Politics in America
Part 13: The Deteriorated Relationship Between Men and Women (Continued)
by Robert L. Kocher

In part 12 we left off with the correlation between a person’s private life and his or her political position. The failure of interpersonal relationships and the loss of personal optimism and investment in the future has produced a sharp turn to the political left.

In high school I knew a kid who wanted to be on the basketball team. He wasn’t good enough. The day he failed to make the basketball team, he went home and kicked hell out of the family dog. It wasn’t the dog’s fault. It was his problem. He didn’t want to look at his problem.

In the same way, it’s come to the point where when someone spreads someone else’s legs, then runs off and leaves her; or when someone gets rejected; or when someone’s marriage goes to pot; it constitutes subjective permission to overthrow the government or blame the president for “conditions,” or more recently to call for “change.”

From having seen a large number of parallel situations and careers, I have little personal doubt that if anthropologist Margaret Mead had had four handsome football players out of their minds with desire to seek her hand in marriage in college; and if she had fallen head over heels in love with one of them and entered into a happy marriage; her view of Samoa would have been much different. As it was, that was not the case and the world was not to be forgiven. For the next 50 years she engaged in a constant intellectualized attack upon American culture.

Sometimes the sarcastic advice to “get a life” is the real solution to an argument or a problem. People absolutely must stop channeling dissatisfaction from personal lives into politics, and better yet develop healthy fulfilling personal lives.

Concurrent with development of a new sexual value system in the 60s and 70s, marriages were beginning to fall apart for several reasons.

1.) We were seeing a generation of people who didn’t have enough substance inside them to either form relationships of any depth or hold marriages together. There were too many males who weren’t men and too many females who weren’t women, married to each other. There were too many angry spoiled children married to each other and trying to raise each other without values. It wasn’t working—and it is still a problem today.

In the words of the late Dr. David Viscott, any relationship is only as strong as the weakest person in it. In too-soft generations there wasn’t strength to sustain marriage.

2.) There were too many outside sexual distractions becoming available concurrent with too much previous casual experience in participating in them and little internalized self discipline to resist those distractions.

3.) New lifestyles were on the horizon. By the end of the 60s, drugs were in, communes were in, open living together was coming in, open infidelity was coming in, open marriage was about to come in, and so were other social trends which were to make an impact.

During the 60s, the over-35 age group had its share of people who were lacking in substance and maturity but had been kept in line and out of trouble by social pressures. However, the social trends and resultant social pressures were changing. Not only were there no social pressures toward maturity and substance, the new social pressures were reversed and pulling people backwards to playboy, playgirl, hippie and trendy fantasy lifestyles and temptations.

The Crisis of Adulthood

All healthy adults feel trapped and doubtful at one or more times in their lives. At some point they begin to realize much of their practical freedom of choice is gone because their options have been used up. They go through periods when they feel pressured and backed up against the wall by adversities and responsibilities. They wistfully think back to earlier times in their life and wonder if their choices and compromises should have been different. This is part of the ongoing psychological crisis of adulthood which must be continually resolved.

To some extent this resolution is aided by emotional support from younger generations by their respect for what the older generation has done and by the validation of following in their footsteps. During and before the 1950s, the older people who had been successful in building the community were respected as societal role models, giving them psychological support and providing a long term sense of direction for younger people. During the last half of 60s and the 70s, the previous adult generations not only found themselves deserted and unsupported, but actively undermined, ridiculed, and opposed in virtually every value and element in their lives. Consequently, all the crises, doubts and turbulence of adulthood were intensified.

The photogenic hippie youth-culture imagery of the late 60s and early 70s as portrayed in the new instantaneous media was the most powerful cultural force seen in world history. It basically hit every psychological weak place and sore spot in the adult human psyche. No one wants to grow old. No one wants the weight of everyday adult responsibility and tedium. Everyone remembers senior prom night and wishes it were possible to go back and forever relive the dreams, the innocence, the fantasies, the impulses, the naive optimism, and dance the last dance forever. No one is completely happy with the adult compromises and choices which must be made. Adulthood and real life are intrinsically difficult.

Along came a generation of kids in the later 60s. They were beautiful, innocent-looking and living out every fantasy every generation had ever dreamed but had to part with. They said you didn’t need to make choices. They said all you had to do was be “open” and “free.” In the Age of Aquarius you could fall in love with the head cheerleader or the captain of the high school football team, sleep with them that night with complete freedom, then move on to a new “loving experience” the next day. There was no responsibility and there were no consequences. There was a photogenic facade in which jealousy or anger were not seen. The new generation of kids seemed to have escaped all the constraints previous generations resented but had to accept. The kids believed and acted as if they were going to stay young forever.

Furthermore, these kids issued taunting rejecting accusations of previous generations as being either fools or hapless enough to be born too soon. If only the adults had been born a few years later, they would have been a part of the new generation that would never need to grow up or age and would have absolute freedom forever. As it was, older generations, guilty of the sins of doubt and of supposed incapability of understanding, were to be excluded from the new promised land in which, at first you couldn’t trust anyone over 35 because they were no longer capable of understanding youth—then the age became thirty.

In the new youth-world of 60s and 70s youth, called the Age of Aquarius, those who were young would remain so forever while previous generations were sentenced to go on and age while the youth-aquarians ridiculed their plight. A generation had discovered the fountain of youth sought by Ponce de Leon, but previous generations were disqualified from drinking by decree of the reveling discoverers. Suddenly, to be 30 years old in America was to be immediately obsolete, ancient, and sentenced to death. Suddenly, to act like and take responsibilities that people who were 25 or 30 years old in America had been taking in previous years was to be immediately obsolete, ancient, and sentenced to death.

It sold. It had a component of exquisite sadism. And it hit the adult world where it hurt. The adult world in America was staggered by the blow and many in the adult generations began to panic.

Of course all of it was fantasy and none of it was true. In the end, the bathroom mirror would begin to betray the Aquarius generation each morning. The Aquarius life style was accomplished through massive pathological repression and other forms of psychopathology —and the long term consequences were disastrous as reflected in later mental health figures. Nor could you have the head cheerleader or the handsome football captain at convenience because they might prefer to be with somebody else or several somebody elses instead of you. The pathology beneath the photogenic facade was not immediately visible and the long term consequences had yet to occur.

The Age-of-Aquarius Sales Pitch

It was also coincidentally ignored that the Age of Aquarius was made possible by other people taking responsibility by working in factories or fields. If the hated previous generations had simply gone on strike and quit their jobs, the young of that period would have been too busy trying to ward off starvation to engage in any new freedoms. The hippie and youth culture of the 60s and 70s was entirely parasitic. In years to come the movement toward socialism would be adopted to support parasitism. The derived cultural unproductivity subsequently resulted in inflation and economic weakness a few years later when the older people began to retire and there was insufficiency among the generation of Aquarians who were not willing to take their place.

But, the Age of Aquarius sold. It introduced a period of cultural terror. In the cultural flux, in the fear of being left out, in the fear of obsolescence, and in the uncertainty which followed; attention to determine what the latest trend would be focused upon ever-younger age groups. The situation evolved from not trusting anyone over 35, then not trusting anyone over 30—to not trusting 21 and 22 year-olds who were fastly being left behind and being pressed to keep up with even more radical fantasy life in those several years younger. Twenty-year-olds could feel themselves losing their grip and were desperately looking back at what the 16 and 17 year-olds were doing as a source of leadership. People were finding themselves old and obsolete at the age of twenty-two. There developed a nationwide hysteria to follow or imitate a group of mentally stunted and/or nearly psychotic teenagers who became the strongest cultural force in the country—and probably the strongest cultural force in history.

Life was ending or used up at age 20.

To further intensify the cultural instability, there developed a pathological cycle of interaction between the young and not-quite-so-young. The kids and youth-culture were in control. At the same time, those a little older were losing their grip and were panicking. They were trying to become more radical than the kids so as not to become obsolete. This then became license for the kids. The kids would then become more radical, whereupon those a little older would panic again, try to keep up with or out-do the kids, feeding the cycle.

The spinoff of this interaction was to produce panicked personalities such as radical Abbie Hoffman who was desperately attempting to pass himself off as one of the kids. It wasn’t hard for him to do because all one needed to do was let one’s hair grow long, then act like a militant lunatic to fit the image and nobody would look too closely. So Hoffman became the leader of the YIPPIEs, the Youth International Party, during the 60s. He was bannered on prime time TV three times a week as spokesman for the new cultural wave. But Hoffman was not a kid. Born in 1936, he was a 30 year old man—or what should have been a man. There were many others like him.

There has been a pronounced age distortion in America for 35 years. The popular TV show some years back was called Thirty Something. It was wished that the age group was in their early 30s and the show played to that wish. However, the truth was that for many the age was more like Forty Something or even Fifty Something and they watched the TV program while attempting to believe they were in their early 30s.

Because of these psychological dynamics, adult social institutions started to crumble to be replaced by a social psychosis.

Mainlining Causes

To this day, a large proportion of several generations is still rootless, frightened of being over 18, and grasping externally to themselves for some sort of psychological base and value system. It gave us the legacy of the trendies who were/are still desperately searching for the latest and most exotic fad 25 or 30 years later. They remain(ed) on a perpetual attempt to rejuvenate their youth with injections of left-wing causes and some are still trying to catch up and afraid they will be left out. In the case of Abbie Hoffman, he tried one last desperate time to bring back the 60s in an attempted recrudescence of the protest movements with Amy Carter at Brown University during the late 80s, but this time it didn’t work. There’s no way it could have worked. Hoffman was too old and drug-wizened to pass himself of as anything but a depleted derelict. The only thing remaining for him was suicide in spring of 1989.

Members of previous generations who had thought they had missed something in their youth or who thought they were being left out or were worried about becoming older began to look backward at people five, 10, or 20 years younger for a lifestyle and value system. The more they looked backward, the more their present life condition deteriorated and the more their present situation deteriorated, the more they looked backward with longing.

The social revolution began diffusing upward into older age groups. Thirty, 40, and 50 year old people began wearing hippie love beads and flared pants. In desperation, middle-aged professors were trying to let their few fringes of hair grow long and were wearing hippie-style clothing. A middle-aged Catholic priest of my acquaintance, who was absolutely bald, bought and wore an ill-fitting black long-haired woman’s wig which slid around on his head like an oversized bowl, convinced he had passed himself off as a long-haired hippie and was a leader in the new cultural wave. On Sundays, he conducted folk/rock music masses and got high on pot with the musicians. The masses were well-attended by people in an almost orgiastic state of breathless manic vacuousness in their attempts to join the new wave. Sanity was becoming an endangered species. The entire country seemed to be seeking a mythical life which combined perpetual youthful innocence and an uninhibited sexuality.

Within a short period America was re-created into a new unrecognizable country. All traditions, institutions, and knowledge in existence before 1960 were being declared obsolete and were to be eradicated without regard for their validity—or better yet preferentially on the basis of their validity. There was no sense of continuity. Anything that had been in existence before 1960 could be dismissed based only upon a sneer and the most superficial and contorted of pseudointellectual arguments.

But, the bold new freedoms, the progressive new forms of experiential development, the panic, and the new eternal-youth life styles were in conflict with the old custom of marriage. The relationships between men and women, even among some in older generations were becoming immature, chaotic and unstable. Marriages began crumbling in epidemic numbers. I’ve had hundreds of women tell me about their divorces and the stories are similar. Their husbands would begin reading books on open marriage, then say they “needed space.” Some of them began to be interested in group sex or wife swapping. In some cases two 25 or 40 year old people married to each other developed mutual resentment because neither resembled the eternal youth culture and each reminded the other that they were aging. There would be several extramarital affairs, and so on. Wives were also playing around in extramarital affairs. One of the bitterest men I have ever met was a former Methodist minister who had been married for 18 years to a woman he loved. One day, without warning, she left him to run off in a sexual affair with a 19-year-old boy. In his subsequent bitterness he lost his faith in everything, including God, and gave up his ministry. Many people were losing believe in many things.

Risk Reduction

One thing was becoming obvious. Women could no longer be economically or psychologically secure with men in marriages. They had good reason not to trust marriage. As divorce rates increased, too many women were being divorced and abandoned by trendy playboy husbands, ending up with three little kids and a financial struggle ahead. Women had to become career women who looked at love and marriage as of secondary importance in their lives. That may not have been what they wanted, but they didn’t have any choice. This became one of the foundations of woman’s liberation movement expansion in America. Time and time again, in a period when the divorce rate in the approximate Clinton age group was approaching 60 percent, both married and single women stated that they must have a serious career so that they would not be financially destroyed if their marriage or their next marriage ended in divorce. That’s a bitter emotional position with which to begin a marriage—or to begin anything else. However, it became a realistic position.

Women had to turn their backs on the generation of shallow, spoiled, irresponsible American men. Women were being crippled and destroyed. The suicide rate among women continued an astronomical rise as testimony to the fact. They were being emotionally crippled, abused, and sexually exploited before marriage. Even if they did get married, their marriages weren’t anything and they couldn’t count on them. Although they made their own contribution to the conditions about which they complain, they were, and are, put in an impossible position.

It’s unfortunate there had to be a woman’s liberation movement in America. It’s unfortunate that the woman’s liberation movement was started by the people who started it and had the name liberation in it. Every crackpot radical group in the country was calling itself a liberation movement. Liberation had become a code word for nuts, crazy. In a short period of time, the woman’s liberation movement would live up to its name, crazy. Woman’s liberation rapidly became a coalition of previous processes, none of them good.

One aspect of the woman’s lib movement became a collective expression for a well-justified rage that had been building in women during the sexual revolution. Another aspect incorporated what appeared to be a number of lesbian movements within the woman’s lib movement. In looking through lists of book publishers in Writer’s Market, there is a solid axis of publishers who describe themselves as “progressive” in orientation and seek “feminist and lesbian” manuscripts. This association continues to recur in numerous situations. It is no accident.

The third thing woman’s lib became, was a collecting organization for vast numbers of spoiled arrogant young women. They wanted a career, but they didn’t know what work consisted of in most sections of the country—and most of them apparently believed the median American income is $275,000 per year. Work was thought to be a career as a lawyer, media commentator, administrator, or a “social activist”—careers in which they would be acclaimed and worshiped to appeal to the pathological narcissism becoming widely developed in recent generations. That is the image of work universally portrayed in the media.

Management—Who Needs It?

In a recent period there was a discussion over a “fast track” versus a “mommy track” for women in attaining management positions. Mommy track is for women who want to have children and still become management. Fast track is for women who elect not to have children and who will advance quickly to high level management. The formulation varied from week to week. Some wanted to work part time in pursuit of upper management positions. So do I, but that’s not the way it works.

One thing is clear. There was, and is, to be no shortage of prospective instant high-level managers and administrators. Even the slow track consists of expected high level management positions without a great deal of waiting. Within this cosmic conception of career advancement it has not occurred to anyone that not that much managing is needed. If one tenth of the women who want management positions actually obtain them at any level, America would be so overburdened and clogged with managers and administrators that the economy would collapse with the weight of them, presuming that we cannot talk the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans into doing the actual production in Asia so we can all become managers. We have the equivalent of an army with no privates and all major generals or above. Everybody wants to manage everybody else with nobody doing the real work except to dabble with it during the first year of their management training program to familiarize themselves with the business—with all of them dressed for success and propelling themselves and each other steadily upward in a bubble of bloated management bureaucracy with power lunches, networking and “fast tracks.”

What in hell ever happened to real life? Real life track doesn’t count for anything any more.

For most men, the reality of a career was and is a slow track. It meant a life expectancy nearly seven years shorter than that of the average women and consisted of working for 40 or 50 years in a steel mill, a coal mine, a machine shop, a foundry, a slaughterhouse, or a factory, fabricating the material world we see about us. This wasn’t the glamour or commitment most liberated women had as a frame of reference when they talked about equality—and it still isn’t.

In a late 80s Donahue show young college graduates of both sexes discussed their career problems and what the supposed problems are with American society. They couldn’t find positions in their field of study—which were largely four-year-long hobbies they played with in college. They were in positions which were not intellectually challenging or creative. They were not advancing fast enough in their careers or were in dead-end positions. They weren’t in positions suitable for their supposed brilliance or educational level. They weren’t getting paid according to their capacity. And so on. Consequently, something must be wrong with the country.

What was wrong is not the country, but their frame of reference. Work is not something somebody wishes he or she might like to do. Work is something someone needs done and will pay you to do. If work were fun, you would pay people to let you do it the same way you pay admission to get into Disneyland.

Work Ain’t Child’s Play

As you drive down the road you see gas stations, fast food stores, factories, department stores, grocery stores and so on. People assume all these institutions will be functioning to provide necessary goods and services. The word is: necessary. Everything in your home, the water you drink, the roads people drive on—even the sewage systems—must all be manufactured and operated. For those business institutions to function, tens of millions of people must work in them and that is what most people wind up being paid to do because that is what must be done. Most work is not glamorous. That is the reality of work. The people on the Donahue show applied for work, and, much to their distaste, they found it. Very few people wind up in glamorous situations or in the magazine ads. America needs fewer people dressed for success and more people dressed for serious work.

According to government figures, there were ten million college students in 1980. College graduates, including those at the doctoral level, are a dime a dozen. The only thing a college education entitles anybody to do is go out and find something somebody needs done and will pay him or her to do. When someone in business hires five new college graduates, he isn’t paying each one of them to step in and push him aside as president of the company. He’s hiring them to do something he needs done.

It is mind-boggling to hear women talking about having a career so they can find “self-fulfillment.” They have a shock coming. If they find any marvelous self-fulfillment, they’ll have found something 95 percent of men haven’t been able to find. This is reminiscent of an incident which happened when Jack Kennedy was running for president. Kennedy was campaigning in West Virginia. An old man in the crowd (he probably had been a coal miner) was going to put this young rich kid who wanted to be president in his place. Confronting Kennedy, he bellowed, “Young man, they tell me you’ve never worked a day in your life!” Kennedy thought about it for a few seconds, turned on his best movie star smile, then said, “You know, I believe you are right.” Disarmed, the old man laughed and replied, “Son, I have to tell you, by not having worked, you haven’t missed a damned thing!”

Many a salesman has been out on the road for the last 40 years struggling to beat the bushes for business, and I wonder how he and the other poor devils have done it year after year. They couldn’t do it, but they didn’t have any choice, so they did it anyway. That is how they did it. If you were to tell a 60-year-old salesman he was out there because he had found liberation and self-fulfillment, he’d probably run you over with his automobile, figuring you were nuts and hoping to kill you in self-defense before you became even more dangerously mentally unbalanced and did serious damage to somebody.

Many women are in “careers” and believe they are “career women” at 30, 35 or even 40. Regardless of how successful they are or think they are, they haven’t had or done anything. Most work is easy at age 25 or thirty. They haven’t made a start yet. The hard part is yet to come. They have another 25, 30 or 45 years yet to go.

The newness and glamour will wear off. As in the case with most men, few will become corporation presidents or TV personalities. The woman’s movement refers to this as an artificially imposed glass ceiling. Men live with it as a reality. Most women will cease to be upward-mobile and are not upward-mobile now, but don’t know it. Each year they will get a little older, tireder and slower while their competition gets younger and faster. Right now, they still have enough beauty and youth to be included in the social pool of the flashy and young who work together, who party together and have something in common.

Every few years they are going to find a new group of bright young faces will be entering the work place who will bring in a new set of generational values and will probably speak the different language a different generation always speaks. Instead of looking upon them as contemporaries, that new generation will look at them as older predecessors to be resented and pushed aside. There will be a distance between them and the new group that they can’t bridge. They won’t relate socially, but will find themselves being left out. They will find themselves outsiders. A few years after that, they’ll find they somehow no longer relate to the 30 or 35 year-olds and will suddenly wake up to realize they are alone and isolated. Their illusions will be dropped by the wayside to be replaced by the drab reality of continuing repetitious day-to-day tasks with little else in their lives. They are stuck in a rut, but have yet to realize it. They only think they are career women. Until they have experienced all this and understand it, they are not career women. In another 30 years they will be career women. There are no career women under the age of fifty-five. Right now they are playing at life in a little kid’s fantasy.

Furthermore, if they really want a high-powered career, it is likely to cost them 10 or more years off their life span. There was a recent USA Today piece on the increased rate of cancer in career women. Cancer is not the only problem. Career women are starting to become afflicted with, and die from, the stress-related diseases which have afflicted and killed men for decades. Career women are going to pay with their health and with a reduced life span.

Careers—Who Needs Them?

A few years ago I happened to read a letter posted on a student college engineering society bulletin board from a recent female engineering graduate written to her friends who had not yet graduated. She had found a good job designing machine tools for some firm—the kind of job men have considered themselves lucky to obtain. However, she was less than ecstatic. In her mind the job was boring and uncreative. The job was unglamorous—and so forth.

She has another 45 years of this liberation and fulfillment coming. She’s not there to find glamour and excitement. She was hired because machine shops in Gary, St. Louis, and Milwaukee need lathes, grinders, milling machines and drill presses without which the country will grind to a halt.

Glamour and fame only exist for those who don’t have it—or for nitwits. I’ve been internationally known in several fields. In six months you forget about it. You still put your pants on one leg at a time.

In most instances fulfillment in life does not come from glamour or work, but from personal relationships and from family relationships. The purpose of work is to support those relationships.

In the early 90s I heard Barbara Walters complain that women were beginning to quit careers in droves. She, and others, apparently believe this represents an unaccountable betrayal of a hard-won struggle of the woman’s movement.

Of course they were leaving so-called careers. They’ve awakened to find themselves aging, tired, and in lives quite different from the descriptions fed to them when they were 15 and 20 years younger. They are facing the same thing men have faced for generations. The fun is over. The slogans no longer hold up.

Barbara probably can’t understand that. For the last 35 years she has been paid more than the GNP of a small nation to live a privileged existence inhabited by a handful of people in the world while associating with and interviewing similar people. She is only dimly aware any other world exists. She’s under the quaint belief that it’s real life. It isn’t real life.

As part of the woman’s liberation movement young women wanted sexual liberation and freedom, but refused to acknowledge the consequences of it. They wanted the new sexual moral/value system which had arisen during the sexual revolution. They didn’t want to give up any fun or undergo any realistic adult discomfort. They called it equality of sexual freedom. Again, we were seeing a non-issue which became an immediate exclusionary focus away from the real problems. They were hurt and enraged, but they didn’t want to examine the source of it. They didn’t want to examine what their behavior might have to do with it.

A number of women showed a type of infantile defiance and denial. They acted as though they could sexually use or exploit men, which is a little like the canary claiming it will exploit the hungry cat’s stomach under a new-found digestive freedom. Women could fabricate the appearance of sexual exploitation of men by making men meet a series of demands for sexual performance—almost as if they were hired men or were interviewing for jobs.

What Are You Looking At?

“Liberated” women managed to combine free sex, castration, and sadism. The nation was suddenly flooded with bra-less goofs proclaiming their sexual freedom and availability and jiggling beasts at men through sheer blouses, wearing mini-skirts or low-slung pants so tight it looked as if they had been tucked up inside their private parts—-while complaining they were looked upon as sex objects. Although they were sexually provocative and were vocal exponents of sexual freedom, God help any man who had an impure thought or a twinge in the wrong place or he’d get kicked in that place for viewing them as a sex object, which is what many angry women wanted to do. It was an obvious form of entrapment.

Sexual freedom and equality was also not to be true sexual freedom and equality. In the 80s there was the social and legal precedent-setting palimony suit in which actor Lee Marvin was sued by a woman with whom he had a mutual private agreement for sex over a period of years. Marriage or anything else wasn’t to be a possibility. Upon later consideration she revised the original deal retroactively and decided that the screwing which Marvin was enjoying was worth more than the screwing she was enjoying, to the point of demanding half his income during the period they were screwing. The essential argument was that the screwing he was getting was a glorious and necessary psychological support to his career for which she was entitled to a large part of his income. —like he couldn’t have done it without her engaging in sex with him the same way as she had done with others. Sexual equality among liberated women was not to be simple exchange of immediate pleasure or amusement. It was special entitlement beyond equality in the minds of liberated women. Presumably, if a man conducted a florid sex life with numerous sexually liberated women on a hit and run basis, the women could meet as a group with their lawyers to discuss how good each of them were at screwing, how superior it was to what they were getting, what the effect was, and pro-rate it for demands for seizure of his income. Women are entitled to do this. Men aren’t.

Also, while men were expected to be as numb as though they had novacaine for sex hormones much of the time while women were strutting around flaunting their provocative half-naked condition, any man was expected to become an ecstasy-producing sex machine to these non-sex-object females, immediately, at the arbitrary snap of a feminine finger saying it was now time. He was repeatedly made to understand he was dealing with a sexually experienced woman who expected to be multiorgasmic in spite of her own emotional blocks and defenses. Concurrently, there would be abstract wonderment about the wave of impotence in men assigned this contorted task. While the obvious conflict in these messages and demands was simply denied, it was, in fact, exquisite sadism and castration with a vengeance, but nobody dared mention it or dares mention it to this day. For practical purposes, a group of enraged female undesirables, bullies and sadists treed the country.

Sexual Polarization

Now do you wonder why we are winding up with so many gay men? Basically, any factors that polarize the sexes, that produce fear, anxiety, or instability between the sexes; create or augment the psychodynamics of homosexuality. Those factors have been abundant and operating full steam for years. One might be tempted toward the simple conclusion that male homosexuality, as turbulent and distorted as it is, is in the minds of some preferable and less toxic than the wantonness, instability and defiant sadism of American liberal women who are in control of everything but their own minds.

Parenthetically, something should be said about male homosexuality in this context before going on. In a recent radio program on rape, the women on the program maintained rape was an expression of anger and desire to humiliate women while women had no comparable threat on men. That’s not exactly true. For physical reasons which should be obvious, it is impossible for a woman to rape a man or subject a boy to the same type of sexual abuse to which little girls can be forcefully subjected. Women don’t rape or sexually abuse, they castrate.

Footnote: Recently, a female elementary school teacher in the Washington, D. C. suburbs forced one of the boys in her class to administer oral sex upon her. Some authorities consider this to be classified as rape of the young boy and it may be argued as being so during the trial.

Male homosexuality is complex and its psychological structure varies between individuals. It seems to occur in several different forms. From the standpoint of attendent thought processes there is an element of pathological evolution in it in the sense that there are arguments defending homosexuality, those arguments have come under dispute, and new defenses have been compounded to fill the holes in the original arguments and defend against that dispute in what has become an organized and unified front. This has resulted in a system of ongoing developing defensive thought disorder integrated with the condition which should be obvious, but is instead is not perceptible, or is acceptable, to an extensive general population in America whose own logical processes are now are so undeveloped, dishonest, soft, warped, or undermined as to be in a parallel condition. America is, after all, a country of such overall deteriorated mental condition as to elect and tolerate a President of the United States who engages in oral penile and anal sexual stimulation in the Oval Office at the very moment he is making arrangements to send the military into Bosnia, or who doesn’t know what “is” or sex are under oath in a court of law. If that doesn’t trigger a danger warning of serious thought disorder, how could anything else be expected to do so—including the thought disorder interwoven into homosexuality? There are fewer people each year in America who are in functional enough, or honest enough, condition to perceive serious pathology in anything.

Additionally, cultural/environmental influences in gay etiology have substantially changed over the last century.

Male homosexuality often represents the confluence of unresolved fear, anxiety, repression, and anger from various sources. It has now become forbidden to say that and it is not taught in graduate schools. The resolution of these underlying conditions can be accomplished through competent deep level psychotherapy, but it requires too much effort and emotional pain on the part of gay patients and they don’t want to be bothered with it. It’s easier for them to fabricate a monologue in which gays are presented as having the courage of their convictions that enables them to avoid confronting the real psychological work they should be doing in life and in deep level therapy. If they are not willing to take responsibility for doing that work, I’m not interested in listening to their concocted arguments and stories they want to imopose on me, and I don’t want to be bothered with them.

Purely religious counseling should not be used to deal with the condition as it too often produces behavioral changes on a superficial basis while leaving the unresolved and turbulent psychological substrate. It too often results in pathological evolution instead of pathological resolution.

While a complete discussion of homosexuality cannot be undertaken here, one aspect of male homosexuality is that it often represents a subtle psychological form of castration. It also represents a perverted form of protest against women in which the protester is psychologically immobilized and the protest is turned inward against the self instead of turned outwardly. The rapist and the “liberated” psychopathic deviant who sexually uses women both protest and act outward through the use and humiliation of women concurrent with emotional withdrawal or distance from women. Their contempt and aggressive impulses are not so completely blocked that direct action is precluded, assuming they even recognize their activities as hostile impulses.

The male homosexual’s anger, aggressiveness or assertiveness may be more profoundly repressed, passive and/or immobilized. Rather than externally protesting his treatment, or potential treatment, by women, he inverts his protest and turns it in upon himself through both withdrawing from women by withdrawing his masculinity and therefore withdrawing his need for women. Instead of being able to express his anger from his treatment by women, his psychological immobilization causes him to develop and implement a subtle self-hating contempt for, and repression of, his potential masculinity and that part of himself which, if not repressed, would make him vulnerable to that fear and mistreatment. He protests by repressing those potential characteristics of himself which make him vulnerable, afraid, or whatever. He synthesizes an alternate life around this.

I Am Woman

In becoming a quasi-woman, he becomes immune to women while obtaining some of the power of women. In the gay subculture and sexuality there is an exercise of a certain wanton bitchiness and a teasing sadistic arbitrariness which approaches the power women exercise when they are perceived to wield the same characteristics. The gay man gets to play the part of the female who has the power to arbitrarily seduce and reject.

Back in the days before gay was liberation, and back when psychiatrists were not politically prohibited from discussing homosexual origins, it used to be known that gay men often came from a background of a strong mother and weak father. As children many gays early learned who had the power and that men were worthless or beaten-down second-class citizens somehow drawn by weakness to a degrading and humiliating relationship with women. If they had, and have, any doubts, look at any TV comedy and see who the buffoon is —it’s the bumbling man. Compare the moral authority and strength of the men portrayed in movies and TV with that portrayed by women. At best, the standard of masculinity has become an insipid Phil Donahue who hid himself in sensitivity, confusion and trendiness, for more than 30 years while the nation was taken over by drugs and other sickness. Much of the last 10 years of the show were also spent obliquely defending the militant Huller Clinton-like mess that he married.

Additionally, in the absence of men, it has been my observation that some mothers and women think it’s cute and pat boys on the head and otherwise reinforce cute girlish behavior in boys. In watching the actions of some gay men it’s apparent that that is what they are acting out and you can almost see the over-compliance to their internal image of the approving mother standing in back of them.

In the last several decades, men have become progressively passive and immobilized, often through having been programmed with irrational guilt from various sources as well as through deficient development of, or exercise of, masculine traits. Simultaneously, women have become progressively aggressive and dominating. This, together with the culturally institutionalized hippie-culture repression of appropriate anger along with exhortations upon men to find and develop their feminine side, both of which have been implemented in mainstream American culture, have psychologically immobilized men in a way that form a predisposition to turn the reactions to the castration they are experiencing inwardly against themselves.

Again, the psychological processes of homosexuality are complex and would require hundreds of pages to examine. Consequently, a full discourse cannot be provided here and is not the purpose. What has been mentioned here is but one facet. However, it is perfectly clear that contemporary men are being channelized into homosexual dynamics in American culture under conditions of intolerable levels of obvious but undermining dishonesty and denial of the process.


To put it another way, American men have been psychologically neutered. This is a profound level of psychopathology. It’s a good distance toward homosexuality.

Gays and those at the masculinity-immobilized level of pathology would have the world believe the problem with rejection of gays is homophobia—an irrational fear of homosexuality, supposedly due to fear of one’s own homosexual tendencies.

The problem in America is not homophobia, but is instead heterophobia. Within a social psychosis, heterosexual relationships have become more painful than hopeful or satisfying, leading to rejection of heterosexuality.

And the major problem is not homophobia, but one of fear of manhood. Men have the guilt and fear of breaking through their highly-conditioned inhibitions against manhood. In many cases they are incapable of the strength and responsibility of manhood if they were to break through. Contemporary women want males who are innocuous, someone who won’t shake their tree, someone who won’t demand that they be women, and who is consequently emotionally safe. By adopting pathology and self-castration, a class of males hopes to buy themselves an inside track to obtaining acceptance from contemporary castrating women. After having paid the price for admission, they have no reason to be admitted. They aren’t buying themselves very much of a role. Nobody has very much use or respect for them.

The ultimate on the inside track is milady’s gay hairdresser who for practical purposes has paid the ultimate price in manhood to become accepted as one of the girls. He gets to participate in the gossip and gets patted on the head for being cute and sensitive.

(For a number of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists who I am told follow this series, if you want to work within these conceptualizations, avoid the error of premature interpretation in working with patients. Rather than offering immediate interpretation, wait until the patient will come to a point where he is ready to arrive at these conclusions, but may not have the words and needs clarification.)

In accordance with this is a noticeable trend among a number of female psychologists, psychiatrists and other psychotherapists who publicly and in private practice have “—-complete respect for the sexual preference of gay men.” During radio talk shows or other public forums they fall over themselves fawning over and praising gay male callers. It has nothing to do with these women respecting or loving these men or doing them any favors. In fact, these women mental health professionals are sweetly vicious and undermining. These gay men are whipped, insipid and castrated. Many of them are ludicrous. These women are going to keep them that way under the guise of some sort of loving care and understanding. They are going to help gay men “adjust to their sexual preference” which is another way of saying keeping them sick, weak, non-threatening, dominated, ludicrous, and castrated as a role model to be pushed upon other men. Gay men will be shown how to adjust to being crippled—leaving women in the position of appearing to be strong superior liberated Amazons by comparison. Those men who aren’t gay will be pushed to get into touch with their feminine side, which is good enough to render them crippled and insipid—and the country weakened, sick, and drug-ridden along with it.

I am well-aware of recent brain-structure brain-scan studies suggesting anatomical differences between gay and non-gay men. I am also aware that technological advances are such that the day will soon arrive wherein brain scans will be able to chemically and anatomically detect whether someone has learned advanced algebra in high school. It may then be possible to center a debate on whether or not someone has a properly-configured neurological arrangement rather than whether someone has bothered to open the book upon taking the algebra course. All acquired behavior is accompanied by neurological/anatomical changes. The cultural condition and fashion in America is presently predisposed to support organic permission for gayness; i.e., if anatomical/chemical brain function can be concentrated upon, all introspection can arbitrarily ended at that point. The deriving of such permission seems to satisfy various interests. However, mind-body relationships are more complex than are being presented.

I readily acknowledge that a large proportion of the psychiatric, psychological, and other mental health professions of the recent period will not agree with a single thing I have said here. My responsibility is to myself and my own integrity, not to them.

Politically, the gay and lesbian axis in American society has become very active, with the muscle to inspect political candidates for use of language and stated conceptualizations that cushion gay arguments and life styles. According to the March 20, 2000 issue of Newsweek, 5 percent of voters in the 1996 national election were gay/lesbians. They are becoming an aggressive political block that is well represented in the media. Like others in a too-soft society, they have a stake in pathological protectionism which is to be politically imposed.

Castration, Contradiction, and Consequence

The contradictory behavioral pattern of provocative sexuality concurrent with hostility in women mentioned several paragraphs ago was the confluence of three components: 1.) Spoiled women with borderline personalities who wanted what they wanted without consequences; 2.) An attraction toward men; 3.) Simultaneous enormous anger and resentment directed toward men. So they walked around half naked and provocative as an expression of the attractive element, while remaining hostile and castrating as an expression of their anger and resentment, while complaining about, or denying the consequences of both their motivation and their behavior.

As a recent episode of pushing the limits of sadistic defiance beyond the outermost boundaries of sanity, in September of 1993 a group of women won a ruling in the New York courts allowing them to be unclothed from the waist up in all general public places and activities. The contorted explanations representing what has been gained in this move as being a triumph of sociological and moral betterment challenge the gullibility of even the most confused minds. To encapsulate the situation euphemistically, this does not represent the finest employment of wisdom or improvement in quality of life. The more obvious and valid interpretation which does not require verbal contortions or extreme gullibility to be accepted is that this is thinly concealed defiant sadism at psychotic or borderline psychotic levels and enforced implementation of sadistic defiance at psychotic or borderline psychotic levels. The major gain, and the object of the exercise, is sadistic defiant leverage.

The world was told confident self-assured men were not intimidated by any of the above. This claim was a second attempt at castration plus denial and a good debate ploy. It meant any man who sensed what was happening had his observations and senses invalidated by telling him his correct observations were a symptom of his lack of manhood or other hang-ups. This accusation and manipulation sounds familiar. Exploitive men had been using that same “hangup” routine on women over the hit-and-run premarital sex issue.

It’s true many men who were labeled confident and self-assured were not bothered. The problem was, what liberated women were mislabeling as confident self-assured men were in reality exploitive cold men, often psychopathic deviants, who couldn’t be hurt because they didn’t have any values, didn’t feel deep emotional bonding, and didn’t give a damn. Women, again, became increasingly restricted in their heterosexual relationships to interactions with cold psychopaths or semi-psychopaths who were labeled with the euphemism of being self-assured while the decreasing number of healthy men were forced to turn their backs on women. The woman’s movement has alienated men who are not psychopaths or can not be converted to being psychopaths, and is then complaining about how men are psychopaths. Any political candidate who expects to get elected is required to conform to the language and demands of this pathological psychosocial system.

Women were forced to turn their backs on men. They had to close off their softer emotions and sensitivities from men, becoming half-women. They had to turn to careers and away from faith in intimate relationships and marriage. The exploitation and pain of the sexual revolution hadn’t left them any choice—except perhaps to begin acting like ladies and it was too late for that. But, while they closed off their emotions and everything else, they kept their legs open—which was a mistake because that was what was one of the major elements causing the problems in the first place. The woman’s liberation movement had taken up and institutionalized the very patterns and sexual values that were destroying women and it was going to backfire with a vengeance.

Exploiting Liberated Women

Nearly every misogynic and sexually exploitive man I have ever met has supported woman’s liberation. At this point, men who were cold, sexually exploitive and misogynic had it all given to them on a platter—everything they had ever wanted. Since the new liberated women were to be self-supporting, financial commitment was no longer a consideration in relationships with women. Even divorce was made easier, financially. Because liberated women were more psychologically detached and had their own life, exploitive men did not have as many time and intimacy demands, which they had never wanted, made on them. Exploitive men no longer had to lie as much because liberated women, in their psychological detachment from men, weren’t asking as many promises regarding commitments and merging of lives. The breakup of sexually based relationships became easier because “independent” liberated women weren’t as deeply involved, having less emotional attachment. There was plenty of sex available from liberated women. Liberated women were becoming sexually aggressive, so exploitive men didn’t even need to work at seduction. Sexually exploitive men had been faced with the problem of pregnancy and woman’s lib ended that problem for them with its pro-abortion stance. In one of the liberal woman’s magazines poll of 65,000 women from several years back, 17 percent of them had had abortions in their present relationship and 47 percent of women below age 34 had had abortions. For men seeking for screw-for-three-weeks-then-run relationships, woman’s liberation was made to order, giving women permission, if not pushing them, to engage in such relationships. These men were ecstatic. It was as if they had died and gone to heaven.

In the late 80s there was a study in one of the popular magazines in which a sample of bachelors in their 30s was polled to find what kind of women they preferred. The conclusion was, they liked aggressive assertive liberated women. Consequently, the inference was that is what every young woman should be. End of sales job and conclusion.

But, that is not the ultimate reality. Yes, they liked them, but for how long? A night or a month?. They liked them for as long as it took to get rid of them. They were still bachelors, get it? Each one of these bachelors had gone through 10 or 20 of these marvelous little liberated chickadees in the previous several years and would go through another 10 or 20 in the next several years. They weren’t interested in a future with these women. The reason they liked these women is because they were ideal disposable sexual appliances in a series of passing episodes. The perpetual bachelors didn’t need to worry about long-term commitments, emotional involvements, time demands, pregnancies, or much of anything else with them. These liberated gems even paid half the dinner check preparatory to getting used as a sexual appliance that night then disposed of the next morning or a few weeks later.

In rebuttal, it will be said that these men are too busy and committed to their careers to get married. However, they are not celibate and they are not too busy to chase and bed down a succession of women. They are only too busy to make the commitment to spending the same amount of time with one woman. They don’t care enough or like any one of them enough or don’t have the capacity to make that commitment. If the truth were known, in many cases they can barely tolerate these women. The same analysis applies to so-called independent career women who are too busy to become married. What is lacking is not time.

So, with the advent of the women’s liberation movement, sexually exploitive men danced in the streets—-and in beds. Meanwhile, good men who had had their values trivialized, who had done nothing but take abuse for how many years in putting up with an increasing amount of shallowness and trivialization from women, finally lost nearly everything, including hope. It was a bitter time for them—and still is. They got to stand around waiting for cold sterile leftovers after exploitive men had had their way with women and moved on.

In the 80s a nationally-known woman psychologist can be heard on radio three times a week advising women on how much fun liberated free-wheeling men were to have as lovers, and then advising them to get a dull stable man for a husband or to have a child when they were ready to settle down (in a relationship in which she is marginally interested and which is likely to continue to occupy a second place filler in her life). Her frame of reference came from a position of such complacency, arrogance and self-centeredness that she isn’t aware of the meaning and implications of what she’s saying. The message is, when you get tired and need a rest for a while, ladies, find yourself a straight dull straight hardworking second-class chump, the one you have been rejecting for years, then use him for a while. He’s supposed to hang around waiting for eventual jaded table scraps while his future wife rewards a bunch of comedians and jack-legs with free sex. Even if he listens to the radio program he’s not even supposed to be bright enough to understand this insult.

Furthermore, if she does condescend to marry him at her convenience, he still is regarded as a fool and still gets his face rubbed in it. According to figures from Shere Hite and others, there is a 70 percent chance this love of his life he has been waiting at the end of the line for will continue to play around in extramarital affairs; and the liberal women’s magazines seem to take thinly-disguised glee and pride in it as evidence of “women’s new freedoms.” With a little luck, there’s a 50 percent chance she has the gift of VD she often does not know she has, courtesy of one or more of the previous playboys she’s been screwing around with as a joke, and she may be sterile and wanting to have children. (The VD statistics will be examined later.) He’ll have to stomach it because it’s either that or nothing. As a second or third-class citizen, he’s stuck with it.

The question these self-proclaimed Helens of Troy who have talked each other into believing they are God’s gift to everything are too narcissistic to wonder about is: Just what is the man supposed to get out of any of this beyond the opportunity to worship these goddesses?—a little sex with a jaded, emotionally sterile, condescending woman and he’ll be lucky if he isn’t required to wait in line for that?

The fact is, under superwoman exclusive entitlement nobody is concerned whether he gets anything or not. The possibility that he might want some pride and respect has never been brought up. He’s supposed to take what he’s given, or what’s left, and be thankful. Worship of the New Woman is supposed to be sufficient to fill his life.

Dagwood Bumstead

For years, everybody has “known” that men are psychologically dependent upon marriage for happiness. For years, everybody has known ninety percent of single men are unhappy and are far more likely to be afflicted with alcoholism and other psychologically-related problems. Psychological studies from 1980 and before have documented this. For years, the liberal women’s magazines have gloated over the ninety percent unhappiness rate of single men with an air of superiority. For years feminists could gloat over how marriage was a greater psychological necessity for men than for women. Consequently, women had license to toy with options and be as arrogant or insulting as they wanted to be while the poor weak male dummies waiting at the end of the line would have to take it patiently or be sentenced to join a pool of tormented single men at the arbitrary flick of a feminist finger.

While everyone else has been busy becoming “liberated,” the straight, serious, responsible white male has been a fifth class minority citizen and treated as everybody’s fool and punching bag for more than 30 years. Liberated women ridicule, caricaturize, and reject him. Lesbians hate him. Gay men outrank and laugh at him. Liberated “sensitive” men such as the Phil Donahues of the world mock, betray and belittle him. Any word of common sense he utters is immediately disputed or interpreted as “an irrational obsession with male dominance.” It’s supposed to have been easy for him. There is no public acknowledgment that he has ever sacrificed, contributed to anything, or built anything or has any earthly use. Indeed, many men are now so castrated, sickened and debilitated that they are barely able to do anything or have anything to contribute. They are like drone bees. We reluctantly keep a few of them around for stud because artificial insemination is not a fully developed enough technology to replace them yet in a world “—in which women are finding emotional fulfillment without men” as well as showing an increasingly defiant preference for having children without feeling any necessity for husbands. He’s not politically organized. The politicians tax him. He gets no affirmative action for past or present injustices. He gets leftovers from everybody and no respect from anybody. If he becomes angry, he is accused of being insensitive and unliberated. If he holds it in, it turns to depression whereupon he’s accused of being unemotional, emotionally withdrawn, or emotionally withholding—which then becomes an excuse for shallow, spoiled, liberated women to do more of what put him in that condition in the first place.

Contrary to images portrayed in television sit-coms, contrary to the assertions in liberal women’s magazines or whatever, not all men are stupid. Many men may wish they were stupid so they wouldn’t realize their situation and it wouldn’t bother them. They may act stupid as a method of attempting to ignore the situation because they feel they have no choice. Protest is useless because there are no alternatives. Many of them are sick to their stomach, disgusted and resigned. The only thing they can do is swallow it, stagger along, and do the best they can with whoever or whatever they have to work with. What dignity they have left, and the only remaining course open to them, is psychological withdrawal.

A universal criticism of men has become their emotional withdrawal, their inability to convey their emotions, their inability to communicate and that they are not good at expressing their feelings. The assumption being made is that the feelings men are suppressing are supposed to be nice feelings and are not to be held back. That assumption is derived from liberated women’s egocentric premise that men should automatically be an unconditional source of good feelings at convenience instead of being independent entities. The feelings he’s not communicating are supposed be nice because that’s what would be useful for other people. That’s an erroneous assumption. It’s my observation that the nation should encourage this condition of emotional repression and pray to whatever deity is currently in vogue that it continue. If the serious men in this country began to regain their capacity for indignation and express the backlog of barely-controlled wrath they are repressing, there is likely to be an all-out civil war.

I know of two men whose wives are demanding they go into psychotherapy to end their psychological withdrawal. What these women don’t know is that if the therapy is successful, their marriage will be over. These men are disgusted, and withdrawal is the method they use of repressing their disgust and staying in the marriage.

Psychological withdrawal by men has been talked about so far, here, in the context of some sort of relationship with women. The assumption is that, no matter what, the man will knuckle under and be thankful for whatever little it is, if anything, he is given under the trickle-down theory of love economics devised by narcissistic liberated women. That is not necessarily true. There is another alternative. A quiet revolution has been taking place in America and probably elsewhere. The answer more men are choosing is simple complete withdrawal from women, physically and psychologically. An increasing proportion of serious men, some of the best men, reject relationships with women in any way whatsoever. They are not interested in marriage. They are not interested in sex. They are not interested in female companionship. They have become convinced women have little to offer and what little they have to offer is not worth the humiliation or aggravation. In an extension of a 25 year trend, the number of men aged 25-44 living alone quadrupled by the mid 1980’s.

Meanwhile, something else has happened. In front of me is a study by Glenn and Weaver in the May 1988 Journal of Marriage and the Family entitled “The Changing Relationship Of Marital Status To Reported Happiness”. A series of surveys were taken each year from l972 through 1986 on thousands of people to investigate marital and single happiness or unhappiness. In 1972, the number of single men aged 18-31 who said they were “very happy” was 11.1 percent as compared to a 21 percent happiness rate for unmarried females. By 1986, the number of single men reporting themselves as very happy had increased to 31.3 percent—a threefold increase. Only 25.6 percent of married males described themselves as happy, down from 32.4 percent in 1972.

The figures in the study are complex and the interpretations are complex. A complete analysis will not be undertaken here. However, among other things that are also indicated in the study is that more women are happy in marriages than women are when they are single. Women are happier in marriages than are men.

With these and other figures it is becoming clear that a monkey wrench has been thrown into the machinery. Something happened which wasn’t supposed to happen and has only begun to be felt. What “everybody knows” about the non-survivability of men outside of marriage is not true. Men are no longer dependent upon marriage for psychological sustenance. They are able to turn away from women and marriage without experiencing the fate threatened by feminists et al.

Meanwhile, complaints can be read in the women’s magazines about how there are few good men left. (Although there is a surplus of single men in the 25-44 age group. Overall, there are about six million more women than men in the United States because white males die an average of nearly eight years earlier than white females, leaving an elderly population primarily of older women. More males are born than females. There are 7.5 million white males under five years old versus 7.1 million females. In the 25-34 age group, there are 17.88 million males and 17.58 million females, leaving a surplus of 300,000 males. After the age of 45, the mortality rate of males causes a swing in the male/female ratio in the opposite direction.) But left from what? Left over from being second place to anything else while the same women who are now complaining were busy playing at life and playing in beds. There are good men left. They have left for good. Contemporary women over-played their hand. A growing proportion of serious men are turning their back on the humiliating role of being emotional convenience stores for demanding, shallow, hard-as-nails, self-centered, egotistical undesirables. They have had it with women. Instead of waiting around for crumbs as they were supposed to, they have said to hell with it and left these women stuck with a pool of men who are their moral, emotional, and intellectual equivalents. These women are now complaining bitterly at the injustice of it all.

In their distance from women, one third of these men report themselves as being very happy. Self-description is not always accurate. Maybe they only think they are happy. But thinking they are happy is enough to keep them in their situation. More of them who are single think they are happy than those who are married think they are happy. Those who do not claim to be happy apparently feel they are less unhappy than when they are involved with women.

In daily social contacts in the past 15 or more years I see things which would have been almost unthinkable when I was in my early twenties. I see presentable young men who aren’t interested in women. Attractive women approach them and are rebuffed with a pleasant thanks, but no thank you. These men aren’t gay. The prospect of involvement with a woman produces such dread that they are emotionally deadened toward women. They don’t trust women. They are disgusted. Young men are building homes. The homes are not for the prospect of wives. The homes are for themselves. These men are going on about their day to day lives as if women didn’t exist.

For a period of several weeks in the early 90s there was an amusing discussion in reports and newspaper columns regarding a study published in the Journal of Sex Research. Many people thought it must have been a joke. In reports of the study, 93 percent of male students at Texas A & M university supposedly claimed to be coerced into sexual activity with women they would rather have avoided. It wasn’t/t a joke. It was real. Their reluctance represented an emotional distance between themselves and women. The sexual activity they would rather have avoided is an expression of a broader overall avoidance of involvement with women. Apparently there was published a recent study that showed similar figures, but I do not have access to it.

Contemporary women have lost leverage upon men on all fronts.

A deep disgust with women began to develop in the 60s and runs even deeper to this day. If women have their sarcastic humor to express their hostility toward men, men have their own humor expressing their disgust with contemporary women. A caustic joke among young men in the Washington, D. C. area a few years back is the story about the sex change. According to the story, a man decided to undergo a sex change and have himself made into a woman. One of his friends was curious about the painfulness of the surgical procedures. He inquired about what was the most painful of the operations converting a man into a woman. “Was it when they cut off your penis?” “No,” replied the one who had undergone the change. “That was bad, but it wasn’t the worst part.” “Well, then it must have been when they operated on your chest to put in silicone breast implants.” “No,” replied the second, “That was bad, but it wasn’t the worst part. The worst part about being converted into a woman is when they drill the hole in your head to go in and suck out half your brains.”

The disgust with contemporary women runs much deeper than even that caustic piece of humor implies. Many men have simply had it with women.

In the late 80s I heard radio psychologist Dr. Toni Grant, of all people, say that American men had simply had it with American women and give somewhat supportive reasons for it.

Men of quality need something of seriousness and meaning in their lives to believe in and work for. They need something that will inspire trust and signify a sense of stability. Provocative sexual display, abortions, permissive sex, VD, so-called “relationships,” extramarital affairs and the rest of the liberated agenda do not promote trust or indicate stability. They do not contribute anything to a life of quality. They signify lives of continuing emptiness, pathology, shallowness and turmoil.

By the end of the 1960s the proverbial war between the sexes had become a little less of a metaphor and more of a reality with hostile sides facing each other across a no-man’s-land of bedsheets. Emotionally separated by a chasm of mistrust and pain, men and women were nevertheless drawn to each other by needs invested in them by nature which would overcome their hostility long enough to compel them to engage in temporary episodes becoming known as “relationships.”

The present social and psychological legacy is an extension of those beginnings into an expanded pattern composed of two components. The first of these components is a nearly explosive expansion in the proportion of single adults in the United States. According to Census Bureau figures released in July of 1992, a smaller percentage of American adults are now married than at any time since 1890 when the sexes were somewhat geographically separated due to frontier conditions. There were 41,000,000 young single adults below the age of forty. Many of them were/are hostile to the concept of marriage, commitment or emotional involvement of any depth.

There is a second population component of married single people who will be described in greater detail later. These are people who are married, but are married within a climate of militant emotional sterility and a hostility toward the concept of marriage. It’s well modeled in the the Clinton White House. The prenuptial agreement, whether formal or informal, may not only be for separate finances, but separate spirits.

These two groups make up one of the larger voting blocks in the United States. They are often diffusely and compulsively dissatisfied. They are often angry with life, and are angry with, or are resentful toward, anyone or anything that is not as messed up as they are. Many are in a condition of permanent angry rebellion against reality. Their political life is a confluence of these and other patterns which have been and will be described.

We have a difficult dilemma in America. We have an extensive voting population with a pathologically destructive and self-destructive agenda. Part of this agenda is a hostility toward, and a systematic dismantling of, family-oriented values and family life. They will employ the political process, and any other process, to implement this pathological agenda. On the other hand, with the pathologizing of America, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to become elected without them.

Table A. Marital Status and Living Arrangements of Adults 18 Years Old and Over: March 1995

(Numbers in thousands)

Age 18 years and over 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 64 years
Males 92,008 12,545 20,589 20,972 24,900
Married, spouse present 54,934 1,572 10,506 13,982 19,182
Married, spouse absent 2,796 146 718 841 763
Unmarried 34,277 10,826 9,364 6,150 4,954
Never married 24,628 10,726 8,019 3,631 1,708
Widowed 2,282 0 17 81 428
Divorced 7,367 100 1,328 2,438 2,818
Females 99,588 12,613 20,800 21,363 26,550
Married, spouse present 54,905 2,709 12,263 14,482 18,030
Married, spouse absent 4,026 337 1,071 1,140 1,130
Unmarried 40,658 9,568 7,465 5,738 7,390
Never married 19,312 9,289 5,540 2,286 1,426
Widowed 11,080 19 86 279 2,060
Divorced 10,266 260 1,839 3,173 3,904