In this 2nd part of the series, Jan Deichmohle continues his biosocial perspective to the ongoing nature/nurture conversation.
The first part of the article has proven female dominance given by biology. We discussed the consequences for human life and especially males, some of them drastic. Four to five times as many women as men procreated in the past 60,000 years. A large majority of men were oppressed, whereas women never were. Both males and females suffer if female choice gets too strong.
The roots of female dominance can be traced in three steps:
First, sexual selection is a powerful force of evolution. Genes are selected or discarded mostly through the “male filter.” To protect the system of evolution, there’s an inborn bias against men, the stronger the bias, the lower their rank. Otherwise, men could complain when losing and thereby gain undue access, thwarting the system of evolution. To protect the evolutionary system of discriminating against many men, this bias, in the form of a wrong perception, has been established.
To protect children and the future generation, an innate preference is given to children and women, who are mothers giving birth in the view of evolution. Both these innate tendencies are mostly unconscious and protected against becoming conscious. Thus it is difficult to make it conscious, yet it is important to do so, to make the bias in perception less effective, or, if possible, ineffective.
Second, all cultures privileged women. Western civilization has added negative stereotypes about men and positive stereotypes about women. Their origins go back to the medieval ages or even further. (Medieval courtly love was already a submission to women in an astonishing degree.) Already at the time of Hobbes (1568 – 1679) stereotypes denigrating men can be found in writings by Hobbes and others. These tendencies became more and more prevalent in western societies.
Third, feminism exaggerated such tendencies in a militant way and added new forms of denigration. It turned such prejudice and false perception into an ideology, a system and world view and into campaigns which did in fact disenfranchise, not enfranchise. They increased privilege instead of reducing it or giving it up.
Both the second and third steps made use of the unconscious bias of human perception.
This second part of the article, will have a look at the historical roots and consequences in daily life.
Already in olden times, matriarchal societies increased the imbalance, to the disadvantage of men and children. The more absent were the fathers, the more detrimental for children.
Followed consistently across several generations, a matrilocal rule of marriage results in the co-residence of a continuous line of mothers, sisters, and daughters. Husbands become the outsiders; it is they who feel isolated and who must cope with a united front of members of the opposite sex who have been living together all their lives. Where matrilocality prevails, therefore, women tend to take control of the entire domestic sphere of life. Husbands become more like visitors than permanent residents and divorce is frequent
(Marvin Harris, Our Kind: Who We Are, http://www.amazon.com/Our-Kind-Where-Came-Going/dp/0060919906)
Matrilineal family structures and matriarchy have the tendency of down grading men to the point where they are perceived as effectively being little more than a guest in their own home. Feminists and feminist legislation have excluded men and especially fathers in numerous ways, whereas women are and always have been, because of their fertility, placed by nature and by society at the core of family structures and family life regardless of which of the world cultures is examined.
Feminists have wrongly perceived and wrongly interpreted the facts of life with a consistent bias and error in all of their assumptions.(1) Biologically, the female is dominant, and women are privileged. Man is thus disadvantaged by duties, exploited by work and burdens for the sake and benefit of others. These include: burdens and duties including male military draft, duties to provide and earn, restrictions and obligations in behaviour towards women. Men are oppressed by the power of female choice and biased perception of matters concerning the sexes. This biased perception is to some extent an inborn characteristic, as evolutionary psychology has discovered. The higher the pressure of inter-sexual selection, the more men need to compete in male hierarchies.
Today’s differences between men and women do not stem from some imaginary “patriarchal” confection of invented oppression which in reality never existed – save in feminist theoretical polemics. Instead, those differences are the result of sexual selection by females during the evolution of humans as well as animals. The same power of selection created the basis for family, the division of labour between the sexes, the universal basis of cultures worldwide, which were in the interest of females throughout all ages. All of these have been wrongly ascribed to men’s alleged power when nothing could be further from the truth. (see Volume 1)
Dominance by female choice destroys life’s dreams. The literary series “Female Choice”(2) describes a young man dreaming of a world of reliable love for everybody, or “free love” for everyone, a philosophy of love – only to be discriminated, excluded and then ridiculed. His life dream was accordingly crushed. Never would he be able to live as he once dreamt – never could he live as he had desired from his earliest youth. His ship of philosophical love flounders on the submerged reefs of female choice, which rejected him. He has to endure the sniggering, the ridicule, mocking, and laughter, followed only by contempt.
For evolutionary reasons (the Darwinian imperative), there is no pity or sympathizing with male losers; they will attract only blame, be considered as an “uncouth lout” or as an “awful chauvinist.” This serves only to underline the additional feminist indoctrination that has percolated into the many levels of our society.
What howls of scorn greet any man who dares to complain about these inhuman facts epitomized by the sole privilege of the female to dominate lives through the power of selection. What toxicity of venom is unleashed in the emotional battering of the male victim of discrimination. When females talk about the discrimination they’ve experienced everyone has to listen, even if their perception of having been discriminated is based on the inborn bias (distorting their perception) and ideological assumptions, which are objectively wrong. But when males talk about real discrimination experienced, what a torrent of fascist-like invective is released. This is, in part, documented in the book “No!” (effectively censored by it not being published and it being ignored since the 1980s, despite a written publishing contract, which was then cancelled). The book “No!”(3) documents the ingloriously abusive reply of the publisher Blaulicht – a reply attempting to morally destroy the author who dared describe what a victim of discrimination faces. This overt abuse in public is symptomatic of many forms of the fashionable spite exacted on men by the whole of society.(4)
In what is a “intellectually aberration” some men agree with feminists in their proposition of misandry(5); these men combine with feminists to discriminate against men: In our time, Warren Farrell first started out as a director of NOW before he realized his error and their true nature.(6)
He believed that the first step in social progress was to lift persons of lower social status to equal economic opportunity. Only then would evolution through sexual selection be able to act effectively. It may be taken as certain, therefore, that when women are economically and socially free, numbers of the worst men among all classes who now readily obtain wives will be almost universally rejected… we shall set free a power of selection
- Wallace(7), a close colleague of Darwin, according to: Erika Lorraine Milam, “Looking for a Few Good Males, Female Choice in Evolutionary Biology,” p. 21 – 22.
Wallace shows the common contempt for men and glorification of women, which is typical for our civilization. Men are viewed as possibly “diseased,” “weak,” “idle” or “selfish;” women select and discriminate among them.
Wallace hoped, some women would choose to remain single rather than settle for a “diseased,” “weak,” “idle,” or “selfish” husband. .. Wallace hoped, female choice, acting through marriage selection, would eventually become an even greater force of evolutionary change
- according to: Erika Lorraine Milam, “Looking for a Few Good Males, Female Choice in Evolutionary Biology,” chapter “Wallace, Divine Intelligence, and the Problem of Choice”
The view and argument is obviously strongly prejudiced and inacceptable. Men are perceived in a denigrating way. The plan is to subject only men to a discriminating selection, not women.
First-wave feminists easily appropriated such theories of mate choice
(Erika Lorraine Milam, Looking for a Few Good Males, Female Choice in Evolutionary Biology)
First-wave feminists adopted and used the concept of “mate choice.”
Female choice (e.g. based on fashion) often leads to the making of poor (selection) decisions, resulting in the poor school educational attainments of today’s young men, who quickly learn what girls want. In their age, finding acceptance has a high priority.
Often, female choice does not prefer “good” men. Instead, often inconsequential “qualities” based more on transitory fads and fashions are preferred. To the extent that even gangster types, those exhibiting anti-social behaviour and fashionable fops, are considered as “less boring” and therefore more desirable than those men who prefer to study and work.
As a result these young men face a binary choice; they have the choice, it would appear, of either embracing education and learning (and face being ignored and discriminated by girls), or take pathways preferred by many young women.
In the quote below, taken from “Tyrants of Matriarchy” (pub. 2015), some of these winners of female choice are even called “thugs” and “morons.”
If a guy wants a girl-friend he has to ‘play the game’ and pander to the reflexive female preference for thugs and morons. The alternative is found in the life of James Holmes: he followed the ‘intellectual’ path and experienced only involuntary celibacy for his pains. It doesn’t take much smarts to see that dysfunctional female mate-preference is the primary cause of male educational failure in the Anglosphere.
- Stephen Jarosek, „Tyrants of Matriarchy,” 2015.
Female choice can be dysfunctional and harmful for society.
I will examine the evolution of sexual selection … This refutes the intuitive notion that selection will necessarily favor mating preferences for male genotypes that are superior under natural selection (e.g., Trivers, 1972; Zahavi, 1975). There are in fact situations where if a mutant that decreases male viability appears, it will rapidly sweep through the population to fixation despite the presence of a stronger mating preference for a more viable alternative male phenotype.
(Mark Kirkpatrick, EVOLUTION, International Journal Of Organic Evolution, Vol. 36, 1982 , p.2)
Such a harmful selection is observable today (see above: Jarosek, 2015). Together with feminist dominated mis-education, it condemns generations of young men to a life of trouble and away from the good path.
Female choice has already been increased by first-wave-feminists, and by further waves since. Instead of being abolished, female choice was radicalized – consider for instance the demand of campus feminists, that at every step of a sexual encounter men should ask for consent and receive it before moving on.(8) A feminist sense of justice – if not moral justice – should have kicked in and revolted against the unjust dominance of the female. Yes, it should have – but it didn’t! On the contrary, all feminist waves have further exaggerated female dominance of choice in the pivotal areas of life. As a result, the balance already weighted in favour of women, collapses completely, as documented in Volume 2.
… women are going, sooner or later, to come to certain definite conclusions; and that from those conclusions will come a woman-made codex of sex morality on which the women of the future will act … and on which they will require men to act.
– “The Revolt of Modern Youth,” by Ben Lindsey, 1925.
Volume 2 of “The Two Sexes” documents the consequences of the first feminist waves for the then growing generation of uprooted uprooted youth, which would search substitute ideologies.
Still another thing is evident. This active and aggressive inquiring attitude of mind on the part of girls has of late years become general rather than exceptional. Also, it is more and more unconcealed. The reason is that social and economic conditions have placed these girls more on a level with men. Many of them, when they leave school, take positions in which they make more money than the boys they go with. The result is that many a youth finds himself subject to rather contemptuous inspection by the young woman of his choice. To many persons this cold sophistication on the part of our girls is shocking.
(Lindsey op.cit., 1925)
Contemporary debates at the time of each successive feminist wave were all based on wrong perceptions. Our intuition assumes there would be male choice, while female (primary) choice is fact of biology. Likewise, paternity of a new-born is assumed, whereas motherhood is certain.(9) Another term for it is the ‘female veto.’ Feminism assumed ‘oppression’ of women, whereas in fact women were highly privileged and it was men who were and even more are ‘the oppressed.’(10)
Society’s perception of matters concerning the sexes is biologically biased, preferring women, who could be mothers, resulting in better treatment and more protection. Men are perceived in a more negative way, and the lower their rank the more negative becomes that perception. This, too, is a fact of evolutionary biology.
For centuries, biased perception has resulted in biased views and skewed debates. Around 1800, misandry was already widespread among academic authors and became the defining spirit of the age. At the end of the 18th century, men from other eras or cultures, even men in their natural state, were already associated with negative stereotypes including tyranny, whereas women were viewed in an idolized way.
Iselin shows the wild man always from his worst side. He is deceitful, inconstant, gullible, rakish, cowardly, idly, as long he’s not conducting a war. He has no feeling for the “beautiful,” has a “mind of destruction” and a tendency to booze and to be superstitious. (Iselin 1768, 244, 260, 204) … The woman is perceived as the antithesis of the sensual-tyrannical man, as shining light in the dark domain of instincts. Women have advantages: “It is also true, that among all peoples women become ready to reasonable occupations earlier than men do…. She observes the state and condition of things much easier and more curious then men, and keeps them in kind better, and compares them faster. They are more ready to deduct general concepts from their perception.” (Iselin 1768, 259) These ideas are based on conventional psychological assumptions of its time. Iselin referred to authorities like Sulzer, Mendelssohn and Baumgarten.
[Christoph Kucklick, Das unmoralische Geschlecht, p. 44 – 45, “The Immoral Sex”(11)]
European intellectuals of that era agreed on such assumptions – it is not country-dependent. This problem is much older than feminist waves (including 19th century first wave) and its roots can be traced back even more centuries than just to 1800. See Kucklick “The Immoral Sex” („Das unmoralische Geschlecht”), or for instance, Volume 2 of “The Two Sexes” („Die beiden Geschlechter”).
The opposite of feminist claims that women would have been perceived badly and men favoured is true in past ages as well.
Descriptions of this kind appear around 1800 stereotype in very different contexts. It has been rightly described as “enlightenment consensus,” that the man of natural state and most of the following eras, was tyrannical, enslaving women brutally. (Tomaselli 1985 p. 121) It’s striking that theoretical differences hardly make a difference: whether french sensualism, german history of mankind, scottish empirism, transcendental philosophy or social economics – in this regard the thought of the era converges… In the 19th century this view on history became canonical and was included into lexica.
(12) (Kucklick, “Das unmoralische Geschlecht”, p. 50 – 51)
Innate bias, increased by civilization and strengthened even further by feminist ideology, is clearly influential in the book by Lindsey and is seen as having a large influence on the youth of 1925 which he described in this way:
They [60 school girls] where not asking what boys should do. It was plain that they would decide all that for the boys so soon as they had decided on the proper courses for themselves.
(Lindsey, op.cit., 1925)
The book describes a situation resulting from the first feminist wave.
that the girls’ part in such questions is the more dramatic and interesting, it is also a fact, that the boy, relatively, doesn’t count.
(Lindsey, op.cit., 1925)
Those males who aren’t even considered any more by girls and young women, lose most and suffer most.
Female choice is by far the most powerful choice available to humanity. Nevertheless, this does not stop feminists aggressively demanding more and greater choice for exclusively women under the mantra: “Our body, our lives!”
Men do not have such a choice. Sexual access, procreation or abortions are decided by women alone. Men have no vote; they are dependent on female decisions, without having any voice in the process themselves. Men neither have a moral right for love, nor for procreation, nor having the children they father with them, nor a right in any decision about abortion (in cases where they don’t want to be father). Absent fathers are a resulting problem of society often leading to subsequent troubled childhoods and individuals for future generations to grapple with.
Because of these inherently biased perceptions, we are not even aware of how much unnecessary human misery is caused by feminist ideology and its precursors. There is no empathy for the male and especially the male loser, instead, there is denigration and even detestation.
Among indigenous people, it’s general that women are desired more. This is the basis of sexual competition and selection. A Maori-proverb tells: “As beautiful a man may be, he is not desired; as common a woman may be, the man will desire her.” … By transfering procreation to an institution based on economic capability of man, procreation was made a matter of social calculation and stopped being a form of selective breeding.
(Grete Meisel-Heß, “The Secual Crisis,” 1908, original title: „Die sexuelle Krise”)
First-wave-feminism criticized marriage for not focusing strongly enough on selective breeding with the male! Blatantly increasing the pressure of sexual selection it implicitly demanded on men, it lacked any commensurate pressure on fertile women, so the imbalance was increased. This would render more men becoming ‘unwanted’ and excluded from procreation, from sexual fulfillment and from feeling the warmth of plain love, and effectively disenfranchised them. Feminism opposed marriage for restoring some semblance of equilibrium to female dominance. Exaggerating rather than curtailing the already existing female dominance was, and still is, their true goal.
The basis of the medieval ideal of knighthood, of courtly love, was the principle of voluntary submission of the stronger sex under the weaker. … That men provide for the females is already common among higher developed animals. … Under any condition, whatever change may occure to the forms of sexual life, this viewpoint must be kept, especially regarding the women’s movement. The ideal of knighthood developed this principles to its highest form… The knighthood of old times turned into the galantery of today. And the modern gentleman is the epigone of the knight of old times. Indeed, he observes the forms and fomulars of the medieval knightly service … though often only, where the society controls it.
(Grete Meisel-Heß, „Die sexuelle Krise”, 1908, English: “The Sexual Crisis”)
She implicitly demands more control by society to force men to give even more privilege and dominance to women than they already had. She wants more privilege and dominance than women already possessed, due to a partly congenital biased perception, aggravated by strong prejudice of our civilization quoted above.
As told in an essay by Hermann , Earl Johann IV. of Habsburg was rejected by his bride, Herzland of Rappoltstein, “after he had held half a year of probation cohabitation with her, because she accused him of being unmanly” – These trials of fitness were historically needed in the development of inheritance laws to ensure succession. Also they seem justified for reasons of racial hygiene and individual reasons.
(op.cit., The Sexual Crisis, 1908)
Once again, selective breeding is propagated by selecting some men and discriminating other men. The motives backing this view are darker than they appear at first sight. They arise out of culture of race, ‘hygiene’ and the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century which latterly gave rise to racism and fascism.
Authors from this era of first-wave-feminism considered it to be self-evident that women were endangered and victims; that men should provide for them and submit to them as the stronger sex. They considered it self-evident, that there should be no breeding selection of women, but that it should be exclusively reserved for the male of the human species. Sexual selection, the domain of female dominance, was not only considered a female right – no equality offered at all in such matters – but it was intentionally increased and aggravated! An improvement of the “race” was sought by selecting only the strongest and most able men, discriminating against all other men, while doing nothing similar to women.
Also, feminist literature wasn’t about creating wealth, rather about redistributing, taking it away from men, who mostly worked to achieve it, so they can be accepted, have a family and share it with woman and family anyway. Redistributions of feminists had a contrary intention.
When the first feminist wave started, there was for decades a massive resistance, not by men as one might suppose, but by the majority of women. Instinctively they realized that something was wrong when pushing at the equilibrium of the sexes and that something important might collapse. Although at the time the biological ‘fallout’ and scientific cross connections were not clearly visible, and their arguments and goals were rather obscure, they nevertheless felt the onset of some kind of catastrophe – which was the underlying reason for their initially stiff resistance.
Once a vociferous, radical minority had eroded the resistance of the majority, no available levers could stop the unremitting process coming to its inexorable conclusion. Subsequent waves of feminism swept across the tinder dry landscape like a wildfire – blazing and razing all before it. Throughout all of society there was no serious unified resistance.
The equilibrium, built up over millennia, was completely overthrown to the point that resistance was no longer viable. The whole of civilization, had been put onto a slippery slope and then pushed with alacrity into the abyss. Whoever tried to resist, was simply run over in the stampede.
Please note, that no claim has been made, that the arguments, programme or goals of opponents of first wave feminism would have been correct or according today’s scientific standards; instead, it is proven, that in their era the equilibrium of society and between the sexes was overthrown and destroyed. Already the first feminist wave damaged society, culture and life, increased the disequilibrium of the sexes, enlarged female dominance, expanded domains of female dominance systematically, destroyed male counterweights and made opposition against later feminist waves almost impossible.
Source, Thanks And Further Readings
Robert Whiston has given some help in translating this article to English.
The above is an excerpt from my upcoming book which currently has the working title “Censored,” Volume 4 of “The Two Sexes.” (“Zensiert”, Band 4 der Reihe “Die beiden Geschlechter”) The important facts and fundamental premise are laid out in Volume 1, “Culture and Sex: Feminism’s Big Mistakes and its Severe Consequences.” (“Kultur und Geschlecht”, Band 1 der Reihe “Die beiden Geschlechter”) and Volume 2, entitled “Refutation of Feminist Ideolgy: The War Against Men, Nature and Culture” of a series headed “The Two Sexes.” (“Ideologiekritik am Feminismus: Krieg gegen Mann, Natur und Kultur”, Band 2 der Reihe Die beiden Geschlechter”)
A more detailed view on the impact of current feminism on cultures is given in Volume 3, „Die Genderung der Welt: Wie Feminismus weltweit Kulturen zerstört”. (“Gender-Mainstreaming the World: How Feminism Destroys the Cultures of the World”)
Apart from the topic of selection which this article dealt with, there are other important topics to be dealt with, where feminism has created lots of damage to human life, culture and society. Traditional culture, a common trait of all hominides, is based on the sexes complementing each other, a differentiation of labour, and an exchange of work, work results and responsibilities. Exchange itself (i.e. interaction) may be more important than what is exchanged. More than just of practical benefit, this mutual care is also symbolic and important for the development of feelings, responsibility and bonds in general, and it is the basis for cultural structures which are as important as (and comparable to) language. This is proven and explained in Volume 1 of “The Two Sexes.”
See Volume 1 and 2 of “The Two Sexes” („Die beiden Geschlechter”) by Jan Deichmohle, and “The Privileged Sex” by Martin van Creveld.
To paraphrase American researcher and author Warren Farrell; ‘feminists were the only side to turn up for an undeclared war’ – no wonder they won the first rounds! So obviously, with no rebuttal prepared, their apparent logic to explain the then situation appeared superior.
Jan Deichmohle, Buchserie “Die Wahlmacht der Frauen” (documentary fiction series “Female Choice”)
Jan Deichmohle, „Nein!”, Band 1 der Reihe „Die Wahlmacht der Frau”, English: “No!”
Similarly Donald Dutton’s 1986 Canadian study was delayed more than 10 years because it showed too clearly that women were more aggressive than men in terms of DV; and John Haskey (ONS) paper on single mothers was delayed for political reasons for several months.
A dislike of, or contempt for, or an ingrained prejudice against men (i.e. the male sex).
The National Organization for Women, founded 1966
Wallace, Alfred Russel (1823-1913), English naturalist wrote a famous article, ‘On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type’ (1858)
That’s subjecting men to a dictatorial female power of subjectively interpreting any harmless and well-intended move as a crime, even to re-interpret it as a crime in the future, whenever she feels like it. This is the end of justice based on objective facts and thereby the end of justice itself.
The Roman jurist, Gaius, observed “Maternity is a fact, paternity is a matter of opinion.”
The “5 P’s”. Boys learn they must Perform, Pursue, Protect, Prefer and Pay if they are to earn equality and the respect of a girls’ love. “Myth of Male Power : Why Men are the Disposable Sex” by Warren Farrell, p.166 (pub 1993). (http://www.warrenfarrell.org/TheBook/ ). See also books by George Gilder, Daniel Amneus etc.
“Der wilde Mann zeigt sich bei Iselin stets von seiner schlechtesten Seite. Er ist falsch, unbeständig, leichtgläubig, verwegen, feige, träge, zumindest, wenn er nicht gerade Krieg führt. Er ist „unfühlbar” gegen alles Schöne, hat einen „Geist der Zerstörung” und einen Hang zum Trinken und zum Aberglauben. (Iselin 1768, 244, 260, 204) … Sie tritt gleichsam als Gegenpol zum sinnlich-tyrannischen Mann auf, als Lichtgestalt im dunklen Reich der Triebe. Denn Frauen haben „Vorzüge”:
„Indessen ist es auch richtig, daß bey allen Völkern die Weibspersonen eher zu vernünftigen Beschäftigungen reif werden, als die Männer… Sie beobachtet so gar die Beschaffenheiten und die Verhältnisse der Dinge viel leichter und viel begieriger; ihr Gedächtniß behält dieselben viel besser auf; sie vergleichen dieselben viel geschwinder, und sie ziehen mit einer weit größeren Fertigkeit allgemeine Begriffe aus ihren Wahrnehmungen.” (Iselin 1768, 259)
Hinter dieser Vorstellung steckten konventionelle psychologische Annahmen der Zeit. Iselin berief sich explizit auf Autoritäten wie Sulzer, Mendelssohn und Baumgarten.” (Christoph Kucklick, Das unmoralische Geschlecht, S. 44 – 45)
“Schilderungen wie diese traten um 1800 stereotyp in den unterschiedlichsten Kontexten auf. Daß der tyrannische Mann die Frau im Naturzustand und in den meisten folgenden Epochen der Geschichte brutal versklavt – diese Auffassung ist mit Recht als „Enlightenment consensus” bezeichnet worden. (Tomaselli 1985 S. 121) Es fällt dabei auf, daß theoretische Ausgangsdifferenzen kaum einen Unterschied machen [denglisch, richtiger: ergeben]: ob französischer Sensualismus, deutsche Menschheitsgeschichte, schottischer Empirismus, Transzendentalphilosophie oder Sozialökonomie – in diesem Punkt konvergierte das Denken der Zeit… Im 19. Jahrhundert erhielt diese Sicht auf die Geschichte Eingang in Lexika und wurde kanonisch.” (Kucklick, S. 50 – 51)