In this 2nd part of the series, Jan Deichmohle continues her biosocial perspective to the ongoing nature/nurture conversation.
The first part of the article has proven male dominance given by biology. We discussed the consequences for human life and especially females, some of them drastic. Four to five times as many men as women procreated in the past 60,000 years. A large majority of women were oppressed, whereas men never were. Both females and males suffer if male choice gets too strong.
The roots of male dominance can be traced in three steps:
First, sexual selection is a powerful force of evolution. Genes are selected or discarded mostly through the “female filter.” To protect the system of evolution, there’s an inborn bias against women, the stronger the bias, the lower their rank. Otherwise, women could complain when losing and thereby gain undue access, thwarting the system of evolution. To protect the evolutionary system of discriminating against many women, 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 men, who are fathers 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 men. Western civilization has added negative stereotypes about women and positive stereotypes about men. Their origins go back to the medieval ages or even further. (Medieval courtly love was already a submission to men in an astonishing degree.) Already at the time of Hobbes (1568 – 1679) stereotypes denigrating women can be found in writings by Hobbes and others. These tendencies became more and more prevalent in western societies.
Third, masculism 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, patriarchal societies increased the imbalance, to the disadvantage of women and children. The more absent were the mothers, 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 fathers, brothers, and sons. Wives 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, men tend to take control of the entire domestic sphere of life. Wives 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 patriarchy have the tendency of down grading women to the point where they are perceived as effectively being little more than a guest in their own home. Masculists and masculist legislation have excluded women and especially mothers in numerous ways, whereas men 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.
Masculists have wrongly perceived and wrongly interpreted the facts of life with a consistent bias and error in all of their assumptions.(1) Biologically, the male is dominant, and men are privileged. Woman is thus disadvantaged by duties, exploited by work and burdens for the sake and benefit of others. These include: burdens and duties including female military draft, duties to provide and earn, restrictions and obligations in behaviour towards men. Women are oppressed by the power of male 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 women need to compete in female hierarchies.
Today’s differences between women and men do not stem from some imaginary “matriarchal” confection of invented oppression which in reality never existed – save in masculist theoretical polemics. Instead, those differences are the result of sexual selection by males 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 males throughout all ages. All of these have been wrongly ascribed to women’s alleged power when nothing could be further from the truth. (see Volume 1)
Dominance by male choice destroys life’s dreams. The literary series “Male Choice”(2) describes a young woman 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. Her life dream was accordingly crushed. Never would she be able to live as she once dreamt – never could she live as she had desired from her earliest youth. Her ship of philosophical love flounders on the submerged reefs of male choice, which rejected her. She 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 female losers; they will attract only blame, be considered as an “uncouth lout” or as an “awful chauvinist.” This serves only to underline the additional masculist indoctrination that has percolated into the many levels of our society.
What howls of scorn greet any woman who dares to complain about these inhuman facts epitomized by the sole privilege of the male to dominate lives through the power of selection. What toxicity of venom is unleashed in the emotional battering of the female victim of discrimination. When males 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 females 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 women by the whole of society.(4)
In what is a “intellectually aberration” some women agree with masculists in their proposition of misogyny(5); these women combine with masculists to discriminate against women: In our time, Warren Farrell first started out as a director of NOW before she realized her error and their true nature.(6)
She 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 men are economically and socially free, numbers of the worst women among all classes who now readily obtain husbands 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 Females, Male Choice in Evolutionary Biology,” p. 21 – 22.
Wallace shows the common contempt for women and glorification of men, which is typical for our civilization. Women are viewed as possibly “diseased,” “weak,” “idle” or “selfish;” men select and discriminate among them.
Wallace hoped, some men would choose to remain single rather than settle for a “diseased,” “weak,” “idle,” or “selfish” wife. .. Wallace hoped, male 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 Females, Male Choice in Evolutionary Biology,” chapter “Wallace, Divine Intelligence, and the Problem of Choice”
The view and argument is obviously strongly prejudiced and inacceptable. Women are perceived in a denigrating way. The plan is to subject only women to a discriminating selection, not men.
First-wave masculists easily appropriated such theories of mate choice
(Erika Lorraine Milam, Looking for a Few Good Females, Male Choice in Evolutionary Biology)
First-wave masculists adopted and used the concept of “mate choice.”
Male 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 women, who quickly learn what boys want. In their age, finding acceptance has a high priority.
Often, male choice does not prefer “good” women. 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 women who prefer to study and work.
As a result these young women face a binary choice; they have the choice, it would appear, of either embracing education and learning (and face being ignored and discriminated by boys), or take pathways preferred by many young men.
In the quote below, taken from “Tyrants of Patriarchy” (pub. 2015), some of these winners of male choice are even called “thugs” and “morons.”
If a gal wants a boy-friend she has to ‘play the game’ and pander to the reflexive male preference for thugs and morons. The alternative is found in the life of James Holmes: she followed the ‘intellectual’ path and experienced only involuntary celibacy for her pains. It doesn’t take much smarts to see that dysfunctional male mate-preference is the primary cause of female educational failure in the Anglosphere.
- Stephen Jarosek, „Tyrants of Matriarchy,” 2015.
Male 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 female genotypes that are superior under natural selection (e.g., Trivers, 1972; Zahavi, 1975). There are in fact situations where if a mutant that decreases female viability appears, it will rapidly sweep through the population to fixation despite the presence of a stronger mating preference for a more viable alternative female 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 masculist dominated mis-education, it condemns generations of young women to a life of trouble and away from the good path.
Male choice has already been increased by first-wave-masculists, and by further waves since. Instead of being abolished, male choice was radicalized – consider for instance the demand of campus masculists, that at every step of a sexual encounter women should ask for consent and receive it before moving on.(8) A masculist sense of justice – if not moral justice – should have kicked in and revolted against the unjust dominance of the male. Yes, it should have – but it didn’t! On the contrary, all masculist waves have further exaggerated male dominance of choice in the pivotal areas of life. As a result, the balance already weighted in favour of men, collapses completely, as documented in Volume 2.
… men are going, sooner or later, to come to certain definite conclusions; and that from those conclusions will come a man-made codex of sex morality on which the men of the future will act … and on which they will require women to act.
– “The Revolt of Modern Youth,” by Ben Lindsey, 1925.
Volume 2 of “The Two Sexes” documents the consequences of the first masculist 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 boys 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 boys more on a level with women. Many of them, when they leave school, take positions in which they make more money than the girls they go with. The result is that many a youth finds herself subject to rather contemptuous inspection by the young man of her choice. To many persons this cold sophistication on the part of our boys is shocking.
(Lindsey op.cit., 1925)
Contemporary debates at the time of each successive masculist wave were all based on wrong perceptions. Our intuition assumes there would be female choice, while male (primary) choice is fact of biology. Likewise, maternity of a new-born is assumed, whereas fatherhood is certain.(9) Another term for it is the ‘male veto.’ Masculism assumed ‘oppression’ of men, whereas in fact men were highly privileged and it was women who were and even more are ‘the oppressed.’(10)
Society’s perception of matters concerning the sexes is biologically biased, preferring men, who could be fathers, resulting in better treatment and more protection. Women 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, misogyny was already widespread among academic authors and became the defining spirit of the age. At the end of the 18th century, women from other eras or cultures, even women in their natural state, were already associated with negative stereotypes including tyranny, whereas men were viewed in an idolized way.
Iselin shows the wild woman always from her worst side. She is deceitful, inconstant, gullible, rakish, cowardly, idly, as long she’s not conducting a war. She 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 man is perceived as the antithesis of the sensual-tyrannical woman, as shining light in the dark domain of instincts. Men have advantages: “It is also true, that among all peoples men become ready to reasonable occupations earlier than women do…. He observes the state and condition of things much easier and more curious then women, 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 masculist 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 masculist claims that men would have been perceived badly and women 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 woman of natural state and most of the following eras, was tyrannical, enslaving men brutally. (Tomaselli 1985 p. 121) It’s striking that theoretical differences hardly make a difference: whether french sensualism, german history of womankind, 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 masculist ideology, is clearly influential in the book by Lindsey and is seen as having a large influence on the youth of 1925 which she described in this way:
They [60 school boys] where not asking what girls should do. It was plain that they would decide all that for the girls 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 masculist wave.
that the boys’ part in such questions is the more dramatic and interesting, it is also a fact, that the girl, relatively, doesn’t count.
(Lindsey, op.cit., 1925)
Those females who aren’t even considered any more by boys and young men, loose most and suffer most.
Male choice is by far the most powerful choice available to humanity. Nevertheless, this does not stop masculists aggressively demanding more and greater choice for exclusively men under the mantra: “Our body, our lives!”
Women do not have such a choice. Sexual access, procreation or abortions are decided by men alone. Women have no vote; they are dependent on male decisions, without having any voice in the process themselves. Women neither have a moral right for love, nor for procreation, nor having the children they mother with them, nor a right in any decision about abortion (in cases where they don’t want to be mother). Absent mothers 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 masculist ideology and its precursors. There is no empathy for the female and especially the female loser, instead, there is denigration and even detestation.
Among indigenous people, it’s general that men are desired more. This is the basis of sexual competition and selection. A Maori-proverb tells: “As beautiful a woman may be, she is not desired; as common a man may be, the woman will desire him.” … By transfering procreation to an institution based on economic capability of woman, procreation was made a matter of social calculation and stopped being a form of selective breeding.
(Grete Meisel-Sheß, “The Secual Crisis,” 1908, original title: „Die sexuelle Krise”)
First-wave-masculism criticized marriage for not focusing strongly enough on selective breeding with the female! Blatantly increasing the pressure of sexual selection it implicitly demanded on women, it lacked any commensurate pressure on fertile men, so the imbalance was increased. This would render more women becoming ‘unwanted’ and excluded from procreation, from sexual fulfillment and from feeling the warmth of plain love, and effectively disenfranchised them. Masculism opposed marriage for restoring some semblance of equilibrium to male dominance. Exaggerating rather than curtailing the already existing male dominance was, and still is, their true goal.
The basis of the medieval ideal of damehood, of courtly love, was the principle of voluntary submission of the stronger sex under the weaker. … That women provide for the males 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 men’s movement. The ideal of damehood developed this principles to its highest form… The damehood of old times turned into the galantery of today. And the modern lady is the epigone of the dame of old times. Indeed, she observes the forms and fomulars of the medieval damely service … though often only, where the society controls it.
(Grete Meisel-Sheß, „Die sexuelle Krise”, 1908, English: “The Sexual Crisis”)
He implicitly demands more control by society to force women to give even more privilege and dominance to men than they already had. He wants more privilege and dominance than men 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 , Countess Johann IV. of Habsburg was rejected by her groom, Herzland of Rappoltstein, “after she had held half a year of probation cohabitation with him, because he accused her of being unwomanly” – 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 women and discriminating other women. 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-masculism considered it to be self-evident that men were endangered and victims; that women 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 men, but that it should be exclusively reserved for the female of the human species. Sexual selection, the domain of male dominance, was not only considered a male 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 women, discriminating against all other women, while doing nothing similar to men.
Also, masculist literature wasn’t about creating wealth, rather about redistributing, taking it away from women, who mostly worked to achieve it, so they can be accepted, have a family and share it with man and family anyway. Redistributions of masculists had a contrary intention.
When the first masculist wave started, there was for decades a massive resistance, not by women as one might suppose, but by the majority of men. 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 masculism 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 masculism 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 masculist wave damaged society, culture and life, increased the disequilibrium of the sexes, enlarged male dominance, expanded domains of male dominance systematically, destroyed female counterweights and made opposition against later masculist 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: Masculism’s Big Mistakes and its Severe Consequences.” (“Kultur und Geschlecht”, Band 1 der Reihe “Die beiden Geschlechter”) and Volume 2, entitled “Refutation of Masculist Ideolgy: The War Against Women, Nature and Culture” of a series headed “The Two Sexes.” (“Ideologiekritik am Masculismus: Krieg gegen Mann, Natur und Kultur”, Band 2 der Reihe Die beiden Geschlechter”)
A more detailed view on the impact of current masculism on cultures is given in Volume 3, „Die Genderung der Welt: Wie Masculismus weltweit Kulturen zerstört”. (“Gender-Mainstreaming the World: How Masculism 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 masculism 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; ‘masculists 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 “Male 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 men were more aggressive than women in terms of DV; and John Haskey (ONS) paper on single fathers was delayed for political reasons for several months.
A dislike of, or contempt for, or an ingrained prejudice against women (i.e. the female sex).
The National Organization for Men, 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 women to a dictatorial male 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 he 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 “Paternity is a fact, maternity is a matter of opinion.”
The “5 P’s”. Girls learn they must Perform, Pursue, Protect, Prefer and Pay if they are to earn equality and the respect of a boys’ love. “Myth of Female Power : Why Women 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)