Thoughts on why a ‘female psychology’ can’t be developed effectively

It seems there will never be a ‘female psychology’ developed, nor will something like a ‘model’ of the female mind be created.  Practically all of psychology, really, is male psychology.  There is just no way a female psychology can be created.  Its inability to be created is very reflective, I think, of the ‘female problem’. 

My own personal experience is that if you even say anything about the female, particularly as if you ‘know’ them, they will criticize you for it.  I’ve found that many females get defensive if you try to ‘explain’ their behaviour.  No matter if you’re right, it’s wrong.  I don’t even try to talk to females about it anymore.  It’s a waste of time.  Not only that, they never reveal anything anyways.    

If anyone develops a psychology that explains females then it will be criticized and condemned.  Any statement or principle of ‘female behaviour’ will be hacked to death.  I’ve seen many girls nickpick things to death, taking every nuance and detail they can and attempt to prove it wrong.  I found female psychology similar to religion and politics:  you just mention something and a dispute or argument automatically starts.  This is done by male and female alike. 

I’ve also heard quite a few girls say that we guys can never understand them.  So it doesn’t matter what we say, it’s wrong anyways.   Very often, I’ve seen many girls talk with pride that no one can understand them.

How can any sort of a psychology of the female be created under these conditions? 

It can’t.

In general, the female mind is not that reflective.  They don’t reflect a lot on who they are, how they behave, why they behave the way they do, and what it means.  Very seldom do I see this in a female.  The historical record does not show this either.   If I do see self reflection in a female, then it’s usually only for a specific situation.  It seems that self reflection is not a female quality.  The male, on the other hand, is very reflective.  The male reflective nature is what helped create things like religion, morality, law, and psychology.  It’s true to say that psychology was created by the male tendency to self reflection.  In order for a female psychology to develop we need the females to do some self reflection . . . but they don’t.

Often, when girls do reflect and try to ‘intellectualize’ what they do, it’s actually taken from a male point of view.  That is, they base everything on existing male created viewpoints.  And so, even with the females, they distort their own interpretation.  I’ve learned to be cautious of the females interpretation of themselves.

I’ve found that a lot of the so-called female psychology is usually an idealistic image of the female that emulates certain aspects about themselves.  In other words, it’s not a real psychology but an idealism in the name of psychology.  Many females want to hear good points about themselves and are unwilling to hear the bad aspects of themselves.  A big part of psychological inquiry is peering into the bad aspects of ourselves.  Many females are reluctant to do this I’ve found.  Frankly, I’ve hardly seen a female do it. 

There is usually a point, also, that the female will not go beyond.  There is an aspect of them that they want to keep hidden, even from themselves.   Talking about this stuff (like menstruation and how they react to them) can get quite a reaction.  Usually, these ‘protected’ areas are reacted in a defensive way, as if we’re threatening them.  A psychology cannot be developed until things like that are overcome. 

I’ve seen a lot of female psychological points of view based in the ideas of how they’d like to be treated and perceived, not how they really are.  I was always struck how a lot of female psychologists don’t seem to want to see how they really are. 

I’ve also seen a lot of female psychology is nothing but a display of anger against the world.  In other words, it’s like a platform for their grievances.  It can often be a means to do nothing but complain about their problems.

I can recall, when I was at the university studying psychology, that many interpretations of female behaviour was looked at from a legal/political point of view that was going on at the time.  It wasn’t really psychology at all but an interpretation based on legal/political thinking.  There were whole theories developed about the female taken from this angle.  All their happiness, worth, etc. were all determined if they were properly treated and perceived in the correct legal/political way.

This shows that behind the female is a great unrest and hidden conflict.  And, to add to that, it is unresolved, nor will it ever be resolved.  This is part of the ‘female problem’. 

I also found that you cannot rely on the female to help, nor do they offer much insight into themselves.   This means that a lot of female psychology is, really, a male observing the female at a distance.  One of the problems with this is that the male tends to project himself onto the female.  That is to say, he assumes she does things for the same reason he does, as if she were motivated by male concerns.  But . . . she’s not motivated by male concerns. 

Not only that, a lot of guys interpret females from cultural viewpoints.  A common one is the tendency for males to put the female on a pedestal.  They then interpret them from this point of view.  With this you can see that the male, himself, often hinders the ability for a female psychology to develop as well.

It’s true that males definitely contribute to the inability to develop a female psychology as well.   Frankly, many males don’t have an inkling about why females behave the way they do.  They may have interpretations for this and that behaviour but I’ve never seen a ‘model’ of the female mind created by the male (or by the female, for that matter).

What it looks like is that there is a haze that surrounds the female, created by both the male and female.  In this haze, a lot of illusion is as if created which actually, in the end, only adds to the haze.   This haze isn’t good for the develoment of a psychology.

This entry was posted in Psychology and psychoanalysis, The male and female and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s