The psychology of Patriarchate: why strong, heterosexual men are the enemy

[PureX]

Okay, I now just had an "ah-huh" moment with respect to what you were saying about "respect, honor, and covet the twin traits of greed and (violent) stupidity" as stifling traits that get in the way of any true evolutionary progress.

Now it sits well with me.

I like to think that I'm primarily a sapiosexual - intelligence is really attractive to me - but sometimes I can't help idolizing some very embarrassing people, especially within specific social situations. The rules of attraction are a complicated animal - a prime example of our mammalian brains overriding our frontal lobes on a regular basis. Personally, I'm far from a master of my biological urges, and they're pretty dysregulated just to complicate things further. I enjoy being kind of emotionally heightened all the time but it comes with some terrible social consequences.

Sounds like an addiction. See “WARNING Will Robinson!” here.

 

[wellwisher]

But Trump is not crucified for doing worse.

Trump was crucified for old dirt with a porn star; pro, and various A-list groupies; Studio 54. The Left is still playing that card.

Clinton was crucified for doing it while on the job, with his intern, which was common in Washington. Ted Kennedy and Dick Durban were notorious for their waitress sandwich; inside joke. Hillary was the most cheated on woman in Washington. Bill loved the ladies. Rather than blame and hate Bill, Hillary would blame the other women and make their life miserable, using her power and influence. Monica Lewinsky was protected from Hillary, by giving her media and legal exposure, making it harder for Hillary to get away with her angry dirty tricks. Although I would not anything past Hillary, since Lewinsky never fully recovered.

Hillary' s fake Russian dossier, has a sex scene with Trump and Prostitutes in Russia. That was her projection of Bill. She was pissed off at Trump, not just for losing, but for Trump poking the bear during a debate.

 

[wellwisher]

The main reason heterosexual men are the enemy of Liberals but not Conservatives is because of jealousy. When I was growing up, the corporate structure was built around marriage and family. A single or divorced male would have a more difficult time getting high level jobs working the corporate world, since being single meant cat dogging, which was assume to take up more of his time and distract the male from his job and career path. The married male was considered more stable due to the leverage commitment of wife, family and home; was a long term team player.

Executive wives were also part of the equation, with the wives often the drive behind their men, since women have more material needs and desires; prestige, helping the husband sustain his vision of upward mobility; children, summer home, college, retirement, etc. The wives would segregate from their husbands at company parties and there was female pressure to keep up; jealousy and competition between all the Mrs. Jones's, as they brag and posture at company picnics.

A single guy was disruptive at company parties, since he did not fit in exactly the right way, and there were fears he might take advantage of the pressures on the ladies.

My guess is as women's liberation appeared from liberalism, the women had to compete with the heterosexual men, who had wives and family, and they may not have the same support system of shared team effort; jealousy. They would also resent the women who were happy to be wives and mothers and blame that on the men. But in reality, the women behind the men, were part of their problem; jealousy and posturing for their families. The pretty gals home makers had a different style of adaptation compared to the smart gals executive, with each posturing to protect from the other. Like Hilary blame the male.

 

[Revoltingest]

Premise: this is a very serious thread, so serious replies only, merci beaucoup.

Honestly I think in the United States, there is a serious psychological issue.
What I mean is that this conviction that women are all victims, because there is still a strong form of Patriarchate.
And the emblem of Patriarchate is the heterosexual man who adores women.

There is also a veiled phallocentrism that is unconscious that has been transforming into an obsession with men's sex drives.
This obsession has led feminists and women to believe that all straight men are potential rapists, because they own the phallus.

And this undermines and belittles women and their sex drives. Women have a vagina, and so they have sex drives, they do desire men.
They are not victims. They choose the men they like and they even fight for the men they like.

There is no Patriarchy.

I think you're obsessing over loopy fervent feminist
views, rather than mainstream Ameristanian thought.
Ever heard of the deleterious effects of "doomscrolling"?
I advise avoiding what should be called "femscrolling".
Things are more diverse here than you believe.

 

[crossfire]

The main reason heterosexual men are the enemy of Liberals but not Conservatives is because of jealousy. When I was growing up, the corporate structure was built around marriage and family. A single or divorced male would have a more difficult time getting high level jobs working the corporate world, since being single meant cat dogging, which was assume to take up more of his time and distract the male from his job and career path. The married male was considered more stable due to the leverage commitment of wife, family and home; was a long term team player.

Executive wives were also part of the equation, with the wives often the drive behind their men, since women have more material needs and desires; prestige, helping the husband sustain his vision of upward mobility; children, summer home, college, retirement, etc. The wives would segregate from their husbands at company parties and there was female pressure to keep up; jealousy and competition between all the Mrs. Jones's, as they brag and posture at company picnics.

A single guy was disruptive at company parties, since he did not fit in exactly the right way, and there were fears he might take advantage of the pressures on the ladies.

My guess is as women's liberation appeared from liberalism, the women had to compete with the heterosexual men, who had wives and family, and they may not have the same support system of shared team effort; jealousy. They would also resent the women who were happy to be wives and mothers and blame that on the men. But in reality, the women behind the men, were part of their problem; jealousy and posturing for their families. The pretty gals home makers had a different style of adaptation compared to the smart gals executive, with each posturing to protect from the other. Like Hilary blame the male.

Women be damned in the Patriarchal structure, women be damned outside the Patriarchal structure. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Damn!

 

[Revoltingest]

Women be damned in the Patriarchal structure, women be damned outside the Patriarchal structure. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Damn!

We're all damned.
Just by different groups.
But we needn't take it to heart.
**** them.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think you're obsessing over loopy fervent feminist
views, rather than mainstream Ameristanian thought.
Ever heard of the deleterious effects of "doomscrolling"?
I advise avoiding what should be called "femscrolling".
Things are more diverse here than you believe.

Bravo! You hit the point.
There is a doomscrolling of mainstream media on how American men behave.
And an instrumentalization of the negative events involving males. Which builds the narrative of patriarchy.

American men are great, period. If mainstream media focused on the positive... this drift would change.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bravo! You hit the point.
There is a doomscrolling of mainstream media on how American men behave.
And an instrumentalization of the negative events involving males. Which builds the narrative of patriarchy.

American men are great, period. If mainstream media focused on the positive... this drift would change.

Ameristanian men are diverse.

 

[Estro Felino]

Ameristanian men are diverse.

well...on average. The first world power...you know...put two and two together.

 

[Stevicus]

Bravo! You hit the point.
There is a doomscrolling of mainstream media on how American men behave.
And an instrumentalization of the negative events involving males. Which builds the narrative of patriarchy.

American men are great, period. If mainstream media focused on the positive... this drift would change.

Some of it may be perceived from a generational standpoint. We might look at American men as they were during World War II and compare with how they are now, examining all the changes and new developments which arose in between.

 

[Estro Felino]

Some of it may be perceived from a generational standpoint. We might look at American men as they were during World War II and compare with how they are now, examining all the changes and new developments which arose in between.

Very good point.

 

[Starise]

I am not sure the OP title is even true. Are we creating a problem, or is there really a problem?

PLEASE don't use US politicians as good examples of american males. Or screen actors. I am always leary of generalizations and over generalizations of countries or people.
I don't think Italian TV is a good representation of all Italian people either.

In the US I could pursue and find any group. I am not the type to pursue the groups I think are bad for me, but I know full well they are out there, and I know some people are different in public than they are in private with many having these little secrets they never share, such as the man who had several wives and kept them all in the dark for a long time. And sure everyone knows there are men who see woman as targets to win, then on the the next target. Another notch in the belt. I had a friend who had a nice looking Asian wife who had a secret hobby of connecting with men on the web. Needless to say they are now divorced. I mean, you can't hide that for very long.

I would think a woman would have more to loose by choosing the wrong groups. At some point everything flops and drops in all groups. Then what? Do we want to chase each other around in wheel chairs?