Response to a reply to my article “Thoughts on the importance of defined sexual roles” – female identity problems and the “politically justified neurosis”

Every so often I receive a reply that cries out for an article.  I received one such reply for my article “Thoughts on the importance of defined sexual roles” that revealed so many issues that they are worth pointing out.  In fact, this reply brings together many themes that I have written about over the years.  Because my intention is only to point out some themes that were written I will only paraphrase what she said, as there is nothing ‘personal’ in this, nor is there any ‘attack’ intended.  The person who replied happened to mention some themes that are worth noting.  Basically what the reply says is this:

“The destruction of sexual roles was a good thing because it now allows us to choose what role we want to take (male or female).  This has allowed us to become free human beings.”

This statement brings a number of themes:

  • The destruction of sexual roles. 
  • That we can “choose” our sexual roles. 
  • That the ability to choose is a matter of “freedom”, which justifies the destruction of sexual roles. 

These all reflects philosophies of destruction of the current society, individualism, free will, and freedom (no doubt hinting at democracy), which are philosophies developed in Western Europe during the Protestant Reformation/Enlightenment era (I wrote about some aspects of these themes in some articles I wrote called “.Thoughts on how the ‘enlightment’ was motivated by the failure of Christianity” and “Thoughts on the similarity between democracy and socialism/communism“).  A remark like this, with these themes, will most likely be from a person from areas influenced by this point of view, which is the U.S. or England, in particular, or somewhere influenced by these countries.  Because of the emphasis on “freedom” I’m inclined to think that the person is from the U.S. as that country has a made a religion out of freedom and democracy.  In reality, though, these points of view are really a continuation of the attitudes that developed after the Protestant Reformation, though applied in another direction, showing that we are very much influenced by the Protestant Reformation/Enlightenment era, even though that was 200-500-years ago!  The basic traits shown in this statement, reflecting conditions during the Protestant Reformation/Enlightenment, are:

  • That the original traditional society is to be destroyed (originally referring to the Catholic Church).
  • That we can create something new to replace the old beliefs (they originally tried to replace the Catholic belief system with other belief systems like science).
  • That what a person thinks is everything and everything should revolve around the people (these were ideas of individualism, freedom, and democracy – the “new Christianity”).

These show that these points of view are actually based on a political/historical point of view and that’s a good point to start with the themes it brings up:


For years I have said, and joked, about how during the cold war and in response to Soviet Communism, the U.S. so elevated its political ideals that people often thought it went beyond nature and can surpass it.  Here is a good example.  In the reply she says, basically, that to be “free” (an American political ideal) we can transgress nature and deny our natural sexual traits and “choose” which we want to be.  In short, “freedom” transgresses nature . . . or, in other words, political ideology is more powerful than nature.  Oddly, many years ago I made a joke about just this same thing, that “soon Americans will think they can choose what sex they are and maybe, perhaps, what species of animals they want to be . . . such is the miraculous power of American freedom!!!”.  Well, what was once a joke has now become reality.

During the cold war the U.S. so glorified its political ideals that it often was viewed as above nature and god.  Anything in the name of freedom and democracy was automatically “right” and “good” and could “achieve anything”, even defy nature and god.  They turned it into the greatest of all things, the ultimate, surpassing everything.  This caused a tendency of blind exaltation and glorification of American political theory, giving it power it doesn’t have.  They made it the answer-all, the all-solution, to all life’s problems.  Even now look at how many Americans seem to think that freedom and democracy will solve the worlds problems!  If there are any problems in the world . . . let the people vote and their problems will disappear . . . freedom and democracy, the answer to everything!

This point of view, of elevation American political ideals, has caused many problems for America (and even much of the world, who had to have these views imposed on them, sometimes with military force).  It has made many people think that, as individuals, they can do anything and be anything . . . they’re “free” remember . . . they can vote . . . they have the power of the ultimate idea:  freedom and democracy!  This has gone so far that some people think they can become whatever they want to be, even to the point of denying who they are.  This is reflected in the reply above, that one sex can “choose” to be another sex . . . let freedom ring!

For some people, this idea has become an avenue for personal issues and problems.  In other words, the idea that a person can be whatever they want to be, in the name of freedom, caters to some people’s identity problems and personal issues.  What’s worse, it gives “politically justification” for their problem.  Because it is “politically justified” it as if makes their ‘solution’ (such as that they can be whatever they want to be, however ridiculous) acceptable and gives it ‘official sanction’.  In effect, what we see is a particular type of problem develop, what I call “politically justified neurosis”, where people use political theory and justification to justify their ailment and its ‘solution’.

In addition, socially, this elevation of American ideals has made it so that many Americans think they can just change anything in society that they don’t like.  This includes things like tradition, custom, belief, and sexual roles.  In the 70’s, for example, you used to hear repetitively of people saying that “this needs to change”, “that needs to change”, etc., etc.  In effect, all they were saying was to hack up society and cut it to pieces (which is exactly they did).  So what happened is that this idea of freedom, the great ultimate idea in the world, ended up fragmenting American society and broke it apart.  Being that it was done in the name of freedom meant that it was OK.  Remember, it was “politically justified”.  In fact, I can remember people glorifying the destruction of the ‘old society’ (the traditional society of our parents), like it was some great thing and a great cause and that once it’s destroyed we’ll all become “free”.  Not only that, to further its involvement with the idea of freedom the ‘old society’ was often made out as an oppressive discriminatory society to fit into their political theory.  But, with all their high and mighty talk about freedom, though, they have not replaced what they destroyed with anything and have left us with a broken down, fragmented, and partial society (I’ve talked about this in my article “Thoughts on my saying, “The U.S. has done great effort to destroy human things but they’ve done nothing to replace what they’ve destroyed” – America’s self-destructive mentality“).  But what it created was a willingness to blindly destroy social institutions and not give a thought about it.  This is reflected in the reply above as well, of destroying sexual roles, which have been here since the beginning of time all over the world, and not give a thought about it at all . . . freedom and democracy for all!

It’s interesting to note that this reply was by a female.  This is not surprising.  This is because females are a major player in keeping these destructive and ‘out-dated’ cold war “freedom”viewpoints alive.  I’ve written an article on this theme called “Thoughts on the 70′s mentality and its continuation” which talks about this.

What all this shows is how the cold war era has started a great ball rolling that abuses America’s political theory and ideals that continues on down to today.  It distorts the political ideas of freedom and democracy by things like exaggeration, exaltation, and unrealistic ideas turning it into something it is not nor was it ever intended to be.  In effect, it has created a new type of freedom and democracy, malformed and distorted, unrealistic, fanatical, extreme, and sometimes ‘mad’, such as saying we can choose our sexual roles.


This reply reveals the identity problems of females.  As I have said elsewhere (“The question of female identity“) the female is now having serious identity problems, much worse than the males.  Many females have lost all sense of what it means to be a female both as a person and as a human being.  When this happens they typically do things such as:

  • They try to be a man.
  • The see femininity as bad and horrible.

Either way, they tend to move away from being female.  In many cases, it becomes a “flight from femininity” fleeing it like the plague, often acting as if it will harm them in some way and acting as if were a threat.  With the political viewpoints they can now politically justify these two actions above, making it sound legitimate turning it into a “politically justified neurosis”.  Because its politically justified the sense of threat is often reinterpreted in a political way, as oppression or something else that agrees with the freedom and democracy line of thought.   In this way, their personal problems are made out as a political issue, which it is not.  But, legitimate sounding or not, in doing this, they actually move away from themselves and who they are.  As a result, a lot of female identity problems is a “game” of self-deception, of trying to pretend that they have qualities they don’t have.  In that way, they are on a dead-end road.  Though it may seem to ‘work’ now, it will eventually fail.

But this “flight from femininity” is one of the reasons why the female, especially, views the idea of “choosing” sexual roles in such an appealing way.  In the midst of identity problems, it allows them to flee the “threat” of femininity and deceive themselves into thinking that they are men or like men, which is as far away from femininity as they can get.  In that way, it seems that their problem disappears and is non-existent.  But this is all an illusion.  My observation of American females now is showing that many females are finding that this path doesn’t work and that it is causing a whole new crisis for many of them.  They are finding themselves with nowhere to go.

One of the interesting things about females is that when a female loses their sexual identity then they tend to see that everyone else, in their minds, loses their sexual identity as well.  In this way, females are a threat to their own sexuality and to everyone elses.  This is one reason why females tend to ‘spear-head’ the destruction of sexual identity.  This shows that when a female tries to destroy or undermine everyone elses sexual identity it’s usually a sign that they are having identity problems.

The reply also says that in the “freedom” of choosing our sexual identity we become “free” human beings.  If you notice that it assumes that we become human beings based on political theory.  In other words, this is a political-oriented viewpoint, that politics turns us into human beings.  In other words, its saying that our identity is based on political theory.  But our identity is not based in political theory.  This shows how America, in its glorification of its political theory, has created the idea of the “politically based identity”, that politics is the base of who we are.  It all sounds good in political theory but that’s not how it is in the real world.  What we then see is a “politically justified” movement away from our natural identity and an attempt at transforming our identity according to political theory.  In this way, it treats people s identities like it were nothing or something like clay that could be moulded into any shape the political situation required.  The idea of “picking and choosing” our roles, as reflected in the reply above, shows this idea of treating identities like nothing or moulding it like clay.  It shows a devaluation and degradation of human identities. 


This statement also assumes that sexual roles are “placed” on a person.  In other words, a person is made into a male or female, as if society ‘programs’ it into us, teaches us to be this way.  This neglects the obvious fact that sexual roles are there because of innate tendencies, that the male has qualities the female doesn’t have and vice versa.  In that way, it is a denial of even the awareness that there are innate differences between the sexes.

My reaction to this is much like a scene that took place in a comedy by Monty Python called “Life of Brian”.  In this scene, there are some people talking at a Gladiator fight.  One of them, named Stan, mentions he wants to be a woman.  It then goes on:

Stan:  I want to be a woman.  From now on I want you all to call me Loretta.

Reg:  What?

Stan:  Its my right as a man.

Judith:  Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

Stan:  I want to have babies.

Reg:  You want to have babies?????!!!

Stan:  It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.

Reg:  But you can’t have babies.

Stan:  Don’t you oppress me.

Reg:  I’m not oppressing you, Stan – you haven’t got a womb.  Where’s the foetus going to gestate?  You going to keep it in a box?

Judith:  Here!  I’ve got an idea.  Suppose that you agree that he cannot have babies, not having a womb, which is nobodies fault, not even the Roman’s, but that he can have the right to have babies.

Francis:  Good idea, Judith.  We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother.  Sister, sorry.

Reg:  What’s the point?

Francis:  What?

Reg:  Whats the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?

Francis:  It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

Reg:  It is symbolic of his struggle against reality.

I have always loved this scene and felt it showed great insight in the mentality we see a lot of today.  It shows a number of points relating to the reply:

  • A problem with ones sexual identity.
  • Making a political issue out of it (its “oppression” and his “right”).
  • It’s a denial of reality.

These three points particularly show how personal problems are made out as political issues which is the basis for “politically justified neurosis”.  This same theme is seen in the reply.  In many ways, the reply is repeat of the scene from “Life of Brian”.

Also note that Reg was accused of being an ‘oppressor’ for disagreeing that Stan, another example of an attempt at making a political issue out of a personal problem.  This is seen a lot with females, especially feminists, who are very accusatory and use political theory like some sort of weapon.  If anything contradicts their viewpoint then they see it as a threat.  As a result, they whip out political theory like it’s a gun.

But, more importantly, the statement reflects that it is a struggle against reality.  It is a denial of natural inclinations and tendencies.  In the end, it’s a denial of who you are. 


The destruction of sexual identity, it seems to me, has caused an increased in what I call the “pseudo-gay”, which are people that think that they are gay but are not naturally gay.  The female identity crisis often seems to lead to this.  The reply above shows an example of why this is the case, when people think they can ‘pick and choose’ their sexuality, what do you think this will lead to . . .  firm and strong sexual identities?  Not only that, when sexuality is not viewed in definites then how can one view oneself or others in a definite way . . . male-male, male-female, female-female . . . who can tell the difference, nothings definite?  As a result, . . . gay . . . straight . . . what’s the difference?  In a way, the idea of ‘picking and choosing’ sexual roles reflects nothing but a blurring of sexual roles, where none is defined or known.   Because of this, its sort of preaching the destruction of sexual roles.  I wrote an article on the female pseudo-gay called “Thoughts on the female threat to female identity: feminism and the pseudo-gay modern lesbian” that you might find interesting.


Now, I know enough about the female character to know that what the lady who replied is doing is blindly following society or, rather, trend.  She does this by way of the glorification of ‘freedom’, which is so popular in America, in particular (especially since the terrorist attacks).  And so she is basically following social trend.  She does this to the point of taking a philosophy that is sort of preaching her own destruction of who she is.  This shows how, in this media-crazed society, the female has placed following trend even before themselves.  This trend following in females has almost reached mania proportions.  I’ve always joked that if it was a trend for females to jump off cliffs then they’d be doing it in droves.  Because it is social trend it is OK . . . she’s following the herd and that’s all that matters.

This blind following reveals a fact.  One of the problems with female character is that they rely on the identity of other people as a major element in their identity.  I generally associate this with what I call the ‘Partial Mind’ (I wrote and article on this called “Thoughts on the female ‘flight from self’ – The Principle of the ‘Partial Mind’“) and what I call the ‘Principle of the Other’ (I wrote an article on this called “More thoughts on the difference between male and female – the principle of ‘expression’ and the ‘other’“).  Both of these, I believe, originate from the innate motherly instinct in the female (which, of course, is not found in the male . . . that is to say, a male cannot “choose” it in the name of “freedom” as the reply above states).  To put it simply, the motherly instinct makes the female in need of an ‘other’ (represented as the child).  Part of how it makes the motherly bond is by making the female mind (or self) ‘partial’, or incomplete, which creates a need for it to be ‘filled’ by the ‘other’ (child) . . . the ‘other’ then completes the female mind (or self).  This means that, contrary to what many females claim, motherly love is not an emotional bond based on emotion, but a “mind bond” or, more accurately, a “self bond”.  That is to say, a bonding of self’s, the female self with the ‘other’.  As a result of this there is an incredibly strong bond with the ‘other’.  As I said, this quality is innate in the female and is not seen in the male.  What it does is create a continual sense of ‘dependence’ or ‘need’ of someone else in the female.  They are always seeking representatives of the ‘other’ to make them complete.  One form of representative is trend following, making it a very deep and strong part of the female life.  In other words, the blind following seen in following trend is a result, really, of the motherly instinct.  This is one of the reasons why its so strong and that females are almost slaves to it.

As a result of this, for many females nowadays, the ‘other’ has ceased to be the child but the ‘mob’, the masses of people,  mass mentality, and trend.  Many females follow this as if it were god, often sacrificing everything for this and suffering a great deal.  Because of this, many females have become ‘disassociated’ with the motherly instinct which is one of the reasons why they have identity problems.  The natural motherly instinct tendencies are no longer going where they should be, showing a great warpage in ‘motherliness’, which is so prevalent in American girls nowadays.  I often speak of this as ‘misguided motherliness’.  In other words, a lot of the mother instinct is becoming misguided, going off in other directions which, frankly, produces nothing.  Despite it being misguided, because it involves the motherly instinct it is strong, often to the point that it ‘controls’ many females.  If one looks closely one can see that many females are controlled by trend and social mania.  They are so controlled that everything else, including themselves, is practically tossed to the side.  Not only that, they follow it blindly and without thought.  It will make many females do things they otherwise would not do.  In addition, since they are slaves to it, basically, they will falsely believe in trend and apparently support it, which they may not feel deep down.  In short, trend tends to control many females and, because of this, it’s often wise to assume that they are not in control of themselves as a result.  This includes things like following fashion, mannerisms, certain beliefs, current social mania, and such.  In America, this basically means that you can’t assume most females are in control of themselves as most girls are almost always continuously controlled by trend in some way or another.  My experience and observation has shown this to be true too, though I’m sure many females would say otherwise.  This does not surprise me as I’ve never known a female who is aware of her slavish-like qualities.  That shows how strong that quality is.


In this reply it shows how many females have, in a sense, justified their own destruction by ‘choosing’ they can be something that they are not.  In other words, it shows how the females are their own worst enemy.  Much of the damage of female identity has been by the females themselves.  In fact, I’d say that we are now in an era where the females are undermining themselves on an unbelievable scale.   Another thing they do is blame others for their poor views of themselvesTypically, they blame the male or society and paint themselves out as victims.  Many females will make a life out of being a victim, almost turning it into a religion (I’ve written an articles on this called ” Thoughts on the female ‘drive to be a victim’” and “Thoughts on the ‘female-as-victim-of-the-world’: “feminism”, a poor way to look at things“).  I’ve often associated this tendency, which seems quite prevalent with the female character, with menstruation (I wrote an article on this called “Feminism and menstruation“).


The point of view in the reply above borders on feminism.  It has many traits of feminism but has some qualities lacking.  The qualities it has with feminism are:

  • A problem with sexual identity.
  • A tendency to destroy the female.
  • The use of politics to justify their destruction.

These are all seen with feminism.  What it lacks depends on the type of feminism.  I generally described three forms of feminism (which are described in my article “More thoughts on that destructive philosophy called feminism – my overall impression after almost three decades of observation“):

  • The ‘female-as-victim’ feminism.  This generally requires a low self-esteem and a viewpoint that the femalehood is a bad and horrible thing. 
  • The ‘female-as-superior’ feminism.  This generally requires a female that has low self-esteem but a strong conceitedness or vanity.
  • The ‘I’m-a-man’ feminism.  This generally requires a female who think that being a man will solve all their problems. 

Basically, if you add one, or more, of these qualities to the attitudes displayed in the reply above then you will have a feminism.  Some girls never reach that point though but some do.


The reply above shows a dehumanization which is so prevalent in this society.  I said elsewhere (in my article “More thoughts on dehumanization and alienation – the ‘failed adaption culture’“) that dehumanization is when we accept our alienation and, in so doing, make it worse.  In effect, what we do is justify it, making it acceptable, which is exactly what this reply does:  its OK for a male to take on the female role and the female to take on the male role because we don’t know who we are anymore (alienation).

A process of the dehumanization that is common with females seems to follow a pattern like:

  1. Alienation.  This is largely caused by various aspects of the modern world (such as consumerism, mass society, media, etc.).
  2. Loss of dignity.  With alienation they lose a sense of dignity.
  3. Low self-esteem.  The loss of dignity causes a low self-esteem.
  4. Degrade and belittle self.  The loss of self-esteem makes them degrade and belittle themselves.
  5. The ‘flight from femininity’.  This shows an awareness that there is a problem within themselves and an attempt at getting away from it.
  6. Political justification of ‘flight from femininity’ .  Politics becomes a means to justify their ‘flight from femininity’ which actually furthers their conflict.
  7. Dehumanization.  They develop philosophies justifying their destruction of self.

In general, the female is going through a phase of dehumanization nowadays.  I’ve written an article called “Thoughts on aspects of alienation and dehumanization in the female” that concerns this subject.  I’ve also written another article about the slow obliteration of the female which we are seeing nowadays called “Thoughts on my statement: “at the rate we are going the female will be obliterated”“.

Contrary to what the reply says I feel that what girls need to do (and all of us, for that matter) is to rediscover our natural inclinations, that innate needs and qualities each of us have.  The reason for this is that we have become alienated and dehumanized because we no longer follow it or are put in situations that do not need it.  I’ve written an article about this called “Discovering natural inclinations – a solution to alienation and dehumanization???“.  Living in the artificial alienating society we live in now, the only solution is to rediscover our natural qualities.  This is not found by being ‘choosing’ to be something you’re not.


As I have looked at the female identity crisis in the U.S. I can see that political justification appears to of accentuated and magnified this problem.  When they justify it their problem becomes OK and a “cause”.  In so doing, their problem is elevated into something more than it is.  It becomes transformed, changed, and turned into something like a world view, a religion.  As a result, their problem becomes more than a problem . . . it becomes a way of life!  Under these conditions its hard to “cure” anyone because they have turned their problem into something they worship.

I first started to notice this with feminists who turned their poor views of the femalehood into a political “oppression” and, from there, it went out of control.  For once a problem is “politically justified”, it seems to go out of control.  Many issues with the female, which have become “politically justified”, have become just that and many have gone into the ludicrous, such as with many claims of the feminists (see my article “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists” which show many of these claims).  The reply above, even, is describing a ludicrous thought:  that we can choose our sexual roles . . . in the name of freedom!  It’s almost mad, in my opinion, but yet I’m seeing views like that taken by females almost regularly, a reflection of the identity problems.

As a result of all this, many females have basically put themselves in a hole, unable to get out.  They are entrapping themselves in their own neurosis and problem.  The more they struggle the deeper they sink.  This places the females in a major crisis nowadays.  Many sink further into social trend, hiding behind the ‘approval’ and ‘support’ it gives, not realizing that it’s all an illusion.

This entry was posted in Dehumanization and alienation, Feminism: a destructive philosophy, Government and politics, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, Replies to articles, The effects of WWII, the Nazi's, the Holocaust, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War era protests, The male and female, The U.S. and American society 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