Thoughts on how the Queens of England helped to create a pussy-whipped male and a spoiled female

There have been three times in England’s history that Queens have sat on the throne for very long periods of time.  These queens are Elizabeth I, Victoria, and Elizabeth II.  It appears to me that they have had great, and far-reaching influence, on British and British-derived society (such as the U.S.).  Because their reigns were so long the attitudes developed during that time became very ‘implanted’ in the society as a whole.  This is particularly so as, in English Society, the Monarch, and the attitudes toward the Monarch, were often a model for everyday associations (particularly in recent times).  Because of this, the attitudes developed during their reigns were influential in the society as a whole.

Because they are Queens, and so female, it “upset” the normal hierarchy and behaviour toward authority.  We must remember that ‘organized society’, the world over, is created by the males.  It reflects male mentality and temperament.  As a result, having a female “in charge” tended to upset this normal pattern, often causing a whole readjustment to people’s point of view of things.  This is because there is a natural tendency to treat the female differently than the male.  As a result, all the nobility had to ‘change’ its perspectives toward authority from a ‘male dominant’ attitude to a ‘female dominant’ attitude.  Despite how trivial this may seem there are great, and tremendous, differences between the two.  This fact eventually changed people’s attitudes, behaviour, and points of view toward authority.  Because society is male-based, these changes were most significant with the male.

THE DIFFERENT REACTIONS TO MALE AND FEMALE AUTHORITY

When there is a King the males display a number of qualities, it seems.  These include:

  • They are more subservient and ‘obeying’.
  • They see themselves as ‘part of the group’ and so try to fit into their ‘niche’.  This made the male more ‘tethered’, so to speak, to the Monarch, often unwilling to ‘go on their own’.
  • The faithfulness toward the King is more ‘serious’.  This means they took it as something that ‘had to be done’ and nothing to look at lightly.
  • The King is looked at as a centralized character.
  • Because of this tendency to feel ‘below a King’ it can make some males feel a contempt for things and feel taken advantage of.

When there is a Queen, there seems to be a change in the males behaviour.  These include:

  • They are not quite as ‘subservient’ and ‘obeying’.  They will do as required but it’s not done with the conviction that’s done with a male.  They don’t “snap to it” like with a King.
  • They don’t see themselves as ‘part of a group’ necessarily.  This, it seems, has made many guys ‘go on their own’ during the reigns of Queens.  They don’t feel ‘tethered’ to the Monarch.
  • Their faithfulness is not as serious, but more ‘heartfelt’, often seeming something more like the ‘love of ones mother’.
  • The Queen is not looked at as a centralizing character.
  • Because the female presence is not as powerful there’s often a sense of ‘we can get away with anything we want’.

Even my observations of people, nowadays, show a similar pattern.  I’ve noticed some of these qualities even in myself.  It shows that the “authority” of the female is not the same as with the male.   Hence, they are reacted to in different ways. 

An interesting effect of this difference of behaviour happened during the Queens reigns.  As I said above, the guys did not see themselves as ‘tethered’ to a Queen in charge, which made them more likely to ‘go on their own’.  This made some guys go beyond what they would of done during a Kings reign, who they would see as ‘above’ them.  This, incidentally, seemed to make the males more creative and make more discoveries oftentimes.  In addition, it also made the guys more willing to create committees and organizations in the government which, oddly enough, made the growing government work even better.  What this means is that the reigns of the Queens did help the growth of England, not because of what the Queens did, but of what it made the guys do.  This behaviour probably would not of taken place as easily with a King in charge, as they would of been more subservient and ‘tethered’ to his authority.

QUEEN ELIZABETH I

It seems to me that the reign of Queen Elizabeth I seemed significant in the fact that guys primarily ‘went on their own’.  Males tended to be more ‘daring’ in creativity and discovery during this time.  The sense of ‘tethering’, which was normally there with a King, was absent.  This created, in a way, a sense of ‘rebellion’ or even a ‘freedom’ which seemed to give the Elizabethan era a unique quality never before seen, particularly because it lasted so long.

I also feel that it was during her reign that the idea of the ‘state’ (versus the Monarchy) became very dominant.  This is because the female is not generally viewed as a centralizing character.  As a result, Queen Elizabeth I became, in a way, more like a symbol, a representation.  Because of this, the need for power and centralizing was changed from the Monarch to the State.  This pattern of thought would eventually became a blow to the Monarchy in England, which would eventually lead to the basic ‘de-powering’ of the Monarchy in England as a whole.  In some sense, a person could say that the current powerlessness of the Monarch in England is related to the attitudes toward the ‘female-as-authority’ that began during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.

But, at the same time, there became this quality of ‘worshipping Her Majesty’.  In other words, with the female power there was no real acknowledgment or belief in the ‘power’, as we see with a male.  As a result, the attitude toward the Queen became, in  a sense, a ‘worshipping’, which is really nothing but an empty honoring.  In this ‘worshipping’ she became a ‘symbol’ of the state.  As such, the loving and respectful feelings toward the state would be displayed toward this ‘symbol’, the Queen.  This, in a way, is not a display of the ‘power’ of the Monarch but of the ‘loving’ of a Monarch, which is not the same thing.  In ‘worshipping’ she becomes only the ’emblem’ of loving and not much more.

And so, during Queen Elizabeth I reign we see:

  • The devaluing of authority.
  • The replacing of authority with ‘worshipping’.

Most of these attitudes, we must remember, were only found in the nobility and upper classes who were associated with the Monarch.  In the common people, this attitude is almost completely absent.

QUEEN VICTORIA

Queen Victoria, as a person, had little to do with the affairs of the State.  But, interestingly, it was during Queen Victoria’s reign that the pussy whipped mentality began to flourish and grow the most.  This is because of the rise, apparently, of the Bourgeoise who were the rich merchant class which became very stong after the Napoleonic wars.  A hallmark trait of the Bourgeoise is that, since they had money and could afford it, they began to ape the nobility.  They began to imitate, dress, walk, talk, and have the attitudes of the nobility.  They also became fascinated with images of nobility, such as with the image of the knight and the lady.

And, in so aping the nobility, they ‘took’ a lot of noble attitudes.  Some of these were the remnants of attitudes developed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.  The attitude of ‘worshipping’ the Queen began anew.  It, though, would be intensified by some new attitudes.

One of these attitudes was the Knights reverence and ‘worship’ of his Lady (wife, girlfriend, or what have you), which was part of the romantic knightly image that the Bourgeoise seemed to prize so much.  This attitude made guys put the female on a pedestal, almost like a saint or even a goddess.  It inspired many romantic feelings, poems, and stories, which were very prevalent during the Victorian era.  Many guys saw themselves as ‘knights’ serving not only his Lady but his Monarch, the Queen, who can, in a way, be described as the ‘great Lady’.  As such, the ‘worshipping’ of ones Lady and the Queen became almost synonymous and identical acts of the same attitude.  The presence of the Queen reaffirmed and supported this ideal of ‘worshipping’.  And, so, during Queen Victoria’s reign we see the ‘worship’ or, rather, sucking up to the female, as having two dominant origins:

  1. The presence of the Queen.
  2. The bourgeoise attitude of ‘honoring their Lady’ by the ‘Knight’.

Though this was done with good intentions it started a pattern of behaviour that slowly turned the male into a guy who ‘sucked up’ to the female.  Slowly, over time, the male/female relationship in bourgeoise society became a ‘caricature’ of this knight/Lady relationship, the male having to ‘bow down’ toward the Lady, and worshipping her.  This, to me, is one of the main qualities of Victorian society.

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

The reign of Queen Elizabeth II seems to had little influence.  In non-British countries, such as the U.S., there is absolutely no influence whatsoever.  Overall, though, Her reign seems to be a lessening of the power and influence of the Monarchy and the rise of the modern world which, in a way, has offset the Monarchs influence in British society.  The next Monarch after her will probably be almost like a nothing.  There have also been talks about getting rid of the Monarchy altogether, such is the lessening of the Monarchs power.  I doubt this will happen as the Monarchy has become a matter of national pride and identity.

THE EFFECTS OF IT ALL

In all cases, we seem to see a generalized change after a Queens reign.  One of these changes is that it made guys ‘worship’ the Monarch and put them on a pedestal, beginning in the reign of Elizabeth I and flowering during the reign of Victoria.  This mentality went in stages.  It began exclusively in the nobility at first.  During the reign of Victoria it would transfer to the bourgeoise.  At the end of her reign, and particularly after her death, it would spread into the general culture of the common people and became quite prevalent in society.

This ‘worshipping’, though, created a character of male who ‘sucked up’ to the female in general.  This ‘sucking up’ would became a trait of what we call ‘pussy whipped’ today, of a guy who does whatever his wife or girlfriend wants.  They will also ‘shower’ them with praise and gifts and such.  Even today, it is done almost as if to a Monarch, in complete submission.  It makes the male look almost cowering-like.

Not only that, this ‘pussy whipped’ ‘worshipping’ of the female has turned the female into a difficult spoiled-like brat in general.  It’s made many girls very conceited, vain, and often arrogant.  This is seen a lot in the U.S. and in England where girls piss and moan over the smallest of things.  They often act like they expect the world to bow down to them.  They also often expect everything to be given to them.

So we see that this mentality has slowly created a cowering pussy-whipped male character and a spoiled femaleThese attitudes are quite prevalent and powerful so much that they effect relationships, marriages, and associations between the sexes.  They’ve also begun to cause an erosion between the sexes.  In some ways, it’s causing a splitting of the sexes.

This entry was posted in Historical stuff, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, The male and female, Victorianism and Victorian society and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s