I lean more asexual. Not a lesbian.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The psychology of Patriarchate: why strong, heterosexual men are the enemy
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
I understand.
Don't you think that my crusade to defend the heterosexual man has to do with me being into men?
Don't you think I am biased, even if unwillingly?
Like I wrote in my first post in this thread: heterosexual men are not the enemy. It's the cultural nomos (or assumed norms) that need to be brought into consciousness and critiqued.
When critiquing the nomos, people may tend to get a bit defensive, as the nomos represents assumptions about reality that are considered to be beyond questioning. Some people may be more defensive than others.
Could you speak more clearly?
You think heterosexual men should be dissed: yes or no?
No, heterosexual men should not be dissed. The nomos is being critiqued, not men.
Thank you.
If you are really interested in feminist psychology, you can read an article I wrote about it here:
What is Feminism, and how does it relate to Animus Individuation?
I'm not sure is this is the correct place to post this, as it is more of a Jungian psychological perspective than Feminism proper. If this isn't the proper place for it, please direct me to the proper Place for it. Thank you...
www.religiousforums.com
That's very interesting. One last thing.
How would you define this Roman "Elivis"'s behavior?
I didn't understand what he was saying, but he was acting rude to the random women.
My culture is so different.
The average Italian is so happy when two people have sex or enjoy sex. They say: lucky them or good for them...
That's amore.
Yeah, I've heard that about Italy. The US has quite a number of varied subcultures, so it's not completely one way or another.
I thought Italy had some conservative areas as well - or at least with more traditional values similar to what one might find in the U.S. Although I concede that I could be wrong about that.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Men and women both come from the male and female DNA of their two parents. In terms of the brain's operating system our conscious mind uses more of the DNA from our biological sex; father or mother. The DNA from the other sex; two parents, is more connected to the unconscious mind. I often wondered; since I was male, but I am composed of male and female DNA, what happens to the female DNA. Is it inert? The answer is this is used by the unconscious mind.
In terms of men and women, men have a feminine side; anima, and women have a masculine side; animus. Feminism is connected to the animus; manly women who use more of her male DNA via unconscious processes; male drive. The side effect is this is that the animus induces the anima in the men; feminine men. The ancient principle of the man leading the woman, still applies, but now the masculine side of the women; her male DNA, leads the female side of the biological men. The entire LBGTQ is an artifact of this cross sexual induction; women in a male body and vice versa via a merger of the dual DNA; unconsciousness.
The anima in men; female side, is often expressed as moodiness; whiny love songs. It can also be expresses as men who can paint verbal pictures; verbal makeup and charm. The animus is often connected to nagging and domination of the moody anima of her mate. The matriarch who runs her household with an iron fist is from the animus. Many Democrat women in politics are this way; Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.
In terms of the layout of the unconscious mind, there are three layers. The base layer is connected to biology and the natural male and natural female. At this level, men are men and the women are women based on biological drives and natural genetic differences. Men are visual and women are more verbal which wires each brain differently to help maintain differences so they complement each other. Electrons need to have opposite spin to be stable in the same orbital. If they have the same spin, they will repel. Marriage works best if they complement each other; opposites attract instead of be clones. It is this lowest level where men are often portray as cavemen due to this layer being the oldest in terms of evolution.
The second layer of firmware is more modern, cultural and cross sexual; anima and animus, where the male side of the female is the male element. This is the layer that has a connection to feminism. Most people use these two layers with the male elements; first and second layers often, in conflict, fighting for leadership; Biker versus feminists with both being stubborn.
The third lawyer, which is the deepest and least conscious, reverts back to biological sex. In this layer, the male element of the male is often symbolized by the Wise Old Man, while the female element of the woman is often symbolized by Mother Nature. Feminism, by taking the lead role in culture is resisting further change for the male element. This prevents the best parts of the firmware; third layers, from becoming conscious, since it requires role reversal again; a new masculine element leads who is not a caveman but can be since he still has level one and two. After this is the inner self.
DNA is used by the cells. The only male DNA is the Y chromosome.
Take the DNA part out and I pretty much agree, except for the LBGTQ part.
I agree with the men being more visual and the women being more verbal part.
Leave the electron part out because it is incorrect.
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.
My article was about the need for feminists to develop their animus to the Wise Old Man/Spirit Guide level. which represents and facilitates change for the male element.
And the masculinization of the woman, let's not forget that.
By expecting men to be more and more passive and submitted to women, women have sacrificed their own femininity.
I don't want to sound wicked because I am not a wicked person, but it's a fact that European women are more feminine than the overseas counterpart.
Because we have never had this virulent process: that is, feminists submitting the American heterosexual man.
As a woman, I can say that women expect men to be sweet and tender. But sweet doesn't mean passive.
Man must be active and powerful, especially during hard times.
Last edited:
Perhaps our ideas of femininity are different?
I disagree with this statement.
A man should be himself, as a woman should be herself. Don't get too caught up in spinning the Jungian Persona. It will mess with your mind.
Our idea of femininity is what Melanja Knavs is like. Her voice, her behavior.
What's yours?
I respect that.
As I said, it's just a personal opinion. It's not the truth.
Opinions can be based on false premises.
Being yourself. Anything else is a facade, a glamor that only runs skin deep, not true femininity.
I really don't understand where the idea came from that feminists want men to submit to women. A partnership is not a dom/sub thing (unless both partners are into that, then have at it.)
I have never been to the US. But my university was not that far from a US Naval Base, which was filled with American soldiers. And there also were the female relatives of these soldiers.
I have met these men, I talked to them. It seems to me that they appreciated the fact that Italian women were so feminine and with a healthy dose of submissiveness. Niceness. That is, that woman acknowledges that man is the active part, so he is stronger.
Whenever I think of the American woman, I think of this woman and her attitude.
I am generalizing, I know, and I am surely 100% wrong...but perceptions hide some truth.
Now I explain you the Italian woman. Italian woman wants men to be sweet and nice.
No niceness and no sweetness? No sex.
I have dumped guys because they weren't sweet.
So it's a beta woman who expects man to be a little less beta than her.
But we do expect men to be strong and powerful during intercourse, because they are the active part.
Last edited:
As for the video, I sometimes think society has gone overboard with the "alpha" and "beta" talk. Human societies are far more nuanced, intricate, and complicated than a wolf pack. But it is indicative of a social Darwinist mindset at work, a viewpoint I've observed in discussions of politics, economics, and social life.
It's an indicator of regression and more atavistic thinking, whether manifested in nationalism, cutthroat capitalism, or that "alpha energy" the woman in the video was talking about. I've sometimes heard the trope that "a real man goes out and takes what he wants; he doesn't ask for permission." Or as Ray Liotta expressed it in Goodfellas:
- Henry Hill: [narrating] For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked ****ty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean, they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something, we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again.
This sums up the "alpha energy" that some people refer to. But people should be careful what they wish for.
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?
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?
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.
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, poverty, 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.
Last edited: