6.2. Individual and group ideological solutions to strengthen the normal heterosexual couple

6.2. Individual and group ideological solutions to strengthen the normal heterosexual couple

sociologie Baldovin   11:21

Unsade the world! A Study on the Emotional Abuse and the Sexual Crimes and the Reactions towards them

6. Long-term solutions to stop sexual crimes and emotional abuses

6.2. Individual and group ideological solutions to strengthen the normal heterosexual couple

This article continues the previous one

Click aici pentru varianta in limba romana

In the previous article I described the general social solutions to stop or reduce crime in society. In the next articles I will propose the individual and group solutions for women to defend themselves against sexual crimes and emotional abuses as they exist in today's society. Those who put people in a position to compromise have a major responsibility because they force the free will and consent. They are practically violating people’s freedom, which contemporary democratic society advertises with. But it is also the duty of the blackmailed one to get out of the humiliation situation and organize his/her life in a healthy, ecological way. Giving up the "American Dream", maximum profit ideology, as very profitable for the rich and very harmful for the poor or the middle class, is the key to these solutions. In this first article I will describe the ideological errors that threaten the consolidation of the normal heterosexual couple, ie that couple who do not practice eccentric sexual behaviors at all, or rarely practice them. In the following articles I will also describe those sexual minorities’ members ideological problems who make them join the radical feminism (not all sexual minorities support radical feminism). I have a different view of what radical feminism is  than it is commonly accepted.

Too high ideals and the normal heterosexual love affairs erosion

There are psychopathological impulses for criminalizing the male initiation of courtship, as I have shown here  . I said in that article that some histrionic women, lesbians or hidden prostitutes, have an emotional, libidinal or financial interest (in the according order) towards it. But, I have shown here  why a peaceful street approach, compliment or greeting, which does not meet the legal sexual harassment criteria, cannot be criminalized as sexual harassment or rape. I have also shown earlier in this text that in this case there is a natural minor or moderate frustration if the discrete sign specific to the courtship 3rd stage is violated. But this frustration is oversized as the 4th rule violation  , which is much more serious. Hence there came up the aggressiveness from some women that subscribe to the radical feminism ideology, towards such even discreet signs courtship initiators made by unknown men.

Although are minority among the feminists, they represent the radical feminism core (not all women that fits in these categories support the radical feminism) and sometimes influence the moderate ones, without such a psychopathological conditioning towards it. At this point I will describe a different psychological pattern from those described above. It can occur in the normal heterosexual libido women, ie those who do not have a psychopathological predisposition like the one described there. But they too can be infested with the "American Dream" mentality, which takes a long daydreaming form for the ideal partner, as concerning the love relationships. For this reason, the vehement aggressive reactions toward an unknown courtship initiator, specific to radical feminism also appear in women without such a psychopathological constitution as the one described above. They may end up incriminating a man for initiating courtship as sexual harassment or rape. They might fall into the long dreaming trap to a knight on a white horse, who is both fearless and understanding, warrior in war but also gentle, beautiful but also wild, rich but also innocent, etc., etc. ...

When these “American Dream” propaganda indoctrinated women are approached either discreetly or more explicitly by an unknown man in public, they are offended in their marital ideal that they think they deserve, as a handcrafter is offended when its products are undervalued. It makes them think they are superior to the pretentious men with whom they will later negotiate a possible couple's partnership. Although they have no psychopathological predisposition to support the radical feminism, this ideology is still adopted by them. Their predisposition to seek a far above their social level partner makes them support the radical feminism. They adopt it precisely because, they believe, it sexistly fits them better in this higher social level partner ideal.

For the psychopathological predisposition radical feminists to histrionism, lesbianism or disguised prostitution, this comes natural. But for those who want a normal heterosexual love relationship, this is a handicap. They do not realize that this feminist-radical rhetoric is a too harsh negotiation, and men avoid them precisely for adhering to this radical idea. This overlaps the very masculine ideal also influenced by the "American Dream" mentality of having a higher than his social status partner. It’s not hard to deduce that the result is exactly the opposite of what was expected. Both the sex crimes and the Western loneliness problems lie in the too high expectations from the potential partner. They are a barrier for both sexes getting along. Karen Straughan has very well noticed these far too high expectations that the women have from their partner in the couple. That is a personal narcissism manifestation which exists in men as well.



 

A singer like Shania Twain can get some audience and popularity for the bellow song. But taken too seriously, it leads to big problems in strengthening the couple.


 

This arrogance can be healed with the joy of age-specific moments and family stages, through the biological and mental wisdom. Many feminist activists gradually give up militancy as their heterosexual couple relationship consolidates. From this we can deduce that in their militancy is sublimated the disappointment of not having a satisfying relationship with a man. Here is such a case of a former feminist who later criticized her former philosophy, as in many other cases:

 

Of course, the man is not immune to this ideological plague. Most men dream of the far beyond their potential women, and this makes them have temporary relationships, with no long-term perspective. And this explains the some of them predisposition to violate the courtship basic rules and commit sexual crimes, as I showed in the previous article. This mentality is profitable for the new masters, but it is disastrous for the common people, whether male or female. The couples stay together for a short time, not enough to strengthen a relationship. Hence comes up the single parent phenomenon. The birth rate is constantly decreasing in most western countries where this "freedom" of manipulation through diffuse threats and wars is practiced  . The deficit is covered by the behind the curtains organizing of conflicts and disasters in neighboring with higher birth rates states, so as to bring labor migration to them  .

The argument "Not all men are rapists and abusers" is valid

There are very spoiled little girls who then can no longer adapt as grown up women to the social level specific to the family they actually come from. They are dominated by this miracle that the society or the divinity should do for them like their mother did when they were children. So, after such an overly permissive or too spoiling early education, these grown up women with conservative lifestyles and normal heterosexual orientation might openly support the feminist-radical ideas.

I showed here  that it is safer for women to behave according to the feminist-radical ideology according to which “all men are abusers or criminals”. The argument for such a thing is the risk reducing of meeting such a man who can cause mental or physical suffering. Any woman risks falling prey to an emotional or sexual abuser in any social environment today. But I think such ideas should be smartly used so as not to offend the honest men. And yes, there is such a thing. I mentioned earlier in this text that there are men with very low libido  , such as the schizoids for example. In addition to them, there are others whose libido is less intense than their partner’s. Such a thing is an objective reality, not someone’s subjective perception. But when these ideas are directly addressed to a certain man, accusingly, without sufficient evidence, it risks to turn into a reverse abuse, from woman to man. It seems unbelievable to radical feminists, but I have described here  that they too can become abusive, and bear the patrilineal inherited "toxic masculinity"  , despite the very idealized self-perception that women are angels only and men are devils only.

We see in this bellow article a rhetoric supported by some comic books despre ironizarea acestui argument valabil cum ca nu toti barbatii sunt abuzatori sau criminali  . We see here that psychopathological foundation myopia in recognizing the force of the adverse argument, specific to radical feminism, that I wrote about in detail here . The refusal to accept the clearly visible reality is explainable in the one's own sadism manifestation and justification, as I showed in the article linked above.

We notice here a double standard in judging a situation: on the one hand, the radical feminists artificially amplify the frustration produced even by the most discreet courtship initiation sign  done by a man; but, on the other hand, they also tend not to admit any frustration at all done to the one who is unfoundedly accused of sexual abuse or murder, without any evidence, just on this feminist-radical prejudice basis that all men are rapists.

Let us reject together this perverse strategy of demonizing the victims who will later be abused / conquered, as it has been used by the history big empires! Well, how can you keep your credibility as a radical feminist for fighting against the abuses in general, as long as you come up with such an argument based on certain comics imagined by someone, and magically transformed into an objective situation?! I will come with more details about the ideological and practical solutions for tempering or counteracting the histrionic psychopathological conformation in the next article .

Gabriel Baldovin

6.1. General solutions to stop the criminality

6.1. General solutions to stop the criminality

sociologie Baldovin   02:35

Unsade the world! A Study on the Emotional Abuse and the Sexual Crimes and the Reactions towards them

6. Long-term solutions to stop sexual crimes and emotional abuses

6.1. General solutions to stop the criminality

This article continues the previous one  

Click aici pentru varianta in limba romana

There are two solutions to solve these problems, as for any problem or someone's spiritual evolution. The first is the ecological social environment and the other is the psychotherapy. In the first case, the social system must take clearer measures to prevent sexual crimes. In the other case, the potential victims must change their mentality and perception of themselves or society according to the new, more equitable environment. The debates have largely focused so far on the first case. But the social measures that prevent the sexual crimes or emotional abuses and the Individual psychotherapy work only together, not separately; the social protection measures without psychotherapy do not solve the criminality problems from the past that moves in the descendants victims’ souls. They can prevent the future generations’ traumas or new traumas for those who have already been traumatized, although usually these people are much more cautious. But these protection measures are not enough to bring the victims back to their pre-crime status. They may bring some self-satisfaction, but personally the traumas still remain active.

And, combined with other psychopathological disorders they produce symptoms that no social protection can counterbalance. The social norms should not be changed according to one's psychopathological symptoms, whether that person is a king, an obsessive or an androphobic person, if they are a statistically minority in relation to the rest of the citizens. The neurotic phobias are mobile on the elements of psychic association; for example, the fear of children can later change into fear of thin voices. So if at some point the exclusive female courtship initiation rule would be imposed, and all men do not make any further sign for initiation, yet this would not mean the sudden androphobia disappearance. Androphobics would then feel uncomfortable with other male elements, such as skin or hair and so on. That is why the social rules should not be made according to a neurotic predisposition minority. This requires psychotherapy rather than a radical change in the courtship social norms , as proposed by a part of feminism.

The opposite is also true: an androphobic woman previously traumatized by a sex crime also needs concrete measures to protect against new possible crimes before using the benefits of psychotherapy to eliminate anxiety. Without such measures the psychotherapy would soon lead to bigger risks to suffer another trauma. The androphobic symptom is in this case a "teaching a lesson" to avoid such new trauma situations. Sex crime prevention measures can be divided into two categories, namely long-term measures and short-term measures. I said here that the solution to intra-institutional sexual harassment is setting up institutions to monitor social relations between sexes in work places. Then, I pointed here  the concrete solutions to stop rapes and sadistic crimes on women. But these are short-term solutions to domestic violence and anonymous sadism. All these problems together with too high expectations from the partner and emotional abuse have a long term solution. There are several other proposals coming from various voices in society that require, which is true, a wider public debate.

The current judicial system cannot effectively prevent sexual crimes

At the moment, the social system does not have a concrete targeted plan to stop domestic violence nor to prevent crime in general. The only tool used is to isolate or eradicate criminals after they have committed the crime. The committed action alone empowers a punishment to the one who violated the law. But returning to the previous damage moment is impossible in terms of irreversible crimes, so the justice is failing in its stated purpose. Its function, as well as that of all repressive institutions, is to issue threats against those who have not yet committed such crimes. Such a thing shows how medieval our society still is. The repressive solution applied to the major crimes prevention is even more monstrous. The preventive justice is also practiced in the United States, as in the “Minority Report” movie. The American police officers are encouraged to kill at the slightest sign of disobedience to authority, with the intention of "cleansing" the nation out of the juvenile delinquents just before they commit the crime.



Of course, it is not the problem of crime that is being considered here, but the unofficial political dissidence immediate elimination, started directly from the people, without the control of political institutions. The American police is therefore a political police painted in the rule of law colors. The American police officers are free to eliminate people who are not registered in the hierarchical system of executing orders for a reward but who use modern technology, like a car for example.

Luxury criminals make laws and decide punishments for moderate criminals

In addition to this medieval allure of justice, unable to prevent domestic violence, the social system shows its inability to prevent the psychopathological ones from unknown sadists. And here is its weak point from which starts its passivity towards the domestic violence against women. In reality there is a perverse game that the authorities play with the sadistic murderers, because they are luxury criminals and come right from their ranks, as I have shown here . Those who commit these crimes are largely part of the social system top. As the American public opinion constantly complains about criminality and it keeps increasing over time, the police receive tacit orders to abuse weapons against any suspect, even if many mistakes are made, and many innocent people, especially blacks, are killed.

In fact, these luxury criminals try to eliminate the made by the small gangsters’ competition, so to appear in the public eyes like justice defenders. They decide the society policy so they have every interest that the repressive system under their command not to find the minor criminals and continue their crimes. And this is constantly happening. That is why the social system tacitly protects these criminals because the state itself was formed from a widespread crime: one army defeated the other and conquered its territories. The J.J. Rousseau social contract is rather a retroactive fantasy to sweeten up some more this original social crime sin to which we are all part of. No one ever signed a contract with the society as it imposed its rules from positions of power. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”. Here how this social system original-ancestral predisposition to crime has worthy descendants (!!!) in the social and sexual sadists that rule the system.

The social system falsely gives the impression that it would like to stop violence against women. In the United States and other Western countries a simple phone call from neighbors denouncing a woman's scream brings the police to the door of the house where they heard it as soon as possible. The promptness of the police response attests the readiness to punish the criminal who already has committed the crime, according to the contemporary repressive institutions model of action. But the domestic crime prevention measures are almost non-existent all over the world, with a few exceptions. In this case, the range of procedures for the women protection can be improved through concrete measures to relocate and change woman’s name so as to protect her from the ex partner revenge.

The same happens in the case of sex crimes with unknown perpetrators in which the social system is very passive although concrete solutions to prevent them do not require any socio-cultural revolution or anything  . As I mentioned in that article, reducing simple crimes against women means spilling the beans for these sex crimes great sharks. If that would happen, then they would be much more visible, and their criminal actions would be much harder to be done. The tacit permission for domestic crimes against women has the role of camouflaging these luxury criminals who practice murderous sadism. And a general measure against the sadists actually means a measure against the new slavery  after which the society still operates, namely the wage one. Bizarrely, the world economy works with these crimes, not only sexual ones, specific to the general slavery.

The current judiciary vicious circle against the sex crimes effective prevention

The today traditional judicial system cannot get out of the punishments vicious circle; the repressive traumas applied to criminals are based on a repressive-educational mentality in the criminals risk area. But these punishment threats stimulate this willingness to criminalize the risk groups rather than eradicate it. As an abusive parent who traumatizes its child by believing that is education, the crime control penitentiary model actually retroactively produces new criminals, either real or imaginary, who live the crimes on an obsessive-projective level. Like the punished child who is irresistibly attracted to repeating the mistake after the punishment, the murderer or the person at risk is induced to commit the crime and achieve a kind of social perfection perceived in the social privileges.

I bring to attention the shock experiments on rats, by Neal Elgar Miller and on monkeys by Robert A. Hinde, that I analyzed here  . These experiments clearly show that the direct applied traumas not only do not lead to the needs eradication, but even lead to their exacerbation. Each individual animal undergoing these experiments developed a bigger need for consumption but not a needs reduction. The punishments by public torture practiced from the medieval period until recently in history more filled the civilized man with mental disorders and ultrahedonistic mentality, oriented to commit crimes. To this consumption predisposition, obtained by the threatening messages emission, is added the advertising toxic influence  which creates a desire for socially inferior men for sexual crime. I will later return to this subject.

The violence cases against women break our hearts in two and fill our minds with anger. Those whose relatives or friends have suffered similar crimes want revenge. But these monsters that cause such suffering are sick themselves, as is the society that produces them, which is all of us. As long as we use oppressive institutions to persuade them more or less peacefully to fulfill our orders, we will have such sociopathic outgrowths in our communities.

Unfortunately, the women are drawn into ideological or social traps to be abused. The feminism rightly deplores the lack of police protection against the sexual crimes. But the solution cannot come from the repressive institutions because that is where the problem actually comes from. It is the society’s militarization that leads to the sexual crimes predisposition, starting from these eccentric sexual behaviors that develop those who work in very stressful traumatic environments.

The "American Dream" culture and general criminality

We observe a classical slavery evolution towards one that is much more difficult to observe and accuse. Instead of the slave directly threatened by the master, there are professional institutions that create wars that indirectly threaten the wage slave to be more productive. The modern wage slavery novelty consists in focusing the escape feeling into consumption. Advertising shamelessly serves us fat lies and none denounce it as if they had signed a diabolical pact. If the totalitarian megaphones propaganda provokes apathy, on the contrary, the obsessively broadcasted capitalist advertising provokes irascibility, self-dissatisfaction, and the eternal search for satisfaction. The advertising toxic influence on the mind is a totalitarian propaganda expressed in a joking and creative tone. All the state institutions have the intoxicating citizens’ mind purpose with this neo-slavery mentality, with dramatic consequences for the psychic disorder. We're mentally intoxicated by commercials. The contemporary man is so caught up in the mischievous neo-slavery seduction and prohibition system that she/he cannot afford to give up the profit and social position.

The economy is growing rapidly in such an ultra-competitive social system. The society evolution accelerating that this system supporters invoke is only the nice part of this neospartanism of eliminating the weak. But the "American Dream" culture, that brings fierce competition between individuals starting from school, creates a long-term psychopathological predisposition. The self-dissatisfaction Western culture works for the magnates but leaves behind an emotional desolation inside their employees with this anxiety to need for more, faster, better, etc. So the grassroots ones tend to circumvent social laws and norms into antisocial behaviors observing how this social system brings higher freedoms to those at the social pyramid top,

The "American Dream" culture role in the mental disorders explosion

The working to exhaustion neo-slavery mentality always makes us want more and we don't know how to stop. Hypersthenia has been cultivated in each of us. This makes us consume more and work harder. Efficiency is a normal thing. But when "the more" makes sense of survival, something is lost in the way. We have become the maximum efficiency slaves. The overconsumption is not psychotherapy and has already proven to become the most harmful religion. Its medal reverse is the mental disorders explosion that the industrial age continuously generates. An exclusively pragmatic, non-humanistic mentality, which glorifies working around the clock, first implies a mild to moderate mental disorder, of hypersthenic type. But, genetically combined with others, it generates the full spectrum of more severe to psychotic mental disorders. Any kind of fast economic growth leads to such psychopathological skyrocketing in the modern age. And the best example is that of the Eskimos "civilization" where the alcoholism rate among men exploded after being “saved out of poverty” by the capitalist lifestyle. And where there is aggression and a predisposition to physical violence, there is also this risk for sadistic behavior.

The stopping sexual crimes and emotional abuse solution is a fair society

Most sex crimes are due to these to high ideals with which people are indoctrinated from an early age. When it comes to love, dreaming too long of a partner far above one’s own social status can cause problems. Everyone has set too high standards of life that are also reflected in terms of life partner and I will detail this especially in the following articles. Too high standards of living described in women also exist in men as well. And this is part of the spiritual mutilation that the American Dream mentality has intoxicated the contemporary society human being. Whoever is affected later becomes these abuses socio-epidemiological transmitter, identifying with the aggressor and applying to the weak the abuses to which it was previously subjected.

This is the origin of urge to obtain higher freedoms that sometimes abuse the freedoms of others. In order to stop this toxic and false mentality of self-fulfillment through wealth ("American Dream") and no longer have these malign effects on modern wage slaves, it is necessary to cool down these natural tendencies for more. The solution to all the problems between the sexes in general is to change the "American dream" mentality. This social pyramid top toxic freedom to abuse the lower social layers must be stopped before it intoxicates lower ones. The inbreeding they practice in secret cannot be completely hidden. The human mind perceives it and the result is a paranoid ideation epidemically widespread in society.

Although it tends to be equated with Marxism as called neo-Marxism, limiting the freedoms and power of the social pyramid top is social prophylaxis. The most equitable social systems practice it with very good results, despite the retrograde or bankrupt systems image that the neoliberal mentality makes for them. But the reality is that wherever the social systems provide social assistance to citizens, the crimes and, implicitly, the sexual abuses are reduced. These abuses are originally hierarchical and subsequently take sexual form. Once these abuses are stopped, the normal couple relationships strengthen over time and respect for women increases.

The social system is put in a position to choose between a no crime decent and fair social environment but also with few people willing to execute orders, and a toxic social environment, with crime and violence against marginalized women and women, but also with people willing to take orders. The first social model leads to modest economic evolution, possibly inflation. The other social model produces maximum efficiency from modern slaves, willing to accept orders from their hierarchical superior in exchange for suspending the threat of violence. This improves the comfort for the social pyramid top, especially in terms of practicing luxury crimes appetite, including murderous sadism. Of course, the social pyramid top chooses the last model, because its members are the descendants of those who created it. They just inherit it. Now that we have the tools to discover this civilization meta-fraud, we have the opportunity to choose which side we are on.

Giving up the "American Dream" hedonistic ideology is the solution to stopping crime in the long run

Our lack of decision on one of the two social models makes us all part in this system conspiracy to protect sex offenders located on a higher social scale. Of course we can't have both at once. Then, if we are in the middle or at the base of the social pyramid, the maximum efficiency first model not only does not benefit us, but even directly disadvantages us; we are in fact the slaves pressured by these institutions. Then, the risks for our own family women to become these crimes victim are high in such a society.

The authorities and their puppeteers must stop this trivial game they are playing and take concrete measures, very easy to imagine, against sexual crimes. Unfortunately, I don’t think that something like this will happen soon. The subject is still kept away, as are the system's protégés crimes files, until these facts expire. Instead, the way was opened for the debate of this niche topic popularization of the exclusive female initiation courtship rule, which solves absolutely nothing among the sex crimes because the murderous sadists are unaffected by and can easily get around it.

The ecological social environment also means adjusting the present or the near future values ideology. We all want security in society but such a thing is far too high ideal for today's society. It is up to us, the citizens, to try to think outside the limits imposed by this subtle capitalist dictatorship towards its favorite subjects. Until then, I will further offer to women, as to the marginalized ones in general, a set of measures of defense against such a dictatorial ideological attack that infests the mind and spirit. In the next article  I will describe how the too high ideals affect love relationships.

Gabriel Baldovin

5.9. Good parts in the radical feminism ideology

5.9. Good parts in the radical feminism ideology

recenzie Baldovin   12:54

Unsade the world! A Study on the Emotional Abuse and the Sexual Crimes and the Reactions towards them

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

5.9. Good parts in the radical feminism ideology

This article continues the previous one  

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 . 

Gabriel Baldovin

5.8. The feminism can live separated from the Marxism

5.8. The feminism can live separated from the Marxism

sociologie Baldovin   03:14

Unsade the world! A Study on the Emotional Abuse and the Sexual Crimes and the Reactions towards them

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

5.8. The feminism can live separated from the Marxism

This article continues the previous one

 Click aici pentru varianta in limba romana

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.

Gabriel Baldovin

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

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

sociologie Baldovin   13:29

Unsade the world! A Study on the Emotional Abuse and the Sexual Crimes and the Reactions towards them

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  

Click aici pentru varianta in limba romana

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.

Gabriel Baldovin