Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female

Some time ago I said another one of those statements that stunned me but ended up proving very revealing.  During a conversation I wanted to say something (which I actually did not say):

“Most female traits have now become outdated and have become useless The female hood has actually failed.”

Some weeks later, in another conversation, I found myself almost saying to a girl:

” . . . but you’re part of ‘the failed sex’.”

Some weeks later I said:

“This is the first time in history where a sexuality (meaning the female hood) has failed to maintain itself as a distinct and viable institution in the society.”

These themes are not new to me.  I spoke of similar things in an article called “Thoughts on my statement: “at the rate we are going the female will be obliterated”“.  It is basically a continuation of the same line of thought.  What is significant about these statements is that I now seemed to ‘accept’ that the female hood is of no use anymore – outdated . . . a failure –  which is not the point of view I said in my earlier article.  Much of these feelings have come about based on observations I’ve made since then about the American female.  Because of this I often call the American female ‘the failed sex’.


For about a quarter of a century, now, I have known that there was a crisis in the female hood.  I first noticed it in a group of females called feminists.  In fact, if it were not for them I probably would never of seen or recognized it, as females tend to disguise the problem (see below).  I wrote an article called “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists” which show many absurd claims that I heard feminists say . . . “out of the mouth of the horse”.  As I listened to them I began to see themes behind their claims.  In short, while they were making a political/legal issue out of everything which, at first, sounded convincing and appeared to give an authority to what they said, I could see that there was a deeper side to what they were saying.  The more I listened the more I could see that this whole thing disguised a deeper female problem.  This fact was seen in much of their statements. Here are some of my favorites, which are actual quotes I heard :

  • “The history of humanity is the history of the enslavement of women.”
  • “Motherhood violates the Constitutional rights of women.”
  • “The dress is a prison outfit.”
  • Then there is one of my especial favorites.  I heard a number of variations but they basically go like this:  “Women are oppressed because they are forced to wear nylons, which are frail and fragile, whereas males get to wear Levi’s, which are strong and durable.  This is forced upon us by the male to reinforce our inferiority”.

Anyone, with any sense, can see that, behind all this, they are really speaking of a general problem THAT THEY HAVE concerning being female.  As time went on, and I listened to what they were saying, it became clear that it is based in their poor view of being female.  In short, this is a female problem, not a male problem, not a social problem.

Looking back on it now I can say that there are a number of things that ‘tipped me off’ to this problem:

  1. The poor view the female had of the female and how they saw female things as ‘bad’ in some way.  The poor view of the female, in particular, was so bad that I had to start defending the females of the past as well as female things.  In so doing, it actually made me look closer at the female and learn to appreciate the female of the past and what the female is and does, as I had to continually defend the female from the feminists.  I wrote an article on this called “Thoughts on appreciation – how the feminists taught me to respect the male, the female, and myself“.  Over time, I began to see that this degradation of the female was the source of a lot of their problems.  In other words, it became clear that the female hood in America had a problem with itself and what it is.  In addition, this poor view that many American females have toward being female is so bad that it has, in my opinion, become degrading to the female in general.  In fact, I found it insulting to have to be around females with such poor view of themselves and being female.
  2. Their continual tendency to view themselves as ‘victims’ or in seeing themselves as victims in some way.  I was often stunned at this.  They see abuse and victimizing coming out of the woodwork . . . all because they’re female.  They’ve created a whole myth about “female abuse” and how the male, society, and the whole world have caused and created all their problems.  This has done nothing but create a warped vision of the world.  I wrote an article on these things called “Some thoughts on the “insult” of the modern female – the effects of their hidden ‘projected self-degradation’ through everything else“.  To be frank, being around these types of girls was like being around a paranoid schizophrenic who saw threats in just about everything.  More than once have I said that the idea that the female is nothing but a victim has reached epidemic proportions in the U.S.
  3. The endless attempt at trying to be men, ape the male or attempting to masculanize the female.  Their attempts at trying to be male or ape the male was, at times, almost unreal.  I was often stunned when they would basically say “we’re the same as the male” as if that was supposed to answer everything.  I recently heard one female say “I’m beautiful because I have many strong women behind me” (meaning the mothers before her).  My experience is that references to “strong” almost always refers to the male.  Because of this, its like saying “I’m beautiful because the mothers before me were like men”.  Many females talked in this way as if it somehow ‘proved’ that they were men in some way . . . and I was supposed to believe it.  In actuality, what they’re actually doing is admitting to the failure of the female hood.  I once saw something in the news which made a reference to “female leadership in the world”.  I’m not that stupid, I know that’s a reference to the female being like a male.  I began to joke that, in statements like that where they were making the female as having male qualities, they should start putting an asterisk after the statement and below the sentence, in fine print, they should put write:  “* they have to ape the male because the female hood has failed”.  In many cases, they try to portray the female as if she were a male, doing male things and acting like a male, promoting male attitudes and ways.  In short, there is a complete absence of female qualities, ways, and doing things.  This is seen almost everywhere, in everyday life, movies, commercials, and books.  So the question is:  “why are they not promoting female qualities?”
  4. Their continual accusation and blame.  The blame and accusation they did was almost unreal.  I can recall periods of time where, almost daily when I was going to Technical College, I had to sit and listen to girls accuse and blame the male, usually, for just about everything.  According to them the male was this tyrannical oppressive slave driver who has done nothing but abuse and victimize the female all these centuries.  Not only that, we caused all their problems.  Only now, after all these decades, am I really beginning to realize how appalled I was by that.  Listening to this for years, how could anyone not see there was a problem?
  5. How many females have developed a very slavish, almost robotic, nature.  This basically shows an absence of being genuine.  As a result, it shows a loss of being-who-they-are or, rather, an alienation.  I often don’t like to be around some American females because I can’t stand this slavish robotic attitude.  I once described it as being around an ‘un-human’.
  6. Their preoccupation with having a job.  I was often stunned how many American girls have this weird preoccupation with a job, much more than the male does.  Typically, males treat a job in the manner of “its just something you do” like shaving or coming your hair.  But this is not how many females treat it.  It would not be far off to say that some girls have an obsession or mania about it.  And if they have any success with it they will often cram it down your throat!  It doesn’t take a genius, watching it after all these years, that they emphasize a job because the value of the female hood has failed.  In other words, having a job is meant to as if “replace” the value of the female hood.  A common joke for me is “what’s the first thing you say when you see an American female?  So, have you got a job yet?”  (See my remarks about females and jobs below).
  7. How many American females are particularly difficult to associate with.  This observation has been noted so much that there are internet sites on it!  I’ve heard it mentioned by American males, foreign males, and even some females.  Its quite evident that there is something particularly ‘difficult’ about the American female.  I’ve written a number of articles on this subject such as “Why are white American females so difficult?“.  I’ve been repetitively stunned how American females are difficult.  There have been times where I couldn’t even get them to answer my questions.  Many are touchy beyond belief.  With some you have to walk on tippy toes around them.  Many play endless games as if that’s the only way they know how to associate with people.  Sadly, many males learn not to associate with them all that much.  There have even been something like a ‘movement’ where many American males decided to marry foreign females instead of American girls because they are too difficult to associate with.
  8. On how they get mad when you try to help them.  They seem to think that the when you help them you are trying to degrade them or something.  Many of the guys, here in the U.S., learn that you do not help girls or do anything for them.  Many of us guys got called a “male chauvinist pig” just for opening a door for them!  I’ve heard girls say we (meaning the guys) do things for them in order to “degrade” them in some way, or “subjugate” them, or to make them “dependent”, or even as a way to “reinforce their inferiority”.  Yeah, right . . .  This is an example of their poor view of themselves being ‘projected’ onto the males making the males ‘at fault’, which is such a part of this problem.
  9. On how you must walk on tippy-toes around females.  You must be careful of what you say, do, and act around females.  You even got to be careful how close you are to them.  And you don’t want to touch them . . . even accidentally.   God help us all if you happen to touch them in a ‘sensitive’ area!  We all know who will be molded out as the villain . . . don’t we?  Once, some people came to our work and talked about ‘sexual harassment’.  The moral of the story:  when a female is around don’t talk to them, look at them, or get near them!  Apparently, we guys have to be especially careful for if a female nearby just ‘happens’ to overhear a dirty joke that ‘offends’ them, for example, then God help us.  It is my belief that it is actually the males who are ‘sexually harassed’ by having to live with such absurd conditions and accusations!!!  What they’ve done is create an absurd fear and apprehension in society.

There were also a number of things said by females that showed that there was a problem such as:

  • I can recall females always saying “males are insecure in their masculanity”.  This, it must be remembered was being said by females who saw the female as a victim, saw everything female as bad, and were often trying to be like men.  It became clear that what they were actually saying is:  “I am insecure in my femininity”.
  • The statement:  “the female is oppressed because they are forced to have children and raise them and not permitted to have a career”.  I knew enough about things to see that this, more or less, was saying “I have a problem with being female, and playing the part of a female, so the only solution is to be a man”.
  • I’ve seen females get upset if you made any sort of a distinction between male an female.  Often, they’d cite the political idea of “equality” as authority and justification, that this ‘proved’ that the male and female were the ‘same’.  It doesn’t take a genius to so see that this was a way for them to basically say, “I’m insecure in being female but political theory gives me an escape with its idea of equality, that the male and female are the same”.  Unfortunately, what they don’t realize is that they are actually distorting the idea of equality, as that is not what it means!!!

These all pointed that something was wrong.  These all showed:

  • A basic problem in being female.
  • A problem playing the female part.
  • A desire to not be female.
  • A lack of self-respect.
  • A lack of dignity.
  • A lack of worth as a person and as a group (meaning the female hood).

As time went on I could see that there was a problem in the female hood and in their perception of themselves.  In short, there was a failure in the female hood.


After many years of observation it seems, to me, that the female hood is no longer “viable” anymore.  Everything is seeming to show that this is the case.  By “viable” I mean that the naturally appearing feminine traits no longer have practical value anymore.  As I once said:  “the female hood has ceased to be an institution in itself – the ‘female institution’ has failed”.  Everything that I am seeing is that female traits are no longer useful and seem to be ‘hanging on a thread’.  These female traits I speak of have qualities such as:

  • They are exclusive to the female.
  • They are innate, instinctual, naturally appearing.
  • They have a “power” to the female herself and the growth and development of these traits helps females develop a strong sense of who they are and be more of a person.
  • The development of traits have a “power” or “authority” in society when developed by the female.  It gives them use and value in society.

The loss of these qualities  have made them lose their “viability”.  In general, the female has lost significant forms of “viability”:

  • A social viability.  This is the social use of female traits.
  • A personal viability.  This means the female traits that causes a personal growth.

These two forms, together, create what can be called the ‘female life’ as a character trait of the female as a person.

When the ‘female life’ plays a part in culture and society it creates the ‘female institution’.  A natural tendency in a ‘real human society’ is that there develops a ‘male institution’ and ‘female institution’ which have been seen in human societies all over the world since the beginning of time.  These are specific divisions in society where the male and female have a specific place to be, grow, and develop their natural abilities and inclinations.  As a result, it gives great identity and worth, both as a person and in society.  They develop specific male and female ways of being.  This becomes so pronounced that these ‘institutions’ create a ‘male culture’ and a ‘female culture’, distinct and separate from each other (I wrote an article on this called “Thoughts on the different male and female characters – “male culture” and “female culture”“).  These different cultures create mature, useful, and meaningful people who have a definite place in society.  I believe that the creation of the ‘male institution’ and ‘female institution’ have been critical in human society and have been one of the great powers of human society.  Their fall, which has appeared recently, has been tragic for human society.  Their fall, in my opinion, has caused a general deterioration of the male and female as human beings and in society as a whole.

Specifically, ‘female institution’ defines the power, the use, and meaning of the female.  In other words, it gives them “viability”.  It also shows that there is a social and personal source for “viability” and that they are inter-related.  We must remember that this “viability” originates and has base in naturally appearing tendencies.  It is not ‘learned’ or taught but more developed or revealed.  This means that, both socially and personally, the naturally appearing tendencies must:

  • Have a place.  They must have somewhere where they have worth and value.
  • Have a means of manifestation.  They must have a way to demonstrate themselves and appear.
  • Have a meaning.  They must have some inherent use.

For the female, it is the ‘female institution’ that allows these to be realized.  Without a ‘female institution’ the realization tends to be impaired or non-existent (that is, fail).  Because of this, it means that the ‘female institution’ is critical for naturally appearing tendencies to grow and develop.  Once the naturally appearing traits fail then the ‘female institution’ fails.  This, in many ways, is just what has happened to the female.   In general, this loss of viability is slowly eating the female hood away.

But this is not to say that the traits are completely gone . . . they continue to manifest themselves in some form.  Because they are naturally appearing they keep appearing but in unproductive and unhealthy ways.  As a result, we could call these ‘residual traits’.  It manifests itself in ways such as:

  • They are directed into areas that it was not intended to go.
  • They are ‘there’ but have no real use.
  • They become distorted and warped.

These conditions often tend to create a female with “issues”, that’s neurotic, that’s touchy and over-reactive, and so on.  This is not surprising as ‘residual traits’ means that their traits are going nowhere and have no value.  One could very well say that they are “fighting for a use”.

From what it seems, to me, there are only a couple of naturally appearing qualities that are maintaining any “viability” for the female hood at all:

  1. Childbearing (pregnancy, newborns, infants).  Notice how I did not say motherhood . . not even motherhood is holding its viability anymore!  Most mothers now just throw their kids in a day care anyways, for example.
  2. Sexuality.  This seems to give the female hood its main “viability” today.  It gives many females a sense of ‘being needed’ and it also makes the female appealing to the male (without it, most males probably wouldn’t want much to do with the female).

Without these two things, what use are most female traits nowadays?  I’ve always said that if they were to be able to scientifically grow children and be able to artificially satisfy sexuality (which they’re probably working on right now) then the female, as a distinct group, will completely lose meaning.  To me, this is a horrible situation.

Some examples and signs of the loss of viability and failure of the female hood, nowadays, include:

  • The naturally appearing tendencies are no longer naturally useful or have a place.  Motherhood, for example, is no longer the “big thing” it used to be, nor is it the necessary thing.  Many of the younger females don’t even know what a mother is anymore nor how to act like one.
  • The qualities of the female hood no longer ‘stands on its own’.  For centuries, the female tendencies were so critical and important that it created a whole way of life, the female way of life, that was critical in life.  This is the ‘female institution’ which stood as an entity in society.  This is disappearing as an entity in society.  In general, I tend to feel that there is no ‘female institution’ to day in the U.S. that is “viable” and has worth.
  • The female hood is no longer something that is developed, practiced, and cultivated.  Girls are not taught ‘female things’ anymore or how to develop them which is what have been going on for thousands of years.  This is part of how they learned and developed naturally appearing female traits.  Most mothers, from what I have seen, don’t give girls any instruction at all on how to be a female or a mother.  If they do its some distorted view (such as to be like a man, get a job, view the female as a victim, or something similar).
  • Females are trying to be something else than who they are.  In many cases, they are trying to be like a male or emulate male traits.  They are also trying to do things that have not interested females in thousands of years (like exploration or war), which is nothing but imitation of the male usually.  In this way, females have become a bunch of people who “ape” other people.  In that sense, the modern female has become something like a ‘lie’.
  • Many females try to masculinize the female, often to the point where the female is painted out to be more of a male than the male is.  In this society, there is great effort to portray the female with male characteristics.  Its seen a lot, for example, in  movies.  Many females will try to emulate it in some way.
  • Some females will try to compete and outdo the opposite sex.  A person who is stable in their own sexuality would not do this.  That is to say, a male who is stable in being male does not need to try to outdo the female in any way.  This is one of the signs of an insecure female.
  • The female is creating warped views of their own traits and identity.  Many females are becoming overly feminine, for example, or excessively slut-like.  Some girls will act ‘overly-emotional’ or ‘stupid’ thinking that’s what a female is.  I’ve seen many females who seem to think that a female is a slut and that’s their only role.  I’ve been stunned how many females don’t seem to know that a female is exactly.
  • The female is losing self-respect and self-dignity.  Every time I turn around females are putting the female down in some way (but blaming other people for it).  They have little self-respect or self-dignity.  Interestingly, I’ve found that a common attempt at creating a ‘pseudo-self-respect or self-dignity’ is to do something that is considered ‘socially dignified’, like getting a degree or going into politics.  Its almost as if ‘social dignity’ compensates for their low self-respect.  My experience is that when many American girls do this it often means that they have self-respect problems.  I wrote an article on naturally appearing female low self-esteem called “Some thoughts on the naturally appearing female low self-esteem“.
  • They view the female in a bad light and generally view the female hood, as a whole, in a bad way.  Many females think the female is ‘abused’ or a ‘victim’ in some way.  In some cases, they act as if there is a conspiracy to ‘harm’ the females which border on paranoia.  I’ve seen many females who see abuse and victimizing in everything . . . all showing their poor view of the female.  They also claim that they are ‘oppressed’ and ‘enslaved’ and see it in everything, especially female things.
  • Some females get upset if you mention feminine traits.  Its like they don’t want to be reminded of anything femalish.  Many girls are ‘uncomfortable’ with “girly” things and will often portray feminine traits in a negative way, such as that “motherhood violates a women’s Constitutional rights”, as I wrote above.  Some will get upset if you mention female things and activities, such as doing their hair or cooking.
  • They often deny uniquely feminine things.  I’ve seen some girls who will, for example, “pretend” that they are not pregnant or that they don’t have ’emotional problems’ and such.
  • If a person speaks of ‘female things’, they will often automatically assume that you are trying to ‘degrade them’ or something similar.  Its not uncommon that they think you have malicious intents if you talk about females.  Many American females take the point of view that the ‘female is a victim’ so anything femalish is a reference to their supposed victimizing.  My experience is that many males learn not discuss anything about the female in front of them.  You can’t talk about ‘female issues’ and problems.  If you do, then they may accuse you of things, such as that you have something against females . . . which often only hides their own self-hate and problems with being female.  Some female don’t like it when you talk of ‘traditional female things’, such as cooking and cleaning.  I recall an instance where an actress in a movie had a scene where it required her to get some tea for the people in the scene.  The actress refused to do it (remember females are ‘oppressed’ and ‘enslaved’ . . . God help us all!).   The only way they could get her to do it is to have a male “help” her.  In actuality, all it showed is that she has a poor view of female things.
  • You must be careful what and how you call them.  A good example is the big nonsense surrounding the word “secretary”.  I was often stunned when females got mad when people called them that.  I have talked to many other males who have said the same thing.  Apparently, its supposed to be “degrading” (frankly, is it any any more worse than a garbage man who handles peoples garbage all day? . . . but I ‘ve never heard any garbage men complain).  To this day, I see nothing degrading in the word secretary but, yet, they’ve had to have it changed . . . and multiple times.  I believe it went from “secretary” to “administrative assistant” but, God help us all, “assistant” implies enslavement and subjugation!!!   Because of this, I think they have now changed it to “administrative professionals”.  I guess they will have to be called “administrative CEO’s” some time in the future, in order to emphasize the power of female leadership???  It doesn’t take a genius to see that, behind all this, is a bunch of females with poor views of themselves. This is why THEY see these words as degrading:  secretary=female . . . its their own poor views of themselves reflected in what they are called.  Being called something different gives them the illusion they don’t have this problem but the problem remains (see below on how females hide this problem with illusions).
  • They are putting too much worth in ‘social approval’ rather than in any ‘inner satisfaction’.   Nowadays, what now consists of the ‘female life’ is often dictated by some form of social approval or acceptance (greatly intensified by social media) . . . they are no longer following that ‘inner sense’ that satisfies their inner natural traits as their mothers have been doing for centuries.   One could almost call the need for social approval as an obsession, dominating what many females do nowadays.  The reason why this is so important is that ‘inner satisfaction’ is how one tells if naturally appearing tendencies are being fulfilled.  Its absence tends to show natural tendencies are not being catered to. 
  • Many females are turning into ‘human robots’.  They are ‘blindly following’ things such as trend, current mania’s, and such to such an extent that they behave more like robots than human beings.  In this way, they are losing their humanity.  This is significant in that, in ‘blindly following’ they do not follow natural inclinations.  Being robotic, they do not nor will they find themselves.  In many ways, the female ‘human robot’ is becoming the new female self.
  • There is no longer a ‘female institution’ as a reality in life.  Females no longer maintain a ‘strictly female’ lifestyle and way of life as their predecessors have done for centuries.  They no longer see themselves as a distinct unique group in society that has a worth and value.   They also do not maintain and keep a ‘female institution’ as a working phenomena, nor teaching it to younger females.
  • The females are not creating a ‘female life’ or a ‘female institution’ on their own.  So far, the females have not created anything new to replace the ‘female institution’.  The bulk of the ‘new female life’ consists of aping other people or in blind following.
  • Many females spend too much time blaming other people for their problems.  When they blame other people they tend to view themselves as ‘innocent’ and that it ‘cleanses’ them of the problem.  This only intensifies the problem and makes it worse.  I was appalled when I saw the extent of this blaming and how freely and openly they did this.
  • There are many efforts to cover up their loss of viability.  In many ways, a lot of what females do today is covering up their loss of viability such as trying to outdo the male, becoming a ‘human robot’, making a life out of ‘being a victim’, blaming other people, and such, many of which have been described above.  In some ways, one could say that the modern American ‘female life’ is one big cover up for their failure.

One of the things we see in many of these reactions is a pattern of a ‘turning away’ from female things.  In other words, there is an  avoiding of natural tendencies in many females nowadays.  This is significant as only by following our natural tendencies do we become who we are.  In general, the female hood has turned away from many natural tendencies and, accordingly, have turned away from themselves.  This has created a quality in the female of being non-genuine and, in a way, artificial or phony which often makes them robot-like or slavish in attitude.  This is a major sign of the failure of the female hood.  Its not uncommon for me to describe many females, nowadays, as ‘robots’ or ‘automatons’ as a result of this non-genuineness.  I speak of this as ‘female non-genuineness’ which is a sign of ‘the failed sex’.  One could very well say that the failure of the female is really nothing but a loss of genuineness.  This loss of genuineness seems to have roots in several things:

  • A loss in who they are as individual people.
  • A loss in who they are in society.

These reflect the two types of “viability” described above.  That’s really no mistake as “viability” and “genuineness” are the same thing from different perspectives.  Many American females struggle with either one or both of these things.  In fact, a lot of the American female life is based in struggling with either one or both of these things in one way or another.

The resulting effect of the failure of the female hood has caused a number of problems in the ‘female life’ and ‘female institution’, such as:

  • Because the female no longer caters to natural female tendencies society begins to abandon avenues where they have use and value.
  • The females, themselves, do not give their own female tendencies a place.
  • The females have lost sense of who and what they are.

In these ways, the ‘female life’ has basically become almost useless.  This shows a basic dilemma and crisis in the female hood.  I feel it to be a serious problem.  As far as I know, I’m the only person to acknowledge it.

I’ve often said that, now that the ‘female life’ and ‘female institution’ has failed, the modern American female now has only two choices to go:

  1. The “ape”.  This refers to ‘aping’ someone.  That is to say, it refers to imitating someone else and trying to be like them.  Generally, the person they try to imitate is the male, but not necessarily.  It could be anyone, such as social trend.  When they do ape someone they often will try to be that person, even to the point that they will try to replace that person.  This is rooted in a female tendency to be imitative (see below).   
  2. The “robot”.  This refers to the slavish mentality of the female and how they mindlessly and blindly follow things.  This is also rooted in a female tendency (see below).

From what I have seen these are very reflective of ‘female life’ now.  Both are actually rooted in naturally appearing female tendencies, which is why these paths are so easy for them to take.

Sadly, with this fall, the worth of the female is narrowing down.  With all the emphasis on work in this country the female is slowly turning themselves into a ‘work animal’.  It won’t be too long before the only value a female has is in getting a job.  Just recently I wanted to say to a young girl:

“Get a job!!!  That’s about the only value you girls are going to have at the rate you’re going.  You can thank your mothers for that.  They have done everything in their power to undermine, degrade, and undermine the female life, as it has been for centuries all over the world.  They’ve made it so that the only value for the female is as a person who gets a job.  Before, the value of the female was far more extensive and involved, and they had value on many different levels.  Now you’re only value is in getting a job.  What a fall!”

At this time this fall may not seem to be the case.  This societies worship of “work” seems to make having a job as having great worth.  It makes many females think that they are doing “the thing” and that it gives them such great importance.  In actuality, all they are doing is following social trend (sort of like fashion).  When this worship fades, sometime in the future, I feel that many females will begin to see that all they’ve been turned into is a ‘work animal’, which they will be expected to do, and that they will be devoid of the worth and value the mothers before them had.


The failure of the ‘female life’ has caused a basic problem in the female identity.  I speak of this as the ‘modern female identity crisis’.  This refers to the growing female identity problems that we’re seeing as a result of the failure of the female hood. More and more this is becoming evident.  Many females are increasingly having problems with the female identity and what it means.  Unfortunately, too much of society is ‘passing this off’ as nothing when, in reality, they are something serious. 

There are many ways that the ‘modern female identity crisis’ appears.  Some common forms I see are:

  • The ‘female-as-victim syndrome’.  This is when they see themselves as victims of everything.  In many ways, this is like saying, “I’ve become useless (a victim)”.  This is very prevalent in the U.S.  I’ve seen so many variations of this theme that it has become nauseating.  Some females have made victimizing a way of life and see it in just about everything (I would not be surprised if some of these girls would see this article as a form of ‘victimizing’ the female . . . perhaps as degrading or portraying the female in a bad way or, to get political, they may say its ‘sexist’ or ‘discriminatory’ . . . it’s all the same:  the female is a victim!).
  • The ‘female-as-male syndrome’.  Here they try to be like a male or emulate male traits.  This shows a complete abandoning of natural female tendencies.  This is very prevalent in the U.S.  Its so prevalent I often state this joke:  “What’s the first thing you say to an American female?  Are you a man yet?”  This tendency often appears as trying to act like a male, be a male, replace a male, or in trying to outdo a male.  Examples of these are trying to do male things (like hunting or mountain climbing), acting in a male way (such as being aggressive-like and even rude-like, such as spitting on the ground), trying to be the breadwinner of the family, and in trying to compete with the male in some way.  Trying to associate with a female who is like this is not easy.  Often, the only male who will associate with them are pussy whipped guys who suck up to them.  To me, this is a pathetic quality in the female and, in my opinion, is the most degrading thing I’ve ever seen in regard to a female.  This is the origin of my saying:  “There’s nothing more pathetic than a female aping the male”.
  • The ‘female-as-first syndrome’ or ‘conceit factor’ (see below).  Here, they think they are ‘first’ or superior in some way.  They can become horribly vain, conceited, or arrogant.  This tendency usually hides a feeling of inferiority, and uncertainty about themselves, caused by identity problems.
  • The ‘exaggerated femininity syndrome’.  This is a tendency where females will exaggerate what they think are feminine tendencies.  They often appear overly feminish.  I first saw this in the 1980’s.  I didn’t realize it then but I now know that it was the first sign I saw of the failure of the female hood.  Looking back on it now I’d say that it looks like the females, at that time, were ‘trying to hang on to their femininity by exaggerating it’.  This is because it was increasingly failing.  This shows that the 1980’s was a turning point in the failure of the female hoof for, in many ways, this was when it turned into a social crisis.   
  • The ‘warped female identity syndrome’.  Here they develop weird and warped views about the female.
  • The ‘pseudo-gay or acquired homosexuality syndrome’.  Here they begin to “think” they are gay for one reason or another.  Oftentimes, its because they are uncertain what a ‘female is’ . . . a sign of ‘the failed sex’.  I’ve written an article called “Thoughts on the new “pseudo-gay” or “acquired homosexuality” – another sign of the dehumanization of the modern world???” which discusses the association with the pseudo-gay with dehumanization, which is a loss of a sense of who we are.
  • The ‘following-the-other syndrome’.  Here they will follow the ‘other’ (which is another person, society, trend, etc.) to the point of a blind sheep.  One version of this is the ‘social media female’.  I wrote some articles on this called “Thoughts on the problem of the ‘soap opera housewife’ and the ‘social media female’ – “The media absorption”” and “Thoughts on the new ‘social media’ female – the degradation of the female and mother???“.
  • The ‘apathy tendency syndrome’.  Here they tend to become apathetic in life.  This, from what I have seen, is somewhat rare.
  • The ‘female blame-game syndrome’.   Here they blame or accuse innocent people for their problems.
  • The ‘female projection syndrome’.   Here they project their problems onto other people.  What they do is see their conflict in other people.  A good example of this is what I saw a lot in the 1980’s.  Many females claimed that males were “insecure in their masculinity”.  This used to stun me as I saw no real sign of it.  And then, one day, I just about said to a female who said this:  “What?  This is being said by a female who has a poor view of the female, and views them as victims, and see’s the solution is to be a man . . who, exactly, is insecure in their sexuality?”  What they did is project their failure at being female onto the male and make him the one who is insecure when it was really themselves who were.  Another version is how, commonly on fathers day, I always hear it said that the father is useless and has no meaning.  But the fathers are doing no different than they were doing centuries ago.  But look who’s saying it.  Usually, its a bunch of females who are not being mothers and are often trying to take the place and role of the father.  In actuality, what they are saying is that the mother has become useless . . . they just projected it onto the father, thereby making him “appear” useless.
  • The ‘female-as-bad syndrome’.  Here they see the female as bad and some horrible thing.
  • The ‘lost femalehood syndrome’.  Here they cannot understand their own female feelings and tend to misinterpret it.  Many girls, nowadays, cannot understand their own motherly feelings anymore (I wrote on article involving this called “Thoughts on female identity problems – an example of how females are losing the ability to interpret their own naturally appearing motherly feelings, the ‘alienated mother desire’, and other things“).
  • The ‘mixed message syndrome’.  They get confused about what the female is because they have differing messages from society.  For example, one side of society says they should be ‘proper Victorian-like respectable girls’ and the other says they should be ‘immoral sluts’.  This can cause great conflict for some girls to the point they don’t know which way to turn.

With the loss of “viability” they have developed identity problems and have problems with sexual identity, namely, the female identity.  They don’t know what it is, what its for, and have no idea of its relevance or value.  I tend to feel that a trait of the American female is some form of sexual identity problem somewhere. 

The ‘female self dilemma’:  the mother instinct/menstrual/identity/self connection

One of the effects of female loss of identity is that they have problems, or ‘issues’, with menstruation (in actuality, a significant part of their identity).  In fact, for some females, menstruation dominates much of their identity conflict and life.  The reason for this is that female identity gives menstruation, and its impulses, a direction and a place.  When females lose their identity they lose a ‘control’ over their menstrual impulses.  In fact, it often ‘over runs’ them Their life becomes a continual reaction to its control over their life. Once this happens, one could say that they become ‘controlled’ by menstruation.  There is even a ‘look’ with females who are ‘controlled’ by menstruation.  Some common ways this appears are:

  • A look like they are going to ‘explode’.
  • A look like they are going to kill you.
  • A look of being ‘out of control’.

In other words, it has a quality of ‘being more than they can handle’ and one can feel this in them.  Many males learn to avoid them when they are like this or avoid them overall if its part of their character.

Once the menstrual impulses have no direction they tend to ‘run amuck’.  As a result, the impulses can literally take control of their life.  It then creates what can be described as a ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’.   The world, and everything in it, is typically interpreted from the context of their ‘out of control’ menstrual impulses.  It ends up creating a very limited and narrow view of things in these girls.  Typically, the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’ revolve around two themes, which are a closely associated with menstrual impulses.  These are:

  1. They feel victimized or abused in some way.
  2. They feel enslaved or ‘forced’ to do things.

These themes, and claims, are prevalent in girls with female identity problems, especially when menstrual impulses are involved.  Whenever I see them they are usually signs of identity problems, I’ve found.  In fact, I feel that these alienated menstrual impulses are the base of why they have such poor views of the female.  Its the reason why they think the female is a victim or enslaved all the time.   What this shows is that their poor view of themselves has a lot to do with their inability to handle their ‘menstrual impulses’ and because it overwhelms them.  As I said above, much of this is a result of female identity problems.  Therefore, a lot of the American females poor view of the female originates from identity problems. 

As part of the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’ they develop a number of points of view about themselves and the world such as:

  • Internal point of view – A tendency to see the female as a form of “self-degradation” that can go to the point of a“self-destructiveness”.   That is to say, it makes them see the female in a bad light seeing female things as bad.  This line of thinking causes great destruction to female self-esteem and self-worth.  For some girls this can get to the point that they want to ‘destroy’ everything female or femalish causing a tendency to self-destructiveness.  I saw this with many feminists who seemed ‘committed’ to destroying everything female . . . in the name of freedom!
  • External point of view – A tendency to view the world, and the people in it, as degrading them in some way.  This is primarily a projection of the internal point of view onto the world.  You name it, it degrades them.  For some this will get to the point of paranoia, seeing degradation in everything, as if the whole world is ‘plotting’ to destroy them in some way.  This line of thinking tends to make them see the world as a threat.

Both of these make them see ‘bad’ in everything, in themselves and in the world.  This condition poses great dilemma for many females.  This is one of the reasons why they use the defenses, as described above (victim or slave) and can become fanatical about it . . . its the only choice they have.  In other words, the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’, associated with female identity problems, tends to cause a threatening world view in which there is no escape.  They are, in effect, “trapped” in it, unable to get away.  This tends to give a great sense of ‘being a slave’ or ‘imprisoned’ for these girls.  I sometimes speak of this as the ‘female-as-trapped dilemma’.  More or less, it gives them the sense that the female is trapped in being female and being bound by female life.

A common reaction to the ‘female-as-trapped dilemma’ is for the female to ‘move away’ from being female, a general avoidance of being female.  This creates a pattern much like this:

  1. They feel the female is ‘bad’ in some way The female is viewed as a ‘slave’, ‘oppressed’, ‘trapped’, or something similar, that something bad has happened to them.  I should point out that this is not always something conscious.  That is to say, they aren’t necessarily aware of it.  In many cases, they are not aware at all.
  2. The solution is to flee being female in some way.  This is often done in ways such as by being something else (such as a man), blindly following something (such as trend), and so on.

In this way, the female tends to move away from themselves, of being female, which often leads to a self-destructive tendency.  This is done as a reaction and defense to the dilemma they are in.  This self-destructive tendency has, in fact, been instrumental in the failure of the female hood as it has caused the female to make the female ‘not a female’.  In this way, they have made the female redundant, useless, worthless, and having no “viability”.  In effect, they have, on their own effort, undermined their own value.  What this shows is that females are often victims of their own impulses, despite all their accusation, blame, use of political/legal jargon, etc., no matter how convincing it may sound.

We must remember that menstruation, of course, is associated with the male and children.  As a result, a big part of menstrual impulses is what I call the ‘other’, meaning a sense of “someone else”.  One could very well say that a big part of the childbearing and menstruation impulse is this sense of “someone else” . . . its what its all about, “someone else to get them pregnant” and to give birth to “someone else”.  Its so strong because its innate tendency, a manifestation of instinct.  Its really no surprise, then, that this sense of ‘other’ figures prominently in the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’.  Its for this reason that, as part of seeing the ‘threat of the world’, they often tend to see the ‘other’ as a threat.  This creates a tendency for the female to see other people as threats.  As a result of this, they tend to become very accusatory and blame people.  This could get to the point of paranoia, where they think people are conspiring or plotting against them in some way (such as the male plotting to enslave them).  In addition, it creates a tendency for them to drag other people into their problems.  Once they see other people as a threat it happens that the other person becomes ‘intimately associated’, so to speak, with their dilemma.  In so being, they become a part of it in their mind.  Not only that, because they become ‘intimately associated’ they are viewed at in a personal way by the female.  The threat, then, becomes ‘real’ for the female and the person is treated as a ‘real threat’.  This tendency was seen a lot with feminists who would continually make the male a ‘real threat’ and, in so many ways, treat him as such.  Being that the male is usually unaware of this, the male usually reacts with a “huh, what?” type of response or is bewildered by it (as I was).  In some cases, it gives the females a quality of being ‘insane’.  All this, we must remember, are things going on within the female mind.  The male, society, or the world (who they view as a ‘threat’) is not making them do it or feel this way.

The childbearing/menstrual, or mother instinct, impulses are very powerful for the female.  Its so powerful, in fact, that it can control them almost like puppets.  Because of this, we should look at some traits the mother instinct creates:

– The ‘equating tendency’

Because of the importance of the male in the childbearing/menstrual impulse its no surprise that the male figures prominently.  This is because the male is associated with childbearing and, accordingly, with menstruation deep down.  In some respects, it creates a tendency for the female to equate the male with female problems.  This is the ‘equating tendency’.  It makes them equate the male with thing such as:

  • Their menstrual problems.
  • Feeling trapped or enslaved.
  • Feeling a victim or damaged in some way.
  • General problems with being female.

With some females, the male is to blame for all their problems, as I have witnessed for decades.  I’ve seen the male blamed for just about anything bad that happens to a female, from childbearing to serial killers to having to wear specific types of clothes.

– The ‘blurring tendency’ and ‘blurring sickness’

The ‘equating tendency’ has another effect of creating a tendency of blurring themselves with other people in general.  This is the ‘blurring tendency’.  What this does is makes it so that they tend to ‘equate’ or make themselves the ‘same’ as other people, as if there is no difference.  In some cases, they seem themselves and the other person as if they were one.  Because of the childbearing impulses, this is often associated with the male.  For example, it creates a tendency where they try ‘to be a man’ to the point that they actually believe that they are the same.  In fact, one of the ways they do this is by trying to turn the female into something like a male/female hermaphrodite.  Because this is so common with feminism I often jokingly called it the “feminist utopian hermaphrodite” (I wrote about it in an article called “More insanity from the feminists: The “feminist utopian hermaphrodite” and the myth of male work“).   Many females, now, are trying to be both male and female, mother and father, as a manifestation of this ‘blurring tendency’.  This tends to create problems which I call the ‘blurring sickness’.   The effect of this tends to be:

  • They lose a sense of who they are.  In this way, they undermine themselves.  This can get to the point that they lose sense of being an individual person and human being.    They will complain of being dependent, having no ‘life’, being controlled by people, and such.  In effect, they are complaining about the fact that THEY have blurred themselves with other people (remember, they typically blame others for their problems so, in their minds, they are not to blame).
  • They tend to destroy the purpose of the one they are blurring.  In this way, they undermine a whole relationship.  It becomes hard to associate with them and form a relationship.

So we see that the ‘blurring sickness’ affects themselves and the people they associate with.

– The ‘dilemma of will’ and ‘will-as-other tendency’

The ‘blurring tendency’ can sometimes cause a ‘dilemma of will‘ with some females.  Basically what happens is that when they blur themselves with another they make the other persons ‘will’ their own.  This is the ‘will-as-other tendency’.   They use the other persons will as if it were their own.  This often makes females slavish, submissive, and dependent.  In some cases, the females become unable to make decisions, unable to think, act stupidly, and so on.  Its not uncommon that when the ‘failed sex’ complains about being female they will refer to this tendency and, as if to solve it, try to promote things such as “a independent female that can make decisions”, for example, as some great solution to it all.  In actuality, they are only referring to the dilemma this tendency causes as, for some females, it makes them feel particularly vulnerable and, therefore, brings out the ‘female-as-victim’ feelings.  In other words, their own tendency to ‘will-as-other tendency’ makes them feel “victimized” . . . and the person they view as “victimizing” them is the person who they want the ‘will’ from typically!

– The ‘female leech’

Closely associated with the ‘blurring tendency’ and ‘dilemma of will’ is the ‘female leech’.  This is a tendency, in some females, where they seek, in effect, to ‘absorb’ another person.  This tends to go in two directions:

  1. They loose themselves in the other person.   With this they will no longer sense that they are a person causing self-esteem problems and selfhood problems.
  2. They loose the ‘other’ in themselves.  This appears, often, like an arrogance or a controlling quality as they as if promote themselves and ignore the other person.  But they need the other person to be there in some way so they can control them and dominate them.

So we see that the first version creates a submissive timid person.  The second version creates a domineering person.  Its like opposite ends of the spectrum.  In that sense, they either destroy themselves or the other person.

– The ‘escaping-being-female-by-being-someone-else’

Another aspect of the ‘blurring tendency’ is that they tend to see that any success at ‘being another person’ – that is, blurring themselves with someone else – as if it were some form of victory.  This often can become a great illusion as they tend to think that they have had a victory over their ‘female dilemma’ by ‘becoming another person’.  So we see here, a tendency of ‘escaping-being-female-by-being-someone-else’.  I was often stunned at this logic as it never made sense when I first saw it.   For example, I often witnessed females act as if they have made some great victory when they happened to do something like a male or, God help us, if they happened to do something as good as a male.

– The ‘Great Imitator’

Because the female tends to blur themselves with other people, and thereby resemble other people, they tend to have a tendency to imitate people and even adopt qualities found in other people (resembling a chameleon).  The social media, with its exposure to many ‘friends’ and people, has only aggravated this condition.  The prevalence of this condition is why I often call the female the ‘Great Imitator’.  Some females do this so well that you cannot tell if what a female is doing is “her” or something she’s imitating.  Not only does it fool the people around her but it generally fools her as well.  As one can guess, this can cause great dilemma for the female as it causes a tendency to not be genuine with herself.    I’ve seen very few females realize that they are really victims of their own imitation tendency.  It creates feelings such as:

  • A feeling of being ‘used’.  In actuality, this is really a sense that something is ‘using’ her (which is her need to imitate) . . . she can feel it but she generally ends up accusing or blaming people for it.  This is one of the origins of the feeling of being a ‘victim’ or ‘enslaved’.
  • They feel that they have no control.  The imitative tendency is so powerful that it basically controls many females . . . they must imitate.  A good example of this, of course, is how many females MUST follow trend and do what everyone else is doing, even if it kills them or causes great anguish and heartache.
  • They feel detached from themselves.  They will often complain of being ‘phony’ or ‘artificial’ and not feel a genuine person.  This seems to be felt only by females who are more mature.

In effect, by imitating others they forget themselves and who they are.  My observation is that many female problems often have a basis in this imitative tendency.  Typically, the imitative tendency has tends to overcome and overpower the female . . . they cannot fight it.  As a result, many females do not have ‘control’ over it.  This tends to create, in the female, a quality of a “weak self” which is a quality mentioned a lot in regard to the female.  I should point out that this overpowering and controlling aspect of the imitative tendency is a good example of the power of childbearing in the female.  We must remember that this tendency has root in the mother instinct and the blurring of the female with the child.  Its a testament, in a way, to the strong mother instinct that resides in the female.

– The ‘alienated-inclinations-by-blurring tendency’

In addition, the tendency to ‘blur’ themselves with others tends to make it so that they no longer follow their natural inclinations.  The tendency is that they abandon their natural inclinations to the ‘blurring’.  In this way, they treat the ‘others’ inclinations as if they are their own, thinking they have the traits and qualities of the ‘other’.   In short, they begin to “think” that other inclinations are theirs.  In this way, they alienate themselves from themselves.  This is the  ‘alienated-inclinations-by-blurring tendency’.

– The ‘female self-conscious panic’

Another interesting aspect of the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’ is is that it creates a tendency where females do not like to be made conscious or aware of themselves.  They also do not like to have people make themselves conscious or aware of themselves.  I sometimes jokingly call this the ‘female self-conscious panic’.  In many cases I’ve seen it has, in fact, appeared as a panic but not always.  It often makes them uptight, angry, or flustered.  This used to mystify because many acted as if the world is going to come to an end if someone makes them conscious of themselves.  Examples of things that make them aware of themselves, and which bothers them, include getting mad because someone opens the door for them (which was a big deal when I was a kid), helping them in any way, making any specific reference to the female (particularly in a critical way, such as this article), in how they get mad because people look at them, of having someone tell them that they need to do something (of course, that’s oppression!), and such.  Basically anything that makes them conscious or aware of themselves will make some girls upset in some way.  We even see a mild version of it in adolescent girls where they don’t like to find themselves the center of attention.

– The ‘self-other dilemma’

What the ‘female self-conscious panic’ shows is a basic instability in being aware of themselves, which reveals a basic innate instability in the female.  In effect, they “can’t just be themselves” . . . they need the ‘other’, someone else.  This shows a problem with the female self.  It tends to reflect a ‘self-other dilemma’, that there are conflicts between the ‘other’ and the self for the female.  This dilemma shows a number of things:

  • That there is a need for the ‘other’ to complete their self.  In other words, it shows a ‘drive’ to be a part of someone else, which is a reflection of the ‘drive’ of the mother instinct.
  • That their self is inherently unstable.  This often creates a basic problem of the female image that they have.

This creates something like a confusion of self’s, where the female has problems with the association of her self and the ‘other’ primarily in these ways:

  • In defining her self.
  • In defining the ‘other’.
  • In defining the association of her self with the ‘other’.

These basic problems are inherent in the female character.  Not only that, their influence influences much of the female character, the female identity, the female culture, and female institution.

What it all means:  problems with the mother instinct . . . the need for a firm female identity

So we see that the mother instinct tends to cause a number of problems or dilemmas or issues in regard to the female self which can create problems for the female.   This is largely caused by the mother instinct which creates several things that cause this:

  1. A ‘drive’ to blur themselves with other people.
  2. A need for the ‘other’.
  3. The ‘loss of self’.

These tendencies all make up ‘motherly love’.  Many people think motherly love is an emotional thing but my observation is that this is not the case.  From what I have seen it appears that there is a deeper side to motherly love, that it is deeper than emotions and is often devoid of emotion.  This deeper side of motherly love is actually a ‘blurring’ of the child with the mother her self, of ‘equating’ them together, of seeing themselves as part of the ‘other’, of having the child as part of her self.

Do these themes sound familiar?

They should as they were discussed above, but in a different form (the ‘blurring tendency’, the ‘equating tendency’, etc.), showing that they all have origin with the mother instinct.  What this shows, then, is that we are looking at are inherent conflicts that the mother instinct causes.   These conflicts with mother instinct seem to create a number of qualities:

  1. Unique ‘feminine’ character traits in the female.   These include things such as fragility, sensitivity, etc.  These are usually not a problem and are often beneficial to the female character.
  2. Little ‘quirks’, neurosis, and other mental problems in the female.  These can become a problem but not necessarily.
  3. The conflicts becomes dominating.  They become more pronounced and generally tend to become associated with menstruation, the “dark side of childbearing”.  Once it reaches that point it is very deep, dominant, and creates a whole unique interpretation of the world, the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’, which generally causes problems.

Many of the traits I described above may or may not become a problem, depending on their severity and control they have on the female.  Most females have many of these traits but they are very mild and, as a result, appear insignificant.  When they do become a problem the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’ tends to appear.  This tends to make females look at the female hood as a horrid and terrible thing deep down.  Because its a deep sense, they’re usually not aware of it.  So we see that one of the effects of female identity problems is that it tends to create what can be described as an ‘anti-female impulse’ which has qualities such as:

  • It creates attitudes that see themselves as bad.
  • It creates attitudes that see the female hood as bad.
  • It makes them find ways to ‘not be female’ (such a pretending not to have female problems).
  • It makes them try to be like someone else (such as the male).
  • It makes them not want to be aware of themselves (self-conscious).
  • It makes it so that they become alienated from themselves.

What all this shows is a unique quality about the female identity:  that the female needs a firm identity to get ‘hold of herself and her impulses’, so to speak, and to the impulses a place and purpose These impulses primarily seem to stem from the childbearing and menstruation, which are a part of the mother instinct.  This is quite significant as it shows the power the mother instinct has over females.  It also shows how it can ‘get out of control’ and start to control and influence the female in negative ways (which, in turn, can negatively affect the people around her).  In some respects, the mother instinct is like a great powerful river, with tremendous force, that needs to be directed and ‘controlled’ to some extent.  This appears to be a main value of identity for the female.  A firm identity seems to give the mother instinct a place, purpose, and worth as well as controlling it.  In addition, it seems to ‘harness’ the females impulses to productive ends.   In this way, the female needs an identity that will, in a way, ‘control her’ and her impulses, which are quite strong and overpowering.  As a result, a firm female identity tends to have the quality of a ‘self-constriction’, made up of restrictions and prohibitions.  If one looks at the female identity all over the world one finds the restrictions and prohibitions are standard for the female life.  If one looks even closer one will find that the female imposes most of these restrictions and prohibitions on themselves!  In fact, its usually imposed by the mothers upon the daughters.   In fact, these restrictions and prohibitions are critical for the female identity.   It is a significant part of the ‘female culture’ and ‘female institution’.  One of the reasons why the ‘female institution’ and ‘female culture’ is so important is that it helps promote and develop female identity.  Being an institution within society, that has existed for generations, with wisdom and ways passed from generation to generation, the ‘female institution’ and ‘female culture’ embody generations of female life, growth, and development in that culture.  Its fall, therefore, is a tragedy for the female as they are now deprived of this.  This is exactly what has happened in this society.  One could very well say that the fall of the ‘female institution’ and ‘female culture’ is the beginning of the fall of the female.  Females, nowadays, have no direction, wisdom, or ways of how to be a female or a guide in what a female is.  They have no real ‘connection’, as well, with the mothers of the past.  In a sense, the fall of the ‘female institution’ or ‘female culture’ has left the female ‘poor’ and destitute, scraping the barrel for some worth at being a female . . . and they’re doing everything, from trying to become a man, to being a victim, to being a slave to social media, none of which work.

Failure at finding a solution:  the ‘confusion tendency’

But having identity problems is one thing.  Another thing is how you react to the problems the identity problems have caused.  The fact is that many females REACTION to identity problems have been more destructive than the original identity problem.  In other words, having identity problems isn’t necessarily the problem, its how they react to it that is the problem.  This makes it so that many females tend to never address their identity problems but only focus on their reaction to it, such as the idea they are abused, victims, enslaved, etc. and the accusation and blame of other people, for example.  Many will make a life out of stuff like this completing neglecting the real problem.  And so, a female may feel ‘enslaved’ by everything under the sun and come up with all these political/legal explanations of why its so bad, which may sound convincing.  The problem is that they have never addressed the actual problem, so it never disappears.  As a result, they become more and more engrossed in their political/legal explanations, as if it will free them from this problem.  In this sense, they are only ‘beating around the bush’.  Because of this, the female ‘solutions’ to identity problems tend to fail.  In fact, what I have seen is that practically all the solutions to the failure of the female, as well as their identity problems, have failed.

One of the things that tend to help create a failure at a solution is that they tend to develop some confusions.  What I mean by that is that they tend to think things work when they actually do not.  I call this character trait the ‘confusion tendency’.  Traits that tend to cause this include:

  • They tend to be too reactive That is to say, they are always reacting to situations and, due to the fact that they are reacting, they think that the reaction is automatically ‘working’ In other words, reaction = automatic solution.
  • They tend to be too immediate in their reaction.  That is to say, they only react to the situation-at-hand without regard to anything else, often neglecting the bigger picture.
  • They tend to not see the effects of what they are doing and what the effects will have on things down the road.  This means that they have little ‘feedback’ on their behavior.
  • They tend to overestimate what they do, thinking its far more effective than it is.
  • They also tend to base things too much on their emotions, which is often a poor representative of what’s going on.  This also makes them too reactive and immediate.
  • The tend to get carried away with their whims and petty feelings.  Often, these will dominate their perspective of things.
  • They too easily blame other people.

The ‘confusion tendency’ seems to make it so that females have a difficult time judging if a solution works at all As a result, much of their attempts often fail.  Oftentimes, what appears to be a solution is, in actuality, nothing but a new condition that only “appears” different from the old condition, but which allows the conflict to continue in a hidden way . . . hence, giving this illusion that there is ‘no problem’.  But when that condition happens to change for some reason, then the conflict that is lying hidden, is often felt again.  This is one reason why, for example, you have to ‘walk on tippy-toes’ around girls, being careful what you say and do.  If you say or do the wrong thing they get upset.  Basically, if you take them out of their illusion at a solution, the hidden problem surfaces and they are in conflict again.  A common ‘quick fix’ is for them to blame the person who upset their illusion, masking it as being ‘offended’ or ‘hurt’ or ‘discrimination’ or something similar (the all so familiar blame game).  To me, that only amounts to saying “I have issues but don’t want to admit to it”.

Some confusions are so established that they have a specific form and style in society.  Some forms of these established ‘confusion tendencies’ include:

  • The ‘trend confusion’.  Typically, trends give an illusionary ‘authority’.  This is usually based on the fact that the confusion appears to be ‘supported’ by trend, which seems to make it relevant . . . “if everyone else is doing it then it must be right”.
  • The ‘vanity/growth confusion’.  Many females, I’ve found, tend to confuse vanity with growth.  As a result, the solutions that appear to “work” are often more reflecting a growing vanity than any growth.  This is seen a lot with female ‘self-help’ groups and books and other ‘self-discovery’ themes that are often done by females, such as “rediscovering the woman within”.  Their ‘rediscovery’ is often nothing but ‘finding their vanity’, so to speak.  In short, the ‘new identity’ they often claim to discover is really nothing but a sense of self-importance.
  • The ‘high cause confusion’.  This is when they tend to use ‘high cause’ as an excuse for whatever they do.  In America, this often entails using American political and legal thinking, such as equality (for example, because they say it in the name of “equality” they assume it is automatically right).  This explanation has such force and power, I’ve found, that its become a ‘cover’ for many female problems.  This is so prevalent that I have found that for them just using it means that they have some sort of a problem.

These confusions make it so that many females cannot see that their efforts do not work even though it appears to work.  In actuality, this has this tendency to help promote and continue their problems.  What all this means is that their inability to solve their problems are a major element in why the female has ‘failed’.

The ‘Female Self Dilemma’

All these describe aspects of what I sometimes call the ‘female self dilemma’.  Basically, females tend to have a problem with their self and in having a self and in dealing with problems with their self as a result of the mother instinct.  It creates tendencies such as:

  • They are insecure in who they are.  They avoid female things and things about being female.
  • They confuse themselves with others.  This makes them think they are someone else, for example.
  • They don’t want to be aware of themselves or reminded their females.   They will not like to be reminded who they are.  The most dramatic version of this is that they don’t like people to open doors for them as it reminds them they’re females.  They also are bothered when they are required to do ‘female things’.
  • They don’t solve their problems.  They have many explanations and illusions that disguise it though.

Overall, these can create a self-destructive pattern.  This is because they develop a pattern of self-avoidance and self-denial that only leads in one direction:  self-destructiveness.  For many females in the U.S. this has become a reality and a fact.  As a result, many females in the U.S. are fighting the negative effects of their own mentality.  These effects, though, are generally hidden because of another aspect of their mentality, of how they hide the problem (see below).

Other Female Traits That Work Against Them

Femininity, by its nature, restricts the female.  One reason for this is because nature has designed the female for a very specific function:  childbearing and motherhood.  As a result, nature has given her abilities, inclinations, instincts, etc. that promote this.  It has done this to such an extent that it has decreased the importance of other things.  The effect of this, often, is that it restricts the female in her capabilities, abilities, and inclinations.

– Other aspects of childbearing and motherhood

The female is, as I jokingly say, a “machine of childbearing”.  They are designed for it physically and mentally.  It dominates their growth, their aging, their mind, their interpretation with the world, and their association with the world.  When one looks at female psychology and behavior one can see that this is very strong and dominant.  In fact, I consider childbearing and motherhood as so powerful that it creates two effects:

  1. It controls the female to the point that they are slaves to it. 
  2. It is so specific in nature that it makes the female limited in what they can do.

Why is this?

Simply because, childbearing and motherhood is so important that nature made it so that the female is focused on it, so to speak.  We must remember that the female, being a “machine of childbearing”, maintained humanity and kept it going.  It was needed for the perpetuation of the species.  This is no small potatoes . . . and its no really surprise this impulse is so powerful.  But this sense appears to of been forgotten.  In some respects, the failure of the female is very much rooted in the loss of the sense of the importance of childbearing and motherhoodThis, no doubt, is rooted in the failure of the ‘female culture’ and ‘female institution’. 

But is childbearing and motherhood any less important now?

My feelings is that it is not.  In fact, it may even be more important.  In other words, I see no lessoning in importance of childbearing and motherhood.  The problem is that the females have lost this sense of importance in childbearing and motherhoodWhy?   Because they have ‘failed’ and this loss of a sense of importance is one of the signs.  In other words, the problem is their lack of a sense of importance.

An interesting aspect of the mother instinct is that, if one looks at the female all over the world throughout the centuries, one cannot help but notice that the female were always in a ‘protected world’.  I often speak of this as the ‘confinement’.  It entails a tendency to be confined, or limited, in many ways such as:

  • Having to be in a limited area of space.  Females have always confined themselves to a small area.
  • Having a limited association with people.  Since the beginning of time, females have had restrictions on who they associate with.
  • Having a limited association with the world as a whole.  Females have always restricted their association with the world.  Typically, if a female does do some great association with the world, such as mountain climbing, it is in imitation of males.
  • Having limited activities.  Females have typically limited themselves in what they do and even how they do it, often confining themselves to specific activities and behavior.

These traits are a historic fact and a psychological fact.

What does it describe?

Basically, it reveals that the female has a restricted or limited mind.  Because of this, they must limit their association with the world.  I generally associate this tendency to the mother instinct which is so strong that it as if creates an automatic ‘narrowing’ of the females mind (which they actually have no control over).  We must remember that the mother instinct, by its nature, primarily consists of a tendency that ‘narrows down’ the females focus and causes an emphasis on specific people only (namely, the child).  Everything else tends to be marginalized, disregarded, or ignored.  In this way, the mother instinct tends to create a general orientation, in the female, of looking at the world through a tube.  This tendency tends to make the female mind, in general, narrow in its orientation, creating a number of limited qualities:

  • Limited association with the world.
  • Limited interpretation with the world.

This tends to make the ‘female world’ somewhat restrictive and limited in its ways, which is what the historical record and psychology shows.  We could very well call it the ‘motherly mind-narrowing tendency’. 

This limited world, caused by the ‘motherly mind-narrowing tendency’ tends to give the female certain qualities:

  • A naïve or simplistic viewpoint of things.
  • It makes it difficult for them to ‘assess’ the greater situation.
  • It makes them have an inability to handle dilemma’s and problems created by the external world (that is, the world beyond their narrow world).

In effect, the mother instinct makes the female ‘fragile’ or ‘weak’ innately.  This fact often appears in their occasional demonstration of fear of the world and feelings of somehow being ‘hurt’ by the world.  Because of this, the female tends to seek a ‘protection’, of some sort, from this apparent threat from the world.  Often, this entails the creation of a specific world within society which is “theirs” and which is removed from the world.  This is the ‘protected world’ or ‘confinement’.  This quality is actually a dominant function of the ‘female institution’ and ‘female culture’.  It creates a world that is ‘a specific way’ that can associate with and feel secure in.  When it is not this ‘specific way’, they will often struggle with it.  This makes it so that the female character is unsuited and insufficient to confront the world ‘beyond confinement’.  One could very well say that one reason why the female has failed is because they are being taken out of their ‘protected world’.

If one looks at history its apparent that there had to be effort to create this ‘protected world’ for the female.  This is because, by creating the ‘protected world’, they allowed the female to grow and develop their natural abilities.  When you take them out of it they tend to struggle.  As a result, much of female life, all over the world since the beginning of time, is in creating this ‘protected world’ for the females to live in.  But in the past several centuries many things have eaten away at this ‘protected world’ making them vulnerable to the world.  This has created a dilemma which I call ‘female exposure’.  Basically, this is a condition when the ‘protected world’ no longer exists.  The ‘female institution’ has deteriorated.  The ‘female culture’ has deteriorated’.  The female is now exposed to the world.

In general, the female character is not prepared for this.  As a result, they tend to create false ‘protected worlds’.  A common one seen, nowadays, is the slavish attitude surrounding social-media and trend.  By following social-media and trend they get the illusion that they are not exposed.  They think that “following what everyone else is doing” creates a ‘protected world’, but its very ineffective.  As a result, we see some traits of the new ‘pseudo-protected world’ of the female:

  • An artificial sense of people.  The association is through phone, social media, etc.
  • A slavish following of people.  By automatically doing what everyone else is doing they feel ‘secure’.
  • A mindlessness.  Things are done without thought or consideration.

These give an illusion of a ‘protected’ world in the female mind.  It does no recreate it though.  They are still exposed.  Overall, ‘female exposure’ has worked against them and has had major contributions to their difficulties, problems, and current failure.  In some respects, it has brought the female out of her natural element and out of the realm of natural tendencies.  In this way, it has caused a general undermining of the female character. 

Overall, its become clear to me, over the years, that the female character only tends to go so far and is somewhat limited (as I described above).  All over the world the female has only done minimal things, even in societies where they have control (I’ve written an article involving this theme called “Thoughts on matriarchal societies: Africa, slavery, and rebuilding – the effects of non-organized society“).  It also even appears that in a society where they have control their character traits tend to weaken it (see article above).  All this shows that the female, by themselves, tend to have a natural limitation in what they do.  As a result, it appears that, for the female to be effective as a person, they must stay within their limitations.  This is one reason why there is ‘confinement’ and the ‘protected world’.  Going beyond their limitations makes them ‘go beyond themselves’, so to speak, which tends to lead to failure.

– Naturally Appearing Low Self-Esteem

The female has a naturally appearing tendency to low self-esteem.  This, of course, plays a strong element in the females tendency to have a low view of being female.  In many ways, its the base of it all, for it is the inherent beginning of the tendency to think in that way.  I wrote an article on this called “Some thoughts on the naturally appearing female low self-esteem“.

– The  female ‘Drive to be a Victim’

Females tend to have a tendency to be a victim or see themselves as victims.  I wrote an article on this called “Thoughts on the female ‘drive to be a victim’“.  I have always seen the ‘drive to be a victim’ as originating from childbearing and menstruation.  To put it simply, the “damage” done to the female body by the act of childbearing makes them a ‘victim’ of all humanity and, subsequently, the world.  Menstruation, which is a ‘failed childbearing’, and its repetitive appearance in their life, drives this fact home.  It makes many females tend to have a deep inner sense of victimhood.  This appears in different ways:

  • For some females, it become a way of life.  They see victimizing in everything and everywhere.
  • Other females become obsessed with revenge.  If these females see themselves as hurt, in some way, they will have deep inner hatred and a desire for revenge.
  • Some will see the female hood as bad.  They will see something wrong in all aspects of the female life.  Whatever the female does its bad in some way (having children, cooking, cleaning, etc.).
  • Some will see themselves as bad people.
  • Some will seek to be a victim.  They will, for example, seek abusive males and even instigate the male to be abusive.

With this naturally appearing point of view its no surprise that one of the results is that they see the female hood in a bad light (females are victims, remember!).  This only helps  foster their ‘failure’.  One of the effects of this is that it destroys their dignity and self-respect. (For other things on victim tendency of the female see my article, “More thoughts on the “female-as-victim” – revealing aspects of the mother instinct“).

– The slavish attitude of the female

The fact of the matter is that the female has a slavish-like mentality.  Typically, they have blamed the male or society for this.  But, to be frank, one of the reasons why I don’t like to be around American females is because I cannot stand their slavish mechanistic attitude, of blindly following trend and such.  There is even a look they have, a cold unemotional robot look.  This is one reason why I often speak of the ‘female robot’.  This fact shows that I am observing a female trait, something within them.  That is to say, it is not imposed upon them as they claim.  Because of this, I have always said that the females complaining about enslavement has a kernel of truth but that they are blaming the wrong people . . . they are their own slave drivers!  This slavish attitude is inherent in the female character.  It originates, I believe, from the mother instinct, as I’ve made mention above.  Its power over them  creates a tendency for the female to develop a generalized slavish attitude.  Many females can feel this tendency and feel helpless toward it.  One reason why is that because of the ‘self dilemma’ and ‘dilemma of will’ which robs them of a means to ‘get a hold’ on this problem.  In effect, they are victims of their own character traits:  a slavishness, a lack of self, a lack of will.

– The Females Envy of the Male:  The ‘Female Envy Culture”

In America there is extensive envy of the male by the female.  In fact, its so prevalent I often speak of it as the ‘female envy culture’ (I spoke of this in an article I wrote called “Thoughts on the female and Victorian society – “being Victorian green” – the females envy of the male and the ‘female envy culture’“).  The fact is that the females envy of the male tends to undermine and degrade them.  It does this a number of ways:

  • It takes away their dignity.  The lack of emphasis on being female impairs their development of being female.
  • They try to be someone else and not be themselves.
  • They tend to measure themselves, and the female in general, by a male standard.  This gives an erroneous view of themselves.

Some females will start to compete with the male, trying to outdo him, for example.  Some may even make a life out of acting male-like.  This only hides their doubt of themselves and uncertainty of their own femininity, further making themselves prone to failure.

– The females attempt to take up male values through patriotism

The U.S. is based on male values which reflect the male character.  These values would become integrated and equated with the countries values as the country was created and founded by the male.  These values include things like independence, self-reliance, and achievement to name a few.  During the cold war, especially (though it also appeared earlier), it became a big thing for people to emulate American values as a matter of national pride.  Because of this, the female began to take up American values and try to emulate them and follow them.  The problem is that these values do not reflect the female character.  Because of this it has a tendency to undermine the female.  This is because it does nothing to promote the female character.  In addition, since the females are no longer following things associated with the female character they, in the end, only undermine themselves.  This fact is usually hidden behind national pride, with often has a self-righteous attitude, which only disguises the damage.  Because of this I have learned that when girls speak of patriotic and nationalistic things, in a self-righteous way, it often hides something that undermines them.

One of the effects of taking male values is that it gives the females a ‘fish-out-of-water’ quality.  It makes them appear ‘displaced’ or ‘orphans’ in many ways.  This is a common trait among American females.  I’m not the only one who has mentioned this fact.  This quality is mentioned a lot by males, who can sense it in females, though they describe it with different words.  Many males won’t make anything of it as the females will cite political/legal theory as their ‘authority’ to condemn them.  This is a good example of how their use of political/legal theory furthers their undermining . . . something THEY do.

– The ‘female ghost effect’

Another element that affects them is what I often call the ‘female ghost effect’.  This is a phenomena where they tend to ‘forget’ themselves or other females.  In actuality, though, it is a variation of the ‘blurring tendency’ where they blur themselves with someone else, but it as if goes one step further.  In the ‘blurring tendency’ the female blurs themselves with another person.  In the ‘female ghost effect’ they blur themselves, in a way, into nothing, into non-existence, as if they are not there.  Because of this it is actually part of the ‘female self dilemma’ (problem with being female) and ‘female self-conscious panic’ (problem being conscious of themselves).  This tends to create a number of perspectives such as:

  • They have this uncanny “knack” at always being a victim.
  • They have this uncanny “knack” at always being innocent.
  • They have this uncanny “knack” at never being at fault.

In general, they have no influence on anything but everything influences them.  You see, being a “ghost” they do nothing to their surroundings but their surroundings does everything to them.  In this sense, their relationship with the world becomes a “I’m not there affecting anything but everything is affecting me”.  Its like a one-sided association with the world.  As a result, it tends to make the female become an ‘angel’, in some respects, always good and ‘pure’, always the one adversely affected.  Many females will rely on this image as part of their identity.   The problem is that it is, in reality, no identity at all.  One could very well call it a ‘ghost identity’ or, perhaps, a ‘negative identity’, as it is a continual attempt at ‘not being there’ (a ghost).  In some respects its an avoidance, of not participating in the world.  I’ve found that, often with this tendency, is a fear of the world. 

It seems that there are two types of ‘female ghosts’:

  • The ‘ghost self’.   This is when the female, herself, see’s herself as the ghost.
  • The ‘ghost mother’.   Here their mother as if disappears and vanishes despite all the problems, conflicts, hates, and such that the female may have with her.   Because of this, they often overlook the problems they have with their mothers.  Because of this, they often blame someone else for these problems, such as the father.  For example, in Victorian society the mother had almost absolute control of the female, dictating what they do, how they act, who they associate with, etc.  Because of this, many females developed ‘issues’ with their mother as a result.  But, by making the ‘ghost mother’, the effect of the mother fades.  Who, then, becomes the “controller”?  The father . . . who else?  Because of this, many Victorian females claimed that the father had all this control, but it was actually her mother.  Most of the time, the father had little control of the upbringing of the female.  So, you can see how the ‘ghost mother’ tended to put blame in the wrong place.  In fact, I am beginning to feel that much of this problem may have an origin with the mother/daughter relationship in the Victorian era.

Hiding the Problem

As a general rule, the female hood tends to ‘brush off’ this problem, as if to cleanse themselves of it.  In fact, after many years watching them, it became clear that a lot of feminism, and much of the modern female life, is nothing but the attempt at ‘brushing off’ their ‘female dilemma’, which is what I call the problem that they have with being female.  In some respects, for some females its become a way of life.

In general, females tend to hide or avoid the ‘female dilemma’ by doing things such as:

  • Avoidance.  They avoid anything female and, oftentimes, despise it and things about it.  I was often stunned how many females who sneer at “girly” things.
  • Playing the victim.  They see everything female as some form of victimizing, abuse, or enslavement.  You name it . . . if its female, it makes them a victim.
  • Accusation and blame.  They accuse and blame whoever they can.  Generally, the male is blamed, or society.  Its this act, frankly, that mainly made me question what was going on as I was utterly appaled how males, especially, were blamed for EVERYTHING.  Males were often made out as these horrible tyrants intent on enslaving and abusing the male . . . utterly ridiculous!
  • “Oppression” and “freedom”:  the use of law and politics.  Generally, this means taking advantage of British and American law and politics involving the idea of the ‘freedom’.  They basically turn the female into the ‘oppressed’ who are fighting for their ‘freedom’, usually against the ‘oppressive’ and ‘tyrannical’ male.  As a result of this, they were able to harness all the patriotic and political mania of these two countries.  This technique became particularly effective during the cold war where there was a strong political and legal mania going on which they could harness.
  • Trying to be men.  By being men they are ‘no longer female’ and, therefore, they think they no longer have the ‘female dilemma’.  I know females who seem to think that they are males.  I’ve even seen some female who think that their not being a male is a form of ‘abuse’, as if there is some sort of conspiracy to do it (remember, they’re victims!).

These create a pattern of avoidance.  A lot of their avoidance is actually a continuation of the ‘confusion tendency’.  In a way, its just taken more seriously and as a deliberate self-deception.  In a sense, they have developed an attitude of  ‘fooling themselves’.  Because of this, not only are their problems hidden from other people but from themselves . . . they don’t know about it.  In fact, in many ways, because of the failure of the female hood over the years they have created an illusion about themselves, of who they are, what they are, what their purpose is, and such that, in actuality, they hide themselves from themselves.  This is why I often speak of the modern female hood as the ‘failed sex-in-disguise’ or “the great illusion”. 

Over the years I’ve learned that much of what American girls do is an illusion giving them an appearance that they are something else than they are, they are primarily “the great illusion”.  Many of these are based or originate from qualities and tendencies described above.  Some examples include:

  • The ‘feminine chameleon’.  This is a tendency where females imitate things and will automatically change to fit the situation.  Typically, they follow whatever the ideal is.  This often gives the illusion, for example, that females are ‘mature’ or ‘stable’ or an ‘angel’.  In actuality, all they are doing is catering to and changing themselves to the ideals.  The problem is that it is not them, its a ‘front’, an image they have adopted . . . and they immediately change when the ideal changes.
  • The following of the ‘other’.  Whatever the ‘other’ does they do.  This is often done almost obsessively.
  • Hiding behind politics and law. 
  • Seeing themselves as a victim or slave.
  • Effects of the ‘blurring tendency’.
  • Various ways of escaping the female hood.  Some of these were also described above, such as trying to be a man.

These effects of these is to “apparently” give an “image” to the female that is stable and secure.  But, in actuality, it is an illusion as none of it reveals who they are.  In some way, its like an act, a performance, not much different than watching a play.  This is why I often compare watching females to a play or performance.  As a result, it makes it so that females never ‘find who they are’ and have a continual avoidance of themselves, and have problems with their identity.  This gives the female a means to hide the ‘female dilamma’, as well as other problems they may have.  It also creates, in the female, a tendency to have what can be described as the ‘two minds phenomena’.  One mind generally does the ‘acceptable image’, giving the illusion of being secure and being a part of things.  The other mind hides their real self, along with its problems.  For some females it can cause a lot of problems and they struggle with it.


What have caused the failure of the female?  This is something I have been looking at for a quarter of a century.  At first I thought it was consumerism, and such, but my inquiry began to show that there was more to it than that.

Of course, I’m sure many females, in their commitment to accusation and blame, will say it is the male or societies fault . . . they are innocent victims remember!  My inquiry has shown that there is little truth in this.  I see nothing particularly bad in the male or societies treatment of the female.  In fact, my observation is that the male and society are generally supportive of the female in Western society.  When it does fail them it fails the male as much as it does them, though in different ways.  In other words, I see no truth in their claim that the “male is against them” or that there is some “conspiracy” to enslave them.  I accept these as female fabrications and are symptoms of their problem (the ‘female dilemma’).

An interesting point that I should note is that I was utterly stunned by this problem when I first saw it in the late 1980’s.  I actually was baffled and couldn’t explain it until about the mid 1990’s when something happened that is quite revealing.  At this time I become disillusioned with the U.S.   I began to question its whole perspective and point of view.  The end result is that I ceased to support many American points of view.  As I abandoned many American viewpoints I found that I began to understand this problem more . . . it became more clear.  In effect, I saw that Americanism hid a lot of this problem under all its “high cause”.  Because of this, the more you believe in American “high cause” the less likely you are going to see it.  Its probably no surprise that they tended to use Americanism to hide behind (as I describe below).

Here are some of the influences I have seen over the years:


The failure of Christianity, in a way, is the beginning of the failure of the female.  With its fall the female, also, began to fall.  We must remember that, for centuries, life was controlled by Christian belief in Western Europe.  This instilled great Christian belief in the lives of the people.  One of these is the idea that we are all sinners.  This idea of a sinner was very influential in Western Christianity.  It basically taught us that we are bad people.  But Christianity also taught that, through Christian belief, we were all ‘uplifted’ and were ‘saved’ from being sinners.  With the failure of Christianity, after the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s, we begin to see the eroding of Christian belief to the point that it is greatly eroded by the 1800’s.  This is what I call the Post-Christian era.

When Christianity failed the ‘uplifting’ and ‘saving’ disappeared but the “we’re all sinners” point of view remained.  As a result, it created a general ‘downcast’ attitude in the people and a “we’re bad” stance in much of the population (which continues to this day).  I’ve spoken about such things in an article called “Thoughts on Blind Christianity – some effects of the post-Christian era“.  The effects of this is to create an attitude in the female which I often call ‘self-effacing’.  They basically tended to degrade themselves and think they are bad people.  Because of this, they tended to see everything femalish in a bad light.  In short, the “female is bad” is a variation of “I’m bad” which comes from the Christian “I’m a sinner”.  I tend to feel that this attitude is the actual source for much of the “female is a victim” and “everything femalish is bad” mentality in American females.  Its a remnant of Christianity, a continuation of the idea that we are all sinners.   The effect of Post-Christianity is a tendency to have an attitude that is self-effacing, self-undermining, self-defeating . . . in short, self-destructive.  This attitude has caused a tendency of failure on many levels:   as a people, as a culture, in our belief systems, and who we are as people (In this case, the female).

Reflecting America’s self-destructive viewpoint

In some respects, the ‘failed sex’ follows the pattern of America’s self-destructive mentality.  I have written articles on this such as “Thoughts on how the U.S. is undermining itself with its own ideals – the ‘God-ordained democracy’ thats frightened of authority“, “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“, and “Thoughts on how America is destroying the basic foundations of human society and are a threat to themselves“.  Basically, America has a mentality that tends to undermine itself.  This, really, is a continuation of Post-Christian mentality, of self denial as a righteous cause.  This Christian-based point of view was passed onto the political theories that America created, which just so happens to be about the same period of time that Christianity failed.  In some respects, American political theory is a “political Christianity” reflecting Christian ideas in a political framework, such as the democratic worship of the “people” as reflecting the worship of Christ in the “body of Christ” (a Christian representative of the people).  Because of this, America has taken on views, and the problems, that are found with Post-Christianity:  a tendency of self-undermining and self-destructiveness.

In effect, the American female, being imitative in character, have continued the American self-destructive attitude as a way of life for the female:  just as America undermines itself “in the name of democracy” so have the female undermined themselves “in the name of democracy”In this way, the ‘failed sex’ is actually a reflection of American political viewpoint, following along the character of the society they live in.  I guess its really no surprise that many American females uses American political viewpoints to justify what they do.

Political/legal ideology

Contrary to what it may seem, democratic-based political/legal theory has only helped to promote the failure of the female and female institution.  Its done this primarily by promoting means for the female to undermine herself.  Its done this a number of ways:

  • By supporting their flight from femininity.  A good example is how they have made anything female an ‘oppression’ or ‘enslavement’.
  • By allowing them to idealize non-female things.  A good example is the idea of ‘equality’ which allows them to desire to be like men.
  • By giving the illusion that they don’t have female problems.  A good example is also ‘equality’ which makes them think that they are guys, devoid of female issues and concerns.

In other words, despite the “good” it may seem to promote it actually has been used to undermine the female.  And I must point out that it is the female, herself, who has done this undermining with political/legal theory.   Because of this, the female is really responsible for causing great distortion and degradation in political/legal theory.  In fact, part of the great joke that modern law has become is based in the female and in her use of the law to undermine herself.

In many ways, the political/legal theory has created the perfect ‘cover-up’ of something that sounds legitimate and appearing with authority.  This is because of the apparent authority that political/legal theory gives.

The Influence of Mother Mary

Christianity created an image of the mother in Mother Mary, mother of Jesus.  Naturally, since she is the “mother of God” she would be seen as emulating the best in the female.  Since Christianity is rooted in the idea of love it was perceived that Mother Mary was a loving motherly person.  As a result, this image would be used as the best example in being female.  In actuality, this image of Mother Mary which, interestingly, is largely fabricated (as there is not a lot of scriptorial references to her) would become the basis of an ‘ideal female’.  So we see that, from the beginning, the ‘ideal female’ is sort of based in an ‘imagined image’.  In many ways, this tendency would plague the female down to today.

Some traits of the Mother Mary image include:

  • A selflessness.  The mother must be completely selfless placing her family before herself.
  • A continual lovingness.  They must always be loving and caring.
  • A happiness and joyful disposition.  They must never get upset but maintain a happy and joyfulness.
  • A prettiness.  Mother Mary was usually viewed as being particularly pretty so that females had to maintain such things, both physically and in their character.  This often causes great stress on the female to maintain this.

The natural slavish-like mentality of the female made it so that many females followed this ideal, even to the point that it caused some of them problems.  In short ,they HAD TO follow it, creating much strain on the female.  As a result, it created a number of problems for the female:

  • It made them pursue an ‘image’.
  • It tended to lead to a slavish attitude in pursuit of this image. 

Since Christianity lasted so long it instilled these traits, along with the problems, in much of the females making it a significant part of the ‘female life’.  I, myself, can see these traits in many females where I live, of how they view themselves as ‘pure’, an ‘angel,’ and such.  I can also see that it takes a lot out of some of them.  Even though Christianity seems almost non-existent the hidden influence of Mother Mary is still powerful for the females.

The Victorian Mother and the British Class System

It seems that a very significant thing that happened to create the failure of the female happened right after the Napoleonic wars.  With the rise of business after the wars there developed a richer merchant class that allowed people to afford things.  This allowed some of the population to imitate the nobility or upper classes in England.  I call this tendency the ‘pseudo-nobility’ (I’ve written an article concerning this called “Thoughts on how females are continuing the mistake of their mothers before them . . . continuing the ‘failed sex’ and promoting alienation“).  Many Victorian mothers would practically “force” this way upon their daughters, forcing them to act like a noble lady.  This became so prevalent that it practically defined the Victorian females life.  In so doing, though, the Victorian mothers cut their daughters off from the centuries old existing ‘female culture’ created by the mothers before them and which took centuries to create.  In this way, the Victorian mothers actually alienated their daughters from a healthy female lifestyle and forced upon them an artificial lifestyle not necessarily suited to the female life.  The fact of the matter, as history shows, is that the ‘pseudo-noble lifestyle’ did not create a healthy female lifestyle, though it gave the illusion that this was the case.  The females appeared ‘proper’ and all that (they were imitating the nobility!) but, deep down, its failure was causing problems for girls . . . it subsequently helped make the female fail.

It altered the pattern of behavior  in the ‘female life’ such as:

  • The tendency to abandon traditional female culture, female life, and female things.  In short, they abandoned the traditional female way of life of the mothers before them.  Being that they were now following a ‘pseudo-noble’ image of the female, the traditional female way of life was viewed as ‘lower class’ in respect to the British class system of the Victorian era.  Accordingly, it caused a view that the old ‘female culture’ as a form of degradation (or ‘lower class’).   In so doing, they made the ‘pseudo-noble’ female the exclusive form of female having any dignity at all. 
  • The tendency to imitate, mimic, or ape things.  The ‘pseudo-noble’ attitude is one of imitation, of trying to be like the nobility.  Because this is so critical in this behavour it became very influential in the female life.
  • The tendency to hide behind illusion:  artificiality.  Trying to ‘play act’ a noble lady created, in many females, a tendency to ‘play act’ as a character trait, causing an artificiality and a phoniness to the female life that continues to this day.
  • The tendency to social climbing.  The ‘pseudo-noble’ attitude is one of social climbing.  Because of this, it made many females wanting to social climb whenever they can.  I can see this in many females now.  In this so-called “classless society”, though, the social climbing consists primarily in taking the male position or role or in pursuing social ideals.  As a result, they want to be the breadwinners, have a job, get a degree, play sports, achieve this and that, and other things.  There is a belief that this stuff will ‘better’ them.  This is basically social climbing, intended to make them higher up on the social scale, which is nothing but a continuation of the ‘pseudo-nobility’ point of view.  In  many ways, this type of attitude is making it so that the female is actually continuing the British class struggle perspective in this society.

All these traits are seen in the American female nowadays.  We must remember that this is a ‘new female lifestyle’ that the Victorian mothers taught their daughters.  This image of the ‘pseudo-noble’ female was ‘conjured up’ by them as if out of nowhere, which is why its created a lacking female life . . . it did not have the benefit of centuries of experience.  But because their mothers taught them this, it became ingrained in much of the females life down to today.

Overall, though, it created a tendency for females to become ‘phony’ or ‘artificial’, to deny who they are, and try to be something they are not . . . all traits of the ‘failed sex’.  Because of this, we can see the ‘pseudo-nobility’ was very influential in the failure of the female.  In some ways, it set the pattern for it.

Another thing this brings up is the influence of the mothers.  As one can see, this phenomena appears to be a condition where the mothers enforced these values on their daughters.  In turn, the daughters enforced it upon theirs and so on down the line.  This more or less means that the failure of the female has large influence in the mother/daughter association.  I wrote an article involving aspects of this called “Thoughts on a Victorian cause for female low self-esteem in Western society: a failure of the Victorian mother???“” and “Thoughts on how females are continuing the mistake of their mothers before them . . . continuing the ‘failed sex’ and promoting alienation“.

In addition to that, the Victorian era created a unique character of person.  One of the manifestations of Victorianism is an incredible self-consciousness (I mentioned some things about the Victorian character called “Thoughts on the Victorian character“).  This incredible self-consciousness created, in many Victorians, a tendency to be neurotic and constrained.  In other words, by being too aware of themselves they began to restrict or ‘repress’ themselves, often to great extremes.  For the female, especially, it would have great impact.  It would probably play a big part in the creation of the ‘female self-conscious panic’, as described above.  In the females training at being ‘noble’ they had to be especially self-conscious, as they had to ‘behave properly’ all the time.  What self-consciousness did, though, is predispose the female to a mental weakness and neurosis, a hallmark trait of many Victorian femalesAs time went on this would weaken the female, predisposing her to ‘failure’. 

TV, Soap Opera’s, and Social Media

My observation seems to show that various forms of social media have made great contributions to the failure of the female.  It seems instrumental in the destruction of the housewife at first.  Later it would undermine the female as a whole.  I should note that, by ‘social media’, I mean an artificially induced social experience.  In general, it is not face-to-face, with direct human contact, and generally involves a machine.  This takes place in several ways:

  1. Observation.  This is basically watching and seeing people or what people do.  The person remains passive.  In general, this seems to have effect but its somewhat limited.  The TV and reading things on an internet sites are good examples.
  2. Experiencing.  This is when the female takes deliberate effort.  This tends to have great effect on the female.  Talking on telephones and writing on internet sites are good examples.

The TV seems to be the first significant social media to appear.  This began in the 1950’s.  The coming of soap opera’s would play a greater role by the 1970’s and cause a great deterioration.  I wrote an article about this called “Thoughts on the problem of the ‘soap opera housewife’ and the ‘social media female’ – “The media absorption”“.   The new social media has replicated these problems in the females of today.

The basic effect of these things is that, at first, it destroyed the housewife by taking the ‘center’ out of the ‘female life’ and ‘female institution’.  It did this by the enticing and mesmorizing pull of TV, soap opera’s, and the associations of people they saw there.  Through these things the female would watch other people having experiences and emotions and relationships.  Once the TV was shut off the house, then, became ’empty’, so to speak, making her life seem dreary.  The area where the female has been for centuries – namely, the home – became ‘dead’ to the female . . . the female ‘center’ was pulled away from her roots.  The effect of this was an undermining of not only the female herself, but the ‘female life’ and the ‘female institution’.  In effect, the female hood ‘failed’ by being lured away by the enticing pull of other peoples experiences and affairs the social media initiated. 

My personal feelings is that this is far more important than we may realize.  In fact, I often feel this is responsible for the destruction of the housewife, at first, which undermined the female as a whole, leading to the greater failure of the female.  One can see it anew with the new social media.  Their life centers on their phone and Facebook and things like that.  They ‘live’ there and it is where their ‘associations’ with people are located, all in virtual reality.  It as if sucks their attention and life into it like a vacuum.  How can a viable ‘female institution’ be created under those conditions?  How can a ‘female life’ be created?  How can a female hood be created?  When their ‘center’ of life is in social media and virtual reality, then what becomes of the rest of life?  Here is one of the failures of the female hood.

It seems, to me, that the social media has guaranteed the ‘female institution’ will not exist.  The reason is because it absorbs too much of the females energy.  Their whole heart and mind is in it.  This shows that for a ‘female institution’ (or ‘male institution’ for that matter) to exist they must have their heart and mind in it.  When its not there, it fails.  Since the social media (TV, cell phones, internet, etc.) so absorbs their hearts and minds a ‘female institution’ will never be maintained, no less created.

The Effects of the Consumerism

Initially, I thought consumerism had a lot to do with the failure of the female.  I even used to say that “the washing machine destroyed the housewife”.  I now no longer believe this to be true.  I feel that, by themselves, consumerism couldn’t of created this problem.  There are too many elements involved with this problem, such as the fact that there are too many personal ‘issues’, political/legal mumbo-jumbo, and so on.  This shows that we are dealing with a far greater problem than “washing machines”.  My observation seems to show that consumerism actually had minimal effect than what it may seem.  Its contribution could be described more as ‘minor’, more in the line of something that ‘aggravated’ other conditions rather in causing the conditions. 

In fact, I still feel that the housewife, for example, is still a “viable institution” if the females would make it so.  In fact, I often feel that if the housewives would act like housewives, as their mothers have been doing for centuries, a family could probably live on very little money and families would be stronger.  But the females no longer know how to do that.  As I myself have observed, they have degraded the housewife down to nothing.  There are too many things that turn their hearts and minds from it and pull them away.

Society and the Problem of the Cover Up

The many attempts at covering up this problem, as described above, actually helped not only cause this problem but have helped it to continue.  This is because the problem can not be addressedAs a result, it made it worse over time.  One reason why is that the cover up how now become social.  You cannot speak about or criticize the female socially which, in effect, makes the cover up a social issue.  How can any problems gets solved with a mentality like that?  One can see how this only helps this problem to grow.  As a result, one aspect of the ‘failure’ of the female is how society CANNOT address female problems and, when it does, it is restricted in how it does it.  Many females, and society, would go through great lengths to cover up their problems so that NO ONE could talk about it, not even psychologists (as I, myself, observed when I was at the University studying psychology . . . see my article “Thoughts on why a ‘female psychology’ can’t be developed effectively“).  They did this in many ways such as:

  • The use law and politics.   An example is how they turned themselves into the ‘oppressed’ or ‘victims’.
  • The use of American ideals.   They would make everything out as rights violations, for example.
  • The assumption of ulterior motives.  They see themselves as victims, try to be men, and so on.

Because of these the female would only be looked at from certain angles and certain perspectives.  The effect of this is to create a distorted view of the female and one that was ‘acceptable’ to the female.  In some ways, it was like trying to create an illusion by twisting truth and fact around.  It was this observation, made during this time, that greatly impressed upon me that females had ‘issues’ about themselves and would go to great lengths to hide it.

One form of this cover is called feminism.  In actuality, feminism is rooted in the ‘failure’ of the female hood.  Its philosophies, and points of view, are attempts at a solution which, in reality, are just forms of a cover up.  In this way, feminism helped promote the ‘failure’ of the female hood.

Education and Learning

Despite what people may think, and how it conflicts with America’s view of the grandness of education, my observation is that education (that is to say, learning things on any involved level) seems to impair the females and hinder their growth.  Though they may sound ‘educated’ and knowledgeable, and fit the mold society makes for that, they seem to lack something as if something is ‘missing’.  It seems, to me, that this ‘missing’ quality, for the female, is because education and learning has become an avenue for the ‘blurring tendency’.  Education, with its emphasis on imitation, has become just another way for the female to ape something.  Often, education becomes nothing but an avenue for aping or, rather, blurring themselves with something else (namely knowledge).  They end up aping facts, information, and knowledge all the way to aping social status an education may bring.  In this way, education and learning in female tends to lead to the ‘blurring sickness’.  So we see that education and learning is not inherently suited to the female character, which is no doubt why the female never used to cater to it.

Another aspect of this that they did not create it.  We must remember that education is a ‘male thing’ and it is the male who created it.  Its only natural that it reflects male traits.  Because of this, education is not the same for the female character as it is for the male character.  So we see, in education and learning, that the females are adopting something ‘foreign’ to them.  In so doing they blur themselves with a ‘foreign’ something that does not reflect female tendencies, losing themselves in the process.   In other words, education and learning becomes a means for the female to ‘not be herself’ and to lose a genuineness of who she is.   It, therefore, moves her away from who she is, and, as I’ve mentioned above, this ‘not being herself’ is one of the reasons why the female has failed.  My own experience and observation has shown that the females who demonstrate the most genuineness have little education and learning.  This is because they have little to corrupt or distort their natural tendencies.  Because of this, they can be who they are.  It appears that the more they learn the less genuine they become.  They also seem to have more “issues” and they generally have a slew of facts and figures to hide that fact (part of the cover-up).

Of course, this point of view about education conflicts with this societies high and mighty view of education and learning which automatically makes any education and learning as ‘great’ and ‘wonderful’ and ‘good for everyone’.  My observation is that this is not true.  Education is not ‘good for everyone’.  Some people are better without education and learning.  In fact, I feel that modern education is doing a great deal of harm to many people because education and learning is harmful to many people.  The great majority of females, it appears to me, are part of this group.  There’s also a lot of males who are part of this group, but it seems to be in less proportion than the female.  Originally, it was the damage that education and learning did to the male that brought this to my attention.  As I learned more about it I could see that the female was taking a greater hit, because of their different characters.  But, because this society praises education and learning the ‘damage’ is not noticed or blamed on other things.  Some articles I wrote on this are “Thoughts on the ‘squashed mind’ – the impairing effects of formal education“, “Thoughts on modern education – decreasing the value of ability“, “Thoughts on how modern schooling undermines kids – the ‘education sickness’“, and “Thoughts on the overvaluation of education“.

The Male Contribution

In this society, the male has, to some extent, contributed to the female failure primarily by going along with it and, basically, supporting the female on her path to failure.  Interestingly, this conflicts with what many females claim.  They have done this for a number of reasons:

  • They are pussy whipped.  They suck up to the female and agree with them no matter what.
  • Because of political belief or Nationalistic feelings.  Because many things are seen in the name of the Constitution, etc. many males will support it regardless of what it is.
  • They are frightened or apprehensive to disagree.  Remember, in this society, you can get sued for saying anything “wrong” about the female, or she’ll get “mad” (a point of view I’ve seen with many husbands).

Because of things such as these, there has been very little male resistance.  This is not to say that there isn’t.  Many males, from my experience, know that something is wrong (though they may not know it or understand) and will talk about things in private.  In fact, many of the things I have mentioned above have been casually discussed by many males in private conversations using different wording, of course.  Unfortunately, males have learned not to publicly say anything about the female.  Instead, they just blindly follow what’s going on.  In this way, one could say that the male contribution is primarily in apathy and blindly agreeing.  In many ways, at least in my opinion, this makes the males very much involved in the failure of the female.


It seems, to me, that, under the current conditions of the modern world, a ‘female institution’ will never develop or exist nor will a ‘female culture’ be created.  What is starting to appear is something more like a broken down or fragmented ‘female group’.  That is to say, its just a group of females that are united in the fact that they are ‘female’ and demonstrate specific femalish traits.  The specific female traits they display seems to define which group they are in, as there are many groups in society.  As it appears to me, at this time, the differing ‘female groups’ is revolving themes such as these:

  • A female ‘workplace robot’.  Many females are displaying a great robotic quality in life and work.  More than likely they will become the robots of the modern ‘system’.  This appears to give them an illusion of viability and worth.  But all they are becoming are a bunch of automatons or robots.  As a result, many females are becoming ‘united’ in that.
  • A social-media slave.  This satisfies their need for the ‘other’, as described above.  Its primarily value is in giving the their socializing that they need.
  • The ‘conceit factor’.   The failure of femininity is making it so that many females are developing a particular type of conceit.  In fact, I can see a new type of conceitedness appearing nowadays.  In some ways, its defining a ‘new female’.  Typically, they have an inflated view of themselves, often thinking they are great and wonderful even to the point that they think the world revolves around them in some way.  A characteristic trait of this conceit, though, is that it hides their low self-esteem and bad view of themselves.  That is to say, it hides their ‘failure’.  In some respects, this conceit is meant to as if ‘off-set’ their failure, low self-esteem, and bad view of themselves.   By thinking that they are great they avoid their dilemma.  And if their conceit succeeds and works, their conceit only grows hiding their dilemma even more.  I can see that an aspect of the new ‘female group’, nowadays, is rooted in this conceit where many females are developing it into an art form.  The problem is that, as far as I can see, it solves nothing except in satisfying a concern for themselves.

These conditions will give a temporary satisfaction to certain impulses but will not give the female any great viability or growth in my opinion.  The robot tendency caters to females need to follow, the social-media factor caters to their need for other people, and the conceit factor caters to their sense of importance.  These all seem to ‘satisfy’ aspects of the female character but only a small part of it, nor does it make them “viable” in society and as a person.

The fact is that the ‘female group’ is not the same as a ‘female institution’ or ‘female culture’ . . . it lacks no viability or power, no history, no wisdom, no tradition.  In addition, it does not cater to female inclinations, giving them specific place and role in society.  As a result, it does not offer the female much growth and worth either.

In actuality, what this shows is that the female has already lost her worth and the ‘female group’ is the attempt at holding onto some form of value.  Like many other things with this problem it is primarily and illusion.


All in all, I have found that, in general, the females are their own worst enemy.  Though society, and history, have made some contributions, I do not feel that it would of caused the failure of the female by itself.  It seems that the female is largely to blame for making themselves a failure.  Much of this failure is based on their actions, their feelings, their beliefs, and their effort.   If the females are “victims”, they are really victims of their own character traits.  I see no real evidence that the male, society, or history deliberately forced the female to fail.  I see no real evidence of anything like a conspiracy or attempt to degrade, enslave, belittle, or undermine the female by the male, society, or history.  These all appear to be female fabrications.

Sadly, a lot of this damage has root in female character traits.  In fact, many of these traits are now working against them.  An interesting aspect of this is that, because of the female character, most of this damage is being done unconsciously and without their control.   They are usually unaware of what’s going on (if any were I’d be surprised).  This means that it is sort of a ‘hidden destructor’.


Overall, it seems that the ‘failed sex’ is a result of a long-standing historical process which has been going on for several centuries and have been made up of many different elements which have basically added up to create this problem.  Any one of these problems (or several for that matter) probably could not of created this problem by themselves.  But all of them together have added up to create this problem.  This means that it is an accumulative condition created by a multitude of elements which have all contributed a small part over time.

There seems to be a number of dominant stages in this process:

  1. Post-Christianity.  This created the view that the female is bad.
  2. Pseudo-Nobility.  This created an attitude and mentality in which the females abandon the old ways (the existing ‘female culture’ and ‘female institution’), create a false new way, blindly imitate, and become social climbers.
  3. The political/legal era.  This gave them what appears as an ‘authority’ to flee their female hood and complain about their female problems.
  4. The social media.  This created a slavish attitude and the development of a false ‘female culture’ or ‘female institution’ and a turning away from their existing condition.
  5. Traits working against them.  As this process went along it increasingly created a condition where their traits no longer became productive and lost their meaning.

A unifying element of all this seems to be the media and mass communication.  I feel that, without these, the various elements probably could not of been unified enough to create this problem.  They would of been things that ‘came and went’ with varying generations.

In effect, this process created a condition where the female basically alienated herself, over time and in varying ways, which had the effect where their own traits worked against them.  The bulk of these conditions were initiated, and maintained, by the female herself or reflecting a negative aspect of the female character which worked against them.


The failure of the female hood has had negative effects on society, in my opinion.  A lot of this is being overlooked, though, largely because America has developed a political-based viewpoint instead of a human-based viewpoint.  Because of this, America neglects the human aspects of things.  Just as long as things fit their political viewpoints its viewed as “good” even though it may actually be destructive to human things and institutions (over the years I’ve sat and watched this happen over and over again and again in a multitude of ways).  As a result of this, since this problem has become hidden behind a lot of political theory (equality, opportunity, etc.) the human side is neglected . . . that is, its destructive aspect is overlooked.  In fact, its so draped under political theory that its hard to see the problem at all.  This makes it so that it has become one of the many ‘hidden destructive elements in American society’.  These are elements that are destructive to human things and institutions but are hidden behind political theory making them appear unseen.  This shows the power of political theory in American society . . . far more powerful than people think.

Looking beyond that, the ‘failed sex’ primarily has taken the “female” out of society and human institutions.  This has created a number of ‘female character types’ such as:

  • A superficial female hood.  These are girls that try to maintain a ‘femalishness’ but in which there is no ‘female authority’.  They have a range from ‘prissy’ to being ‘sluttish’.  Of all the females, these are the most ‘genuine’, I’ve found.
  • A female identity based in political theory and American ideals.  These include characters like “Ms. Independence”, “Ms. working mother”, etc.  These all sound good politically, and generally cater to American values which give them the illusion that it has value.
  • A ‘workplace robot’.  As I said above, this is probably going to be the primary value of the female in the future.  It also gains particular authority as it caters to political theory and American ideals.
  • A “slave”.  A female that mindlessly and blindly follows everything.

These are all inadequate, almost pathetic, replacements for the “female”, in my opinion, nor do they have any of the ‘authority’ the female once had.  In fact, none display ‘female authority’.

I mention ‘authority’ for a reason.  I wrote an article many years ago called “Thoughts on authority and the three forms of authority in human society” in which I describe how there are three forms of authority in society:  male, female, and the child.  Each are needed to make and support human society.  I compared these three authorities to a three legged table.  When one leg fails they all fail.  In this way, the failure of the female hood, with its subsequent ‘female authority’, has become a significant part of the ‘female contribution’ of the undermining of human society in America.

I should also point out that ‘authority’ is rooted in the manifestations of innate tendencies which is developed by following natural inclinations.  That is to say, a person can’t just ‘pretend authority’ (in the same way as the ‘failed sex’ tries to ‘ape’ the male, thinking that imitating the male makes them the same as a male).  Authority comes from within, its source.  This is one of the reasons why every society in the world, since the beginning of time, have developed a ‘female culture’ and ‘female institution’ . . . to promote these qualities and to develop these authorities.  As I have said, the failure of the female hood is rooted in the fall of the ‘female culture’ and ‘female institution’ whose purpose is to develop this authority, as well as naturally appearing female traits.  Their failure have degraded the development and growth of ‘female authority’ and female traits causing the creation of the ‘failed sex’.  Since the ‘female authority’ is absent in society it has deprived society of its influence.  In this way, the failure of the female hood has helped to undermine society.  But, in this society, a lot of this has been hidden by political theory and other things making it seem non-existent.  


The 30 some odd years of watching the American females has shown, to me, that there is a problem with their view of being a female and what a female is.  As far as I know, this has not been acknowledged but, like many things associated with the female, it is hidden and not mentioned.  Remember, we can’t talk about female problems (besides, since I’m a male its obvious I’m wrong about it all anyways!).  Despite this I have looked at it anyways and noticed some issues which I have written above.

In general, the American female has seemed to move away from herself, often trying to be someone who she is not making some females more like a hypocrisy than anything else.  Many females has hid this fact by many things, such as portraying the female as a victim of the male or society or by trying to be like a man.  Acts, such as these, only confirm that there is a problem as a normal healthy person would not claim such things.

Initially, I thought this was a reaction to the modern world, which is common with the male.  The female character, being different than the male, has not followed this path.  I’ve found that the modern world, and society, isn’t quite as critical as I thought.  The bulk of the damage seems to be a result of traits found within the female which are now working against them.

Overall, it appears to me that “the female hood did not fail the female, the female failed the female hood”. 


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

This entry was posted in Dehumanization and alienation, England, Britain, and all that, Historical stuff, Identity and identity problems, Male and female, Modern life and society, Mother instinct, womb sickness, female hysteria, and such, Psychology and psychoanalysis, The U.S. and American society, Victorianism, Bourgeoisie, noble imitation, and sycophancy 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