Politics in America
Part 14: The Deteriorated Relationship Between Men and Women (Conclusion)
by Robert L. Kocher
The third phase of the sexual revolution incorporated massive expanded psychopathology development. At this point let’s go back to develop an issue raised earlier.
Another characteristic developing to a much greater extent in the new sexual value system was love phobia. If a woman gets disposed of and hurt, she then stays away from men she could love very deeply rather than take the chance of being hurt profoundly. Men she could love may raise her anxiety to intolerable levels so that she runs from them and the potential profound pain they represent. She dates, and may marry, only people who are exploitive or with whom she is basically incompatible because such people haven’t the potential to hurt her profoundly. In a sexually permissive life style, women increasingly select bad men, sterile relationships or emotional sterility, subconsciously, as a form of emotional self-protection. Such relationships have become supported by a complex of collateral psychopathology and rationalizations which induce a progressive psychological deterioration. The rationalizations and the deterioration are sold independently by women’s groups and liberal publications, and channel younger women into a life of bitterness.
These relationships, and the collateral psychopathology surrounding them, have become socially institutionalized and in their warped condition liberated women vehemently defend them and the life style made up of them.
Female Nonsense Apes Male Nonsense
Let it be emphasized that this is not meant to be a unilateral indictment of women. Men eventually developed parallel patterns. It should also be remembered that much of this was brought on by men and their playboy philosophizing/fantasizing which was immature, dishonest, and calloused. What is being explained is a historical context. It should also be understood that the so-called women’s movements invested a great deal more organization and clout in developing their own brand of nonsense than in resisting male nonsense.
(Parenthetically, a period anxiety is typical in both sexes in romantic affairs due to the vulnerability involved. –This often sabotages some of the best potential relationships and must be lived through to find a suitable mate.)
With the explosion of male playboy self-centeredness and immaturity, the culture went half nuts with complete collapse being held in check by initial female resistance. The female implementation of their own egocentricism and immaturity reduced critical opposition and initiated cultural pathological free-fall.
The condition of anger toward men and fear of engaging in close relationships with men was a reasonable or predictable consequence of the egocentric sexual value system. The anger and fear were a reasonable reaction to the treatment women were receiving under that value system. If there would have been an examination of that issue and a focusing upon that issue, things might have been resolved and there might have been a return to sanity. However, that was not bound to happen for the same reasons that the so-called sexual revolution occurred in the first place. There was cultural instability. There was the new wave of life styles. There was a deficiency of character, an immaturity and a tendency toward serious psychopathology within too great a proportion of several generations. Borderline psychotic levels of egocentricism became common.
To remedy the issue would require character, clarity of thought, self-discipline and honesty and these have not been in surplus during recent decades. Secondly, the partying and sex were too much fun, even if people were destroying each other over the long term. Nobody was going to give up anything. Rather than admit the situation and the consequences, the predominant social inclination was one of rationalizing around the truth.
Regardless of rationalizations, increasing proportions of women still emotionally distanced themselves from men, practicing emotional celibacy although engaging in sex. This, in turn, put pressure on men of emotional capacity to emotionally withdraw from women rather than be ground up by the new breed of tough women. Warped relationships became a norm. The women’s liberation movement began a series of rationalizations to satisfy both the needs of psychological defense and the rampant narcissism of the female half of the I, Me, Now generation.
To return to an earlier statistic, according to an October 1986 New Woman magazine poll, forty-one percent of single women were not looking for a steady relationship with a man. Drs. Helen Kaplan and Willa Bernhard who interpreted the study for the magazine were quick to comment: “This suggests that many women are finding emotional fulfillment without men.” That interpretation is absolute nonsense—and a good example of the psychological undermining that women have had to face both from the culture and other women. It is also indicative of the psychopathology permeating contemporary culture. The figures do not suggest that at all. In the poll, fulfillment isn’t mentioned relative to the question except as an interpretation by Kaplan and Berhard. Collateral statistics from other studies such as the Glenn and Weaver study mentioned earlier do not show a high proportion of happiness among single women. Neither does the dramatically increased suicide rate.
The contorted interpretation Kaplan and Bernhard devised is a symptom, or condensation of, the pathology and narcissism which has been described and will be further examined. In my opinion, it’s one of many current examples of psychopathology masquerading as science—countercultural theorizing which has become prevalent in, and has destroyed, the social sciences. Bringing in components of denial along with elements of infantile defiance, antagonism and superficial bravado, Kaplan and Bernhard attempt to fabricate the image of strong, dominant, all-powerful superwomen who can do it all themselves and don’t need anything. This is the image liberated women use in attempting to pump themselves and each other up—and to program each other. It’s become formula writing and formula interpretation as part of a group psychological defense which has become group psychopathology.
Granted, women wish they could do it all themselves because they haven’t been able to count on very much from men. However, the deception of attempting to convert psychopathology into virtue or strength only compounds the sickness. The reason these forty-one percent of women are not interested in a steady relationship with a man is not because they are finding independent fulfillment. (Even if they were finding independent fulfillment, it would not preclude such a relationship.) The reasons are fear, anger, mistrust, emotional sterility, as well as other forms of psychopathology. Many of them cannot tolerate emotional involvement or closeness. Many of them are not psychologically equipped for involvement or intimacy.
Many of them, even if they could tolerate and were willing to form close relationships, are incapable of forming such relationships because of lack of personal substance. One major reason for fear of engaging in close relationships is because of lack of depth and substance. There are people who aren’t anything. There is nothing inside them to get close to. In attempts to form interpersonal relationships, they are faced with the fact they are empty shells and run in fear—from realization of their own emptiness. They need people around them constantly to fill that emptiness, but cannot tolerate closeness with those people.
Many of them can engage in relationships as long as the relationship consists of talking about engaging in relationships, but can go no farther. This characteristic is not limited only to women, but is a characteristic of many contemporary men.
In addition, given the degenerative condition of male-female relationships in recent social patterns and the shallowness of contemporary men, women have no alternative to distancing themselves from men. Whether they are finding fulfillment in this distance highly questionable and has nothing to do with it. They have no alternatives. Not finding fulfillment is preferable to becoming even more emotionally crippled.
Whether or not the increasing number of men who are disinterested in involvement with contemporary women are finding independent fulfillment can be doubted. However, that is their best alternative. Emotional involvement with contemporary liberated women is an exercise in masochism or is self-destructive for men of any depth or seriousness.
While it sounds more acceptable and confident to label all this as independence, the collateral statistics and phenomena all point to psychological morbidity rather than strength and fulfillment. Massive increases in suicide and depression rates are not the symptom of fulfilled happy people.
However, the attempt is made to sell it through the inversion of relabeling emotional sterility, emotional isolation and psychopathology as strength and independence. Part of this distortion is an attempt by women to deny the gravity of their situation. Unfortunately, young women who read this description of pathology as virtue are trying to live it and make it turn out right. In pursuing the pathology and emotional isolation they are being universally told is strength and independence, they are being systematically railroaded and programmed into pathology and sick empty relationships by their older liberated sisters. Hence, acquaintances with knowledge of high school trends report that having an abortion is now becoming a high-status symbol of identification with the liberated in high schools. High school girls are in a hurry to become the image of what they are being told every young woman should be.
In the same New Woman study, as answers to the question “If you are not married to the man with whom you have a steady relationship, would you like to be?” twelve percent said they would not, sixty percent were either undecided or didn’t answer the question and only twenty-eight percent said they would like to marry him. Nearly three-quarters of these “steady relationships,” many of which were live-together situations, were not characterized by any detectable amount of enthusiasm, fulfillment, commitment, or closeness. They are sterile affairs of convenience or somebody has found a steady source of sex. What is suggested in the figures is an impoverished and chaotic level of heterosexual relationships. This, in turn, is underwritten by, and intensifies, a chaotic internal condition. This is indicated not only in the New Woman poll, but in every other major study and poll. Collateral figures from the scientific literature regarding women in active live-in situations tend to show the same low percentage of women interested in marrying the man with whom they are living.
The term relationship is employed and these women say they are in relationships, but there is no relationship of any significance involved in what they are doing. They are doing nothing more than wandering in and out of various beds with various people—many of whom they can either barely tolerate or for whom they have no particular feelings. The men with whom they are involved are even less barely able to tolerate them and have less feeling for them.
The unwanted pregnancies which are occurring are to large extent because in their personal lives many women are in such a dysfunctional, confused, dazed, morbid state that they don’t understand what they are doing, (or at least the seriousness of what they are doing) who they are doing it with, or why. Beneath the cosmetic facade of bravado and glamour they fabricate for the work place or the public arena, many of them are in a state of emotional shock or sexual shell-shock. This explains the contorted and illogical collection of explanations and inconsistencies they concoct for values and that they give for the situations in which they find themselves. They stagger in and out of various beds or in and out of various live-together situations in lives that are ongoing patchwork existences of drab emotional rootlessness and emotional instability. They are not in a mental condition suitable to use contraceptive information, AIDS information or anything else—and hence don’t. There is also the aspect that there is an unconscious part of their psyche desperately grasping at pregnancy as a release from emotional isolation, as some sort of potential closeness with another human being, or as fulfillment of femininity, which they start, but need to back out of.
It’s important to realize when reading the studies or the polls in the liberal woman’s magazines saying nearly fifty percent of the readership are having abortions and that three quarters of them are in so-called “relationships” with men they wouldn’t want to marry or are looking to replace with somebody else; these are college-educated street-smart professional and career women, not low-IQ mental defectives presumably too stupid to know what they are doing. They are not becoming pregnant because they are ignorant of birth control. They are becoming pregnant and getting into sick relationships because of the impaired judgment and the forces of subconscious motives resulting from a pathological mental condition. Sex education and birth control information are irrelevant to women in this condition, and for that reason have been grim failures. Furthermore, they are not in a condition to form a serious meaningful relationship with men or anybody else.
Women and VD
Something else should be briefly mentioned. Recent magazine articles have discussed “—the new wave of sterility in women—” who are attempting to have children, but can’t. According to an ABC news segment, the sterility rate is three times what it was 30 years ago when it was already elevated. The recent emphasis on the AIDS scare has eclipsed the fact that the country was afflicted with a very serious VD epidemic before AIDS became important. A principle reason for the new wave of sterility in women is that in many cases their bodies are scarred up from having picked up VD from an assortment of goofs with whom they were in bed but didn’t know well enough to know what they did or didn’t have in the way of previous experience or disease. It’s been glossed over for years. Finally, for several months there was a national TV public service health announcement acknowledging the connection between VD and sterility, but the spot has been withdrawn.
During 1980, the estimated number of people affected with VD was 10,000,000 for that year. The VD epidemic was considered terrible at that time. Subsequent to that time, with AIDS and other problems, and with safe sex, it would be a reasonable expectation that the VD rate would decrease. During research for an analysis I consulted a statistician at the United States communicable disease center who told me the figures for 1987 were 14,000,000. This was in the context of universal exhortations for safe sex. After hearing the figure I asked in disbelief: “How is that possible? Do you mean to tell me there were 14,000,000 new cases of VD in this country last year?” He replied, “That is our estimate.” I repeated the question two more times to be certain we were talking about the same thing and I received the same answer two more times. Many women with VD don’t know they have it because many forms of VD tend to be asymptomatic in women during early stages. Increasing proportions of women are physically as well as emotionally scarred and are put in the position of trying to deny it. (The 1989 figures were 13,000,000. A Feb. 1991 infectious disease update on the physician’s training channel indicated the problem was becoming worse. It included a 20 percent precancerous Papilloma virus infection rate in college women.)
In the 80s, Dr. Gabe Mirkin used to provide the statistic that 50 percent of single women between the ages of 22 to 40 had VD.
In the spring and summer of 1992 various women’s groups and women’s spokespersons were outraged because WOMEN were becoming infected with AIDS, acquired in sexual relationships with men. In typical borderline thinking they believe they should somehow exist in a world of special entitlement where they should be able to engage in sex with unknown partners but should somehow be too special to become infected with what the people they are engaging in sex with are carrying. They aren’t that special.
In their infinite capacity for misplaced indignation they also refuse to acknowledge that the diseases they get from men are diseases those men picked up from other women. Women are no less blameless than men in the spread of VD. The diseases they pick up were given to them from the woman sitting next to them, through a male intermediary acquired as a result of reading trendy magazines and books glamorizing sex with several partners a week or a day. When two trendy Cosmo Girls brag about humping the same guy and one of them has the clap, it won’t be long before the other has it.
There is an assumption of risk in indiscriminate sexual participation. As part of intelligent maturity, that risk must be acknowledged. It also should be realized that in recent times 50 percent of single women have had VD and in their blithe participation in sexual liberalism have been responsible for giving it, ultimately, to each other.
In the New Woman piece, Kaplan and Bernhard blandly suggest everyone will carry the herpes virus in a few decades, but we will develop an increased resistance to the effects of herpes. What a thrill that is. Who can hardly wait to buy a ticket for this bold new great progressive step forward? There should be some doubt as to whether future generations are going to thank us for this priceless heritage.
The 14,000,000 new cases of VD should be put in perspective of occurring primarily within the single population and within a limited age group. Unless one already has VD, the issue is not whether one should wear a condom, but whether any sane man should wear an astronaut’s space suit for isolation when dating the average liberal single woman.
Men and women who are dating each other are in the indelicate position of trying to be romantic, uncontrolling and not being insulting while suggesting a course of antibiotics and a six month quarantine period before there can be any physical contact whatsoever. This suggestion must be approached within the context that one or both of them may be dating, and having physical relationships with, other people. It should also be approached within the common belief that it would be an unconscionable condition of cruelty if two weeks went by without one or both of them being in bed with somebody.
In a surrealistic inversion of reality, abortion is presented as a “right” and a “freedom” and a great new progressive step forward. This is a smoke screen and irrelevant. Rather than being a freedom, it is a matter of complete dependence. Society is in a position of being dependent upon abortion to compensate for the mental deterioration of women occurring within the irrationally egocentric sexual value system of recent years. The number of babies legally aborted in recent years exceeds the population of the 30 less-populated states in the U.S. One third of pregnancies end in abortion. Adoption is not sufficient to assimilate these children if they were born. The women involved either haven’t the inclination or the capacity, or both, to care for these children. The concept of father isn’t remotely applicable in this situation. As a social problem, there do not seem to be any other solutions given continuation of narcissistic sexual revolution value/behavioral systems and the deteriorated psychological state of the population.
Government public health figures indicate more than 80 percent of abortions are undergone by single women. On the individual level, many women are in a position of dependence upon abortion as a necessity or compensation for their disorganized mental condition. An alarmingly large percentage of single American women are now in a mental state such that they are for practical purposes little more than barely functional, dependent, mental outpatients needing constant custodial and remedial care. As part of that care, they walk in someplace and somebody holds their hand while they are aborted. They are given a series of antibiotics for VD. They are given a pile of condoms and they wander back out on the street to fall into a new series of situations. Weeks or months later, they come dragging back in. Somebody aborts them, gives them antibiotics for VD, hands them some contraceptives then sends them back out the door.
They may be lawyers. They may be stockbrokers. They may be so-called social activists. They may have graduated from Vassar, Bennington or Harvard. They may wear expensive shoes. They have well-developed vocabularies. They may give fascinating grandiose speeches on how liberated, omnipotent and independent they are. Many of them are arrogant beyond reasonable levels of patience or endurance. But, beneath the surface, in their personal lives, they are non compos mentis and dangerous both to themselves or anyone hapless to get seriously involved with them. They are incompetent to manage their lives and are pathologically dependent. They have no sense of reality. Estrangement from a sense of reality has become a psychological necessity because if they realized the way they were living, they would be horrified.
Parenthetically, for a man who loves a woman, it is horrifying. American women have complained about the lack of intimacy between themselves and men, when women arbitrarily decide they want it. For the man, intimacy with women has become like being dragged through a painful cesspool considering the way those women have been living and the values they have adopted. The only way men can emotionally afford to date a woman is to date somebody they don’t care about so it doesn’t hurt as much. This distance, and the necessity for it, sabotages contemporary relationships.
Freedom of Choice
This dysfunctionality was the essential condition of the women in the TV interview mentioned earlier in this series. Several with doctorates and several with degrees in health professions, all had been pregnant several times and had multiple abortions. When pressed to identify the problem and the answer, they agreed upon the obviously non-applicable reason of sexual ignorance and the remedy of education. They’ve been pregnant multiple times and have advanced degrees yet the world is being asked to somehow believe they still don’t know what causes it. Giving each of them three more doctorates wouldn’t change anything. The problem is their pathological state of mind.
While liberated women talk of making decisions about controlling their bodies or demanding freedom of choice, they are too emotionally twisted and warped to be in control of anything or decide anything and that’s why they find themselves in the situations they are in. If they had any presence of mind or were making any rational choices, they wouldn’t be in those situations. No rational sane population of women would be in the situations that have become the personal, social, and political issues in this country. They have no freedom of choice. Their personal pathological conditions and a pathological social atmosphere which they are hell-bent on perpetuating are making all the decisions. When they march for abortion, they are desperately fighting for their lives. That’s what the VD statistics indicate. That’s what the statistics in their own magazines indicate. That’s what the abysmal mental health statistics indicate. Love has nothing to do with it because much of the time they either don’t know or can barely tolerate whoever it is they are in bed with according to the statistics in their own magazines. Abortion is not a great progressive step forward, it is part of the custodial and remedial care upon which they are hopelessly and desperately dependent to keep their heads barely above water. They are barely functional, but defend against admission or realization of their dependence and pathology through indignation and by fabricating an arrogant pride in the “new freedoms” they rationalize this supposedly represents.
Between the abortions, the VD, the children being born under inappropriate circumstances, the necessity for day care centers, the maternity process and the other constant chaos and demands, a servicing crew of ten people is required to keep a contemporary liberated woman in so-called independence—often with government involved in distributing laws and responsibility for all of it.
Many professional or career women inhabit an inconceivable inner world. In a recent mixed discussion group one woman remarked with detachment about how so many of the men she was going out with didn’t use condoms. How many constitute “so many,” who they were, and whether she knew their names is anyone’s guess. Another said a man she was in bed with two months earlier turned out to be a bisexual with the consequence she was waiting for the results of her AIDS test. After the discussion she went to a dance to find somebody new.
Another woman is a 37-year-old lawyer. She has a 25-year-old man she is in bed with two or three times a week but doesn’t particularly like or respect. She’s in bed with a stock broker about once a week or every two weeks. Another man from Connecticut passes through once or twice a month and she’s in bed with him. She took a five-day vacation to Trinidad, picked up a local character at a bar and spent four days in bed with him. She says she doesn’t want a serious or permanent relationship but complains almost desperately about the lack of love and affection in her life. She’s had three abortions.
These are common, not isolated instances. Anyone can hear endless similar stories. What one hears is continuing lives of divorces, pregnancies, VD, abortions, empty live-together situations, desperate sterility in lives, and endless “relationships.” Yet, these women are so busy pursuing the statistics, they are so busy pursuing the life styles and the ads glamorized in the magazines and, are so busy taking pride in their “liberation,” that they don’t examine what they are doing or see they are living the most mindless and ugly of existences. It’s been their entire life for years and is likely to be their future. When asked what they are doing, they open up a copy of a liberal woman’s magazine and point to a picture of a three-thousand-dollar-a-day fashion model or an article on Gloria Steinem.
One question is, or should be, what is anybody getting out of any of this?
On a superficial level, the slick bouncy articles and advertising copy in the liberal woman’s magazines bannering bold new sexual freedoms read well, but they are at sharp variance with the reality of the grotesqueness of the lives these women are leading and the grotesqueness of their psychological condition. Few of them are free. Most are prisoners of psychopathology. The freedom they have is permission to flop in beds and be used by strangers who care little about them and who they unconsciously resent and who resent them. That’s usually as much as either the women or the men in these situations are capable. Whoever writes the mindless warm glowing descriptions seen in the magazines should also be writing descriptions of slavery, saying, “In a bold new progressive step, people are now finding absolute long term job security and a well-defined sense of direction thanks to vigorous strong leadership!”
Differences between the written descriptions and the underlying reality are so great as to disturb the mind of any intelligent sane reader. This is because the content is not sane. It is material characteristic of highly pathological thought disorders. The people who write this stuff, and the people who publish it, should be considered criminally insane. They are dangerous.
The women who read this stuff unquestioningly and repeat it then wonder why men give them no credit for having any intelligence.
Psychopathological denial is one of the reasons women buy these magazines. Women pay people such as Gloria Steinem, Helen Gurley Brown, Helen Kaplan and others to deny reality and to synthesize or maintain psychopathology for them. They buy those magazines to hear someone tell them they are not really used and discarded sexual appliances, but, rather, they are supposedly using and discarding the men because modern emotionally independent women can do it all themselves and don’t need men anyway. Rather than come to the realization they are emotionally sterile, psychologically crippled and frightened, they are told their emotional isolation represents a bold new independence. Rather than realize they are living barren ugly existences wandering from stranger to stranger in sterile VD-ridden disposable “relationships,” they want to hear what they are doing is freedom and liberation. They want to believe they will eventually achieve a narcissistic personal fulfillment when a hypothetical awed world worships them as all-powerful hypersexual independent superwomen in their public life—while they live in private hell.
Women Using Women
A major industry in this country has become exploitation of women by other women. Women who are themselves pathological found careers on proselytizing pathology in other women, then cashing in on their confusion and fears in books or other public media. Half the so-called self-help books and self-help articles oriented toward women are instructions on self-destruction.
The magazine articles are instruction booklets telling women how they can get started in it all, immediately. Beautiful models in the ads direct them on where to buy the equipment. They are kept pumped up on it and shielded from the truth.
A national TV commercial for a leg hair remover shows a man’s hand fondling a woman’s leg. His voice remarks how smooth and soft her legs are. She laughs and replies that a lot of people think they are. Presumably, various men are running hands up her legs in sexual foreplay in shifts as passing episodes. (in which she and others like her are somehow definitely not to be thought of as sex objects) —And you can run right out and get some too for only five dollars. American Women are so suggestible that they rush out in a panic to get it without question.
The wisdom, morality or values involved are not questioned. The image being given to men is not a consideration. It’s not as if there is any seriousness, restrictions, importance or exclusivity involved. It’s a game. The score is measured in immediate-oriented excitement, instant fleeting popularity, and the degree of conformation to the mindless images portrayed in the ads. There’s no sense of the implications and reality of what’s happening. The only thing of any importance is to just grease yourself up and get ready for instant new exciting nonstop action.
The absence of any sense of implication and reality is one of the major issues in the contemporary psychological environment. Virtually none of the mental health statistics, none of the divorce and re-divorce statistics, none of the VD statistics, none of the abortion statistics, none of the life style poll statistics and psychological studies, none of the unwed mother statistics, none of the AIDS deaths, none of the rootless children, none of the suicide statistics—nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing seems to register. No connection is made to causes or consequences. At the most, these events are regarded in importance as isolated interesting curiosities sandwiched between thousand-dollar-a-day models beautifying ads and articles for liberated life styles.
While overwhelming evidence indicates the broad existence of an ongoing cultural interpersonal disaster, it’s as if none of it exists. What is constantly seen is either an omission or a presentation completely at variance with reality. There is no correlation between the reality of what is happening and what is portrayed to be happening or what is said to be happening. This atmosphere of derealization is psychologically undermining to development or maintenance of any sense of reality. It is a constant undermining psychological attack on a person’s sense of reality and validation processes. The predominant psychological environment is one which tells someone that the truth they are experiencing is not true and that they must be crazy.
Under omission of reality combined with a nearly universal pressure to disregard reality, there is widespread disregard of reality or disbelief in reality.
America now exists in one of broadest and most effective systems of censorship in the world and it is destroying us.
Summarizing the situation on a broad level, what has developed in a series of stages is an expanding psychopathological system. It started with a psychological defense. Then, that psychological defense was defended and rationalized. Next, the defense of the psychological defense was defended and there were collateral rationalizations to support the previous rationalizations. As the process continued and expanded, a series of warped conceptualizations began to spread through the individual and collective psychology of women much like rings of wavelets move out from a stone thrown in the water.
To particularize the process, let’s go back to several pivotal earlier sentences: “In a sexually permissive life style, women increasingly select bad men, sterile relationships or emotional sterility, subconsciously, as a form of emotional protection. Such relationships have become supported by a complex of collateral psychopathology and rationalizations which induce a progressive psychological deterioration. These relationships, and the collateral psychopathology surrounding them, have become socially institutionalized and in their warped condition modern liberated women vehemently defend them and the life style made up of them.” The self-deception by which these relationships became socially institutionalized and continued to develop in stages, ultimately becoming far more destructive than the original situation—partly by putting women in such a confused condition that they are too irrational to recognize the original situation.
The result was, and is, an order of magnitude increase in confounding the emotional and intellectual crippling of women. Many have been driven into a borderline psychotic state. What has arisen on a significant level in America is an extensive population of women who are both militantly arrogant and at the same time suicidal. After years of compounding rationalization on rationalization, we have the both tragic and ludicrous situation of women arguing they are the omnipotent female equivalents of King Kong while having simultaneously argued themselves into the emotionally self-protective position of becoming sterile resentful emotional cripples who are militantly determined to be little more than mobile urinals for a group of male trash in empty sick lives that no woman in her right mind would want to live. They are leading warped lives of absolute ugliness and emptiness. Just as importantly, they are training men to engage in such patterns through sexual reward. Living on the borderline of horrifying realization, they defend against realization of this with angry compulsive dependent mouthing of liberated slogans which divert attention from the truth. They need to be psychologically pumped up with interpretations and manic imagery contradicting or displacing the truth of the emptiness, desperation and grotesqueness of their lives to keep them from psychologically collapsing.
The potential breaking down, or the breaking down, of the psychological defenses enabling these women to remain blind to the disastrous condition of their personal lives is one of the reasons for the increased prevalence of phobias and allied disorders today. The jiggling of psychological defenses or the penetration of defenses by realization can produce anxiety and panic reactions. Another element which is used as a psychological defense against feeling the full realization of their situation is continued emotional deadening in the form of a type of depression—agent blue mentioned in an earlier portion of the series. Anyone living the lives they have been living would be depressed. There should be no mystery about the reasons for depressive mental disorder in this country. Many of the reasons are quite obvious, but they are not acceptable within contemporary borderline psychotic liberalism.
Parenthetically, this may be the place to mention something. Love phobias, inversions and other pathological phenomena have been discussed as if they were irrational. In the ordinary and manifest sense, they are very irrational. In another sense, they are rational. They are the only method of dealing with the unreasonable inconsistent set of demands and values characteristic of contemporary egocentric sexual values. The only way to deal with participation in the types of irrational and destructive relationships which have become institutionalized is to mentally malfunction. This necessary malfunctioning is also becoming culturally institutionalized.
At some point the values inversion of the sexual revolution had taken place and the irrationally egocentric sexual/moral value system was rapidly becoming dominant. Depending upon the section of the country and the amount of cultural lag, it was somewhere around the late 60s or the first half of the 70s. Capacity to love, formation of strong attachments and close interpersonal relationships were hazardous to your health. Love, which was once a cause for celebration by two people in America, was becoming damned near a lethal disease if one contracted it. The new sexual value system was demanding development of a new set of internal psychological processes in people so they could live with it. We would see a widespread development of a profound socially-imposed psychological pathology and an entirely new relationship between the sexes. Open, close, warm, intimate, attachments—love—between man and woman had become painful and had to be expunged. This was done through a maze of psychological defenses which interposed an emotional distance between men and women. These defenses were of three types: 1) emotional, 2) behavioral, 3) intellectual.
On the emotional side of defenses, love or caring feelings had to be psychologically repressed. Men and women had to hold these in and control them. Although they could interact cosmetically on a superficial level, they would emotionally deaden or anesthetize deep romantic emotions. In many cases this repressive process was aided because after having been deeply hurt under the new value system and behavioral system, love or strong attraction aroused other strong emotions which were self-punishing as well as antagonistic to love, closeness or attachment. By a subtle psychological conditioning mechanism, the fear attached to love or involvement gradually produces an automatic ingrained repressive mental mechanism which progressively deadens capacity for love, attachment, or intimacy. It’s a psychological conditioning process over which the person has little control.
Once a person has been hurt badly enough, the internal aversive conditioning cycle process, call it an auto-conditioning, continues to make changes in a person’s internal psychology and continues to reduce love, attachment, and intimacy capacity, producing basic and profound personality changes over time. We might look at this as an auto-rechanneling or auto-reshaping of the personality structure. People develop an internal psychological mechanism under which they become progressively warped. The situation is similar to having an internal electric shock device which punishes the person with fear every time he or she starts to feel love or vulnerability. This internal punishment mechanism extinguishes love or intimacy much as behavior is extinguished in a rat or monkey by punishment in a psychological laboratory. It’s an unconscious process. Perhaps a simple way to sum it up is to say that fear or anxiety, once acquired, can produce continuing profound personality changes.
For people who had been badly hurt, and under the gamey new system of morality where betrayal or disaster is a foregone conclusion, love for somebody or from somebody came to be viewed as an attack, like a Trojan horse. It opened a person up so someone could destroy him or her. The person who was feeling an attachment or potential attachment would feel massive anger, fear, or both which would dominate their emotional state. The viewing of love feelings toward someone else as being a form of attack is not a distortion and is, in one sense, very real. In the type of playboy-playgirl emotionally shallow disposable “relationships” which became institutionalized as part of narcissistic sexual patterns, these feelings are created as the result of using other people in hit-and-run operations.
These psychological mechanisms and personality changes were and are the real danger inherent in the sexual revolution.
It cannot be overemphasized how strong these emotions become. If someone tries to get close to them or if they begin to feel attracted to someone, many men and women who have repeatedly been badly hurt are, without exaggeration, ready to fight to kill in order to protect themselves because they feel under attack and nobody is ever going to hurt them that deeply again. This emotional reaction is not always a psychoanalytic problem in the sense of being based in deep childhood-centered conditions. Some of the initially soundest, most loving, trusting, and open people get hurt the worst and can finally become the most warped and bitter precisely because they were so open, capable of attachment and vulnerable.
It will often be seen that a woman who has been recently used in a so-called relationship and then disposed of will nervous twitch with anger and will snap at any man who is at all friendly to her—but particularly at any man to whom she is attracted and who approaches her. Even if two people are compatible, it’s often highly improbable that they will meet when their anger and mistrust have subsided to even marginally controllable levels at the same time. Chance coordination of finding a period when one or the other of them is not an enraged mistrustful lunatic is as great a logistical problem as finding mutual compatibility.
People you do not love can’t hurt you profoundly. On the other hand, working within expectation of betrayal, people who you could love or who are lovable become the enemy. They represent potential profound pain. In a social system where permissive sexuality, emotional shallowness and hit-and-run relationships have been institutionalized, the result is an emotional inversion in which the good guys become the bad guys and the bad guys become the good guys. Loving someone is looked upon as an attack upon yourself.
As a consequence of the sexual revolution, which should more appropriately be referred to as irrational sexual egocentricism, there developed a widespread pattern of strongly repressed capacity for close relationships, for commitment, for intimacy, for bonding, for attachment, along with anxiety or anger—and sometimes massive and uncontrollable anxiety and anger if psychological defenses denying needs and capacities in these areas were penetrated.
Pain and Instincts
A secondary emotional spinoff of this, itself a form of defense, was an intense resentment or rejection of the basic emotional needs and forms of satisfaction that made men and women dependent upon or vulnerable to each other. In a sexually permissive society these needs lead a person into too many painful situations. If people somehow didn’t have those needs for love and intimacy, they wouldn’t need to get ripped to pieces. Getting ripped to pieces seemed to be the most common and certain outcome under the new value system. It’s the same way the moth must feel about the candle. As it flies into the flame, it must say to itself, “Why the hell do I have to have these instincts?”
In a sexually permissive culture where people use each other as throwaway play toys and in which pinball machine sex and pinball “relationships” are a social institution; emotional bonding, capacity to love, emotional depth are a catastrophic curse. They must be repressed and denied as a precondition to psychological survival in such a culture. Often, one sees not only a denial, but a vehement contempt for such needs and for social institutions such as marriage which represent these needs. This bitterness and contempt can further develop into a crusade against those social institutions.
One can read magazine articles denying human needs, or sit for hours in singles discussion groups listening to people resent or deny their needs. In conversations or discussions liberated women will often argue that the need for warmth, love or intimacy from men is a social stereotype which has been programmed into them by mothers or by society and from which they have liberated themselves or hope to liberate themselves. Liberated men are eager to agree with this interpretation, incidentally freeing themselves from any responsibility for meeting any emotional needs and commitment needs of women, laying the intellectual groundwork for hit-and-run operations. Since these needs have been relabeled (or mislabeled) socially-programmed stereotypes, there is no obligation to satisfy them and the men are under no obligation to offer the women anything, nor are the women obligated to offer the men anything. As a consequence, they both end up in relationships which aren’t anything.
In their resentment and denial, women have trapped themselves into an acceptance of, or encouragement of, empty relationships in which real human needs or feelings are not only not to be considered, but are not even recognized. But, both the men and women wish their needs were mere stereotypes so they could get cured of those needs because given the psychological condition they are in and the attitudes they have, they are not going to get very much from each other. Their chance of satisfaction is grim.
The resentment and denial of needs was next extended into becoming a hatred of social institutions oriented toward mutual need fulfillment or anything else reminiscent of such needs. Hence, we saw the attempt by some among the “woman’s movement” to expunge reference to marriage, to expunge love or pride in commitment by attempting to enforce use of the term Ms instead of Miss or Mrs. as a way of blurring the existence of marriage and bonding—and the attempt was successful. The Ms title was implemented overnight by liberated decree in America without opposition.
Not only is there a hostility directed toward social institutions and emotions which represent vulnerability to emotional betrayal, the process extends toward anger or resentment of their own bodies which are perceived as an ultimate source of desires which can lead to betrayal. This is symbolized in some grotesque art works. One example which comes to mind was a well-known controversial large painting, done by a woman, which depicted a dinner table with women’s sex organs placed on plates. Virginity represents a type of innocent vulnerability that can be betrayed. One can sense a widespread hostile sterile determination to destroy virginity.
They Keep Coming Back
Another form of emotional psychopathology which began to be expanded concurrent with cultural institutionalization of the sexual revolution was culturally institutionalized anger-suppression and rage-suppression. If somebody were preyed upon, were disposed of, were looked upon a sexual appliance, you would expect him or her to become angry. But, men and women have difficulty in staying overtly angry with each other because they are ultimately emotionally dependent upon each other. They keep coming back to each other because that is the way nature has it planned for them. They can move toward each other, away from each other, against each other, but the frame of reference is still relative to each other.
Men and women are in much the same situation as children of alcoholics or children of abusive parents. As children and later as adults, children of alcoholic or abusive parents have good reason to be angry with their parents. But, they were dependent upon their parents and needed to suppress or swallow their rage rather than release it at parents, which would have worsened their circumstances. It’s called rage-stuffing. Anger and rage are held in and stuffed inside a person. Rage-stuffing becomes a habit which, once developed, is difficult to break. People who are rage-stuffers develop psychological mechanisms which repress their anger—mechanisms which become so effective and automatic that they eventually may not realize they have anger. Repressed anger becomes a way of life. Adult children of alcoholics often have trouble expressing rage, particularly at parents. Abused children, even after they become adults, have trouble expressing rage at parents and, paradoxically, will often defend abusive parents, although such children may displace the anger and kick the tar out of everybody else.
Much as children of alcoholic or abusive parents, single men and women, no matter how they abuse each other, are ultimately dependent upon each other and need to suppress their rage toward each other. It doesn’t make any difference how angry they are with each other, they will still need to date each other on Saturday night. They need to suppress their anger in order to do it. Men and women have been abusing each other, have produced enormous amounts of anger and hurt, but have undergone massive psychological changes enabling the necessary repression of rage. The anger and rage is still there, but it’s repressed and becomes unconscious or subconscious. While it’s repressed, it still introduces a wall of separation, prohibiting close healthy relationships. This is something that has been minimized and poorly understood by today’s psychological theorists. It is a cultural powder keg.
One of the problems with suppressed rage and anger is that sustained repressed anger occasionally serves as the first step in development of further psychopathology. Rage and anger can become inverted or transformed into a bitter-sweet attachment to another person which can be extremely compulsive or addictive and is mistaken for love. In technical terms it is related to something called reversal-formation or reaction-formation (the two terms being somewhat interchangeable) which may be described as the development and adoption of values and attitudes opposite to a person’s real desires or values. The condition is usually developed to the point where a person’s real desires are repressed to the point of being no longer accessible or acceptable to their conscious mind. Thus, a person comes to have a type of pathological love for people they subconsciously hate, hate people they really love, along with a spectrum of similar reversed patterns. Once this inversion becomes developed, it becomes very self-destructive because the person often seeks out a type of sick converted-anger attachment with other people, thinking it’s love. They compulsively enter into a series of destructive relationships with completely inappropriate people who they often subconsciously hate for very good reason.
At the same time, the person avoids real love for two reasons. First, it doesn’t have the compelling sick quality he or she thinks is love. Second, real love and closeness produce massive overwhelming anxiety. While there is a compulsive high-anxiety quality about inverted relationships, real closeness would be far more anxiety-producing to someone in this condition. The person needs the inherent emotional distance in such an inappropriate relationship as a protection against subconscious fear of commitment, fear of closeness and against love phobia. Consequently, he or she becomes driven into becoming trapped in a series of sick relationships in which they are out of control on downhill rolls. Part of the lack of control is also because a new sick relationship opens emotions from old wounds and consequently has enormous immediate emotional force.
Because of a background of needing to suppress anger, children of alcoholics, drug using, or abusive parents often have a head start in predisposition to become involved in such inverted relationships.
Importantly, the hippie culture of the 60s and 70s had a highly-developed institutionalized component of rage-stuffing and reversal formation which became diffused throughout American culture and is a strong factor in development of sick relationships.
Once the condition of reaction formation (or reversal formation) is formed in people, then giving them what they say they want means they invariably lose. Agreeing with their reversed values is both directly destructive and helps to keep them in an inverted or reversed state.
An increasing proportion of women in American culture have been pushed into reaction formation because their basic feminine needs have become a crushing liability which caused them pain when they were disposed of and traded about. You can’t be a human being and live the way they are living or are being expected to live. They had to suppress real feelings of any depth to participate in the patterns of the sexual revolution. Normal healthy desires became a source of emotional destruction under those conditions. To prevent pain on the manifest level as well as to have any relationships at all with men under such conditions, they’ve had to suppress their real emotions and values. They’ve reacted against them—often reacted in anger against them. Through reaction formation or reversal formation, they inverted their needs from their manifest conscious existence and adopted a one-hundred-eighty degree shift in attitudes, ultimately adopting values opposite to their needs.
Having adopted an inverted set of values which denied healthy needs, liberated women demanded that these inverted values be accepted and legitimized by men. That wouldn’t be a problem for sexually exploitive men. If these women were going to demand sexual freedom, if they were going to demand rejection of traditional institutions, if they were going to demand independence and the rest of the agenda, liberated exploitive men quickly gave those women their way. If they demanded to spread their legs for liberated relationships as part of sexual equality, it wouldn’t provoke much argument from the playboy half of the arrangement. A double dose of acceptance of their denial and reversed values would soon be forthcoming. Women could have all they asked for and more. That’s what they ended up with.
The spokeswomen for the liberal so-called “women’s organizations” militantly decreed an inverted agenda based upon reversal formation for everybody and they have the social, media, and political power to implement and impose their agenda. Demands expanded from an inverted attitude toward relationships on the individual level to a coalition and a generalized reaction against those social institutions expressing non-inverted relationships. Again, women are among the worst oppressors of other women. The liberated are not only going to crush out femininity in themselves, but are determined to crush it out in other women. Not only are many liberated women transparently hostile to the institutions of emotional bonding and marriage, for instance, but they are transparently derisive to women who are married.
Parenthetically, the rage-stuffing, the psychological inversion described above, the denial, if not contempt for emotional needs, as well as some other patterns which will be described, explain an apparent paradox. Several of the country’s prominent political figures are married, but have reputations for playing around in various beds. In their personal lives they have treated their wives and other women with as little respect as is imaginable. For this and other reasons, one might expect the so-called “woman’s organizations” would be enraged at these men because of their treatment of women. It doesn’t take much to get them enraged and marching in the streets over other issues. However, in a continuation of the twisted inverted state of their mentalities, in their contempt for human needs and their reaction against commitment/marriage-oriented social institutions, liberal women’s groups endorse these men. It also happens that in the endorsement of these men, many liberated women are defending themselves because they engage in the same life styles with similar men. They are looking for a piece of the action as well as an indirect legitimization of their inverted values and life style.
There has not been much sympathy for the Joan Kennedys or the Lee Harts among liberated women. They are in the way and despised. In inverted reasoning, they deserved what they received because they represent an orientation toward commitments and social institutions against which liberal women are reacting and are polarized. The troubles of a Lee Hart or a Joan Kennedy appeal to the psychological inversion, to resentments, and to the polarization of liberal women. These same men also serve the purpose of validating the image of men that the woman’s movement needs to react against and stay in business.
On the other hand, in response to the Bill Clinton, Gennifer Flowers business, Hillary Clinton never missed a step in the pursuit of whatever internal agenda it is she carries around inside her. One sensed it had the same emotional importance as if Bill had got another speeding ticket. Hillary portrayed an image of hard-driving hard-boiled emotional sterility and emotional independence or indifference which has considerable appeal among the liberated.
The major emotional results from a permissive sexual value system are:
1.) A defensive diminished capacity for love and closeness. Often, love phobia.
2.) Emotions which interfere with love and closeness.
3.) Rage-stuffing, anger, repression.
4.) Occasionally, a compulsive sick inversion of anger which is mistaken for love.
5.) An emotional inversion which becomes widespread and institutionalized.
The behavioral results of the new system are integrated with, or an expression of, the emotional components designed to increase emotional psychological distance. One distancing mechanism is expressed when women can be heard to say sex is more enjoyable with men with whom they aren’t involved or don’t like as well. (That statement is not apt to have a joyous affect on men interested in love or intimacy.) On a subconscious level, these women keep sex and companionship separate as a method of maintaining psychological distance and reducing vulnerability. If sex and emotional involvement threaten to occur simultaneously, there is a defensive psychological blocking or anxiety which reduces sexuality. They have attempted to rationalize this incapacity into a virtue by calling it evidence of liberation. It’s not. In fact, it’s a highly pathological emotional sterility and incapacity. It’s fear.
This is one reason single women are getting involved with married men. The marriage is a subconscious safety factor, imposing an impediment and a safe psychological distance between themselves and the men. (It also plays into certain elements of reversal formation,) As mentioned earlier, in the Washington area during the 70s single men would buy and wear wedding rings to increase their popularity and get dates.
Because of love phobias or other emotional blocking many men and women will not, and can not, date people to whom they have a strong overall attraction and compatibility. It’s too dangerous.
What exists on an overall behavioral level is a population of emotional and relationship drifters who drift from one vague uncommitted situation to another. According to census bureau figures, non-married cohabiting relationships rose four-fold, from 523,00 in 1970 when such situations were already on the rise, to 2,220,000 in 1986. This was 4.4 million people within a relatively restricted age group. That figure means roughly two and one quarter million such relationships at any particular moment. This figure is a dynamic statistical equilibrium of such relationships within a pool of people who are just about to enter into them, people who are in them, people who are breaking up, people healing up after breaking up, people who are looking for new ones and people on hold.
Concurrently, the number of women who are single heads of households with children rose from 3,500,000 to 16,000,000 in 25 years. In a representative form of government they are entitled to vote, and they damned well do. They organize, they demonstrate, and they vote. So, this is accompanied by militant demands upon government for support by a large group that is politically powerful and exploitable. As the Clintons are prone to say when exploiting this group by pushing so-called social programs, “It’s for the children.”
What is really meant, but cleverly avoided is, “It’s for the life styles, for the irresponsibility, for the mindless hedonism at other’s expense, and for continuation of pathology that all hell and government can’t keep up with.”
God, wouldn’t I love to hear George W. Bush say something like that? But, George W. was pushed upon us precisely because he can’t and won’t say anything like that. He’s a unifier who is going to bring us all together. That mess which he’s going to unify me together with is the last thing I need or want. What is needed is not a all-inclusive love-in with what should be intolerable, but instead definition, exposure of the reality, and polarization. But the vacuous Bush has been sent to us by God and the liberal media to save us all from the ravages of the irascible Alan Keyes who is confrontational, who won’t let anybody get away with anything, and who is apt to make such analysis and statements.
Bush, if he wins, will be the last gasp of the Republican party, and perhaps the nation, because his election will mean business as usual, and that means bland grinning non-confrontation of everything that is destroying the nation. If he loses, the Republicans will move farther left because they don’t know what else to do since they either don’t read, or are too stupid to understand, this series.