Here’s a thought I had:
Every so often you hear some statements that are very revealing. Recently, I heard several statements from Hillary Clinton that reveal aspects of female identity problems. They are also good examples of the hidden and illusionary ways female identity problems reveals itself. It also shows how these issues appear in unexpected ways. In her concession speech she stated:
“And to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and to achieve your own dreams.”
On the surface it “sounds good” and “supportive” but, from my experience at looking at female identity problems, I see a deeper meaning. In actuality, it looks like a commonly used style of statement which reveals how females feel worthless and valueless deep down inside but hide it behind saying good things about themselves (I was surprised she used it in a Presidential concession speech which is why I think that the other side of its meaning should be stated). Its amazingly identical to other statements I have seen before.
She says, ” . . . never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving, etc.” In response to this I can ask questions such as these: “Who said that they are not these things?” or “Why do you assume that they are not these things?” or “Where do you get this idea that they are not these things?” In other words, why are these things doubted at all? Basically, the reason why doubt is mentioned is because there is “something”, deep down, that makes them doubt their value, worth, etc.
Of course, females who say things like this generally won’t admit to that doubt, as few are consciously aware of it and they are generally trying to avoid it (as seems to be the case here). And since this is stated in the context of politics it will even be more so (it will be made out as a political issue!). Much of the explanation of statements like this (by Hillary and others) will probably be draped in political and nationalistic jargon, referring to things like “opportunity”, “success”, and so on. My own experience, over the years, is that this is a “front” for female identity problems, commonly used by feminists especially. In actuality, they are usually referring to the problem of female identity, of how they are unhappy with what a female is, and use politics as a justification to “escape” it, thinking that this will solve this problem. For example, “opportunity” often means a job which means being like a man. That is to say, they don’t have to be female . . . and they think that will end their “female problems”!
I should also point out that we are looking at things psychologically here (as this is a psychological inquiry, not a political or nationalistic inquiry). When one looks at things psychologically one must look at things psychologically. This means that you often have to look beyond what appears to be said and not believe everything that is said (such as you can’t just sit and believe all the political and nationalistic jargon that is said and cater to it like a puppy dog). Many situations call for you to look beyond that to see the psychology behind it. And this situation calls for that.
But there’s more . . .
Of great importance, and what makes it particularly significant, is that it was said during a Presidential concession speech, directed toward girls, and because she lost the Presidency (which seems out-of-place, inappropriate, and something like a favoritism). This shows that there is a relationship between how she perceived the Presidency, girls, and doubt. In other words, there’s a belief that her being President will somehow rid females of the “something” which is causing the doubt. This shows that there is a “hidden logic” behind it all, and it turns out to be an all-so-familiar logic.
But first we should look at . . .
HIDING “BAD” BEHIND THE “GOOD”
Emphasizing “good” to hide “bad” is common with American females with identity problems, I’ve found. Generally, the “good” and “bad” is relation to how they feel about themselves. Basically, people who have feelings of worth, value, etc. (that is, they have “good” feelings about themselves) don’t emphasize these feelings or note them . . . there’s no doubt so it doesn’t need to be considered nor is there any expression of doubt. When its mentioned, as in Hillary’s statement above, its often a sign of someone who does have doubt and this usually means there’s something hidden deep down.
Females with identity problems tend to feel that worth, value, etc. are lacking and, accordingly, tend to refer to it a lot, and in many different ways. Some common ways it appears are:
- Self-affirmation: “I HAVE value and worth.” (they as if glorify themselves, or emphasize what they think is their good points, to make them sound like they have value and worth)
- Self-negation: “People are degrading me.” (in this particular example, people are blamed for their doubt about themselves, which is a very common point of view in this country . . . oftentimes, it just appears as a poor view of themselves which is automatically assumed)
These are a good example of the range of its appearance. They are actually opposite orientations (affirming and negating the self) and show that it has many manifestations. Because of this, it can be rather misleading. The self-affirmation (“I HAVE value and worth”) appears like a sign of confidence and certainty. But, in actuality, self-affirmation is often nothing but a “hiding” of self-negation. Its like saying, “I will pretend that I HAVE value and worth because, deep down, I feel that I don’t”. I see this a lot.
Females with identity problems (or any problem with themselves) are often saying things similar to self-affirmation, often to each other, as if to convince themselves that they have no self doubt and actually “feel good about themselves” (in fact, when they do this its often a hint that there are identity problems).
Hillary’s statement above shows familiar themes that we often see:
- A reference to “feeling bad about yourself” – The “never doubt” reference refers to a “bad feeling” they have about themselves which they are trying to avoid. Its not referred directly but in a “roundabout” way, which is not uncommon.
- The idea that you have something “great” within – The reference to them being “. . . valuable and powerful and deserving, etc.”
- The need for support from society – This is referred to in the statement “to pursue and to achieve your own dreams” which obviously reflects American social ideals . . . “the pursuit of happiness”.
Its a really good example of how many females use “positive” stuff to hide a deeper “negative” aspect of themselves. It also is a good example of how deceptive it can appear. Because of this, one often has to be careful what some females say as its very misleading. I’ve learned, over the years, to be very cautious of when females talk about themselves, especially in a positive way, as its often not what it seems.
Another example of this point of view is seen in the lyrics of a song called “Fireworks”. Some examples include:
“Do you ever feel, feel so paper thin like a house of cards, one blow from caving in?”
“Do you know that there’s still a chance for you ’cause there’s a spark in you you just gotta ignite, the light, and let it shine”
“‘Cause baby you’re a firework come on, show ’em what you’re worth make ’em go “oh, oh, oh” As you shoot across the sky-y-y”
Here we see a similar situation displaying similar themes that we see in Hillary’s statement above:
- A reference to “feeling bad about yourself” – ” . . . feel so paper thin . . .”
- The idea that you have something “great” within – ” . . . there’s a spark in you . . .”
- The need for support from society – “. . . make ’em go “oh, oh, oh”” (that is, receive social support)
This is another example of the illusionary quality of this as it sounds so self-affirming and supportive. But, we must remember, that behind this is self-negation . . . “feeling bad about yourself”. And so, despite how “good” it sounds, self-negation is lurking there in the shadows. And, more importantly, the self-negation is never addressed . . . its as if “pushed under the carpet” and basically forgotten (perhaps repressed would be a better word?). This is why all these attempts at “feeling good about yourself” don’t work that well. It simply does not address why they feel that way. This is the problem with these points of views . . . and its a point of view that is used quite often by females with identity problems. Many will sit and be self-affirming and supportive but the problem never goes away . . . it always reappears. In fact, this neglect at addressing the problem is one reason why females are having these identity problems!
This pattern of thought is so common that, by listening to the lyrics to “Fireworks”, I could say that there is a high probability that it was written by a white American female, as these are points of views that they have, reflecting their inner problems of “feeling bad about themselves”, which is often a sign of identity problems.
In both examples above we see a reference to the need for support from society. This is very significant. As we will see below, one of the causes of female identity problems, in this country, is that they are looking for identity in the wrong places, namely social prestige and society. They never look interiorly, into the inner traits of the female, and they put no effort to “discover” it. As a result, they are as if “beating about the bush” and all that they do, believe, and act gets them nowhere. I think that it would be accurate to say that. because of this, the life of the American female is one of “running around in circles”.
Another example of this logic, of saying something “positive” to hide a deeper “negative” meaning, is seen in some experiences that I had when I was studying psychology in the 1980’s. During this time there was a great movement of “self-help” going on. Me and a friend of mine used to go to these seminars all the time where what they would say things like, “yes, I am important . . . yes, I have value.” Many people were attracted to this idea. I knew, of course, that the people who were attracted to the idea of saying “yes, I am important . . . yes, I have value” are people who don’t feel important and feel that they have no value deep down. It was like they were trying to convince themselves that they weren’t (for some, I think it worked for a while but only for a short time . . . it tends to have a temporary effect). Its as if saying something great about yourself is going to compensate for the bad feelings you have about yourself deep down. This is what this sounds like to me.
In these ways, statements, like the one from Hillary or the song above, is sort of like saying: “Deep down, I feel that females have no value but I’ll make it sound like we’re great people to hide this fact from myself . . . I’ll even put great emphasis on how great we are and perhaps dress it up in political and nationalist jargon to make it sound legitimate.”
I tend to believe that this to be the case, and there is more reasons why I think this . . .
THE FEMALES POOR VIEW OF THE FEMALE AND DEEP INNER CONTEMPT
The assumption that the female is not valuable, etc. is an often automatic assumption that many American females make (it is also seen with many British females, as it has origin in British society). Its rooted in the fact that many American (and British) females have a poor view of the female. This primarily appears as a deep hidden contempt of the female, of being female, and everything female. Typically, this is not overtly known and is unconscious (that is to say, they are not overtly aware of it . . . you never hear a female say “I have a contempt for all things female and being female”).
Since it is not stated or known, it comes out in other ways. Because we’re dealing with an unknown unconscious feeling that comes out in other ways, which is a trait of neurosis and the source of neurotic symptoms, we could say that female identity problems can be described as a form of neurosis and, accordingly, it tends to display neurotic qualities and neurotic-style of symptoms. This is often the case. Some of the other ways it appears include (which are all forms of neurotic symptoms):
- Self-degradation: They see “female things” in a bad light. This is a manifestation of “inner contempt”. This got so bad that, at one point, that I even had to start defending the female from the females themselves! (see my article “Thoughts on appreciation – how the feminists taught me to respect the male, the female, and myself“).
- Projection: They feel that people are “degrading” them in some ways, often by making them be “female” or do “female things”. They “project” their bad feelings of themselves onto other people making it sound as if they are a victim of them. This becomes a basis for what I call the female-as-victim which is a common theme in female identity problems (see below).
- Conceit and vanity: They glorify the female and make the female as some powerful person. I’ve seen this so bad that they think the female is this superior all-powerful person and with special magical powers!
- Identity problems: They try to be like men. This is usually nothing but an attempt at “escaping the female identity”. In some cases, though, this is accompanied with a desire to not be female reflecting their self-degradation of the female.
As a result, we see that the females deep inner contempt appears in other ways than you would expect. This means that to find this inner contempt you don’t listen to what they say but watch for the motive behind what they do. This is because it is unconscious and unknown to them. This scenario is typical of neurosis.
FEMINISM – FEMALE IDENTITY PROBLEMS BECOMES A “WAY OF LIFE” WITH ITS OWN PHILOSOPHY
This poor view and deep inner contempt of the female got so bad that a special philosophy was created to reflect it in the 1800’s: feminism. In many ways, this shows that the female identity problem, as a form of neurosis, had become a “way of life”. In other words, the neurosis of female identity problems had become too implanted in themselves and society that it started to define who they were. Feminism was an attempt to try to give this neurosis, which created inner conflicts and symptoms, some “meaning”. In other words, they became “trapped” in the neurosis of female identity problems and felt inner conflict as a result. The philosophy of feminism was an attempt at “solving” these deep inner conflicts that they were feeling.
Naturally, they used the social philosophy of the times as a basis. After the French Revolution (late 1700’s) the idea of oppressor/oppressed was very popular in England (see my article “Thoughts on ‘secular oppression’“). They used this idea as a basis of their philosophy. This is not all that surprising as just about everyone in England, in the 1800’s, was using the oppressor/oppressed as an explanation for any social problem or problems between people (its even the source of Communism). In this way, during the 1800’s their deep inner contempt of the female was blended with the political thinking of the French Revolution (oppressor/oppressed). It created these points of views which are typical of feminist thinking:
- The oppressed: The female is oppressed or a victim.
- The oppressor: The “male tyrant” is generally viewed as the oppressor or victimizer.
- The “righteous cause”: They are fighting for their “freedom”, usually against “male tyranny”. They used politics (oppressor/oppressed) as a way to make their philosophy sound legitimate (for example, they are “fighting for their freedom against the victimizing of the male tyrant” . . . sounds good, doesn’t it?).
In this way, they created a whole philosophy of how being female and “female things” is nothing but a form of oppression. More importantly, the use of politics made it sound “politically justified”. Because of this, many people have been duped into believing this philosophy (even I almost fell to it!). But, remember, this is nothing but a “cover” for a deep inner problem: female identity problems.
Despite what they may think, feminism did not solve their problem. The deep inner contempt of the female has not lessoned as a result of feminism. In fact, it made it worse. My own observations of feminists is that they become bitter unhappy ladies as they grow older. This is because the feminist philosophy does not solve their problem. All its done is made their life a catering to the idea that they are victims and the world is plotting against them . . . and all politically justified! Maybe they can act like men too? It still doesn’t solve it. In short, the philosophy doesn’t work. This is because the feminist philosophy is really a neurotic symptom and, like many neurotic symptoms, it seems to work as a solution. It often does work, initially and superficially, but fails in the end. This is because neurotic symptoms are a result of the conflict, not its solution. Many neurotic symptoms are often confused as being a solution because they seem to give a temporary relief to the conflict. To put it simply, the feminist philosophy has been confused with being a solution in the same way neurotic symptoms are.
Neurotic manifestations are found throughout feminist philosophy and in the behavior of feminists. Many of these are nothing but forms of neurotic symptoms, such as:
- Nothing “solves” the basic problem, despite what they do (many feminists grow to be old bitter ladies . . . their philosophy doesn’t save them).
- It creates many absurd and weird claims and points of view (see my article, “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists“).
- Some females become “obsessed” with the philosophy to the point that it becomes a world view and almost religious in proportion.
- Some females use the philosophy as a weapon to defend themselves against conflicts in life.
- Behind the basic philosophy there are too many “other issues” that have nothing to do with it.
- There is a “deep inner pain” or “deep inner conflict” that seems out-of-place or exaggerated.
- They never take the blame for their problems and tend to blame others.
The more I look at feminists, their viewpoints, and behavior, the more neurotic they become. Its probably no surprise that it is, in actuality, a product of the 1800’s or Victorian era – the “era of neurotics” – and there we must look . . .
THE PRICE OF SOCIAL PRESTIGE
Much of this problem is rooted in how the female, in the 1800’s, abandoned the female identity of their grandmothers and replaced it with trying to be like a noble lady. In this way, the Victorian female became nothing but a “noble lady imitator” and, in so doing, many things happened:
- They no longer had the growth and development that the identity of their grandmothers offered them (and which was based in centuries of experience).
- They lost the value and worth the female has had in society for centuries.
- Being “imitators” they lost their “genuineness” and became “phony”, “artificial”, etc.
It basically amounted to throwing everything away for an image of social prestige. Its no surprise, then, that American (and British) females tends to seek social prestige as a motive even today. In some respects, after the Victorian females destruction of the female identity of their grandmothers the seeking of social prestige became a “main occupation” of many American (and British) females ever since. This appears in many ways, such as:
- A desire for social prestige motivates many females to seek positions of status, responsibility, prestige, and so on (a good example is getting a degree and a hi-paying job). I believe this tendency motivates Hilary to want to be President . . . the “ultimate” in social prestige in the U.S.
- They cater to and suck up to the social ideals, whatever they may be. Have you ever noticed how females are always doing the “acceptable thing”? They always do things the “socially accepted” way, following the current (and I mean current . . . to the minute) views and ideals of society.
- Because of the power they give social ideals, they often use it almost as if it were a statement of God. In other words, they use it as “authority” and justification for everything. They quote these ideals like quoting the Bible. One could, at times, say that the following of social ideals is almost like a religion.
- It makes many females slavishly follow trends like a bunch of sheep. To “do what everyone else is doing” is like a form of social prestige as it “places you in with society”. In this way, its created a slavish attitude in many females.
The problems is this: trying to imitate a noble lady didn’t work, and neither does seeking social prestige. The effect of all this is that it has made the female identity fail. Many females, though, will still try to at least hold on to various forms of the “noble lady” or continue to seek social prestige as its all that they have to give them meaning and worth. In this way, many American (and British) girls are as if “hanging on a thread” as a person, scrambling for any value that they may have or find. Usually, its not enough and, as a result, the female tends to feel at a loss in some way. Because of this, it tends to create feelings such as:
- That they are victims of something or someone.
- That there is a conspiracy against them.
The effect of this is a sense of “we females are victims” which many females have. In some cases, its like a club, they feel a “unity in victimhood”. Because they often view the male as the victimizer it can create a sense of “us versus them” or “male versus female” mentality (which is common in feminism).
Interestingly, this unity of “victimhood” tendency is expressed in another statement from Hillary’s concession speech:
“And to all the women, and especially the young women, who put their faith in this campaign and in me, I want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion”
This whole statement is a reflection of an awareness that all women, and especially young women, are all victims and that she see’s herself as their “champion”. Apparently, Hillary is going to save them from their victimhood by being President . . . but she’s failed at being President so she will not be able to save them. In some respects, its like saying, “yes, we females are all victims and I’ve failed you by not being the ultimate in social prestige . . . so we’re all going to be the miserable worthless females we always were”. This, then, begs the question:
Why does she think that being President is going to change female value and worth?
Mainly, because, as I said above, there is a tendency where they think that the gaining of social prestige is “authority”. Therefore, she thinks that in being the ultimate in social prestige (President of the U.S.) the female is going to finally have value and worth. The problem is that it will not. You see, this is nothing but a continuation of what their grandmothers in the 1800’s did that caused the whole problem! The continuation of this mistake is common in American (and British) females (see my article “Thoughts on how females are continuing the mistake of their mothers before them . . . continuing the ‘failed sex’ and promoting alienation“). What Hilary is doing is exactly what the grandmothers of the 1800’s did, except in an “Americanized” way . . . instead of being a noble lady (the ultimate in British society) she becomes President (the ultimate in American society). In addition, as with the grandmothers of the 1800’s ,there is a belief that ALL their value and worth rests on the gaining of this social prestige. The problem is that the attempt at being a noble lady and gaining social prestige has failed these past 200 years. In short, after all the high and mighty talk the experience of the past shows that this is just another dead end road for the females. This mania girls have at trying to be “noble ladies” and seeking social prestige is only going to continue their problems. Its not going to regain their value and worth “as a female”. Its this inability at regaining value and dignity “as a female” that has become a major part of the female dilemma of the past 200 years. I should also point out that this whole phenomena is something that the females did to themselves . . . the mothers imposed it upon their daughters, and still do (notice how Hilary specifically spoke of “little girls” and “young women” . . . just like a mother)! In addition, they impose it upon each other. In this way, the real victimizers of the females is themselves and it is they that have conspired against themselves. In short, the females are their own worst enemies!
THE PROBLEM OF FEMALE SELF-IMAGE . . . THE UNSTABLE FEMALE CHARACTER
The 2016 Presidential election brought a lot of this mentality out. I was often stunned at how many females were so eager to become “victimized” by some of the statements from Trump . . . it was TOO EASY. The overreaction to this was unreal and ridiculous. To me, it had the quality of watching a bunch of neurotics on public TV. People sat and blamed Trump, as if he was all at fault, but I saw another side: THE GIRLS WERE TOO EAGER TO BE VICTIMS! By being too eager to become victims the tendency to feel “victimized” got out of control and caused something like a mania in many females during this election which got to the point of ridiculousness. I’ve talked to a number of females during the election and I was stunned how they were as if “fixated” on being “offended” or “victimized” by it. I started to jokingly call it the “Trump pit” as once they got in the pit they can’t get out of it. Everything, and I mean everything, revolved around how they felt “offended” or “victimized” by it. Many females got so fixated on being “offended” or “victimized” that it dominated their whole viewpoint of the election. Never mind any other issue . . . the only thing that matters is that she feels “offended”. Unbelievable! My personal favorite is how he called a lady “overweight” . . . God help us all! Take a look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign.html?_r=0 to see how far some of this has gone. Notice the references of how Hillary stated things like how they (the girls) must be “proud”, “brave”, etc., emphasizing “positive” points in the females. Also note the reference to “standing together” . . . another reference to “unity in victimhood” . . . as if they must stand up against some great horrible threat. Interestingly, these reflect the two statements from the concession speech above:
- Reinforcing “good” and “positive” values in the female.
- The idea of “unity in victimhood”.
More than likely, this shows a pattern of thinking in Hillary’s thinking, and its a common one that I see. From my experience, it shows a female that views and sees herself as a victim and uses the emphasis on their “positive” qualities and a “unity in victimhood” as a means of consoling this image of herself. What they are doing is something like a “beating around the bush”. It does not “solve” the problem as, despite what they do, they remain a victim in their mind . . . their self-image of being a victim does not change. In this way, we can see that the female is a “victim of her own self-image” . . . that’s the real “victimizer” of the female. Really, we’re looking at a problem with female self-image, of how they view themselves. It reveals the need for the female to have a better view of the female, what a female is, what they do, and to develop a dignity “as a female” (not, for example, of a female aping and play-acting the male . . . a healthy female self-image needs to cater to natural feminine impulses). Its probably no mistake, then, that in the “victimizing” stated above, of the Presidential election and the article, consists of statements of “overweight” and such, which refer to self-image. Its almost like Hillary is consoling them because of the problems THEIR bad self-image gives them, as if one of her “roles” as President is that it will somehow automatically remedy this problem . . . another “beating around the bush” by the female. Some common ways females deal with their bad self-image include:
- Viewing themselves as a victim.
- Blame and accusation, such as that its the males fault.
- A “unity in victimhood”.
- Of trying to not be a female, such as trying to be like a male or doing what a male does.
- Of conceit, such as emphasizing their “good” and “positive” points.
Females who have a bad self-image issues tend to be very neurotic and have great instability. As a result, people like this are easily traumatized and quick to develop mental issues. This is why this stuff is really a mental health issue, not a political issue . . . in other words, Hillary, or any other person, is not going to solve this with politics. I should also point out that this is not a social problem either . . . “social change” isn’t going to get rid of it either. Its a personal issue of the female. From what I have seen, a solution doesn’t look good. Females are too busy “beating around the bush” to get anything done. Because of this, the bad self-image of the female is going to remain, even get worse. We saw some of the effects of this bad self-image above, in the Presidential election and article. We see examples of unstable neurotic characters that are easily “traumatized” by remarks by people (such, as “overweight”), which is getting worse and worse, it seems. I’m not the only person who has noticed that people are getting so oversensitive to things that its ridiculous. The little unpleasant things of life (such as name calling or belittling) is getting to the point that some people are devastated by it. When I was a kid we had a saying in response to things like this: “sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me”. Apparently, this idea is foreign to the kids of today. Nowadays, it should be: “sticks and stones can break my bones but names will destroy me”. In addition, when I was a kid “bullying” was for something dramatic, like some kid beating on another kid. Nowadays, some of the things they are calling “bullying” is almost laughable. I’ve seen cases where just “saying the wrong thing” is called “bullying”. Many younger people, nowadays, are starting to paint the picture of an unstable, weak, over-reactive, neurotic, easily traumatized people. When I was a kid people like this would be considered as “having something wrong with them”. By far the worst are the females. Many younger females are bringing this unstable neurotic character to a new level. As we’ve seen above they show signs like these:
- Of being too oversensitive
- Of taking things too personally
- Of being too “hurt” by things
This creates a problem of being horribly over reactive to things. In other words, its not the thing that’s the problem (such as name calling) but the reaction . . . they are too over reactive and quick to make themselves “traumatized victims” as a result. The question is not if something happens (such as name calling), which is what everyone emphasizes so much, but the question of “why are they reacting so badly?” The answer to this, of course, is “because they have unstable characters”. But this observation is neglected because the female-as-victim answer is not to question their own instability, that the problem originates from themselves, but to blame someone else for it, so they’ll blame Trump, or someone else, instead (in fact, in 30 years I never once saw a female question that their problems may originate from within them). I should point out that this neglect is one of the reasons why females have these issues and problems. In this way, Hillary’s supporting the victim point of view shows that she is really promoting female neurosis and instability and, in a way, making it worse (this is one reason why I felt that this article should be written, to show this other side and that all these apparently “good” statements are not what they seem). I should point out that self-image problems are a form of identity problems as self-image is part of identity. As a result, what we have seen above are examples of identity problems. It shows how identity problems tend to develop unstable, neurotic, and easily traumatized female characters. It also stands to reason that the poor self-image leads to a poor view of the female. This shows the importance of self-image is to the female and how it can have great impact (its much more important than for the male).
THE ‘FEMALE-AS-VICTIM SYNDROME’
This tendency to see “victimizing” in everything under the sun (particularly when males are concerned) creates a problem which I call the “female-as-victim syndrome” and which I consider to be an epidemic in this country, and which came out in full force in this election. Some of its manifestations include:
- A tendency to see everything as victimizing them.
- A tendency to easily make oneself a victim.
- A tendency to fabricate victimizing that doesn’t exist.
- A tendency to be “offended”, “traumatized”, or bothered by simple things.
- A tendency to be overly preoccupied or obsessed with being a victim.
With this type of an attitude, they tend to be victimized by just about anything. It creates a “victim attitude” which eventually leads to a “everything victimizes me” attitude. I’ve been around many girls like this and its almost unreal. You must be careful of how you speak, what you say, how you say it, the inflections of words, etc. or it will “offend” them or bother them in some way. When it becomes extensive it often turns into a paranoia. In some cases, females will start to see the world as threatening them and they will develop a fear of the world and everything in it. This phenomena is far more prevalent of a problem than, I think, it may first seem. I see it everywhere in a myriad of different ways. In my opinion, this “victim attitude” is eating girls up. The poor view females have of the females, that I described above, is actually a mild form of the “female-as-victim” attitude. In effect, their poor view of the female is very much related to their seeing the female as a victim. When you see yourself as a victim of everything you develop a low view of yourself. In this country there is a unique way females make themselves victims. Much of this is based in the political and legal ideas of the U.S. and, in fact, uses politics to justify it. It goes like this:
- They find some restriction, prohibition, etc. in society. These are generally things that they aren’t allowed to do (such as that girls aren’t supposed to be like a man) or that they are supposed to do (such as, having and raising children). Typically, these are normally appearing restrictions, prohibitions, etc. that are found in every society since the beginning of time and are a part of normal human society. In their eventual criticizing of these things, they are really undermining human society as well as the role, value, and purpose of the female. I’ve been around girls who find fault with just about every convention, tradition, and morals of society that you can find, especially when it comes to females. Its almost like they search for it.
- They find “offense” with this restriction, prohibition, etc. They make it out as if it is some horrible abuse that somehow hurts them in some way. Of course, this is their main intention, to be a victim of it. Therefore, they MAKE themselves victims of it. This is usually done by making it appear worse than it is (such as that cooking is some horrible enslavement) and putting it out of context (such as that it is “not right” that they can’t be like a man).
- They then use politics and law as a way to villainize it as bad. They will typically use politics and law like a weapon. They will quote it like the Bible and fling it around like a sword. Many females become quite adept at this as they learn that quoting politics and law gets them what they want. That is to say, by quoting the Constitution, for example, they find that it shuts people up. Its as if they are trying to defend themselves against society.
- They then become the “justified innocent victims” of it. They then wallow in their victimhood, justified and confirmed by politics and law. I’ve seen many females make a life out of this, believe it or not.
As one can see, the net result of this is that they actually end up undermining the female as well as society. In addition, they distort politics and law. The eventual consequence of this is that a big gap is created by the things they destroyed. They then fill this gap with these things:
- A “we are a victim” attitude, which becomes their life and world orientation. Because of this, these girls see victimizing in everything. In addition, they develop an attitude that life is a “keeping victimhood at bay”.
- Law and politics becomes a basis of their life and world view. In other words, law and politics take the place of things like culture, belief, religion, morality, and identity. It becomes their god and authority. In this way, the female is becoming nothing but a “beast of law and politics”, nowadays, whose whole role, worth, and purpose is based in legal and political ideas. The effect of this is that very little, if any, of their life actually revolve around natural feminine tendencies and inclinations. What determines what they do, their attitudes, how they justify what they do, etc. is law and politics. In this way, the natural appearing feminine qualities are as if stripped from the female life.
In other words, they have taken a normal condition in human society, turned it into something bad and, in so doing, created a warped view of the female, society, and the world.
HIDING THE PROBLEM
All this tends to be hidden behind a façade of something “positive” or a “good image”. Its just like clothes and makeup, they just “cover it up” as if it isn’t there. This is why I call it the “female cover up”. It tends to be idealistic and tends to cater to national or social ideals, often supported by politics and law. Females generally live in this “female cover up” world and neglect, or refuse to see, the deeper issues. As a result, they tend to be oblivious to them, despite the fact that they are suffering from the problems it creates (it can even dominate their life . . . but they still don’t see it).
Its seeing through this “cover up” that you can often tell the motives behind what many females do and say. They basically say one thing and mean another. This is exactly what happened with the statement from Hilary above . . . experience taught me that there was a deeper darker side behind the apparent “good” statement she said. She basically referred, in a hidden way, to a deeper darker side to the femalehood in this country in particular.
WHY ARE THESE THINGS EVEN MENTIONED IN A PRESIDENTIAL CONCESSION SPEECH AT ALL?
A big question is why are these even mentioned at all in a Presidential concession speech? To me, they seem out-of-place and inappropriate. Not only that, it shows too much emphasis on the female and not on the rest of the country, which I would expect from a serious President. Its like she made statements “only to girls” which seems biased and one-sided (I could even go on to say “sexist” if I want!). In other words, it shows a very “female first” orientation. In this way, it reveals a lot of her motives for wanting to be President. As I said above, she thinks that her being President is somehow going to overcome the bad views females have of themselves. The idea, from what I gather, is that by her being the ultimate in social prestige (President) it will somehow inspire or allow girls to seek social prestige for themselves. This is done in these American ways:
- To pursue the social ideal of success (such as being winners in everything they do).
- To have a job (of course, it has to be hi paying and prestigious).
- To be in a position where they are “in charge” (it will be even better if they are “in charge” over men!).
We could also add:
- To not have to be female and do female things (instead, they can act like men and do male things).
By catering to these nice American ideals they think they will solve the females problems.
But will they?
I don’t think so.
This point of view I’ve seen many times and in many ways. Its utterly ridiculous. To even think that this is going to solve the deep psychological issues of the females is unreal and unrealistic. In fact, after watching this mentality for decades I can see that all its really doing is turning girls into a bunch of “social ideal slaves”. What I mean by this that females are becoming slaves to the social ideal, whatever it is. Females are killing themselves to follow whatever the social ideal is, and they have to change whenever it changes. Its like watching a flock of birds . . . one goes that way and they all go that way . . . another goes another way, and they all go that way . . . and they kill themselves to do it. Its almost sad to watch.
THE “SLAVISH ATTITUDE”
This slavish mentality began in the 1800’s. Since they abandoned the female identity they did everything they could to be a noble lady. They were killing themselves to follow anything associated with being a noble lady (clothes, manners, rituals like having tea, mannerisms, etc.). They slavishly followed everything required to get there. This started a mentality that has continued on down to today. Perhaps we can call it the “Victorian slavish mentality”?. Through the years this slavish mentality seems to of gone through stages:
- Social prestige: They take on the identity of the noble lady (social prestige) as a result of abandoning the identity of their mothers and grandmothers. This took place in the early 1800’s.
- The “empty ideal”: They discover that, for most females, the noble lady was an “idea” or “ideal”, and not really a social reality. As a result, it became an empty ideal. This seems to of taken place in the early-mid 1800’s.
- Blind following: Because “female society” was already established emulating the image of the noble lady, and the females found that this was an empty ideal, the females started to slavishly follow what all the other females were doing in the society. This seems to of taken place in the mid-late 1800’s.
- Social trend: This slowly turned into slavishly following social trend, whatever it may be. This seems to of taken place in the late 1800’s.
These seems to establish four different “forms of female identity” in the 1800’s. In other words, these are all reactions to the abandoning of the female identity. As a result, since they had no firm identity these became the basis for what can be described as the “new attempted female identities of the Victorian era”. Since it was the only identity they now had, the females had to use what was given to them. As a result, they developed them into what can be described as “female identity characters” each reflecting the stages above:
- The female identity character that seeks social prestige.
- The female identity character that feels the female is “nothing”.
- The female identity character that blindly follows whatever everyone else is doing.
- The female identity character that keeps up with the latest social trend.
All these forms have persisted down to today and still appear to be the main forms of female identity characters. The basic “slavish attitude” and its “female identity characters”, begun in the 1800’s, is basically being continued in the Americanized version of today. Hillary is following the character that seeks social prestige and, accordingly, thinks it will be the “solution” to female problems. As I said above, this is the cause of the problem, not the solution!
Interestingly, there often becomes a time when the slavish attitude is all that remains. As time goes on, and the hype of whatever is followed falls, only the slavish attitude remains. As a result, they start to feel slaves, which is one of the reasons why females have complained of being “slaves” since (and is a basis for feminist claims). It seems to go through stages:
- There is a need that needs to be fulfilled . . . the need for female identity
- There is a solution which entails doing what all the females are doing (that is, taking up the identity everyone else is emulating)
- There develops a slavish attitude at following the solution
- There becomes a height in slavishly following the solution, where they kill themselves to do what all the other females are doing (in which the slavish attitude becomes ingrained and strong)
- The solutions starts to fail
- The solution falls and all that’s left is a feeling of their slavish attitude
- They complain of being a slave, oftentimes accusing or blaming someone else for enslaving them
In other words, the females slavish attitude is not sensed as a slavish attitude until the solution falls . . . then they feel like slaves, and usually blame someone for it. But, I must point out, that this is the slavishness they imposed upon themselves. What this means is that the females are slaves of themselves . . . when they complain of being a slave they are feeling their own slavish attitude. This is what happened in the 1800’s and we have seen it on and off since. My guess is that we are going to continue to see it.
The “slavish attitude”, which is a hallmark trait of the Victorian and post-Victorian female, appears to have a lot of origin in the fact that, since the females abandoned the identity of their mothers and grandmothers, they were now desperately in need of an identity. As a result, they were looking out to society to offer it to them. This made them follow whatever what everyone else was doing. In other words, the “slavish attitude” is an attitude of desperation, of needing the identity their mothers abandoned. Because of this, they are looking for society to give an identity to them. The result of desperately needing identity is that they “slavishly followed” whatever the female mob was doing as well as social trend. Many females, to this day, still do this and look for the female mob and social trend to give them their identity. And here is a source of why female identity problems persist and never seem to go away: the Victorian, and post-Victorian females, are looking for a “stable identity” in the wrong places (that is, in society: the female mob and social trend). These are not a source of “stable identity”. Its turned many girls into a bunch of “trend puppets” or “society marionettes”. The fact is that for a “stable identity” to work it must be rooted in the female character, not society or trend. As a result, the perpetual Victorian tendency of looking to society and trend is actually hindering the female and preventing the development of a “stable identity”.
Feminist philosophy also hinders the growth of a “stable female identity” in these ways:
- Behind its mentality it see’s bad in female things (the deep inner contempt of the female).
- It promotes females to not act like females.
- It promotes females to act like men.
- It portrays females as victims.
- It blindly accuses and blames innocent people (such as the male and society) while portraying them as innocent (that is, they don’t take responsibility for their feelings).
- It based in political theory, not human reality (their interest, then, is political not human).
In these ways, feminist philosophy actually steers the female away from the female character, the source of a “stable identity”.
The “slavish attitude” has now become so prevalent and for so long that it, in a way, has become an aspect of the female identity nowadays. In other words, “to be female is to be slavish in attitude”. One of the effects of this is that it has created a particular character of female: the “female robot”. That is to say, many females have literally turned into robots, blindly and mindlessly doing and following what everyone else, society, and social trend says. They even have a particular look, with an unemotional, empty, wide eyed expression on their faces. Many of these girls whole value and worth rely on how well they follow societies dictates. In this way, they have developed a very “keen nose” as to what society wants and expects. This is a skill many “female robots” have refined into an art form. If they are good at it then they “feel good about themselves”. If they aren’t then they “tend to not feel good about themselves”. I’ve seen many “female robots” whose whole worth and value depend on this. If, for any reason, they fail in following societies wants and dictates, it can devastate them. Remember, their whole identity, with its worth and value, is depending on how well a “robot” they are. As a result, the “female robot” is as if perched on the edge of a razor blade: they lean one way and they “feel they have worth” . . . lean the other way and they “feel they have no worth”.
And I should re-emphasize this again: behind this is an identity problem. To begin with, if they had a “stable identity” there would be not “female robot”. At the same time I should note that this shows another example of the illusionary quality of female identity problems (similar to what we saw at the beginning of this article). As long as they do societies wants and expectations they “feel good about themselves”. They appear “happy, fulfilled, and OK” . . . nothing appears to be wrong. But that’s only because they are succeeding at being a “female robot” and this, we must remember, is only hiding an identity problems. In other words, they have successfully “hidden” their identity problem, and it appears convincing. Because of this, most people don’t see a problem as there doesn’t appear to be one. When females are in this position it makes it hard to see identity problems. How do you usually find out? By experience and seeing other “symptoms”, such as the statement that started this article, the reference to “doubting”. This shows some aspects of female identity problems:
- When “they don’t feel good about themselves” its easier to see the problem and you don’t necessarily need a lot of symptoms to see it.
- When “they feel good about themselves” its harder to see the problem . . . its generally seen through other symptoms and manifestations.
This is a very significant point in looking at female identity problems.
Ironically, the “female robot” has had some benefit with girls. With the way society is now, being more technologically based, it needs “human robots” to do the work. The “female robot” is now filling this need. In fact, they’re doing a bit too well. They are becoming the “half humanoids” this economic system needs. Because of this, they are fitting very well into this “robotic economic system”. It gives them a “special edge” in the job market, especially, and many females are using this to the fullest as they scramble for social prestige.
Though this may appear good now I fear that, in the future, they will become “enslaved” to it and expected to be the “human robots”, much like what happened to the females when they tried to imitate a noble lady and which caused these problems. As I stated above, all this is nothing but a newer Americanized version of that. In other words, its just a repeat of the same process that took place in the Victorian era but with a more modern and American look. From how it appears at this time, it looks as if its going to lead the females down the same road with the same problems and issues. None of this, as near as I can tell, does anything to solve their identity problem nor create a “stable identity”. In other words, I don’t see any signs that their will be an improvement in female identity in the future.
A NEW REVEALING STATEMENT FROM HILLARY
In a recent statement from Hillary (see http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/hillary-clinton-addresses-the-women%e2%80%99s-march-the-future-is-female/ar-AAmGHHf?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp) she states, “Despite all the challenges we face, I remain convinced that yes, the future is female.” This, really, is an example of conceit, as I mentioned above. Thinking that the world revolves around the females is a common arrogance in feminist thinking, what I call the “female-as-superior” (see my article “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists“) and is a sign of deeper self-esteem, self-image problems, and poor self image. In other words, they compensate their poor image of themselves by glorifying themselves. This is the theme, remember, that started this article above. I’ve seen girls get so conceited that they think the female has all this power as if the whole world revolves around them and that they are going to rule it in the future . . . the statement implies similar points of view.
She also states, “So please, set an example for every women and girl out there who’s worried about what the future holds and wonders whether our rights, opportunities and values will endure“. My first reaction to this is “worried about what?” Some one tell me, exactly, what has horribly happened to the female that is so bad? I’m not the only one who has said, “what the crap are you talking about?” to this sort of statement. If we look closer, we can see that this statement deals with common themes that we’ve seen above:
- Its a reflection of the “female-as-victim” point of view. Yet again, the female is a “victim” – they’re “worried”. Her statement is as if implying that things are going to be taken from them, but there’s not justification in that.
- They justify it with politics and law – “our rights”.
- They view the answer is to have a job (the American nobility) – their “opportunities”. I find it almost unreal that many of these females have narrowed everything down to having a job.
As I said above, at the base of all this is a basic problem of the female identity and this is their way of dealing with it.
Here are a few, of many, articles involving similar subjects:
Copyright by Mike Michelsen