tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post4581158483182977787..comments2023-07-03T06:26:43.219-07:00Comments on Gynocentrism Theory: The Eventual Outcome of Feminism, Part IUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-45971262212014370742011-06-15T17:16:16.840-07:002011-06-15T17:16:16.840-07:00My God, the words against mutilating male babies.....My God, the words against mutilating male babies..this is terrorism, pure and simple. I will remember this site in future if anyone denies that femmies hate men.Jennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04905272108326085380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-91487467312542750402011-04-16T05:19:43.110-07:002011-04-16T05:19:43.110-07:00A beautiful lecture. My only complaint is the focu...A beautiful lecture. My only complaint is the focus on 'contemporary' feminism as the principal source of 'narcissistic misandry', for want of a better term. However, the Anglo-Saxon countries have, since the Reformation, harbored an informal animus against sensual pleasure in general, sex in particular (and against men as sexualized beings in especial). This agenda was most active in the Victorian era amongst Christian socialists, suffragettes and other 'reformers' and its echoes are still felt today, not least in the United States. In sum, these themes are not really 'new' as such; they can be tracked to the Reformation and the cultural isolationism that has sundered the Anglo-American world from Continental life and thought since that momentous event.<br /><br />The resulting misandry and 'woman worship' that characterizes the contemporary Anglosphere coheres with many of the 'modern' factors listed here (consumerism, multi-national corporatism and media-driven narcissism) to produce a distinctly 'anti-male' contemporary culture, but it would be mistaken to consider this agenda entirely 'new', as such. It is, in fact, as old as the proverbial hills and well-embedded in Anglo-Saxon culture.<br /><br />The commentators' queries about the reason-confounding 'out of Nature' underpinnings of contemporary feminism are extremely interesting in this regard. Indeed, many contemporary middle-class women (about a third) forgo reproducing altogether, rejecting what has to be considered their primary biological purpose. Only a 'sick' female animal would reject her intrinsic purpose in this manner. Is, then, feminism a product of biological dysfunction: perhaps modern societies allow too many 'unfit' and anomalous humans to survive into adulthood? Possibly, but we must not forget that puritanism too, is 'out of Nature' (to quote Yeats), since its primary focus is the suppression of natural drives. This religious link goes some way to explaining the biological dysfunction at the root of modern feminism, which we can consider for all practical purposes as a kind of Manichaean, secular puritanism.Rookh Kshatriyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970184074924214959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-75360180560239996112011-03-07T20:04:58.267-08:002011-03-07T20:04:58.267-08:00@Dionyius:
Yes,I am acquainted with Sage Publicat...@Dionyius:<br /><br />Yes,I am acquainted with Sage Publications, having read tons and tons of stuff from their website.Fidelbogenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-18959890987468394702011-03-07T03:34:52.551-08:002011-03-07T03:34:52.551-08:00Apologies Fidelbogen, I seem to have deleted it fr...Apologies Fidelbogen, I seem to have deleted it from my database. However it can be purchased online, or may obtained for free if you have authorisation with a state library.<br /><br />From memory the article provides another example of twisting word meanings and applications ('narcissism') into new shapes to fit with feminist idiology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-59381418960589818872011-03-07T01:24:10.160-08:002011-03-07T01:24:10.160-08:00"I have the full text of the later somewhere....<i>"I have the full text of the later somewhere.... let me know if you would like an email copy."</i><br /><br />Eh..yes indeed, if you would. :)<br /><br />Click through my name to get to my blog, and look for the mail link at the upper right.Fidelbogenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-85949189139310477332011-03-06T19:34:15.774-08:002011-03-06T19:34:15.774-08:00Quote from The art of Hannah Wilke: ‘Feminist Narc...Quote from The art of Hannah Wilke: ‘Feminist Narcissism’ and the reclamation of the erotic body.<br /><br />"Rather, the narcissism of [feminist artist] Wilke can be viewed as a shrewd feminist tactic of self-objectification aimed at reclaiming the eroticized female body from the exclusive domain of male sexual desire. The ‘self-love’ of narcissism is a necessary component to this reclaiming of the body and the assertion of a female erotic will as being distinct from that of the male artist. Wilke wielded her narcissistic self-love as a powerful tool of critique, defiantly placing her own image into the hallowed halls of the male-dominated art institution."<br /><br />"Critics such as Amelia Jones and Joanna Frueh have championed Wilke and proposed, through their respective writings, a new and positive view of narcissism as a legitimately feminist, subversive tactic in the making of art. In her catalogue essay entitled “Intra-Venus and Hannah Wilke’s Feminist Narcissism”, Jones contextualized Wilke’s work within the framework of her “radical narcissism” and argued that the use of her own image throughout her art is far from the conventional or passively ‘feminine’ depiction of women as seen in advertising and other forms of mass media. Joanna Frueh, in her essay that accompanied the 1989 Wilke retrospective in Missouri, equated Wilke’s “positive narcissism” with a form of feminist self-exploration and an assertion of a female erotic will. Both Frueh and Jones cogently argue for a “positive narcissism” that expunges itself of the negative connotations [and] actively and unapologetically engages in self-love. Wilke enacts an aggressive form of narcissistic self-imaging that defiantly solicits the patriarchal gaze..."<br /><br /><br />DionysisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-37537873724431456392011-03-06T19:21:06.845-08:002011-03-06T19:21:06.845-08:00This following feminist revisioning of the definit...This following feminist revisioning of the definition of narcissism is an excellent example of the word-play Adam has been disecting in his previous essays: <br /><br />The art of Hannah Wilke: ‘Feminist Narcissism’ and the reclamation of the erotic body. http://jenniferlinton.com/2010/12/31/the-art-of-hannah-wilke-feminist-narcissism-and-the-reclamation-of-the-erotic-body/<br /><br /><br />The growing problem of female narcissism has been long acknowledged by feminists, who attempt to subvert the usual definitions and place a positive spin on female narcissism- eg. advocating it's necessity to balance out women's traditional selflessness toward men and children: <br /><br />‘Who put the “Me” in feminism?’<br />The sexual politics of narcissism<br />http://fty.sagepub.com/content/6/1/25 <br /><br />I have the full text of the later somewhere.... let me know if you would like an email copy.<br /><br />DionysusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-8783920705798529092011-03-06T17:22:45.175-08:002011-03-06T17:22:45.175-08:00@PsychologicalAnon:
I was going to respond to you...@PsychologicalAnon:<br /><br />I was going to respond to your responses, but seeing how Adam has said so much already, I doubt if what I might think to say at this point would not go missing in such an ocean. . so I'm just gonna float and observe...Fidelbogenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-82035240356728801042011-03-06T05:33:24.240-08:002011-03-06T05:33:24.240-08:00Clarifying my sentence above, should read;
"...Clarifying my sentence above, should read; <br /><br />"Right on. So could we say that markets have exaggerated the degree of gynocentism in much the same way you say that feminism has exaggerated it- ie. that we have two powerful 'teasers' which stimulate an intensification in traditional gynocentric behaviour?<br /><br /><br />DionysusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-50544840973692822622011-03-06T05:29:56.054-08:002011-03-06T05:29:56.054-08:00Adam,
Thanks for your replies to the rabble above...Adam,<br /><br />Thanks for your replies to the rabble above. You further clarified gynocentrism and your thoughts about the role narcissism in that context. <br /><br />Yes I was the one who mentioned Narcissism on a previous occasion on your list.<br /><br />"Free markets do not just fulfil desires, they create desires too. The ideal consumer is one who is materialistic, narcissistic, competitive, obsessed with social status, and so on."<br /><br />Right on. So could we say that markets have exaggerated the degree of gynocentism in much the same way you say that feminism has exaggerated it- ie. that in we have two powerful 'teasers' stimulate an intensification in gynocentric behaviour?<br /><br />"I do not believe that women are essentially or inherently (more) narcissistic or manipulable." <br /><br />Agreed, the exaggerated female narcissism is fed by environmental factors, and could be equally have been males if they were (hypothetically) the targets of similar environmental enticements. As it is today markets are keen to find ways to exploit the largely untapped male buyer markets, and if successful there is a likelihood that they will generate an increase in male narcissism. <br /><br /><br />"..narcissism is at root of the problem, as a byproduct of Gynocentrism..."<br /><br />Pairing narcissism and Gynocentrism is sensible, though I'm not sure about the word 'byproduct' here.... we are back to chicken and egg - ie, would a Gynocentrism operate without a prior, albiet latent narcisstic drive? I'd personally prefer to think of this with metaphors from behaviouralism: A drive arousal stimulus (Gynocentrism), releasing a primary psychological drive (narcissism)- ie. the two working in concert. <br /><br />"There are many examples of women who do reject narcissism, etc. from their personalities. There are those who do develop character."<br /><br />Important to remind ourselves that women can choose to say no to narcissism and choose instead to think for themselves and to develop character. The importance of self discipline and willpower are all but forgotten arts in the consumer age, but they are so necessary to the development of character. <br /><br />You summed it up perfectly here:<br />"Since all human beings begin life as utter narcissists, and needs/wants will naturally go unfulfilled as they grow (which is necessary for the development of character)".<br /><br />I'll take some time and try reading some of the links you have on your blog, and hopefully get a better appreciation for your work. To date I have been immensely stimulated by your writings on Gynocentrism, and appreciate the intellectual range and attention to detail covered. <br /><br />Looking forward to your next piece.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Anon<br />(suppose I should get a nickname- how about Dionysus !)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-36726281654430797032011-03-06T04:05:55.967-08:002011-03-06T04:05:55.967-08:00Another correction: in Part 5, I misread your stat...Another correction: in Part 5, I misread your statement as advocating that non-feminists could use the narcissistic drives present in non-feminist women to 'recruit' them to the fight against feminism.<br /><br />Looking at it again, I am really not sure how I interpreted it this way ...Adam Kostakishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04265675667926239289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-46055938233516475772011-03-06T04:03:20.917-08:002011-03-06T04:03:20.917-08:00Correction:
"It is narcissism which I see as...Correction:<br /><br />"It is narcissism which I see as a syndrome, of Gynocentrism."<br /><br />What I meant here is not syndrome, but <i>symptom.</i>Adam Kostakishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04265675667926239289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-68902184818519030452011-03-06T03:59:39.510-08:002011-03-06T03:59:39.510-08:00(Part 6)
"More concise regarding motivating ...(Part 6)<br /><br /><i>"More concise regarding motivating drives of feminism:<br /><br />Woman 1. Narcissistic drive<br />woman 2. Narcissistic and aggressive drives<br /><br />Woman #2 are IMO the main constructors of the feminist idiological and political edifice. Thier drive is aggression, which gives the stamina. Woman #1 would not have seen the project through, as they are already sated."</i><br /><br />Clearly, a certain amount of aggression is needed for one to become a feminist - in the case of the women, anyway (how many times per post do they need to resort to profanity? I suppose they think it makes the point sound more forceful, like typing in ALLCAPS; as if how an argument is made is more important than its content). So, I would say this is true. The non-feminist misandric women most likely possess the narcissistic drive without the accompanying aggressive drive - <i>or</i> they are simply <i>non-activated,</i> and could become feminists through ideological recruitment - think sleeper cells (in the case that the narcissistic drive does not achieve its object, but the woman does not identify explicitly as feminist, that is, she may be misandric on an individual basis but is not (yet) engaged in a collective project to harm men).<br /><br /><i>"man-hating appears tied up with narcissistic gratification, and in particular narcissistic injury, with feminism being constructed by a collective of such injured women."</i><br /><br />Again, very true. What we need to point out is that these women have not actually been injured, apart from in their own minds: they feel injured only because they possess Gynocentric privilege which makes them feel entitled to the object of their desires without actually having to earn it (they feel naturally entitled, on the basis of bio-essentialism, i.e. because they are women, to the fruits of male labor).<br /><br /><i>"Is the narcissism more primary than the hate/aggression? These two forces are both driving feminism, but I wonder if the hate has been enlisted by an even more primary narcissistic drive?"</i><br /><br />I think this is something of a chicken-and-egg question. Since all human beings begin life as utter narcissists, and needs/wants will naturally go unfulfilled as they grow (which is necessary for the development of character), it's difficult to say which comes first in the Gynocentric/feminist context. It's safe to say that they go hand in hand. Hatred for men will result in increased demands on them to serve women; while hatred of men <i>results from</i> narcissistic demands (male service) going unfulfilled. It's a vicious circle. This is why feminists become even crazier as they get older - or, in a minority of cases, they break out from the circle and become anti-feminists, having become conscious that they are harming themselves even as they harm men. (See: Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia.)<br /><br /><i>"Just to make the case a little further, tell me if you see any likenesses between your average feminist's behaviour, and the below DSM-IV definition of narcissism"</i><br /><br />I do - absolutely - every point, and what is more, feminists seem <i>proud</i> of possessing these personality traits, as though being anti-social and exploitative are virtues.<br /><br />Did you not post this list before? Or was that a different Psychological Anon?<br /><br />Thankyou very much for the interesting points you raised!<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Adam.Adam Kostakishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04265675667926239289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-4762379223638173412011-03-06T03:59:22.416-08:002011-03-06T03:59:22.416-08:00(Part 5)
"I wonder is it possible that entic...(Part 5)<br /><br /><i>"I wonder is it possible that enticement to narcissistic gratification is the bait misandric feminists use to get non-misandric women to take up the feminist push for power?"</i><br /><br />Interesting idea. However, narcissism is at root of the problem, as a byproduct of Gynocentrism and preliminary to feminism and non-feminist misandry. I think that female narcissism is always going to be a problem, and we are best served by attacking it at root. I mentioned above that I reject structuralism. I don't believe <i>any</i> woman necessarily has to incorporate into her personality any of the social ills so far mentioned (materialism, narcissism, feminism), but always has a choice in the matter. She can reject them all, and in the absence of men willing to provide for her and bail her out (a problem which is currently systemic) she would be forced into independence, and would develop character as a result of dealing with all of life's hardships. I identify character as that which is opposite to narcissism, materialism and dependence. Most men have character because nobody is there to bail them out and they know it; they have to make it on their own. Most women do not experience this, and do not develop character. This is <i>the</i> problem, in my view.<br /><br />There are many examples of women who do reject narcissism, etc. from their personalities. There are those who do develop character. They can be found in the Men's Rights sphere as well as outside of it. I have known several in real life. They are simply those women who take their responsibilities as seriously as do the majority of men. It is safe to say that no feminist fits this bill.<br /><br /><i>"Perhaps its possible to place the seemingly different behaviours of misandry and self aggrandizement at the one alter of narcissism?<br /><br />Here's how that would work; People in the grip of the narcissistic drive can exist in one of two immediate environments- 1. the environment successfully recognises and feeds my narcissistic hunger and I in turn feel suitably inflated and "worth it", or 2. the environment is witholding, does not recognise my worth-it-ness nor feed my sense of entitlement, and therefore I take out my aggression on males and acheive catharsis in that act of hating.<br /><br />In case 1. women can continue the marraige fantasy. in case 2 the withholding male has become an enemy to be destroyed over and over (referred to in the psych industry as "narcissistic injury & narcissistic rage")."</i><br /><br />Yes! This is largely the conclusion I came to, as described above.<br /><br />I particularly like your description that as the enemy, the man (which soon becomes <i>men,</i> plural) must be destroyed 'over and over'. The narcissistic rage - a great label for it - is never satiated, as I state in this lecture. It is possible that hate has so warped the psyche that even possessing the object (i.e. attaining her ideal man) will not cause the rage to cease. Feminist women may well be 'beyond repair'.<br /><br />(continued ...)Adam Kostakishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04265675667926239289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-68319315262749252092011-03-06T03:59:03.074-08:002011-03-06T03:59:03.074-08:00(Part 4)
"to which powerful drive are femini...(Part 4)<br /><br /><i>"to which powerful drive are feminism-oriented women subordinating thier desire to couple/marry with males, the later being a very powerful drive in itself if we look at the themes of most women's magazines (Magazines which bring together in one editorials primarily about marraige/coupling alongside other articles consisting of feminist messages about empowerment, often at the male's expense). Why are women taking the huge risk to get catharsis by man hating when it risks alienating the men they wish to couple with?"</i><br /><br />This is a great question, and I think the only answer I can give right now is that human beings are not always rational. Particularly not when they are emotional, and given the primacy of the psycho-sexual drive, an emotional response is unavoidable when the drive is stunted. Rejecting, and hating, the inaccessible object of desire is an unfortunate, and irrational, but ultimately very human reaction.<br /><br />Also keep in mind that a lot of feminist innovation has consisted in making young women out of bounds for men. Please go to The Anti-Feminist - link in the sidebar on the blog - and spend a few hours reading. Feminism - or at least, one aspect of it - is the sexual trade union of women whose objects of desire are inaccessible (in short, men pursue younger women, leaving the less desirable women without men). Schopenbecq's theory that the pill in fact liberated <i>men,</i> and <i>forced</i> women to 'take power back' through feminism, is not only intriguing - I cannot find fault with it.<br /><br /><i>"This is where narcissism comes in as the irresitable drive behind both marraige and feminist aims and behaviours. Self aggrandizement. To place all feminist bahaviour at the alter of misandry does not quite get there."</i><br /><br />Sure, narcissism is mixed up in all this, as I've mentioned above. I would say that hostility is generated when the woman who <i>believes</i> she deserves an object is denied that object. This hostility easily translates into misandry, i.e. hostility towards the object that rejects her ownership of it.<br /><br />(continued ...)Adam Kostakishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04265675667926239289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-57254424180950863262011-03-06T03:58:41.622-08:002011-03-06T03:58:41.622-08:00(Part 3)
The real problem is that this narcissist...(Part 3)<br /><br />The real problem is that this narcissistic materialism <i>won't go away</i> when women do out-earn men. As Paul Elam has wonderfully stated, when we see men paying for high-income women's dinners <i>from their unemployment checks,</i> we might actually start to see some change here.<br /><br />In short, I believe these two factors are what produce the princess mentality. One historical, one recent, the latter leaning on the former. Crush Gynocentrism, and there will be nobody prepared to indulge women's materialism. Then women will have to actually grow up and face the hardships of life, developing character along the way - that will be a wonderful thing to see, and will result in most women outright rejecting feminism.<br /><br />Feminism, you see, depends upon the perception that women need to be provided for, even as it pays lip service to the opposite idea. The independent woman is anathema to the countless legal and welfare reforms put in place by feminists, which make life easier for women because they are women.<br /><br /><i>"Don't get me wrong here I'm not dismissing the suggestion of catharsis as motivator, which is clearly a correct explanation for the misandric aspect of feminism. Its more that feminism may be better viewed as a 'syndrome' which means a collection of disparate motivations and behaviours - as differentiated from a 'disorder' which typically have more unified drives and behavioral goals. Feminism is a conglomerate of motivations and behaviours."</i><br /><br />Feminism could be viewed as a syndrome, but actually, I see it as an <i>expression,</i> namely, the radical expression of Gynocentrism. It is narcissism which I see as a syndrome, of Gynocentrism. Gynocentrism is the social disorder - although (in its historical, non-radical form) it does sustain societies, this is at enormous cost to the men in those societies, and so is quite deserving of the term 'disorder'. Feminism is just Gynocentrism gone nuts. It's a very old idea taken to inconsistent and unsustainable extremes.<br /><br />(continued ...)Adam Kostakishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04265675667926239289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-6473379230993957722011-03-06T03:58:15.473-08:002011-03-06T03:58:15.473-08:00(Part 2)
"So what else psychological, other ...(Part 2)<br /><br /><i>"So what else psychological, other than blissful cathersis from the scapegoating all ills onto males, might be driving feminist behaviour? How do you explain the haughtiness, arrogance and exclusive female self-reference/self interest inherent to feminism? How do you explain the "Because I'm worth it" phenomenon of feminism?"</i><br /><br />Keep in mind I haven't really got onto the topic yet. I am getting there. I made reference to the psychological motivation for misandry in this post, but a fuller explanation has its place in a few weeks time. Your comments, on this post and on previous, have not gone unacknowledged. It's just that I like to be systematic about my writing, and usually plan the shape of these lectures weeks if not months in advance. So, I will get there in due time.<br /><br />For now, this will suffice: I explain the narcissism by the combination of two factors. First, traditional Gynocentrism (which persists even outside of feminist circles), which elevates women as the protected caste and gives them special status. The cultural 'programming' women receive is favorable to them because it tells them that they are superior to men. Feminism has exacerbated this 'programming' but it did not create the meme. (I dislike the term 'programming', because I reject the view that human beings are automatons whose behavior is determined by social and cultural norms, i.e. I reject structuralism.) Gynocentric and now, feminist cultural memes state that women are the sexual gatekeepers and men exist to serve and impress them. It is shocking how many women, even in this age of supposed equality, still believe this.<br /><br />The second factor is the advanced consumer economy. Free markets do not just fulfil desires, they create desires too. The ideal consumer is one who is materialistic, narcissistic, competitive, obsessed with social status, and so on. This type of consumer is the most manipulable. What we have found over the last century or so is that women more easily become this type of consumer - I would speculate this is because more women than men are devoid of character, owing to their Gynocentrically privileged status.<br /><br />I do not believe either of these factors are inevitable or natural. That is, I do not believe that women are <i>essentially</i> or <i>inherently</i> (more) narcissistic or manipulable. They have been made so through Gynocentrism, and advanced consumerism exploits these existing characteristics to boost profit margins. Take a look at some adverts marketed to women - which most are nowadays, along with most TV shows, films, newspaper editorials, etc. There is an almost endless hammering of this idea that women <i>collectively</i> are deserving of more than they currently have (whatever this is), and that women <i>individually</i> are deserving of more than they currently have. This meme is so widespread it has become a droning background noise. Nobody questions that women are disadvantaged because it is on a par with subliminal messaging. The favorable outcome, to the consumer economy, is that women demand more be spent on them. Women control something like 80% of spending in the United States, <i>despite</i> men earning higher income.<br /><br />(continued ...)Adam Kostakishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04265675667926239289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-27492515705859801982011-03-06T03:57:40.132-08:002011-03-06T03:57:40.132-08:00(Part 1)
Psychological Anon,
Thanks for your com...(Part 1)<br /><br />Psychological Anon,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments - they are always appreciated. Let me go through and respond point by point.<br /><br /><i>"Why not projecting (unloading) all one's hatred and violence onto people who pollute the environment, or onto a political party, or something less detrimental to one's *other* psychological desires- desires like getting a boyfreind or getting married which are high up on the list for many women who play the feminist game (Id wager the majority of women who subscribe partially to feminist orientation are not unambiguous man-hating lesbians, but women who deeply desire to be coupled with a male for ever after)."</i><br /><br />I agree that this describes the majority of feminists. Those truly indifferent to men (i.e. actual, not 'political' lesbians) would have no reason at all to hate men - and while generalizations should never be drawn from personal experience, the small number of non-feminist lesbians I have known have displayed not the slightest hint of hostility towards men.<br /><br />Also, some feminists <i>do</i> display rage and hostility towards people for other reasons - they do not necessarily just loathe men, but they may well despise those people accused of polluting the environment <i>as well.</i> The hatred of men generally seems to be stronger though, corresponding no doubt to the primacy of the psycho-sexual drive, as you stated.<br /><br />(continued ...)Adam Kostakishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04265675667926239289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-26649955196712699162011-03-05T20:00:37.499-08:002011-03-05T20:00:37.499-08:00Just to make the case a little further, tell me if...Just to make the case a little further, tell me if you see any likenesses between your average feminist's behaviour, and the below DSM-IV definition of narcissism:<br /><br />A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:<br /><br /> 1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)<br /> 2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love<br /> 3. Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)<br /> 4. Requires excessive admiration<br /> 5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations<br /> 6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends<br /> 7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others<br /> 8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her<br /> 9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-34757090540837264232011-03-05T19:43:09.742-08:002011-03-05T19:43:09.742-08:00Fidelbogen,
Thanks for dignifying the above psych...Fidelbogen,<br /><br />Thanks for dignifying the above psychobabble with a reply. I'm trying to get past sociological explanations which dont seem to explain the intensity we see with the average feminist. On that point I agree the man-hating is a core drive and feminism would never have been born without it. <br /><br />However that man-hating appears tied up with narcissistic gratification, and in particular narcissistic injury, with feminism being constructed by a collective of such injured women. <br /><br />Is the narcissism more primary than the hate/aggression? These two forces are both driving feminism, but I wonder if the hate has been enlisted by an even more primary narcissistic drive?<br /><br />(BTW, here is the Wikipedia article explaining Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_rage_and_narcissistic_injury )<br /><br />For me that explains the female puffery- the grandiosity, adoration, inflation, and sense of entitlement attached to feminism.... which man-hate and catharsis does not explain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-43898443207181891042011-03-05T17:56:39.162-08:002011-03-05T17:56:39.162-08:00"To place all feminist bahaviour at the alter...<i>"To place all feminist bahaviour at the alter of misandry does not quite get there. "</i><br /><br />Anon, your comments are fascinating, although a bit "shrinkish" for my blood. <br /><br />But I think your statement quoted directly above gets to the nub of the matter pretty well. So, without going into much detail, I would say yes, feminism recruits a mass of female energy which is not directly involved in man-hating.<br /><br />However, I believe it is meaningful to say that without man-hating as a CORE DRIVE, feminism wouldn't amount to very much as a sociopolitical phenomenon.Fidelbogenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-90813328294603032142011-03-05T14:46:12.833-08:002011-03-05T14:46:12.833-08:00More concise regarding motivating drives of femini...More concise regarding motivating drives of feminism:<br /><br />Woman 1. Narcissistic drive<br />woman 2. Narcissistic and aggressive drives <br /><br />Woman #2 are IMO the main constructors of the feminist idiological and political edifice. Thier drive is aggression, which gives the stamina. Woman #1 would not have seen the project through, as they are already sated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-75390048176505474942011-03-05T14:36:24.408-08:002011-03-05T14:36:24.408-08:00Actually I just had a new thought, FWIW. Perhaps i...Actually I just had a new thought, FWIW. Perhaps its possible to place the seemingly different behaviours of misandry and self aggrandizement at the one alter of narcissism? <br /><br />Here's how that would work; People in the grip of the narcissistic drive can exist in one of two immediate environments- 1. the environment successfully recognises and feeds my narcissistic hunger and I in turn feel suitably inflated and "worth it", or 2. the environment is witholding, does not recognise my worth-it-ness nor feed my sense of entitlement, and therefore I take out my aggression on males and acheive catharsis in that act of hating. <br /><br />In case 1. women can continue the marraige fantasy. in case 2 the withholding male has become an enemy to be destroyed over and over (referred to in the psych industry as "narcissistic injury & narcissistic rage"). <br /><br />Thinking out loud.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345026973557617275.post-87860175708147235792011-03-05T14:22:58.233-08:002011-03-05T14:22:58.233-08:00Catharsis.... this is good, begins to answer what ...Catharsis.... this is good, begins to answer what are the motivational (psychological) principles of feminist behaviours. My question, which you have already answered is why choose this method of catharsis? Why not projecting (unloading) all one's hatred and violence onto people who pollute the environment, or onto a political party, or something less detrimental to one's *other* psychological desires- desires like getting a boyfreind or getting married which are high up on the list for many women who play the feminist game (Id wager the majority of women who subscribe partially to feminist orientation are not unambiguous man-hating lesbians, but women who deeply desire to be coupled with a male for ever after). <br /><br />So what else psychological, other than blissful cathersis from the scapegoating all ills onto males, might be driving feminist behaviour? How do you explain the haughtiness, arrogance and exclusive female self-reference/self interest inherent to feminism? How do you explain the "Because I'm worth it" phenomenon of feminism? I suggest the narcissistic drive, as I mentioned previously. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong here I'm not dismissing the suggestion of catharsis as motivator, which is clearly a correct explanation for the misandric aspect of feminism. Its more that feminism may be better viewed as a 'syndrome' which means a collection of disparate motivations and behaviours - as differentiated from a 'disorder' which typically have more unified drives and behavioral goals. Feminism is a conglomerate of motivations and behaviours. (In all this we are analyzing 'feminism' as if it were an individual or patient). <br /><br />So to return to my above question; to which powerful drive are feminism-oriented women subordinating thier desire to couple/marry with males, the later being a very powerful drive in itself if we look at the themes of most women's magazines (Magazines which bring together in one editorials primarily about marraige/coupling alongside other articles consisting of feminist messages about empowerment, often at the male's expense). Why are women taking the huge risk to get catharsis by man hating when it risks alienating the men they wish to couple with? This is where narcissism comes in as the irresitable drive behind both marraige and feminist aims and behaviours. Self aggrandizement. To place all feminist bahaviour at the alter of misandry does not quite get there. <br /><br />I wonder is it possible that enticement to narcissistic gratification is the bait misandric feminists use to get non-misandric women to take up the feminist push for power? Two different motivations (catharsis-by-misandry, and narcissistic gratification) for different women. Now that would be a neat alliance. <br /><br />Thats all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com