Thoughts on how females are continuing the mistake of their mothers before them . . . continuing the ‘failed sex’ and promoting alienation

Here’s a thought I had:

In a previous article (“Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female“) I mentioned how the female has “failed”.  That is to say, the female identity has failed to work and is, as a result, causing a lot of problems for females.  I also discussed how much of this has a basis in the mothers who started something several centuries ago that basically got a ball rolling that slowly, over time, has greatly helped to undermine the female identity.  A time line can be shown revealing this process:

  • Mid-1800’s to the mid-1900’s.  In the mid-1800’s, the females began to abandon their original female “peasant” identity and began to imitate and ape the nobility creating what I call the “pseudo-nobility”.  This created a generalized attitude of the mothers, which was taught to their daughters, of “be what you’re not” (that is, “pretend you’re nobility even though you’re a peasant”).  I often speak of this attitude as the “failed sex attitude” as it is so influential in British/American female mentality and in the subsequent failure of their identity.  Its created an attitude that has permeated the female world, in Western society, for two centuries.  Because of this, it is very ingrained and influential, having great impact on how they think, behave, and view things.
  • 1960’s to 1980’s. During the 1960’s, and into the 1970’s, the “noble” image tended to fade though its general attitude remained.  That is to say, the image changed, no longer being based in the image of British nobility.  The image changed form primarily due to the effects of television and media which created new images.   In other words, the British “noble” context was replaced by media-derived images.  In this way, a “new nobility” appeared.  This “new nobility” turned into things like a desire to be famous, a movie star, a model, or some other person that generally had a “high” standing in American media-based society (the need for “high” standing showing its derivation from the image of British “nobility”).  One effect of this is that they had to appear “pleasing” socially.  This is, of course, because a “pleasing” image is so important in the media-based perspective.  This made it a new “requirement” for females to seek and a significant aspect of the “new nobility”.  As a result, there became a great emphasis on their appearance which continues to this day.
  • 1980’s to 2000.  In the 1980’s this “new nobility” image tended to have the addition, for some girls, of beginning to ape the male and male values, such as independence, achievement, strength, etc.  As time goes on this would become stronger and stronger to the point that some girls actually believe that they are men.  In actuality, this tendency to ape the male shows that, by the 1980’s, the female identity had already dramatically failed . . . it was beginning to offer very little.  The male identity became, for them, a ‘solution’ for the failed female identity.
  • 2000 to today.  The aping of the male continues to grow, particularly for some females, but the influence of the social media began to intensify the desire for a “high” standing in society.  In other words, it made it so that many females have developed a slavish and mindless attitude to “be whatever is accepted or believed in the social media”.  Because of this, the original aping or “play acting” of nobility has turned into a slavish desire to “have to” follow whatever is on the social media.  This slavish “need”, no doubt, is another sign of the failed identity . . . its now so diminished that they are “scrambling”, so to speak, for acceptance and some social standing.

The pattern, established by the ‘pseudo-noble’ attitude, created a number of tendencies that females still continue to do, such as:

  • A “trying to be” someone that is viewed as socially high up and esteemed.  This is one reason why females British/American females tend to seek to be socially “high up”, in some way, whereas females from other countries do not.  This quality often gives the female a “social climber” or “upstart” quality that continues to this day.  In many cases, this need dominates their life creating what can be called as a “social climber obsession”.
  • A sucking up to ideals and things that are esteemed socially.  I’ve seen many females kill themselves to achieve what is considered the “ideal”.
  • It also makes them very preoccupied with being socially oriented.  Society, and social relations, become the “everything” in their life.
  • A slavishness, particularly to social trend.  They need (or should I say, “have to”) do what everyone else is doing.  They need to follow trend, fads, etc.
  • A mindlessness.  The ‘pseudo-noble’ mentality is primarily one of following what is esteemed.  One of the effects of this is that it creates something like a mindless person, whose only intent is to follow what is esteemed.  Oftentimes, the person is so mindless that they act like a blind person in life making many females appear “dumb” and “stupid”.

Overall, we could say that these reflect three qualities:

  1. A “play acting” (such as with the pseudo-nobility and media-derived images)
  2. A “try-to-be” (such as imitating the male)
  3. A “slavishness” (such as following social media and trend)

These things, really, have slowly undermined the female identity.  Once the mothers of the past abandoned their original “peasant” female identity they basically taught their daughters an illusionary, false, and artificial identity (such as trying to be “noble”).  This made it so that females tended to always seek identities “other than themselves”.  Not only that, this point of view taught females to seek an illusionary, false, and artificial identity as a way of life . . . a life attitude.  In short, to never seek to be themselves.  The net result of this is the slow deterioration and failure of the female identity. 

In general, though, females are not aware of this deterioration.  At least, I’ve never seen it.  They generally tend to believe that any action they do is the correct path, particularly if they get social “approval.  In other words, they interpret social “approval” as a sign that they are doing what’s right.  This shows the influence and power of “social standing” and society in their life.  This is a remnant, no doubt, of the need for “high social standing” which is at the base of this whole mentality.  In addition, because of this over-valuation of social approval, it tends to make females alienated from any ‘inner sense’ . . . they don’t follow what they need deep down.  This makes it hard for females to see what’s going on behind their motives and what it hides, hence they do not see any deterioration.  Instead, they think its right because its socially approved.  I tend to believe that one of the reasons why the female identity has failed so much is because of their inability to see what’s going.  As a result, they actually pursue paths that are actually undermining to them (such as being men or slavishly following trend on social media) but think that its beneficial.

Overall, what we see that the American female is actually continuing, and maintaining, the same behavior and motives started by the mothers two centuries ago (the ‘pseudo-nobility’ attitude), though in a different and “updated” form.  Regardless of what they may think, its having the same effect and continuing to undermine them.  But, because its the “updated” form its following the new patterns of social approval, giving the illusion that it works.  But, like the mothers before them, they have been deceived by it.  In actuality, they are continuing the same act as their mothers which is going to continue the same effect:  the deterioration of the female identity.  Its all an illusion creating this effect:

  • It only appears to make them ‘someone” . . . social approval makes it appear otherwise.
  • It actually undermines them, creating a failed female identity.

An effect of this is that females are struggling with “issues” but have no idea why or where they come from.  As a result, many females become adept at accusation and blame . . . someone has to be blamed for it!  Accusation and blame only intensifies the problem, and the illusion.  Its the males fault, its societies fault, its because of the social expectation of women, etc., etc.  I’ve spent a big part of my life listening to all this accusation and blame.  In all that time, I’ve never seen it actually work or solve their problem!  Accusation and blame becomes part of the illusion.

Despite this, they continue glorify and seek the “new nobility”.  Examples of this “new nobility” (which are new ways of reflecting the traits of the British “nobility”) include:

  • Being someone famous, like a movie star (to be “socially esteemed”)
  • A sucking up to social ideals (to be “socially esteemed”)
  • An emphasis on looks and appearances (to be “socially esteemed”)
  • A desire to do what everyone else is doing (to be “socially accepted”)
  • Slavishly following the mob (to be “socially accepted”)
  • Having to be “educated” (the “educated” being a manifestation of “American nobility” . . . the upper class)
  • Being “Ms. career lady” (having a job often reflects trying to be a man or a version of the “American nobility”)
  • Having to have a position of power (a version of the “American nobility”).
  • Trying to me a man (an alternative of the failed female identity)

These are nothing but new updated modern American forms reflecting the traits begun with the ‘pseudo-nobility’ and the imitation of British “nobility”.

Behind many of these traits are seen a number of “needs” which are reflective of the dilemma caused by the failed female identity.  These include:

  • A need for social approval
  • A need to have a “standing” in society
  • A need for a particular identity in society

In actuality, these are needs that reflect a desire for a for a more firm and stable identity.  In other words, they are “attempting” to get a more firm and stable identity but its not working.  This may be due to the fact that there is something deeper about the failed identity.  There was, in actuality, a failing that predates the attempt at a stable “social identity”.  Because of this, the attempt at a “social identity” keeps failing . .  . its not the source.  Its this solution to the original failing that was sought by the mothers two centuries ago.  Its what made the image of “nobility” so appealing.  I am under the opinion (as I referred to in my ‘failed sex’ article referenced above) that one of the original motives to try to be “noble” is a result of what I call Post-Christianity (see my article “Thoughts on Blind Christianity – some effects of the post-Christian era“).  To make a long story short, Christianity taught that we are all sinners.  In other words, we are all inherently bad.  This was fine when there was an active Christian belief which counter reacted it and gave it meaning (we’re bad but belief in Christianity “saves” us from it).  When Christianity failed, though, the belief was gone but the “you’re bad” remained.  As a result, much of Western society has had this attitude that “we are all bad people”.  This permeates much of society (and still does).  For the females it created a sense that “females are bad” (males, also, had a similar sense though appearing in a different way).  The ability to be ape the “nobility”, for the females, became an avenue which seemed to counter react this “you’re bad” attitude.  In short, by being “noble” they ceased being “bad people”.   As a result, behind much of the ‘pseudo-noble’ attitude, and the ‘failed sex’ attitude that followed, is this deep-sense of being “bad people” which originates from Christianity.  It often appears, in females, in ways such as:

  • A very poor and negative view of the female in general.
  • A low self-esteem and poor view of themselves.
  • A feeling of being victimized or hurt in some way.
  • A desire to be someone else.

These are all traits of the ‘failed sex’ attitude and are dominant in many American females.

Interestingly, as I have watched females struggle with their failed identity over the years, I have never seen a female tackle the real issue:  their view of themselves, and females in general, as “bad”.  Instead, everything is based on these things:

  1. On how well they can ape things (such as the “nobility”, the “new nobility”, or the male . . . for example, if they can “do it as good as a man” then they assume nothing is wrong and will even use it as a “justification” that they are right).
  2. On accusation and blame (such as blaming people for the way females are . . . such as that they are “forced” to wear certain types of clothes or to do certain things like cooking or cleaning).

In other words, their solution is based in some form of ‘play acting’ and/or blaming people .  In actuality, this is only leading the females away from the problem without solving it.  In fact, it doesn’t even touch it.

The emphasis on play acting, especially, is why I always say that:

“The life of the American female is primarily play acting someone you’re not”. 

This “play acting” gives many American females a quality of being “shallow”, “superficial”, “brainless”, or “stupid”.  This is a quality sensed by many males and foreigners, especially.  Some females can sense it too, and have complained about it (naturally, its usually societies or someone else’s fault).  One attempt, that some females will try to do in order to deal with this problem, is to try to be sophisticated, intelligent, responsible, professional, or something similar.  This, interestingly enough, really amounts to acting like nobility (which it no doubt originates from).  In other words, their solution is to go right back to the origin of the problem!   In this way, the ‘failed sex attitude’ becomes like a viscous circle:  the cause creates a problem and the solution to the problem is to reenact the cause which causes the problem again, and so on.  This shows how ingrained this “play acting” has become in the American females life.  It also shows how the females are as if “stuck” in it, unable to get out.  In fact, I’d say that we could speak of a ‘failed sex pit’ which they cannot get out of.  In my opinion, the typical American female is hopelessly caught in this pit.

It seems, to me, that the only real solution to the ‘failed sex pit’ is the creation or, rather, recreation of what I sometimes call the “feminine home” or “protected world”.   I’ve spoken of this in several of the articles mentioned above.  It is basically a “world within a world” where females live.  In practically every society in the world, since the beginning of time, the female has had a specific world set apart for her in society.  This fact reveals some traits about the female such as:

  • They need to be protected from the greater world.  It wouldn’t be far off to say that the female needs to be “in their own world”.
  • They are not suited to relate with the world.  The female character is not “wired” to deal with the greater world.
  • They need somewhere where they can relate with themselves that is removed from the world.

In effect, these all describe that the female is “designed”, so to speak, to do something specific, which is NOT confronting the world.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that this is childbearing and things related with it.  Its as if nature geared the female for this function alone making the female character “specialized” for this specific function.  As a result, they are not “general purpose” like the male.  This tendency makes it so that the female needs to be put in an environment conducive to their “specialized” function, hence the ‘protected world’.  When their ‘protected world’ is undermined, or destroyed, they react in ways such as:

  • They feel threatened by the world.  They may get to the point that they feel vulnerable or “violated” in some way.  They see threats, victimizing, and damage everywhere and coming out of the woodwork.
  • They try to be a male or male-like.  Their imitation of the male is basically an admission that the female character is not suited to confronting the world and their awareness that the male character is.
  • They try to create new forms of “protection”.  In the US, for example, they wield the law or politics like a weapon.  After watching this for 30 plus years its quite obvious that this is an attempt at “protecting themselves from the world”.  Another common way is to engross themselves with social acceptance.  This has gotten particularly bad as a result of social media.
  • They feel insecure in femininity and female things.  Many can sense, deep down, the failings of “femininity in the world”.  This can help create an additional sense that the female is “bad”.
  • In the avoidance of the real problem, they try to create solutions that never work.  This, of course, creates the viscous circle.

Oddly enough, the creation of the ‘pseudo-nobility’ actually ended up undermining and subsequently destroying the ‘protected world’.  The mothers of the past no doubt thought the ‘pseudo-nobility’ was a new form of ‘protected world’ for the females, a better world.  Looking back on it now one can see that it failed because it was not genuine . . . it was nothing but ‘play acting’.  The result of this is that the ‘protected world’, based in a non-genuine reality, slowly eroded over time which, in a way, “forced” the females out into the world, exposing them to it.  Because of this, many problems of the female, nowadays, is dealing with this fact.  As a result, the reactions, described above, are now prevalent in the life of the female.  In many ways, they dominate it.  From what I have seen, I’m almost inclined to say that a large part of the female life, at least in the US, is females dealing with the loss of the ‘protected world’.

Because females are no longer catering to female things in the ‘protected world’, which is a result of ‘play acting’, it has basically turned the female life into a condition of alienation.  In effect, the ‘pseudo-nobility’, and the ‘failed sex attitude’ that followed, has become an attitude of alienation.  Because of this, the ‘failed sex attitude’ tends to do things such as:

  • A tendency to be alienated.
  • To cause alienation.
  • To promote alienation.

In other words, the ‘failed sex attitude’ is actually creating alienation.  It is an attitude of self-deception taken to the point of a way of life.  In fact, many American female problems are actually based in this alienation that they, themselves, promote (but often blame others for).  I was quite surprised, for example, how many females do not say anything with situations where people either are uncertain who their “are” or are being different than what is considered normal, such as homosexuality, transgender, transvestites, and such.  As I watched them “approve” of things like this I could see why they so willingly supported that stuff:  they’ve spent a life out of “being what they’re not” so they identify and sympathize with someone else who is not “being what they’re not”.  This is a hint of their own alienation.  They will basically “approve” everything.  If a person wants to “believe” that they are a dog they’ll support it, if a person wants to marry a fictional alien they’ll support it, etc.  I’ve written another article involving female alienation called “Thoughts on aspects of alienation and dehumanization in the female“.

To go even further, it appears, to me, that the ‘failed sex attitude’ is causing more alienation than machines and the modern world does.  This stunned me when I first realized this.  I always thought machines and the modern world were the “ultimate” in alienation.  Over the years, though, I found that machines and the modern world only alienate to a point.  I found that the greatest cause of alienation is from humanity itself, that humanity does the “real damage”.  I speak of this as “dehumanization” when humanity alienates themselves (see my article “Thoughts on the ‘era of alienation’ and the ‘era of dehumanization’“).

It appears, to me, that the ‘failed sex attitude’ is a hidden source of alienation or, rather, dehumanization . . . one that will probably never be acknowledged, except by me.  The alienation caused by the ‘failed sex attitude’ is not the same as that caused by the modern world:

  • The alienation of the modern world is something that is impinged upon us, or forced upon us.  As a result, there tends to be a resistance to it and many people can sense that something is not right.
  • With the ‘failed sex attitude’ the female has made a life out of this attitude over many generations.  They’ve made it practically a cause.  In this way, there is no real sense that something is not right.  As I mentioned above, most females aren’t even aware of its undermining effects.  In this way, the ‘failed sex attitude’ has a quality of hidden motives and intentions, giving it an illusionary quality.  This makes it hard to see the alienation.

Interestingly, more than once have I said that the best thing to do is stay away from the mainstream American female because of this alienating effect of the ‘failed sex’ lifestyle.  My observation is that if a person hangs around someone with the ‘failed sex attitude’ they will often start to manifest similar traits showing that the ‘failed sex attitude’ spreads to other people.  This is most certainly true with females but it can happen with males too.  Its this infectious quality that makes it so damaging and why the ‘failed sex attitude’ is contributing to alienation. 

In effect, the ‘pseudo-nobility’ ended up creating a process that has eventually made a false image of the female that persists to this day.  In this way, the female identity has, over the years, been hacked to death to the point that many American females, today, no longer know what a female, woman, wife, or mother is anymore.  Instead, its been replaced by various forms of “false identities” which have traits originating in the ‘pseudo-nobility’.  In other words, the common American female identity is not based in a “real human” image but, rather, on an imagined “less-than-human” image of what a female really is.  These images have basically led them away from a natural human female image and have, subsequently, undermined the female identity creating a ‘failed sex’.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

This entry was posted in Dehumanization and alienation, England, Britain, and all that, Historical stuff, Male and female, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis 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