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

[Estro Felino]

I guess it could be cultural. I was discussing this the other day when talking about my family background. My father's family came from the rural Midwest - "Bible Belt" territory. I never heard them use the term "alpha," although they might still have had certain expectations of what a "strong man" and "leader" should be, but within the context of the family and a religious community. They grew up on farms, not on the streets of Brooklyn or Muscle Beach in California, as such cultures would have been totally alien to my father's family.

It doesn't make them "weaker," in my opinion, but they hold very strict and devout views - and adultery is a grievous sin in their religion. "Being a man" wasn't a matter of being a predatory animal acting on every whim and impulse (which is the urban "alpha" way), but it was more a matter of being a creature to duty. Duty to God and country, duty to family, duty to one's church and community - a very staunch work ethic, eschewing alcohol and other drugs, and living a scrupulously honest life. Women also had similar rules and duties to follow within the same culture.

My uncle is a successful businessman. But honestly I have never seen him going to Church. And when I was ten something, I recall a family reunion, and my relatives making cruel jokes about his extra-marital affairs. My aunt was there and she was proud. She said: my husband is a real man, and he has had the prettiest women in his life. Then she said an idiom in Sicilian whose meaning basically was: "better to have a manwhore than a gay man, as husband".
This is the cultural background in Southern Italy, in Catholiland.
That's the definition of manhood. The economic success is just a reflection.

Or there is a philosophy professor, who is very successful on Italian TV. Honestly I thought he was gay, because he's a little bit too effeminate and with a candid voice. But then, the paparazzi revealed who his wife was. A girl who looks like a Milan Fashion Week model.
Since then, many follow him because that's what makes him a real, virile man.

Of course, it all went to pot by the time it got to my generation. (Nowadays, a lot of these areas are riddled with unemployment, meth abuse, hopelessness, and a different type of "alpha" seems to be emerging.) My dad didn't like living in farm country, so he moved out west to California, where he met my mom, who was raised in a Catholic family, but far more secularized, less devout, and more acculturated to the popular culture.

That's very interesting.
Just think this: in the fifties most women were housewives. Then women emancipated themselves and started competing with men, in the job market. So this has incredibly increased the gender war, the gender divide and the feminists' war on the white, heterosexual man, considered the evil incarnate, as incarnation of Patriarchy.
But as you said, so many white heterosexual men have so many difficulties. There is no such a thing any more.
So feminism really needs to understand this. And to stop it with the same old stereotypes.

 

[Stevicus]

My uncle is a successful businessman. But honestly I have never seen him going to Church. And when I was ten something, I recall a family reunion, and my relatives making cruel jokes about his extra-marital affairs. My aunt was there and she was proud. She said: my husband is a real man, and he has had the prettiest women in his life. Then she said an idiom in Sicilian whose meaning basically was: "better to have a manwhore than a gay man, as husband".
This is the cultural background in Southern Italy, in Catholiland.
That's the definition of manhood. The economic success is just a reflection.

Or there is a philosophy professor, who is very successful on Italian TV. Honestly I thought he was gay, because he's a little bit too effeminate and with a candid voice. But then, the paparazzi revealed who his wife was. A girl who looks like a Milan Fashion Week model.
Since then, many follow him because that's what makes him a real, virile man.

I've observed similar views being espoused in other cultures, although perceptions seem to vary from culture to culture. Even though they're all ostensibly Christian-based cultures, there seems to be a wide variance on how they perceive the commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery."
For some, the public scandal might be a greater issue than the actual act of adultery itself. There's a certain view that people shouldn't air out their dirty laundry for all to see. What people do in private is their own business, but there's no reason anyone else needs to know about it or see it. That's where Clinton may have gotten in trouble in some people's eyes. It may not have been just because of the adultery, but that he was dumb enough to get caught.

I've also seen a similar idea which circulates around the culture, the view that it's not really against the law to do something; it's only against the law if you're caught. I'll admit that it exudes a skewed moral compass at work, but I've encountered more than a few people who seem to share this mindset.

If someone can do something wrong and get away with it, that may be viewed as a greater sign of virility than those who can't get away with it or who don't have the gumption to even try. If one causes public scandal or brings unwanted attention to the pack, then the pack may have to reconsider who they want as their "alpha." (I just had an image of a pack of alpha wolves entering "The Swamp" and encountering a giant swamp creature. They'd all go running off and leave the "alpha" to fend for himself.)

That's very interesting.
Just think this: in the fifties most women were housewives. Then women emancipated themselves and started competing with men, in the job market. So this has incredibly increased the gender war, the gender divide and the feminists' war on the white, heterosexual man, considered the evil incarnate, as incarnation of Patriarchy.
But as you said, so many white heterosexual men have so many difficulties. There is no such a thing any more.
So feminism really needs to understand this. And to stop it with the same old sterotypes.

My mother was actually a very staunch feminist. She and my father got divorced when I was six, and through most of the 1970s, I was bouncing back and forth to opposite sides of the country. A very chaotic and dysfunctional family life, with a good chunk of time spent with my maternal grandparents, who were Catholic and always took me to church when I was with them. My grandparents had more of the 1950s dynamic, while my mother was very much against that lifestyle, yet she still very much relied on them just the same. But I was born in the 60s, and my parents got divorced in 1970. My mother was also very much attuned to the current politics, as were my grandparents, so that's probably where I get my political side.

At first, because I was initially looking at society through my mother's eyes, I could at least see a certain consistent logic with the basic idea of human equality. At least in my own idea of fairness, it didn't seem fair that women weren't allowed to do many things that men were allowed to do. Of course, there was a lot of opposition to the idea. As I was raised on TV, I saw it discussed on TV shows all the time. "Women's Lib" it was called back then. I don't think I became acquainted with the word "feminism" until much later. There was also the "Battle of the Sexes" and terms like "Sexual Revolution" bandied about, which was all related to the same basic line of thinking as "liberation." All the old ideas were being openly challenged and rejected by popular demand.

In fact, all the concepts people consider "woke" nowadays are things that I grew up with and became second nature to me before I even reached adulthood. But I experienced these concepts when they were in their more grass-roots form, whereas, somewhere along the line, they reached the establishment level and became far more corporatized and sanitized in a lot of ways. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy, and I think much of it was well-intentioned, but my point is that I don't believe "feminism," in and of itself, is the problem. It's what corporate America and the politicians have done with it. But then, they tend to ruin nearly everything they touch, so what can one expect?

 

[crossfire]

By our standards, the American male is not alpha.
On average, I mean.
First Clinton denied he had sex with his intern. Then he admitted to it, and apologized.

The average Italian man would have never done that. A Sicilian or a Calabrese would have said: Yes, I did have sex with that woman and she really enjoyed it.
Imagine Italian women living with such men. It's normal that they expect them to be a little bit beta...
Do you understand what I mean?

It wasn't that Clinton had sex outside marriage, it's that he had it with someone who worked for him, with whom he had workplace authority over. (Think of Harvey Weinstein, but not as rampant, predatorial, or insidious as Weinstein.)

 

[Estro Felino]

It wasn't that Clinton had sex outside marriage, it's that he had it with someone who worked for him, with whom he had workplace authority over. (Think of Harvey Weinstein, but not as rampant, predatorial, or insidious as Weinstein.)

Do you mind me asking you to express your take on a historical character?
Virginia Verasis, Italian Countess.
She was 18, when the future king of Italy asked her to seduce Napoleon III, emperor of the France, in order to convince him to choose the Italian alliance. She chased him, seduced him and made him fall prey to her erotic trap. He was almost 50.

Thanks to her, Napoleon III helped the king of Italy defeat Austria.

Was she predatorial, rampant, insidious as well?

 

[vulcanlogician]

In fact, all the concepts people consider "woke" nowadays are things that I grew up with and became second nature to me before I even reached adulthood.

Same here. I was a Marxist in high school and had embraced anarchism by my 20s. I was familiar with MANY of these concepts before they became mainstream. Once corporations started participating in "woke" stuff, I pretty much knew it was going downhill. To hear people tell it nowadays, Marxism isn't even a working class movement. Now it belongs solely to those who exist in corporate environments... people who have the spare time and energy to mouth off on Twitter.

It is also associated with academia, but this relationship is becoming tenuous. When I was in college I exchanged ideas with MANY Marxists and anarchists. The thing about them is that they were nearly ALWAYS highly educated and well-versed in Marxist theory. These days, so-called "Marxists" learned half of what they know about Marx from a few paragraphs in a sociology textbook. And that's IT.

I have zero problem with woke concepts, woke movements, and woke activism. But the taking over of the left by corporate elites, combined with the general lack of education is detrimental. It's not a working class movement anymore, and there are too many corporate bourgeoisie skull-crackers involved.

I am optimistic though, I think in ten years time, the working class will realize they've been scammed (yet again) by the corporate elites and will begin new working class movements that (as historically been the case) do not associate with corporate elitism. And the academic side will return to highly educated socialists and anarchists.

(Sorry for the rant there. I guess I slipped into stream of consciousness. lol)

 

[Stevicus]

Same here. I was a Marxist in high school and had embraced anarchism by my 20s. I was familiar with MANY of these concepts before they became mainstream. Once corporations started participating in "woke" stuff, I pretty much knew it was going downhill. To hear people tell it nowadays, Marxism isn't even a working class movement. Now it belongs solely to those who exist in corporate environments... people who have the spare time and energy to mouth off on Twitter.

It is also associated with academia, but this relationship is becoming tenuous. When I was in college I exchanged ideas with MANY Marxists and anarchists. The thing about them is that they were nearly ALWAYS highly educated and well-versed in Marxist theory. These days, so-called "Marxists" learned half of what they know about Marx from a few paragraphs in a sociology textbook. And that's IT.

I have zero problem with woke concepts, woke movements, and woke activism. But the taking over of the left by corporate elites, combined with the general lack of education is detrimental. It's not a working class movement anymore, and there are too many corporate bourgeoisie skull-crackers involved.

I am optimistic though, I think in ten years time, the working class will realize they've been scammed (yet again) by the corporate elites and will begin new working class movements that (as historically been the case) do not associate with corporate elitism. And the academic side will return to highly educated socialists and anarchists.

(Sorry for the rant there. I guess I slipped into stream of consciousness. lol)

I became exposed to Marxism through studying Russian culture and history, mainly because I wanted to learn more about them, growing up during the Cold War. I was told they were a dangerous enemy, so I wanted to learn about our enemies and what made them tick.

But also, during the Nixon/Watergate era, I learned early on to be wary and skeptical of what is said by government officials and politicians. The level of cynicism in the public's attitude towards the government was rather high. That, too, would have been considered being woke for its time. After Vietnam, conspiracy theories tended to thrive in an atmosphere where people were more readily inclined to accept stories of government and corporate mischief and malfeasance.

One thing I will say about capitalist America: Advertising and image-polishing have turned into an artform - and the same talents can be applied to a business as well as a government. They knew they had an image problem, so they had to at least create the appearance of going woke. I think the left largely bought into it, and considering the fall of the Soviet Bloc at the time, "woke" style capitalism seemed palatable to the left. What was left of any anti-war sentiment on the left appeared to evaporate completely when Michael Dukakis was filmed riding on a tank to show how tough he was.

 

[crossfire]

Do you mind me asking you to express your take on a historical character?
Virginia Verasis, Italian Countess.
She was 18, when the future king of Italy asked her to seduce Napoleon III, emperor of the France, in order to convince him to choose the Italian alliance. She chased him, seduced him and made him fall prey to her erotic trap. He was almost 50.

Thanks to her, Napoleon III helped the king of Italy defeat Austria.

Was she predatorial, rampant, insidious as well?

Predatorial and insidious, (more insidious than Clinton or Weinstein) but not rampant. It was only once, going after Napoleon, right?

 

[Estro Felino]

Predatorial and insidious, but not rampant. It was only once, going after Napoleon, right?

No, she became his mistress.

 

[crossfire]

No, she became his mistress.

Only one person is what I meant.

 

[Estro Felino]

Only one person is what I meant.

No. She had several lovers.
But my point was that women, at least in Europe are not considered victims of Patriarchy.
Women can control men, so they can control the world.

 

[crossfire]

No. She had several lovers.
But my point was that women, at least in Europe are not considered victims of Patriarchy.
Women can control men, so they can control the world.

One person that she went after in that manner.

 

[crossfire]

But my point was that women, at least in Europe are not considered victims of Patriarchy.
Women can control men, so they can control the world.

If you want to play that game (whose rules are dictated by the nomos, aka the patriarchy.)
I'm not interested in having women control men. I'm more interested in men and women controlling themselves. (Is that too much to hope for?)

 

[Estro Felino]

If you want to play that game (whose rules are dictated by the nomos, aka the patriarchy.)
I'm not interested in having women control men. I'm more interested in men and women controlling themselves. (Is that too much to hope for?)

I agree. But we are in a transition time.
That is: women need to counterbalance the patriarchy of the past.
Women are not tools to make babies any more.
They are as powerful as men, since their uniqueness is their force. Sensitivity and sense.

 

[wellwisher]

Anima/animus is that which is repressed from the Persona. The Persona is the interface with the outward/social world, and the anima/animus is the interface with the inner world of the unconscious mind.

If you look at the layering of the human psyche; operating system, it is like an onion with the persona is on the surface. The persona is the mask of the ego. It is what we show others in terms of social interaction. The persona is subject to will and choice. We can change the mask like a costume. At Halloween we can turn the persona into any character we wish to play. At work we may have a different persona, than when we are at home, due to professional rules. It is pliable and adaptable based on will and choice.

Below the persona is the ego proper, which also includes other personal memories and private things that only close friends and family may know. We may not put all this into the persona. Below that is the personal unconscious, which contains both conscious and repressed memories, connected to the ego, that may be private, subliminal and even unconscious but connected to the ego's thoughts and experience; acquired ego data.

If we go deeper we reach the ID of Freud or the shadow of Jung. Like the shadow created by the sun, which follows us around, the shadow of the mind is sort of the unconscious interface between the personal and collective unconscious. It is the interface between ego and the inner self, with the inner self like the neural sun, shining on the ego, to create the ego's shadow. The shadow represents ego will and choice blocking the sun; inner self; that what makes the ego unique, apart from the inner self. It is how we differ from the inner self due to the blocked inner self light. We are illuminates by the sun but not all is conscious; shadow.

Below that shadow barrier/interface are the first level archetypes of the collective unconscious; natural man and natural woman. The collective unconscious defines natural human propensities that define us as a species. This first level is connected to our biological sex. For a woman to bear and raise a baby a lot of physical and mental resources need to be properly wired. The same is true of the natural male. Part of the complementary sex differences are the wiring of the brain with male wiring more connected to visual; front to back. This aids in his natural role as an animal.

From the POV of the inner self, the ego's learned knowledge of good and evil and law, also makes the ego a type of sun that casts a shadow for the inner self. This is reflected in ego modifications to all three layers of archetypes. The animus of the female, for example, can be a good prince; constructive, or an evil warlock; destructive. While the anima of the male, can be the virgin; sweetness, to the devouring mother; cruel drunk. Knowledge of good and evil extrapolated the firmware via the ego induced shadow onto the inner self.

The superego of culture, via the ego's personal unconscious, casts a shadow onto the natural firmware causing a polarization in both men and women within all levels of the firmware. This results in these firmware having a more extreme range than natural. In collective symbolism, the first level firmware of natural men and women, would appear as helpful or harmful animals; bunny to serpent. The anima of the male, when combined with the natural male animal can become a helpful or harmful beast of sorts; centaur. The animus of the female can be a soothing voice or the exacting nag and the vicious wolf. Both are based on learning good and evil and this adding to the range of firmware beyond natural. It had the effect of expanding the range of the inner self; set point, so the ego could also advance. These changes to the human operating system is relatively new; 6-10K years. Before then, the firmware were tighter; tree of life.

In my experience, when men and women fall in love, since their firmware are naturally staggered to be complementary, they will often cross program each other. At the first level firmware, the female will use her beauty and physical charms to visually seduce her man. At the level of the anima, the male's formal side can use his verbal charm to seduce the animus; back to level one passion.

In terms of cross programing, from the top down; inner self to ego, the wise old man of the male's third level firmware can teach the animus of the female how to be a wise man and not just a power based demanding nag. While the highest level of women; mother nature, can teach the anima of the male, the wonders of nature. This can reach the level of wisdom. However, with the highest levels of firmware the most unconscious, bottom to top cross programming can also occur, and cause the top to regress, so it is never reached and perfected. Culture has stalled at levels 1, 2 and needs an update to open up 3 and then 4; inner self.

 

[crossfire]

If you look at the layering of the human psyche; operating system, it is like an onion with the persona is on the surface. The persona is the mask of the ego. It is what we show others in terms of social interaction. The persona is subject to will and choice. We can change the mask like a costume. At Halloween we can turn the persona into any character we wish to play. At work we may have a different persona, than when we are at home, due to professional rules. It is pliable and adaptable based on will and choice.

Below the persona is the ego proper, which also includes other personal memories and private things that only close friends and family may know. We may not put all this into the persona. Below that is the personal unconscious, which contains both conscious and repressed memories, connected to the ego, that may be private, subliminal and even unconscious but connected to the ego's thoughts and experience; acquired ego data.

If we go deeper we reach the ID of Freud or the shadow of Jung. Like the shadow created by the sun, which follows us around, the shadow of the mind is sort of the unconscious interface between the personal and collective unconscious. It is the interface between ego and the inner self, with the inner self like the neural sun, shining on the ego, to create the ego's shadow. The shadow represents ego will and choice blocking the sun; inner self; that what makes the ego unique, apart from the inner self. It is how we differ from the inner self due to the blocked inner self light. We are illuminates by the sun but not all is conscious; shadow.

Below that shadow barrier/interface are the first level archetypes of the collective unconscious; natural man and natural woman. The collective unconscious defines natural human propensities that define us as a species. This first level is connected to our biological sex. For a woman to bear and raise a baby a lot of physical and mental resources need to be properly wired. The same is true of the natural male. Part of the complementary sex differences are the wiring of the brain with male wiring more connected to visual; front to back. This aids in his natural role as an animal.

From the POV of the inner self, the ego's learned knowledge of good and evil and law, also makes the ego a type of sun that casts a shadow for the inner self. This is reflected in ego modifications to all three layers of archetypes. The animus of the female, for example, can be a good prince; constructive, or an evil warlock; destructive. While the anima of the male, can be the virgin; sweetness, to the devouring mother; cruel drunk. Knowledge of good and evil extrapolated the firmware via the ego induced shadow onto the inner self.

The superego of culture, via the ego's personal unconscious, casts a shadow onto the natural firmware causing a polarization in both men and women within all levels of the firmware. This results in these firmware having a more extreme range than natural. In collective symbolism, the first level firmware of natural men and women, would appear as helpful or harmful animals; bunny to serpent. The anima of the male, when combined with the natural male animal can become a helpful or harmful beast of sorts; centaur. The animus of the female can be a soothing voice or the exacting nag and the vicious wolf. Both are based on learning good and evil and this adding to the range of firmware beyond natural. It had the effect of expanding the range of the inner self; set point, so the ego could also advance. These changes to the human operating system is relatively new; 6-10K years. Before then, the firmware were tighter; tree of life.

In my experience, when men and women fall in love, since their firmware are naturally staggered to be complementary, they will often cross program each other. At the first level firmware, the female will use her beauty and physical charms to visually seduce her man. At the level of the anima, the male's formal side can use his verbal charm to seduce the animus; back to level one passion.

In terms of cross programing, from the top down; inner self to ego, the wise old man of the male's third level firmware can teach the animus of the female how to be a wise man and not just a power based demanding nag. While the highest level of women; mother nature, can teach the anima of the male, the wonders of nature. This can reach the level of wisdom. However, with the highest levels of firmware the most unconscious, bottom to top cross programming can also occur, and cause the top to regress, so it is never reached and perfected. Culture has stalled at levels 1, 2 and needs an update to open up 3 and then 4; inner self.

Here is Jung's map of the psyche:

 

[Wu Wei]

Clinton was vilified because it was an affair while he was married, it happened, allegedly, in the oval office, and the woman worked for him. 3 things that are considered disrespectful with a side of predatory. And then it was compounded by his lying about it..... but in all honesty this is a non-issue in the USA today, no one cares, no one talks about it

 

[crossfire]

Here's the wiki on anima and animus with stages of development: anima and animus is often associated with how you view the opposite sex via Shadow projection. You can refer to the article for desciptions.

Anima and animus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anima stage names:

• Eve - Object of desire, provider of nourishment, security and love
• Helen – Worldly achiever, intelligent and talented
• Mary – Righteous and a paragon of virtue
• Sophia – Wise and fully human, equal and not at all an object

Animus stage names:

• Tarzan – Man of mere physical power
• Byron – Man of action or romance
• Lloyd George – Man as a professor, clergyman, orator
• Hermes – Man as a spiritual guide

 

[vulcanlogician]

One thing I will say about capitalist America: Advertising and image-polishing have turned into an artform - and the same talents can be applied to a business as well as a government. They knew they had an image problem, so they had to at least create the appearance of going woke. I think the left largely bought into it, and considering the fall of the Soviet Bloc at the time, "woke" style capitalism seemed palatable to the left. What was left of any anti-war sentiment on the left appeared to evaporate completely when Michael Dukakis was filmed riding on a tank to show how tough he was.

Yeah, at first it seemed like "Awesome. Marxist concepts are finding expression in popular culture." But I failed to consider that "popular culture" is pretty much owned and operated by corporate elites. I see it now. As do a lot of other lefties. The left has been through worse. We'll survive.

And it's probably a net positive that most Americans are now aware of things like "systemic racism." Before "woke" became popular, people thought all racism was "crude racism" and that's it. But, of course, that isn't true. Racism has layers. It operates via subtle and overt mechanisms. And a lot of people realize that now.

What "wokeism" misses about Marx is that these oppressive features in society are not the result of celebrities saying the "n" word and stuff like that. It's all deterministic (in a genuine Marxist's conception)... so there is no use in "blaming" or ""calling out" instances of racism. That's treating the symptoms rather than the root cause.

Treating symptoms is all fine and good. But it's neither reform nor revolution. And that's what "kids these days" (seemingly) fail to understand.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I became exposed to Marxism through studying Russian culture and history,

Any opinions on Tolstoy? I friggin' love that guy. But what's your opinion (if you're inclined to share)?

 

[Stevicus]

Any opinions on Tolstoy? I friggin' love that guy. But what's your opinion (if you're inclined to share)?

I loved Tolstoy, but I think Dostoevsky was my favorite.