sex offenders against women. This mechanism manipulation through demonizing and attack has been used for political purposes at the social group level in the so-called modern democracy, to persuade the masses to accept deeply "undemocratic" plans * against them.

Ideological stardom and narcissism

This conflict between the LGBT marginal ones and the normal majority has started from the last one in history. But here it is how the first show signs of appetite for abusing. I tend to defend them more, as the marginalized are generally less protected. However, the mistakes made by the victim are more excusable. From this point of view I will always militate to stop the pressure to which usually the marginalized are subjected.

But that doesn't mean that we should tolerate the abuses that victims sometimes do to others. The traditional prejudices against the eccentric sexual behaviors that do not affect others (except for the sadism and pedophilia) should not be replaced by the persecution for the heterosexuals and the traditionalists in general. For example, the exclusive female courtship initiation proposal wants more or less admitted to eradicate the traditional pre- courtship behavior out of the human culture, as I described it here and here . And that disadvantages not only the men but the women as well. It creates a socio-political disadvantage for those who want a love relationship (and do not have one) as I have shown here  in detail. Instead of folding their political discourse on these groups as well, and militate for their rights, the radical feminists rather resort to dictatorial attitudes in debates, to exclude opponents through unilateral attitudes.

For them there is no public debate based on this topic but ideological war only. The ideological opponents are referred to as enemies that deserve to be destroyed. Anyone with contrary ideas is greeted with insults and scandal. They despotically declare that the man courtship initiation is rape or sexual harassment and whoever opposes their decree must be excommunicated or abolished as an opinion bearer. These women do not show to have the mentality of the rights protecting for the social disadvantage ones. By this, they take the place of those who persecuted in the past the minorities that they belong. Such an attitude can be used paradoxically against the entire LGBT community, which has been unjustly accused of being corrupt or aggressive.

Just because they despotically impose this illegitimate courtship initiation “revolution”, the radical and even some moderate feminists got drunk on the narcissist idea on themselves as superhumans who create new laws for mortals. Hence there comes their arrogant attitude toward traditionalists, which looks very much like that of the researcher toward its studied subjects from the impartial height of God. Their vehement militancy sometimes takes the revolutionary elitism form through which there is visible the huge narcissism specific to the histrionic psychopathological constitution type. This consistent (hysterical) narcissism dose inside these ultraliberal women personality makes them break the traditional pre- courtship rules and impose new ones on themselves just like an all-powerful legislator.

I have pointed out in detail here the "morning regret" situation, which is constantly growing in Western society. I mentioned in that article that there is a situation of rape on women, when psychoactive substances are seeped into their drink at parties so to lose sobriety. But in addition to this sex crime, the disguised prostitutes found a loophole to get some "compensation" out of other women misery after such an artificial "morning regret"; after going to a man's house or to wild parties with their entourage and consciously accept the psychoactive substances consumption with him or with the group, which leads to euphoria and then to sex, they then file rape charges the next day. Out of these charges result, many men are sentenced to pay damages. Such a thing is already a premeditated business plan for these women. How can they claim to be fighting for the victims of rape committed by altering women's drinks, when they reap material benefits precisely through the financial exploitation of this drama? Of course, their interest is that these rapes happen as often as possible so that their charges look more credible.

In addition to this interest in getting unjustified material benefits specific to the disguised prostitutes, the Western world has become increasingly active in the Western world. They are not necessarily interested in financial compensation, although they would not refuse it. Their main purpose is to fish for men who agree to have sex with drowsy or euphoric women after consuming psychoactive substances. Such weekend outings followed by fleeting sex is practiced by many Western heterosexual women. They gave up monogamous family sex life in favor of such experiments. The situation is convenient for both women and men and there is a code of signs and gestures for consuming these weekend relationships. Well, the sadistic radical feminists even infiltrated these honestly mutually agreed relationships. They simulate the state of euphoria so to seduce the male victim and then to then punish him with false rape charges just because he did what a normal male does when a female offers. Their criminal charges against the man who accepts the euphoric woman advances claim that such temporary relationships should no longer happen. This is part of their erroneous ideology.

In this case, their activism on social networks and her entourage must be analyzed. Usually these women have not had a long lasting relationship with men and they provoke scandals like the ones I described here  . It is very doubtful that such a woman, who makes public scenes when a man opens the door or offers his seat in public transport for her, ends up partying with unknown men and then into their bed. Something is fishy when a woman makes a "morning regret" rape accusation once every few months. It is impossible for her not to learn anything about how to protect herself in the future from these abuses, in total contradiction with the real rapes, that normally make women very cautious.

Their vehement militancy makes the feminist movement more visible and that is beneficial. I myself can say that I wrote this text following such debates. And I will show in this chapter last article in detail what are the main ideas I owe to the radical feminism. But I generally believe that these inverted sexism excesses harm both the feminism and the LGBT community. The fact that some men who don’t commit these crimes or abuses fall prey to their accusations spread a negative light on the entire feminist movement. The way they pose the problem throws it into a dubious area. Such a strategyless vehemence leads some to believe that women's real problems do not exist at all, in relation to these women random accusations without moral or legal basis. And this makes real criminals rub their hands in satisfaction and move on.

I did not intend with this text to scrutinize the entire feminist ideology, but only the one I consider to be directly or indirectly descendent from the psychopathological background. In the next article I will analyze other such general (moderate) feminism landmarks influenced by the radical feminism psychopathology.

* For me, the most conclusive examples in the modern age seem to be the hostile attitude of the United States towards Japan, without any factual justification, under the hidden purpose to start the famous war . After a long hostile press campaign, the Japanese also responded with the Pearl Harbor attack, followed by the American atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasachi that eventually brought Japan to its knees. The other case is that of the Rajneesh religious movement, which bought land far from civilization and built a city there. Because they risked attracting many followers and affecting the economy through their lack of "freedom to serve their masters," the officials began a campaign to slander these people in the press, although none had met or seen them before. As in the Japan’s case, mistakes appeared after such media pressure, which was a good opportunity for the authorities to annihilate the movement and expel Osho out from the USA.

20 decembrie 2020

5.4. The radical feminism sadism and its reversed sexism

5. The Feminism as a reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

5.4. The radical feminism sadism and its reversed sexism

The profile of 3 types of women who adhere to radical feminism

The exclusive female courtship initiation proposal is popular among most women because it gives the impression that can counter the sexual abuses and crimes against women. As I have already mentioned in the previous articles, they support it after being emotional or sexual abused (harassment or rape). But, as usual, the victim is a bad judge, in the sense that it tends to give an exaggerated punishment and thus lead to the spiral of violence between the parties, instead of bringing back the initial state before the abuse. We have shown in previous articles that changing the courtship policies are either unjustified to what most women want  , or inapplicable  , according to the principles of the society.

As I have shown in this article , the common women generally respond to contrary arguments and give up arguing like this of ideas. (1) There are some advantages in these proposals for certain common women such as they would have an easier life and a better partner if society generally recognizes that a woman is superior to a man in all areas, just because she has female sexual organs. Such a thing is an inverted sexism that actually turns against them because men avoid them and they remain outside a stable love affair. I will return to this idea in a later article.

(2) Beyond that there are quite a few women who live in routine marriages  and so they adopt a feminist-radical mentality out of this personal status frustration. I have shown above that, basically, a man has a higher sexual appetite than a woman, which affects the couple's long-term relationship. Such women constantly feel abused and even raped by husbands who offer them a sex life on the verge of physiological needs. As I mentioned in above linked article, the exclusive female courtship initiation theory comes as a glove to these women, as well as some radical-feminist ideas.

There are indeed many women who have a problem with coordination with their over-libidinal husband. There is a need for an honest public debate on all the social levels on this lack of concordance problem between the male and female sexual appetite. And solutions must be found before there will be a general splitting between the two sexes. Women should not have "marital debts". It is not fair to be blackmailed into accepting a more intense sex life than they feel. From this point of view, blaming all men as rapists by radical feminism has some justification. But however this is not entirely justified. Firstly, not all men have a higher sexual appetite than their partners. There are also cases in which women are greedier. Here is how, in these cases, there exist no "rapists" men percentage even under the feminist-radical vision of rape. Then, the pressure on partners for a more intense sex life cannot be called rape in the sense of the unknown person who pursues and forces through threats and violence a woman to have sex with him. So, in this moment of civilization a husband cannot be convicted of rape, even if he has an unnatural approach to his wife, unnatural for the couple's relationship harmony.

Most women accept such a thing because of the superior material comfort offered by such an abusive husband. Somehow, they also lack verticality in making a firm decision about their own lives through divorce. I will return in a later article to this topic. And, thirdly (3), those disguised prostitutes and histrionic women that represent the radical feminism’s core  (I point out once again that not all the disguised prostitutes, histrionic women and lesbians are radical feminists) have no satisfaction in their sexual activities and accept them out of the various material gains interests. They feel constantly violated in a heterosexual relationship. This feeling of the pan-rapist man is a "professional bad habit" or a histrionic symptom and not a social reality. Their vehement militancy for these new rules implementation in social norms has in particular a psychopathological interest for such a thing and less a social prophylaxis one on the crime against women stopping.

I have already described above in this text the fact that androphobic neurotic women or the rape victims will perceive as anguishing threat the unknown man street courtship initiation. But those who have not experienced such a thing or do not have a phobic type neurotic psychopathological constitution and feel aggression towards men in general have a big problem in relationship and positioning within the couple. A histrionic woman with an exclusive exhibitionist libidinal satisfaction, a frigid or a lesbian woman perceives as rapist any kind of man who tries to initiate a love affair, no matter how discreetly he approaches her.

Radical feminism and competition with men

It goes without saying that those lesbians or transsexuals who vehemently express a radical feminist militancy do not accept the female position in a heterosexual couple. They do not feel exactly feminine, as are attracted to women and want to pose a sort of masculine attitude. These women have a personal problem with the female sexual instinct biological role, which they do not feel exactly like a normal woman does because of the psychopathological distortions that overlap to it. (Beware of the risks of falling into the opposite extreme sin that condemns these women, following the model of the Inquisition, which remained in the common mentality!). The lesbians marry and have children only to escape public disgrace over their sexual orientation. Like histrionic women, they do it only to gain access to a higher social class, without devoting body and soul to the family, rather tending to leave it for a better game. The disguised prostitutes do not fall in love and do not want a stable relationship, but rather to make as much profit as possible from their mimicked love.

Under these conditions, the sexuality is a burden for them, an instrument. Being practiced more for material interests (secondary benefit) and not out of an intrinsic need to have sex (a kind of primary benefit), these women feel constantly used within the relationships they are involved in. From here, they later develop the prejudice that all men are abusive (androphobia), only because the man tries to approach them emotionally, which will eventually lead to the interest in having sex. Some of these women resignedly accept their "fate" as unhappy in a heterosexual relationship. But the others become militant radical feminists.

The exclusively female courtship initiation feminist proposal or the over-amplified irascibility towards the initiators, both discreet and explicit, comes from the background of this very feminine condition non-acceptance. The most vehement radical feminists who emphatically support and practice it are lesbians (not all the lesbians support it), to which histrionic women also adhere. The radical feminists aggressiveness towards the men who opens the doors in front of them or offers them a seat in the public transportation are explained precisely by the paradoxical non-acceptance of this normal femininity biological role for the human species and for the vast majority of mammals to be protected by men and males.

It is difficult to explain from a political point of view such an attitude given that in general the radical feminism actually wants more rights from society for women. But still such a thing is very easy to psychologically decrypt: such a revolt against these courtesy gestures is explained by the self-perception that the radical feminists have towards men; receiving such a favor gives them the impression that they are inferior, morally and physically handicapped, and that means they cannot compete with men. On the contrary, for the normal woman, receiving these little favors is a sign of social respect and love. The radical feminists do not appreciate this because they are not interested in this type of heterosexual love from men.

Thus, they found a loophole to get rid of their inferiority complex caused by the more or less drastic superego that manifests itself through the psychological discordance with what they enjoy. And, as usual, this inferiority complex turns into superiority one on favorable environment. The radical feminism has often been equated with men hating. There is often hate in debates or certain moments like these but these women often show only arrogance and contempt for other ideas than theirs. In fact, the lesbians are direct competitors with men in attracting women in love; accepting the traditional advantages of courtesy would mean recognizing inferiority in the struggle with men to impress potential partners. The "love" of these feminists for women and their rights has a sexual interest, which is exactly what they rightly reproach to the "patriarchy."

Radical feminism and the sadistic libido sublimation

Mimicking the real abused women dramas by the radical feminists makes sense to justify their predisposition to aggression against physically and mentally weak men, who are basically non-abusive, in order to actually abuse them in counter parting. If they are lesbians, such behavior actually sublimates a male sadism type. If they are hysterical, they want to show their emotional dominance. The "toxic masculinity," which they have fairly accurately described, is a projection of their own abusive tendencies. By accepting domination, some of their followers even go so far as to adopt their theories, becoming appendages of their abusive libido.

And this is the main problem for their militancy; they do not fight exactly with the source of abuse against women but with those who are not generally sex offenders or abusers. I will return to this topic in the following articles. Their scandals against "oppressors" do not take place on the street in front of certain Casanova pick upers who constantly abuse women, as I described it here . They are also rarely seen in courts where murderers or rapists are tried. On the contrary, they prefer to accuse mannered educated men for the crimes committed by those that they don’t risk to fight with. These women cause terrible scandals at book launches events, conferences, concerts, literary evenings, awards, etc., which are exactly where present the harmless and a little culturally instinctual tired men show up. We saw in the previous article that, despite supporting an abusive, intrusive mentality in the woman's decision to have an abortion, that boy from the Metropolitan Cathedral of Buenos Aires is a delicate one. That made him a perfect target to be slapped and punched by the radical heroines…

We are talking here about true inverted sadism that these women unconsciously practice but very carefully directed at these emasculated men, under the false feminist militancy appearance. Just as murderous sadistic men are very careful to pursue a weak family ties woman, so are the radical feminist sadists careful to target a man that does not fight their physical aggression. It is very interesting that every time they justify their own abusive intentions with the general violence against women. During the inquisition the sadistic men justified their morbid impulses to burn at the stake or to apply unimaginable torture for women through their "devilish" character. Just in the same manner, the nowadays radical feminists justify their aggression on the manners men in "defending" against the sex offenders’ crimes.

I was very surprised that many rigid radical feminists (not temporary supporters of radical feminist ideas) that I met in Romania do not participate in anti-violence against women mass-meetings organized by various social organizations that are involved in the women rights. I watched several marches like this in the Western countries and also didn't see any radical messages. The explanation for that is that they don’t collaborate with the moderate feminists. Beyond that, they have an ambivalent reference to the very sadism practiced against women, as they themselves practice it on frail men. When it comes to protest against such behaviors, the sadistic predisposition women paradoxically tend to justify them according to their own sadistic constitution. The sexual crimes against women disappearance would no longer provide them with justification for their own sadistic impulses. So they have no interest for these crimes go away. That is why they are very rowdy in the innocent situations or minor abuses (such as the male courtship initiation), but very silent and absent in marches on violence against women.

Toxic masculinity in radical feminists

In the same way we can analyze the famous "Toxic Masculinity" feminist formula. The feminism has very well described what it calls the "toxic masculinity", namely that macho, harsh man behavior, employed in repressive institutions, which is ready at any time to beat someone. But this expression does not differentiate between this type of man and those men who do not support the same values. I personally hate them, and that shouldn't make me ashamed of my masculinity. This formula main problem is that it misses the second formula naturally correlated with the first, such as "Normal masculinity" or "Natural masculinity". It hints to the feminist-radical prejudice that all masculinity would be toxic or that there would be a toxic part in masculinity, according to the well-known slogan "all men are rapists." This formula somehow induces the idea that any man would have such a "toxic masculinity" in him unless he would, of course, cure with the radical feminist ideas…

Moreover, the words should be more carefully thought in this case where all men are widely accused of "toxicity". Perhaps, indeed, for those seductive hysteroids or those lesbians (not all) who constitute the radical feminism core, the masculinity with all its attributes causes disgust to them, like a food poisoning. Needless to say, such a reaction is exactly that of homophobes towards the homosexual orientation people. However, despite the sexual crimes committed by some men, no one died poisoned after the male substances ingestion.

So even if these women have very accurately described this dubious expression "Toxic masculinity" (or precisely because of their own projection), many radical feminists show such a perverted masculinity in their own gestures. Their rhetoric is sometimes ambivalently mixed with abusive mentality. Instead of a general militancy for the human being rights, which would implicitly bring rights also to women, some radical feminists waste their energy in the militancy for theoretically and practically affirming and demonstrating the women superiority over men. Unfortunately, many radical feminists are looking for (abusive) power, instead of demanding diminishing it for all, which would eliminate the abuses for everyone and those against women in particular.

They want to replace the abusive traditional man with the abusive modern woman. Except for the LGBT condemnation, the radical feminist does everything an abusive conservative man does. The aggressiveness and vehemence that some of them show toward ideological opponents reveals a prominent "toxic masculinity" in themselves. In the following article I will bring more details on this radical feminism predisposition towards aggression.

Popular Posts