Some thoughts on my early experience with computers

Here is an observation of mine:

A long time ago I had a TRS-80 personal computer.  I think we bought it from Radio Shack.  I can’t remember when we got it.  My guess is 1980 but it could of been as early as 1979 . . . I’m not sure.  It is very similar to the personal computers of today. It had a cathode ray tube TV screen and a keyboard.  I can’t remember if it had something like a “tower” (it could of been integral with the screen) but the way we put in programs is with cassette tapes.  For example, if we wanted to play a game we put a cassette tape into a cassette player and it loaded it into the computer.  I also saved programs on a cassette tape as well.

(This looks like the User Manual I had so that’s probably what my computer looked like.)

We used to play games on it.  A popular one was “asteroids” and “ping-pong”.  These used simple graphics.  Each pixel was, if I recall right, about 1/16 inch by about 3/16 inch and was whitish in color (there was no color).  There was also games where you went into some building and had to determine what to do.  This had no graphics but you had to read descriptions.  Its been a long time but it seems like it would say something like “You entered a room.  There is a door to the right and to the left.  A man is standing next to the door on the right.”  You’d then say something like “go left” then it say something like “you entered a room with a stairway in front of you and a door to the right” and so on.

It used a program called BASIC.  I had a book on BASIC and used to program things.  I tried to replicate “asteroids” (that type of programming was just too advanced for me at the time and I could only barely get it running).  I also tried to program those descriptive games.  It seems I experimented with some other programs, with practical applications, as well but can’t remember.

At that time there was no Windows or any of the fancy stuff you see today.  You basically wrote the program on the screen similar to me writing on this article.  When you wanted to play the game, or see if your program worked, you’d write “run” and it would start.  Anyways, I got very interested in programming and actually considered becoming a programmer but something happened which changed my whole view of things.

As I said above, we had games.  These were probably the first home computer games you could get, though I’m not certain.  It seems that, within a couple of years, you could get at least one type of computer game system that you could hook up to your TV.  But, because of the games, I had a number of friends who would come over and play.  This was fine at first but then a change began to happen.  I’m thinking this was about 1981.  Basically, all they wanted to do is play computer games.  Here are some examples:

  • They’d come over and all they’d wanted to do is play computer games.  I would tell them I only wanted to play for a half or an hour and that was all.  It seems my dad, even, had to tell them that they could only play for a little while.  After we quit it was like they didn’t want to do anything anymore.  Sometimes they’d just go home acting as if they are bored.
  • After a while, if I recall right, we started to tell them the computer was broken (even though it wasn’t).  They then seemed to lose interest in wanting to come over and play.
  • I recall a friend of mine came over.  I was in the kitchen and I think my dad answered the door.  I happened to hear the conversation.  He asked for me.  My dad said something like, “the computer is broken” and he said, “OK” and left.  This made me go “wow!”.  You see, he was only interested in playing computer games.
  • When the other computer games came out that’s all my friends wanted to do when I went to their house.  So I’d go over there and all they’d do is play computer games . . . for hours.  I got to the point that I didn’t want to play with them anymore.  I think, also, that they didn’t want to play with me much anymore as all they wanted was someone to play computer games with.

I could see how the computer games were literally destroying friendships.

And then, one day, an event happened that had a great effect on me.  I went to my friends house and stayed over night.  He had his cousin with him.  All they did, the whole time, is play computer games.  I later said that I’d never stay over again.  But, at one point, I got so bored with the games that I said “I’m just going to sit over here for a while” and went and sat on the lounge chair.  I sat there and watched them.  I recall going “wow!”.  I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.  When I sat there on the chair I sort of realized the effect these computers had on people.  I saw its power, the control it had.  I saw its mesmerizing power, its addicting quality, almost like a drug.  I saw how it was destroying my relationships with my friends.  It was like a realization, as if I knew that things had changed as a result of this, and not for the better.  I recall going home and telling my dad, “I hope this computer stuff doesn’t became that big, all everyone will do is play on their computer”.  I was hoping it would all “blow over”.  Unfortunately, it didn’t.

The effect of the computer games made me break with two of my friends, one was my best friend who I had known for years.  There was simply no reason to play with them anymore . . . all they wanted to do is play computer games.  There was nothing holding the friendship together anymore.

This so effected me that I quit working on the computer and gave the idea up of being a programmer.  Ever since then I am reluctant to play computer games.  I am even still reluctant to go into an arcade!  During the middle part of the 1980’s I wouldn’t even touch a computer.  When I was in Vocational Drafting, in High School, they had one of the early CAD systems.  It had two screens, one for writing commands and one for the drawing.  I wouldn’t even touch it.  When drafting went CAD I actually dropped out of it, as I wanted nothing to do with computers, and went into Psychology.  When that didn’t work the only field that I was interested in, and looked viable at the time, was drafting.  I “bit the bullet” and tolerated the CAD.  I’m still working on CAD a quarter of a century later!  I sort of don’t have a choice.

I still do not, after all these years, like to have much to do with computers or technology.  I tend to take what I often call the “tool orientation”.  In short, I only use computers and technology as a tool.  Some of the traits of this orientation include:

  • I only use them if I have to, such as writing this blog.
  • I try to not get too involved with them.
  • I try to not rely on them that much.
  • I don’t glorify them.
  • I don’t gawk over them.
  • I don’t not make them the focus of life and the center of my life.
  • I look for life beyond computers and technology, in the “human world”.

In short, I see the computer and technology as being no different than a fork or a hammer. . . its something you use and that’s it.  This appears, at least to some people, as a reluctance (I would describe it more as an attitude of “practicality”).  In the 1980’s this reluctance would make people say what, to me, is a silly statement:  “you’re scared of technology”.  I find that insulting, particularly if its said to me today.  You must remember that for many of the people in the 1980’s, and especially today, I not only had a personal computer but was programming on it before they even knew what a personal computer was!  Not only that, I was there when it appeared and, as a result, I saw some of the initial reactions which revealed a side to it most people never saw later. This is because most everyone was too busy gawking over it to see it or being too amazed by what it did.

As I think about it now I saw a number of things that stunned me about all this, which were first seen with my friends and which would be repeated later on:

  1. The drug-like effect the computer had on people.  I couldn’t believe how people were so mesmerized by it.  Later, in the 1990’s, I used to joke about people getting “high” on computers and technology.  Even more than that, I couldn’t believe its addictive qualities.  Once people got “hooked” they couldn’t live without it.
  2. The dominating effect it had on people.  It seemed to control people and dominated their lives.  Its not uncommon for me to say that “people gave up their lives to the computer” or “they allowed themselves to be enslaved by the computer”.
  3. That it created something like a “wedge” between people.  The power of the computer seemed to interfere with peoples association with each other.  It intruded, disrupted, and even destroyed relationships.  It certainly did this with my friends and I would see it later.
  4. There’s nothing you can do about it.  To this day, one of the connotations of “computer” or “technology” is “helplessness”.  Once a computer or technology is there forget it . . . its going to control everything.  I saw that with my friends in 1981 and have seen it ever since.  In my life, I have never seen anything which displayed so much control, more than any government, religion, or morality.  I’ve also seen nothing which has made so many things redundant and useless, and so quickly.  I’ve also seen nothing that has made itself the “only solution” and the “only way”, with little opportunity for anything else.

During the 1980’s I only saw these effects occasionally.  In the 1990’s they grew, especially when the Internet appeared.  In the 2000’s it got horrible particularly with the social media and especially the cell phone.

Overall, I’m still seeing what I saw in 1981.  For example, recently we happened to have a number  of teenage girls over and I was sitting in a lounge chair and looked at them with their nose in their cell phones completely dominated by its mesmerizing effects.  They wouldn’t respond to you and forget trying to get in a conversation with them.  This was reminiscent of 1981, just a new version of it.  Instead of computer games, it was a variation . . . the cell phone and social media.  Needless to say, my reaction was similar.  It was like deja vu.  I found myself, yet again, watching the dominating effect this thing had on people and I couldn’t believe it.

What I feared back then has happened, a society dominated by the computer and technology as well as a bunch of people who willingly let it dominate them!  In fact, these later generations have practically made a way of life out of the dominating effect the computer and technology has had.  I think it defines the later generations, and the so-called “millennials”.  Their whole lives is nothing but being dominated by the computer, technology and its effects, just as I saw with my friends in 1981.  This has caused a number of effects such as:

  •  They let the computer and technology run and dictate their lives to the point that they can’t live without it.  They have to have their cell phones on them at all times, they don’t know what to do if they don’t have their cell phone, they have to have this or that “app”, and so on.
  • They have developed a general life attitude of “being dominated”, of submission, of following.  A person does not “dominate life” (that is, take control of ones life) anymore.  One follows what computers and technology dictates.  They follow what it creates.
  • They rely on the computer and technology to tell them what to do in life.  In fact, it practically does their thinking for them.  For example, they consult “google” or “youtube” to find out any question they have.  Many of the younger generation does not do their own thinking.  This has caused a deterioration in common sense which many of us are noticing.
  • They live life through computers and technology.  Many people are living a big part of their lives through a screen by way of computer games, cell phone screens, etc.  They are not living in the “real world”.
  • They let the computer and technology dictate how they associate with other people.  People don’t associate directly with each other.  Instead, they text each other and such.  As a result of things like this, there is an absence of person-to-person association.
  • It creates an arrogance.  I’ve found that many people who use computers, or are into technology, seem to think that they are somehow “one notch above” people who don’t.  This was true in the 1980’s and its still somewhat true today.  Interestingly, in the 1980’s I associated a person who thought they were superior because they use computers with someone who, deep down, felt inferior and inadequate.  Basically, they use the computer to compensate for this feeling of inferiority and inadequacy.  Personally, I think that is still valid today.  I know, from observation, that many people use the “amazing” quality of computer and technology to make themselves appear “amazing” in their own mind.

To be frank, watching all this develop over the years has this quality of watching a drug addiction turned into a way of life.  I still think that this comparison with a drug addiction is fair and somewhat accurate.  It seems, to me, that there may even be several precedents for this tendency in this society:

  • The Hippi’s.  This addiction has a similar quality to the Hippi’s in the 1960’s and 1970’s who tried to make drugs a way of life.  In other words, they tried to make being “high” the great height of life.
  • “Mind expansion”.  Many Hippi’s thought that drugs created an “enlightment” or an “expansion of the mind”.  This could even get to the point of being religious.  Many people think computers and technology do the same thing, though I’ve seen no evidence of it.
  • The “stoney’s”.  In the 1980’s these were kids who acted like they were in a “perpetual high” all the time, even when they weren’t “high” on drugs.  In other words, at this time, acting like you were “high” became an act, an “image”, an “ideal”.

I sometimes wonder if these attitudes set the stage for these later generations and their attitudes.  They seem to give a “cultural basis” that may of predisposed this tendency in the latter generations.  Basically, the effects of drugs being replaced by the dazzlement and the mesmerizing effect of the computer and technology.  They seem very similar but I can’t say for sure.

I also think that computers and technology creates a natural “dazzlement” that affects many people.  There seem to be a number of causes of this, such as:

  • They are amazed by the graphics and acts of the computer and technology.  Its almost like a magicians show.
  • Some are dazzled because they think its some sort of advancement, an improvement on humanity and the conditions of life.
  • Some think that computers and technology makes them superior or better in some way.
  • Others are dazzled because it is new and offers new ways of doing things.  Of course, once they’ve been here for a while they become “old”, boring, and out-of-date (just like a lot of the younger generation would laugh at the TRS-80).

I started to call this effect “technological dazzlement” in the 1990’s.  Interestingly, even then, I compared it to drugs.  But I also compared it to people watching a circus or a magicians show, which is what it often looked like.  People show similar behavior but at a circus or magicians show it is temporary and they move on with their lives afterwords.  With “technological dazzlement” this not the case.  It grows to have a dominating effect on their lives . . . just look at a lot of the younger generation!

But watching the power the computer and technology has had on people has been an unreal experience for me.  I’ve never seen anything, except for drugs, which has a quality that has so sucked people down into it and in which people so willingly gave up their lives to its power.  I’ve always found it ironic as these same people sit and condemn any form of government control of their lives but yet they willingly submit themselves to a computer program, having it run their lives.  They do it willingly and gladly, even bragging about it.  It seems hypocritical to me.  I feel like saying, “if you guys are so concerned about things controlling your lives, such as with the government, then why don’t you look how you’ve allowed computers and technology have so much control over your lives”.  I still can’t believe it.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Modern life and society, Personal gripes, Science and technology, Stuff involving me | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More thoughts on the “female-as-victim” – revealing aspects of the mother instinct

Here are some thoughts I had (these involve subjects and themes I’ve mentioned before but with some new observations):

There is something which I call the “female-as-victim”, which I’ve spoken of in a number of other articles.  This is something I have been looking at for about 30 years and has, frankly, become quite fascinating.  For me, anyways, it has revealed a lot about the female character as well as female psychology.  Its a subject that tends to go on land that is “taboo” which makes it even more interesting as it goes into areas few people have looked, not even females.  In addition, when I was studying to be a Psychoanalyst (I later dropped the idea of being a Psychologist or Psychoanalyst) it became clear to me that a “pure female psychology” will never be created (see my article “Thoughts on why a ‘female psychology’ can’t be developed effectively” for some aspects of this).   By “pure” I mean a psychology that is based on observing what females actually do.  In other words, it does not use male or “generic” psychology as a basis of interpretation.  It also means that you must look in areas that are “taboo” or makes some females uncomfortable (and even mad!).  This lack of a “pure female psychology” inspired me to look closer at how females actually behave and develop a psychology based on what they do.  My first inquiry into this began by looking at the female-as-victim mentality.  Here are some aspects of it:


The “female-as-victim” is a mentality where females see themselves as victims.  Some examples of this include:

  • They see victimizing in simple things.  They will often see victimizing in everyday things, such as “cleaning the house” or “cooking” (such as that it is “oppression”).  I’ve been around some females where if you accidentally touch them then you’ve “harassed” them.  I’ve been around others where, if you say the wrong thing, they freak out.  I’ve seen some females have a fit all because something wasn’t worded the right way.  In fact, after watching this the late 1980’s I used to joke that “if you conjugate your verbs the wrong way it violates their rights”.  One thing the female-as-victim has taught me is that a person can make it so that one is being victimizing by just about anything!
  • They interpret common things as a form of victimizing.  Often, this is simple everyday things.  A good example of this is my introduction to this whole “female problem” which took place in 1976 or 1977.  We were going outside for recess.  I happened to open a door for a girl.  She called me a “male chauvinist pig” . . . all I did was open the door for her, a simple gesture of courtesy!  How many times have I heard of girls getting upset because a male opens the door for them?  Apparently, we’re trying to degrade them or something???  Utterly ridiculous!
  • They exaggerate and blow simple things out of proportion.  Once they view something as victimizing them, they blow it out of proportion making it out worse than it is.  As I always say, “once a female thinks she’s a victim then she becomes a victim”.  In this way, they actually turn themselves into victims with their own mind, sort of a “self-fabricated victim”.
  • If an injury has been done to them they do not forgive it.  This “injury” can range from something as simple as an imagined insult to an actual physical assault.  Some will hold a grudge for the rest of their lives.  In some cases, they are unwilling to forgive at any cost, even if they are proven to be wrong.
  • They jump on any chance to make themselves victims.  If anything does happen to them, or another female, they are “on it” playing the victim, often with all their effort.  For some females its like they are trying to make themselves a victim.
  • They “wallow in their victimhood”.  Once they perceive themselves as a victim they will often “wallow” in it.  That is, they sit and fashion themselves a victim, gloating on it, elaborating on it, and exaggerating it.  They surround themselves with it making the victimhood even stronger and worse.  In this way, their sense of victimhood actually grows and they become more and more of a victim.  This wallowing quality is a common trait with the female-as-victim.  I’ve seen some girls almost make a life out of it.
  • If a female knows another female who has been hurt or victimized in some way (or thinks they are) then they act as if they are victims too.   In this way, females as if “inherit” the victimizing of other females.  It creates something like an exclusive “female victim club” mentality.  In some cases, if one female thinks she’s a victim then all the females around her think they are victims as well.  Its almost like an infectious disease that spreads from one female to the next.  The social media has aggravated this particular phenomena.
  • They are easily scared, frightened, traumatized, etc.  Oftentimes, what frightens them is all a figment of their imagination.  In many cases, they are just over reacting to “nothing”.  Behind much of this mentality is a deep-rooted fear.  In fact, I’d say that behind the female-as-victim reflects is a blind fear . . . that’s what motivates it.  As a result, these girls are easily frightened.
  • They become easily “bothered” or “offended”.  I’ve seen females who feel “violated” because guys look at them.  I’ve even heard of some females calling this a form of rape!!!  I’ve been around girls where you have to be careful of what you say and how you say it.  If you say the wrong thing then they are “offended” . . . some even call that “sexual harassment”.  In other words, just hearing the “wrong thing” makes them a victim.
  • They become horribly oversensitive and over reactive about things.  Simple everyday things can be turned into something horrid and traumatic . . . a look, a statement, touching them . . . I’ve seen many females blow these out of proportion, almost as if their life is being threatened by it.
  • They have difficulty dealing with unpleasant things.  Sometimes, this could be something as simple as overhearing something that they find “offensive”.  In other cases, it could be certain facts they don’t like.  Sometimes, they will react to this unpleasant thing with a disgust, such as if they come across a smell they don’t like.  This is often a prelude to feeling a victim, the disgust turning into feeling somehow victimized, as if they have somehow been personally hurt as a result.
  • They act like people are plotting against them.  Some females assume malicious intent in peoples action, especially males.  If a male does something they automatically think he’s trying to do something against her.  In some cases, they think the whole world is trying to do this.  This can reach the point of paranoia at times.
  • They act as if they are always innocent and non-involved with what happens to them.  I often call this the “babe in the woods mentality”.  In this, they act as if bad things are happening to them without any effort on their part.  In short, they are just “sitting there” while other people do “bad things”.  I also often call this the “little red riding hood mentality” as they act as if they are little red riding hood skipping along, full of purity and innocence, and then the “evil malicious male wolf” comes and victimizes them out of nowhere.
  • They have a poor view of females and female things.  Often, they tend to take a point of view where female things are “bad” or they look down upon it.  Basically, they tend to view being female, and things associated with being female, as some form of abuse and victimizing.  In other words, being female is being a victim.  They often end up blaming other people for their own bad view of the female often disguising it under “political cause” (their rights are violated, their oppressed, etc.) or some other pretext.
  • They take things too personally.  If something does happen that bothers them, they make it out as if it hit them to the core.  Sometimes, they will take little offenses or insults so bad that they act like its going to kill them.
  • They often assume that males are against them or are trying to do things against them.  I’ve seen many females who quickly jump to this conclusion.  I’ve also seen many who seem to think that the male is “plotting” or “conspiring” against the female.  Some even think this has been going on since the beginning of time.  Common ways they think males are against them include:  trying to degrade them, trying to enslave or control them, and wanting to harm them in some way (which is usually sexual in form).
  • They act as if they are always defending themselves against some threat.  For some females this creates a “perpetual defensive attitude”.  They act as if they must always be on guard and that threats are around every corner.  In addition, this mentality tends to make them see threats around every corner and in everything.
  • They become preoccupied with manners, etiquette, proper behavior, saying things the right way, etc.  These are all means to prevent the “victim response”.  This is their heightened defensive reaction against the idea of being a victim.  In other words, these consists of ways to prevent themselves from feeling a victim mainly by creating a “controlled environment” around them.  In this “controlled environment” the “victim response” is not initiated . . . the “control” keeps everything to acceptable levels.
  • They offer themselves as victims or predispose themselves to be victims.  For example, they wear “skimpy” outfits or go to bars looking for the “wrong male”.  Some girls are attracted to abusive males.  I’ve actually seen girls deliberately “push his buttons” in order to get their boyfriends mad . . . it turns some girls on.
  • They become overly concerned about their body and their health.  This shows that this tendency is associated with their bodies.  This is not all that surprising as its referring to childbearing.
  • They easily accuse people and are all-too-willing to blame people for anything bad that happens to them or that they think have happened to them.  I’ve been repetitively stunned by this tendency in some females.  I’d say that, in my life, I have seen more false accusations, creations of false threats, and the villainizing of innocent people by females who display the female-as-victim tendency than by any other group.  Many of these females do this as easily as breathing . . . its quite amazing.


My observation is that most perceptions of victimizing by the female-as-victim is fabricated in their own mind.  In other words, it is part of a general world perspective that tends to cast a shadow on all their perceptions and interpretations of things.  Because of this, they often claim abuse, victimizing, threats, etc. that don’t make any sense, seem exaggerated, seem out-of-place, seem unbelievable, and so on.  As a result, it often tends to evoke a response of “what?”, “are you kidding?”, “that’s ridiculous”, and similar things.

This tendency to become victims in their own minds, and fabricate abuse, is one of the things that has made this issue interesting and fascinating.  Its also made it a revealing “window” into female psychology and mentality.  In addition, its this tendency that also makes this a psychological issue, representative of a psychological problem, and , more specifically, a “female problem”.

Many males notice this tendency to create abuse and generally respond to it with things like disgust, a contempt, a doubt in the female, and bewilderment.  Oddly, I’ve seen very little evidence that other females notice these inconsistencies in other females.  I know that it does as, when I was younger, I heard several older generation ladies tell younger girls to quit making things out worse than it is.  I seem to recall an incidence where a boy kissed a girl suddenly.  She made a big deal about it and the older lady said something like, “Quit making a big deal about it . . . he didn’t hurt you.  If you had any sense you’d see that he was actually complimenting you.  Its his way of showing he likes you”.  I seem to recall that she may of went on to say how “you girls, nowadays, don’t have any sense anymore”.  This was in the 1970’s.

There are a number of ways that they fabricate victimizing in their minds:

  • Fabrication.  Here they literally fabricate a story out of nothing.  It is often created without any evidence or reason to fabricate it.  Sometimes, it doesn’t make any sense at all.  Interestingly, a good example was a female psychology teacher I had when I was at the University studying psychology.  She told of how she went to Sigmund Freud’s house in London.  She went on how she was so disgusted, offended, intimidated, and felt violated there.  Can you guess why?  If anyone knows anything about Sigmund Freud they know that he liked to collect ancient artifacts from places like Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece.  As a result, his office has all these statues in it.  It was these statues that so offended her!  Can you believe it?  She said that they were “phallic symbols” and they intimidated her.
  • Exaggeration.  Here they take a situation that does happen and make it out far bigger than it is.  A good example is how males “steal a kiss”, as the say (that is, they quickly kiss the girl on her lips without her expecting it).  Males doing this is recorded all through history.  As far as I know there is no record of a female being “traumatized” by this (at the most they smack him or push him away).  This seems to be the case . . . at least until recently.  With the female-as-victim they will turn this into some horrid abuse, violation, and victimizing and may even view it as a “sexual attack”.  This exaggeration can go to such an extent that they may even reach the point of being “traumatized” by it.
  • Elaboration.  Here they take something that has happened and elaborate on it so much that it becomes traumatizing.  In this case, their own victim mentality is instilled into the situation and actually makes it worse.  These situations, though, are based on real actual events that happened and, as a result, its often hard to tell where the healthy reaction and female-as-victim elaboration begins and ends.  My observation, though, is that the female-as-victim tendency will predispose females to be traumatized by an event whereas females who do not display the female-as-victim tendency will not be traumatized by it. 

What we see, then, is a great tendency for mental fabrication on the part of the female-as-victim.  These hints at the fact that it is based in mental processes and not on actual happenings.  In this way, it shows that we are looking at a psychological phenomena.


There are a number of degree’s in which the female-as-victims appears:

  • It becomes a world view and dominates their life.  I call this the “female-as-victim syndrome”.  Personally, I consider this something like a serious clinical conditions such as a neurosis or character disorder.  More than once, through the years, have I said that, at least in the U.S., the “female-as-victim syndrome” has reached epidemic proportions.  I view it as a particularly prevalent and a serious problem in the U.S.
  • It happens sporadically, occasionally, or influences their thinking, perception of things, and world view.  I call this the “female-as-victim mentality”.  This often borders on a clinical condition.  Perhaps we could call it something like a “mild neurosis”.
  • It only appears at certain points of their life.  Most females display a degree of the female-as-victim mentality in their life at one point or another.  With some females, it may appear strongly only at certain points of their life or under certain conditions.  This, it seems to me, is the normal condition.  As we will see later, the female-as-victim is a condition that is inherent in the female condition and appears naturally.  At this stage, though, it appears in healthy levels and is not dominating them as it is in the previous stages.

My observation is that the stronger the female-as-victim is the more it impairs the females growth and development.  Because of this, the female-as-victim tends to lead to a clinical condition like a neurosis.  In fact, it appears, to me, that many female problems are related to the female-as-victim.  Its because of this that I view this as a serious problem.  Sadly, it is a problem that only I have acknowledged and recognized, as near as I can tell.


There are gradations or stages of how victimizing appears and manifests itself:

  1. A sense of fragility.  This refers to a sense of being “fragile” by the female.  This is often described as a quality of being “feminine”.  This is a normal healthy manifestation.  This shows that the female-as-victim has a basis in a natural and healthy femininity which has gone astray.  The later forms, below, reflect this unhealthy form of the female-as-victim (that is, its starting to become ‘neurotic’).
  2. “I’m a victim”.  This is when they start to feel a victim and shows the female-as-victim is starting to take hold of the female.  This tends to reflect a more introverted character and stance.  They tend to focus on the fact that they have been “hurt” in some way.  Its this “hurt” that they become preoccupied with.  They tend to brood and “wallow” on themselves being “hurt”.
  3. “I’m a victim of you”.  They feel a victim, as in previous form, but blame and accuse someone else for it.  This reflects a more extroverted character and stance.  In addition, once this stance is taken there is a tendency to take the point of view that they are “innocent” often taking the “babe in the woods” stance.  This stance of being “innocent” often tends to aggravate this condition because all their “bad feelings” are directed to someone else.  This can make them very malicious, scheming, and condemning.  They tend to do this very freely and openly because, remember, they are “innocent”.  Because of this, it tends to have greater social implications.
  4. The political/legal point of view.  They take the previous form (“I’m a victim of you”) but add a political/legal point of view to it.  So now its like saying, “I’m oppressed by you”.  They often bring in the authority of the Constitution and, in some cases, uses it either as a weapon or a shield.  They often rely on, and expect, the authority of politics and law.  In this society, many of them discover that using politics and law becomes a “power” that they use or, rather, abuse to get their way . . . and many abuse it heavily.  For some girls this stance becomes a way of life.  This is the stance that people, such as feminists, tend to take.

If one looks closely, one can see that these gradations are as if built one upon the other, starting with the first “fragile” sense.  Each stage adds something to the previous stage.  It seems that, as they move further from the first stage, they become more alienated from the original healthy impulse.  In other words, the further they move away from the first stage the worse the female-as-victim sense often becomes.  In addition, the further it moves away the more it gets mixed up, and confused, with other “issues”. 


I often see patterns of this mentality depending on their age:

  1. The teenage years.  They feel something is “upon them”, being forced upon them, or that they have no control.  This is the beginning of menstruation and the coming of the mother instinct upon the female.
  2. The 20-30 years.  They generally feel a victim or a slave.  This is the primary childbearing years.
  3. The 40-50 years.  They often develop a “cause” against being a victim or have definite attitudes about the female-as-victim.  This is the menopause years.  The childbearing “impulse” is waning but they still feel the psychological effects that the female-as-victim sense created in them in their earlier years.  In this way, during this time it tends to become more “psychological” even to the point of being abstract.  The two periods before, on the other hand, are motivated by an “impulse”, they are reacting to a sense they feel and tends to have a more emotional quality.

Their age is important as this is all childbearing related.  In fact, the whole female-as-victim is nothing but a demonstration of the effects childbearing has on females.  Its part of their “response” to the power of the mother instinct.


We must remember that the mother instinct is a power and has great force.  This power is an instinctual sense, which means it hits deep within the female.  In fact, it hits to the core.  Why is this?  Its simply because the continuation of the species is found in the mother instinct.  This is no small potatoes but a serious matter, nothing to look at lightly.  But, yet, in all my years, I am the ONLY person who has noted it and expressed its importance.  Its become clear that this sense is no longer felt nowadays nor is it appreciated and by the people who should appreciate it, the females.  My observation is that deep within the female there is still a great sense of the importance of the mother instinct but, superficially, they have lost the sense of its importance.  Losing this sense, in my opinion, has caused one of the greatest crisis of the females in the modern world.  In fact, I think its undermining and, in a sense, destroying the females.  One effect of this is the female-as-victim sense.

The fact is that for a female to lose a sense of the mother instinct is for her to lose the inner sense of being female.  The mother instinct hits the female to the core, to their very being, and connects her to “nature”.  In some sense, for a female to “get back to nature” is for her to “get back to the mother instinct”.  My observation is that the more the female is grounded in the mother instinct the more they are grounded in life and in being a person.  When the female is not grounded in the mother instinct they tend to be shallow and superficial, suffering from neurosis, hysteria, feeling a victim, and such.  In other words, a female not grounded in the mother instinct tends to be more prone to mental problems.  That’s what my observation shows anyways.

Much of the power of the mother instinct is unconscious.  That is to say, they are not overtly or consciously aware of it but, nevertheless, they are controlled by it.  In this way, many females are reacting to a force that they are not aware of.  This often creates a sense, in females, of things such as:

  • That they are being “forced” to do things.
  • That they are being controlled.
  • There is a sense of a “weight” or “burden” upon them.
  • They feel they have no control and are helpless.

Because it is unconscious females generally are not aware of the cause of these things.  In fact, I have never seen a female ascribe the mother instinct to any of its effects.  From what I have seen most females, nowadays, have no sense of the mother instinct and its effects on them.  I have seen some of the older generation mention it though.  They generally spoke of it as “motherhood” or the “mother in them” but I’ve not heard in the younger generations.


The mother instinct is something that comes upon females with a force, whether they want it or not or whether they are prepared for it or not.   Many females are not prepared for when the mother instinct comes in their teenage years.  This is particularly so in modern society.  They are particularly not prepared in British and American societies.

What I have found is that many females struggle with the power that the mother instinct has over them.  Some of the causes for this difficulty include:

  • Identity problems.   This is very prevalent in modern and British/American societies.  These societies have done just about everything in their power to destroy  the male and female identity with one result that has become impactful:  the female is not prepared for the power the mother instinct has upon them.
  • Alienation.  Modern society is alienating people from themselves and being human.  One effect of this is that females are becoming alienating from the mother instinct.
  • Beliefs.  Many females have developed beliefs that undermine, clash with, or portray female things in a bad way.  These make it difficult for females to “come to terms” with the power the mother instinct has over them, even to the point that they can’t “come to terms” with being female.  Its not uncommon that these beliefs are based in political ideology.  Many of these are based, in particular, with British political thinking.  This political-based belief is one of the main causes why British and American girls have problems with the mother instinct.  In particular, they have turned the mother instinct into a “tyrant” the “oppresses” them in order to fit their political ideology.  The male and society generally take the place of the mother instinct “tyrant” which, remember, most females aren’t aware of.  In this way, the male and society become the “scapegoats” of the mother instinct.
  • Poor views of the female.  When females view the female in a bad light they tend to have struggle with the effects of the mother instinct.
  • Some females struggle with its overpowering effect.  The mother instinct is so powerful that some females naturally have difficulty “coming to terms” with it and how it affects them.  For some, this becomes a lifelong battle.
  • Some females character type “clash” with the mother instinct.  Sometimes, the females character and personality does not “mesh” with the demands and requirements of the mother instinct.
  • There is an innate “burden” sense with the mother instinct that many females struggle with.  For some females this creates a sense as if the “weight of the world” is upon them.  We must remember that motherhood is a big weight on the female.  One could call the weight of the mother instinct the “weight of the species” and many females do feel this weight deep down inside even though they are not consciously aware of it.

My observation is that the main causes of struggling with the mother instinct in this society are identity problems, alienation, beliefs, and poor views of the female.  These have caused all sorts of problems for the female.


My observation is that the female-as-victim mentality has a strong origin in menstruation and seems to use it as a basis.  Menstruation causes a number of reactions such as:

  • The feeling of being damaged.  Every month the female is “damaged” by menstruation.  This damage could be perceived as physical and/or mental.  They often believe themselves to be “hurt”, “abused”, and even “assaulted”.
  • The feeling of being enslaved or “forced” to do things.  Because menstruation happens every month many females feel enslaved by it.  In effect, they are “slaves to being damaged” and on a regular basis.  Its regularity also can create a sense that they are “forced” to do things against their will as well.
  • The feeling of “someone else”.  Menstruation is associated with childbearing which means that it is inherently and instinctually associated with “someone else”.  In other words, the mother instinct creates in the female a sense that there is “someone else”.  I often call this the “other”.  It is one of the reasons why females always “needs someone”.  It also makes them tend to blame someone else too.  Instinctually, the “other” is the male and the child, the other elements in childbearing.

From the above are the basic traits of the female-as-victim sense.  All three together create a sense of something like “I’m regularly being damaged by someone else” . . . a victim.  In effect, the real victimizer of the female is the mother instinct through menstruation.

I often call menstruation the “negative childbearing” . . . its the childbearing that did not take place.  Actual childbearing, on the other hand, is “positive childbearing” as it happened.  Some females feel “negative childbearing” as a great loss, as if a part of themselves has died, and they feel this loss every month.  It can have tragic consequences for some females, destroying their inner sense of security, their self-esteem, and such.  I’m under the impression that most females feel this loss, at least to some extent, and somewhat regularly.  As a result, it tends to make many females feel a “victim” or “hurt” in some way.  In these cases, though, they are “victims”, or are “hurt”, because they didn’t have a child!  This shows the power of the mother instinct.

Interestingly, since menstruation is associated with childbearing which is associated with sex there is an association between sex and victimizing of the female.  In other words, sex is sometimes viewed as a form of victimizing the female.  It “hurts” or “damages” the female body.  She is “violated”, so to speak.


The mother instinct tends to create, in the female, a natural absence of self.  This tends to cause things such as:

  • A “mindlessness” 
  • A stupidity or simplemindedness
  • A dependency
  • A weakness, frailty, or uncertainty
  • A childlike quality
  • A vulnerability

Interestingly, these are traits of “femininity” or being “feminine”.  These qualities create something like a spectrum.  On one end of the spectrum its one of the great strengths of the female as it makes the female very appealing, particularly to the male.  On the other end of the spectrum its one of the great weaknesses of the female as it makes them difficult and hard to get a long with.  Since the association with other people is with the self, this is the side of the female the male first see’s and associates with.  Its not uncommon that many relationships begin with one end of the spectrum (where the female is appealing) and ends with the other end (where the female is difficult).  Not only that, females tend to bounce around along the spectrum, being appealing one minute and difficult the next.  As a result of this, the female absence of self can cause quite a dilemma for males in their association with the female.  Another interesting effect of the females absence of self is that the male can sense its absence, though not necessarily consciously.  Since the male has a strong sense of self (as a result of the need to deal with the world) the female absence of self tends to make females appear “low” or even “subhuman”.  As a result, it tends to make males look down on females.  I’ve even noticed that tendency in me!

Some of the causes of the absence of self include:

  • The deep quality of the mother instinct.  My observation is that the mother instinct is not an “emotional” sense as people would think nor is it an emotional bond with the child.  That can appear but it appears later and tends to be superficial.  The mother instinct is, as I’ve said above, instinctual and hits the female deep.  In fact, it is so deep that it is below the “emotional” level.  Its even deeper than that as its so deep that it is below the self.  In this way, the female has no self to “control” the mother instinct.  This is one reason why females are so “controlled” and “enslaved” by the mother instinct.  As a result of this, we can see that the mother instinct causes an inherent weakness in the female.  This contributes to many problems females suffer from.
  • The “partial mind”.  Much of the mother instinct is not based in “motherly love”, as is often supposed.  My observation is that the mother instinct is rooted in the fact that the female has a “partial mind” . . . their mind, and also their self, isn’t complete.  The rest of their mind and self rests with the child.  In other words, the child completes the females mind and self.  In this way, the mother instinct makes the child a part of the female self, a part of her and who she is.  In so doing, motherly love is really a love of self as the child is perceived as a part of herself.  It also makes the female “need” the child or a substitute for the child (such as social trend).

The absence of self tends to predispose the female to problems as they are unable to control things, their emotions, and even themselves.

Another effect of the absence of self is the tendency where it makes the female view herself as an innocent victim.  Basically, her lack of self makes her feel this way for a number of reasons:

  • The absence of self makes the female “disconnected” with the world around her.  As a result, when something bad does happen she assumes that she is not involved.  To her, it feels as if something came from somewhere else.  Usually, she has no sense of any connection what this is or why it happened.
  • The absence of self makes it so she doesn’t realize what she’s doing.  The fact is that many females don’t realize their contribution to what happens to them.  The females absence of self tends to make them non-reflective.  That is to say, they tend to not reflect on their behavior, what they do, and its consequences.  As a result, many females do not make any connection of their behavior and the things that happen to them.  I’ve seen this many times and have been stunned by it.
  • The absence of self tends to make females naïve and “simple” in their attitude.  A good example of this is an article I saw in spring 2017.  Basically, it said that because summer is coming females will start to wear “skimpier” outfits which shows off more of their body.  She went on to say that it is not “right” that males should look at them because of this.  She then brought in law and politics and said that it was “sexist”, discriminatory, and a violation of their rights that males do this and that it makes girls feel “violated”.  My reaction to this was “my god, how naïve females are becoming”.  There are several points to this article.  First of all, it is a denial of how the world works.  The fact is that if a female wears “skimpy” outfits guys will look, regardless of the females political views and personal feelings . . . that’s the way the world is.  This shows a horrible naiveness which is, it seems to me, becoming very prevalent nowadays.  Another point is that it turns the females into victims, yet again, in America.  Everywhere you turn females are somehow being victimized it seems.  Another point is that it suggests that the males out as having malicious intent by looking at them.  As a male I will say that when a female wears “skimpy” outfits you tend to look, there doesn’t need to be malicious intent in it.  My experience is that there usually isn’t for most males.  Another point is that she made a political and legal issue out of this.  This situation has nothing to do with law or politics but I very well know that she brought it up to drum up some authority and to give this ridiculous point of view some validity.  To me, using law and politics in this way is like an abuse of law and politics.  Another point is that it is making a simple everyday act an act of victimizing . . . I speak of the simple act of looking at someone.  So males looking at girls is violation of their rights and makes them feel “violated”.  That’s stupid!  It sounds more like an insecure female to me.

There are some females who have built a wall around themselves of “I’m innocent”.  This is their whole view of themselves.  The live in a world of innocency, pure and holy.


The mother instinct tends to create a sense in females of great self-concern, particularly over their bodies.  This self-concern is really a concern over their ability of motherhood and is, basically, a self-protective tendency to protect the womb.  I speak of this tendency as “conceit”.

Conceit figures strongly in the female-as-victim sense.  This sense of self-protection is often so big that it makes many females over-react and blow things out of proportion if they, in any way, feel threatened.  Some examples include:

  • If you touch them they say they are “abused”, “assaulted”, or whatever.
  • If they overhear something they don’t like they are “offended”, “harassed”, etc.
  • If you, in any way, have to make them do something which they don’t want to do then they are “abused”, “harassed”, and such.

In these ways, the sense of self-protection is so strong that the female has to be put in something like a “sterilized shell” where they feel that nothing is threatening them!  I often speak of this as the “protected world of the female”.  It can get so bad that you have to walk on pins and needles around many females, being careful of everything you say and do, and god help you if you do.  Whether its intentional or not does not matter.  Once a female thinks they are a victim they “become” a victim . . . a sign of the power of female self-protection.

In many cultures all over the world the females will be “segregated” and removed from the male and greater society.  I speak of this as the “female niche”.  There are many forms that this appears.  Examples include:

  • Laws, rules, and customs
  • Etiquette, manners, and “proper behavior”
  • Roles, occupations, and function in society
  • Clothes and appearance
  • The “nest” – people, family, home, or a place they take care of
  • A specific physical place such as a building

These all create a “protected world” for the female.  In a way, the “female niche” is a condition where the females sense of self-protection is not likely to be provoked.  What does this reveal?  That when the females sense of self-protection is provoked they, as people, don’t have any control over it.  When it happens, they tend to over react to it, perhaps to the point of being hysterical.  Because of this lack of ability of control they need something other than themselves to be the control element and to protect them.  This consists of the qualities of the “female niche” that I have described above.  One could also call the “female niche” a “controlled environment” for in the niche things are controlled.  That is to say, in the “female niche” things must be a “certain way”, which is another way of saying that it is controlled.  Of course, the female-as-victim viewpoint of all this aspect of the female world is something that is “forced” upon them, as I’ve heard some of them claim, but if you look closely you can see that the “female niche” is created by the females themselves.  In effect, the females sense of self-protection makes them create the “narrow world” of the “female niche” where things have these qualities:

  1.  Nothing threatens them. 
  2. Things are a “certain way” . . . that is, controlled.

Because of this, a big part of the female life is to live in the “narrow world” this condition creates.  In this way, the female does not, in actuality, live in the greater world and tends to be removed from it.  One could say that females tend to “live in their own world” as a result.  Many males can sense this detachment from the world quality and its one of the reasons why males tend to not look highly on female opinions.  I’ve noticed this same tendency in myself, in fact.

But, it appears to me that the stronger the “female niche” the more “healthy” and “stable” the females tend to be.  In this way, there is a close association between the female and the “female niche”.  In some sense, you could equate them as the same, at least socially.  Many people, both male and female, do in fact equate the female-as-a-person with the “female niche”.

The modern world, though, has caused great dilemma for the “female niche” . . . its basically undermined it.  I tend to believe that the undermining of the “female niche”, by the modern world, is a significant element in the insecurity and instability of the female nowadays and, accordingly, predisposes them to the female-as-victim mentality.

Some of the causes of the “female niche” being undermined include:

  • Christianity and the idea that we are all sinners.  The Christian idea that we are all sinners has created a sense, in the European mentality, of the “evil” in our nature.  This has created an attitude that “we are inherently bad”, which causes a tendency of low self-esteem, and a poor view of oneself.  This has affected both the male and the female, but in different ways.  For the female it has created a general attitude of how bad they are which turns into an attitude of how the bad the female is in general.  This has become something like a “base” for the female-as-victim mentality.  Its Christian origins give this “female is bad” victim mentality an almost religious authority and a deep inner meaning which persists to this day.  I would say that it is one of the elements that keeps the victim mentality going strong.  This is one of the reasons, also, why the female-as-victim mentality is so prevalent in Western European, British, and American society as they have “inherited” this Christian attitude.
  • The ‘pseudo-nobility’ – abandoning traditional female roles to “play-act nobility”.  This became prevalent in England in the early-mid 1800’s and, from my observation, has done great damage to the female identity.  Basically, the female “abandoned all that the female was” so that she could have tea parties, have perfect manners, and wear expensive dresses.  This created a female identity that, though it was the British ideal, actually was narrow, inadequate, and insufficient for the female.  As a result of this, the female identity became superficial and shallow, something like a “pretend game”.
  • Blindly following social trend and ideals.   This is really a variation of the above and sprouted from it.  By trying to “play-act nobility” it created an attitude of females to follow whatever social trend and ideals were out there.  Many females do this blindly and mindlessly.  What it has done is create a female identity based not in “being female” but in how well you can follow social trend and ideals.  In short, the female identity becomes nothing but social trend and ideals.  This is very prevalent in this society.
  • Mass communication.  The arrival of mass communication in the early-mid 1800’s had great impact on the “female niche”.   This is because, as I’ve said above, society tends to be a “child substitute”.  This makes many females almost slavish to social things, such as trend, ideals, moods, and such.  In this way, many females began to look at mass communication as a substitute for the “female niche”.  The problem is that it is no substitute.  The arrival of the social media in the early 2000’s has only aggravated and intensified this condition.  In fact, I’ve often felt that social media will guarantee that a “female niche” never gets established.
  • The fall of roles.  Much of the modern world has undermined the value, worth, and meaning of roles.  This is true of the female, the male, and other forms of roles.  For the female the absence of a defined role takes away part of the walls of the “female niche” by taking away their place and purpose.  It also creates a sense of vulnerability to the world.
  • The success of the “male world” and what the male has created.  One of the things that has surprised me is the fact that many females are envious of the male and what he has created.  I call this “male envy” This envy is seen a lot in the U.S., particularly in the northeast, or so it seems to me.  I’ve been stunned how severe this can be.  My observation is that a lot of the concern over “equality” is usually reflecting this envy.  To be “equal” is really like saying, “I want the glory the male has”.  In fact, this envy is so bad for some females that its not uncommon for me to call them a “pathetic caricature of a man”.  Personally, for some females, I think that this is an accurate statement.  It seems that this envy began to appear in the mid-1800’s with the rise of industrialism and consumerism.  Many females looked at all the achievements the male has created and basically became envious.  This envy has eaten away not only the female identity, making them view the female in a bad light, but its made them want to aspire to be men . . . not a good recipe for stable females.  In addition, it has eaten away at the male/female relationship to the point that it has, in some cases, literally destroyed it.  In this way, “male envy” has greatly affected society, far more than you’d think.  Its had greatly impacted females, some more than others.

These have all played their part in the undermining of the “female niche”.  Its fall has destroyed the “protected world of the female” and exposed the female to the world, so to speak.  As a result, the female tends to have an attitude of being “frightened of the world” in today’s society (though they may deny or not be aware of it).

Once the “female niche” began to be undermined the females began to feel “vulnerable” and threatened.  This has caused a number of defensive reactions which have only undermined the “female niche” even further:

  • Certain political and legal thinking.  These points of views primarily came from England and France and are primarily based in things like democracy, rights, oppression, freedom, and such.  Generally, they have fashioned the female as the “oppressed” and this becomes the basis of how they view themselves, the society, and the world.  They seem to think that using political and legal thinking will somehow take away their fear, and feeling threatened, but it hasn’t.  In this way, its like a “dead end road”.  They sit and state all these high and mighty ideas but it doesn’t do anything.
  • Trying to be like males.  Many females have sought refuge in the male identity.  This so obviously shows the insecurity of the female identity.  In fact, when a female tries to be a man they might as well say “I’m insecure being a female” to me.  Even the movies are starting to portray females as “great warriors” patterned, of course, after men (such as the recent Star Wars movies).  It doesn’t take a genius to see why this type of stuff undermines the female.  This is rather prevalent in the U.S.
  • Building a “shell” around themselves.  When females feel “vulnerable”, as a result of the fall of the “female niche”, they often develop something like a shell or wall around themselves.  This often makes females very difficult, and even impossible, to associate with.  Even though this may help their sense of vulnerability, it does nothing in the end.  This is very prevalent in the U.S.
  • Playing “games”.  Another defense they do is that they try to make things be a “certain way” when they associate with people, especially males.  This desire for things to be a “certain way” is a trait of the “female niche” (see above) so its not surprising that they try to reinstate it as a defense.  Basically, what happens is that they require you to do certain things before they will even associate with you. These often have a quality of a “game”. One could also describe it as a “jumping through hoops” as well.

I can see that many females are always trying to “reestablish” a new “female niche” but nothing seems to be working.


I tend to associate the female-as-victim with female identity problems, at least in this society.  In many respects, I thinks its safe to say that the female-as-victim mentality and syndrome are indicative of a female identity problem.  In other words, when females display it generally means they have a problem with their identity.

In the U.S., females have a serious female identity problem.  I often call American girls with this problem the  ‘failed sex’ as the female identity has failed (see some of my articles such as, “Thoughts on some aspects of female identity problems“, “Thoughts on my statement: “at the rate we are going the female will be obliterated”“, and “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 reason why identity is so important is that identity forms a “framework” or “pattern” for ones passions, impulses, and natural inclinations.  In this way, identity takes these impulses and gives them value, a means of grown, and a meaning.  Sexual identity is there because it caters to, controls, directs, and gives meaning to naturally appearing sexual-based impulses.  As a result of this, there develops very marked and demarcated sexual differences, roles, and behavior.  To not have identity is as if to be “formless”, so to speak, which causes a lot of problems.  It becomes difficult to become a person, for example, or to find ones place in society.  So we can see that identity is critical for a healthy and meaningful life.

When identity is faulty or missing, many impulses as if “go amuck”, have no meaning, or get misdirected in other directions.  As a result, identity problems often creates feelings such as:

  • A meaningless or purposelessThis is because their impulses have no apparent “value” in life and society.
  • A feeling of being lost.  This is because their impulses give them no place in life.
  • A feeling of being controlled.  This is because they feel they have no control over their lives.
  • Certain impulses control them or they feel they do not have control over certain impulses.  Because these impulses have not been given a direction and place these impulses often go astray, uncontrolled, and undirected.

As a result of identity problems the female-as-victim tends to feel particularly controlled by, and at the mercy, of menstrual feelings (described above).  Being without a firm and healthy identity these impulses, basically, have no place to go nor any meaning.  Since these impulses are repetitive, with great force, entail the importance of childbearing, and given no meaning, they tend to as if “impose” themselves upon the female forcefully.  As a result, the menstrual traits described above tend to be exaggerated and intensified (feeling damaged, feeling a slave, and that someone else is at fault).  This becomes the base of the feelings of being a victim.  If it is particularly severe then they start to see these themes everywhere and in everything (such as everything damages them, everything enslaves them, and its someone else’s fault).  Once this starts it starts to control or overwhelm many females.  This is particularly aggravated because of a lack of self to control things (see above) . . . they are now defenseless against it.  As a result, many females literally become “at the mercy” of these menstrual feelings . . . it dominates them, it controls them, and they become a “puppet” to it.  This condition, really, is a big part of the female-as-victim.

My observation is that females who have firm identities, as a female, tend to not have victim feelings nor develop the female-as-victim mentality.  This shows, at least to me, the importance and value of the female identity.  It also shows that a significant trait, and quality, of the female identity is in dealing with menstrual feelings, passions, and tendencies.  In some respects, one could say that this is one of the biggest differences between male and female identity as the male does not have these feelings.

The female needs to control these menstrual feelings in order to have a healthy and meaningful life.  As a result, female identity tends to have a qualities such as:

  • Being reactive.  In other words, females are reacting to a condition that is as if “imposed” upon them.  Identity allows them to reactive in a more effective, meaningful, and healthy way.  When the female has no identity this “imposition” of the mother instinct, particularly through menstruation, can cause great problems (or lead to great problems).  As stated above, the power of the mother instinct is so strong that many females end up struggling with it, at least to some extent.  A lack of identity only predisposes them to problems.
  • Being controlling.  The power of the mother instinct is so strong and powerful that the female identity needs to have particularly strong and powerful means to control it and its effects.  In a sense, the mother instinct “needs to be controlled” which means that the female identity “needs to be controlled”.  As a result, the female identity tends to reflect this “control” by entailing more restrictions, more controlling qualities, more prohibitions, etc.  This fact tends to give the female identity more of a “slavish” and controlling quality.  Many males can sense this.  For some males it will cause them to develop a low view of the female as a result.  From my own observation I’d describe this quality as giving females a “minion”or robot-like quality.

These qualities are unique to the female identity and, accordingly, give much of the quality of “being female”.

The female identity is closely associated with the “female niche”.  In fact, they are so closely related that one could say that the fall of the “female niche” is the fall of the female identity.  I’ve described some of the aspects of the fall of the “female niche” above.

The “female niche” benefits the female identity a number of ways:

  • Since it is a “female world” it brings out, and develops, many naturally appearing female passions, impulses, etc.  
  • It is where they learn to make these impulses have value and worth.
  • It gives females a “role model”.  
  • It allows the older generation of females to impart a healthy identity on the younger generations based on their experience.
  • It is a “protected world” where they do not feel threatened and are free to develop an identity.  

It seems, to me, that the female identity is so associated with the “female niche” that its fall is a great unspoken tragedy.

At this time, I see no evidence that the male had any involvement in the destruction of the “female niche” or the female identity, as many female-as-victims claim (as part of their blame and accusation).  In fact, my inquiry shows that the males were generally supportive of the “female niche” and female identity as a whole.  But when the male tried to support the female identity, such as maintaining the role of a wife, the female-as-victim females called it “oppression” or some form of abuse.  So you see that the female-as-victim female had more help and support than they think but they pushed it away.  This is because they were so fixated on the victim theme that this is how they interpreted everything and all that they could see.  My observation is that this tendency to push away support is a big contributing factor in the fall of the female identity and the “female niche”.  In other words, the female-as-victim is so committed to being a victim that they undermined themselves by not accepting support!

I see no evidence that society destroyed the “female niche” or the female identity.  The role played by society is one of a “backdrop” or in the fact that it “cast a shadow” over it all.  As a result, it set a form or pattern for how this problem appeared and manifested itself but it did not create it.  In this way, society did not play an active role.

From what I can see, the active role in the destruction of the “female niche”, and the female identity, seems to lie with the female herself.   I’ve discussed aspects of this in a number of articles, such as “Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female ” and “Thoughts on how females are continuing the mistake of their mothers before them . . . continuing the ‘failed sex’ and promoting alienation “.  Sadly, as I watch females today, I can see how many are undermining the female identity.  And, more importantly, no one is forcing them to do it, no one is making them do it . . they are doing it all on their own.  Common ways they undermine themselves include:

  • Being a slave to social ideals.  Here they are trying to as if make the female identity equated with the social ideas.  Even recently, I’ve seen many girls with shirts on that reflect social ideas, such as “be happy”, “life is good”, etc.  Some shirts are more revealing and say something like “be kind, be compassionate, be you”.  They are basically saying “I am these social  ideals, they are who I am”.  The problem is that this is not a genuine identity and does not really reflect them as a person . . . they’re just blindly following social ideals.  In short, social ideals fails as an adequate identity.  Another social ideal is going to college and having a job.  Many females are sacrificing everything, including their female identity, to pursue this high and mighty American ideal, all so they can have a job.  I tend to believe that, one day, many females are going to “wake up” and realize that all a female has become is someone who has a job . . . and that’s it!  The mother instinct, the base of the female identity, will be nowhere to be seen.  “Having a job” is not an adequate identity either.
  • Being a slave to social trend.  This includes fads, trends, and mass hysteria.  Social media plays a large role here.  What they do it slavishly follow social trends, whatever it is.  Typically, this is done blindly and slavishly.  They then associate their identity with how well they follow social trend.  The better they follow the trend the “better they feel about themselves and who they are”.  This, obviously, is not a source for an adequate identity.
  • Trying to be a man.  Many females tend to think that being a man will somehow “save” them from the ordeal of female problems.  Someone tell me how trying to be a man makes for a stronger female identity?  I think its obvious:  it doesn’t!
  • Portraying themselves as victimsThis, of course is the female-as-victim I am speaking of in this article.

Keep in mind that these are the most common things I see and doesn’t include everything but they all tend to undermine the female identity or prevent its development.  I should also point out that all these are responses to the problem not solutions.  So far, from what I can see, there is little constructive effort on the part of the female to develop a healthy and firm female identity at this time. 


With the absence of self the female needs the child or “child substitute” to complete themselves, as I’ve said before.  A common “child substitute” is society.  This makes many females almost slavish to social trend, fads, ideals, and such.  Some follow society like a puppy dog begging for food.  I’ve even described some females behavior as a “brown-nosing” or a “sucking up” to society.

Since following society, as a form of “child substitute”, is associated with the absence of self (as described above) it follows that this tendency is associated with the weakness, frailty, and insecurities that the absence of self causes.  As a result, many females quickly become insecure when a fear or threat develops in society.  This insecurity makes many females prone to social hysteria.

Many females are particularly prone to other females “feeling threatened” (that is, feeling a victim).  So if one female “feels threatened” it often spreads from one female to another like domino’s.  With the social media this can spread and get out of control quite quickly.  This tendency shows a “connection” or “bond” that females have with each other which, I believe, is rooted in various aspects of the mother instinct:

  • Being a victim
  • The self-protective sense
  • Motherhood

These are all things they feel in other females which creates something like an “instinctual bond” between females.  It seems to be unconscious.  This “instinctual bond” causes a bond that makes fears and threats spread between females.  Its like a common denominator that allows an avenue for fears and threats.  What this means is that the mother instinct creates a tendency in females of social hysteria and a quick spread of fears and threats between females.


The mother instinct tends to cause a tendency in the female where they become “focused” or “fixated” on something.  This causes naturally appearing character traits that can be described in ways such as:

  • A naiveness.
  • A “narrow-mindedness”.
  • As if they are looking at life “through a tube”.
  • As if they have “blinders” on.
  • A near-sightedness or they can only see so far.
  • An inability to “get the big picture”.
  • It also creates a particular form of stupidity that is unique to the female.  Basically, being “focused” and “fixated” tends to impair what they see and, as a result, their understanding of things.

These tendencies are a manifestation of the mother instinct.  Basically, the mother instinct creates an instinctual-like tendency in the female where they put all their concentration, effort, and awareness in a specific thing.  This “specific thing”, of course, is the child.  In other words, the mother instinct creates a tendency to a “focusing” or “fixation” on the child or a representation of the child.  This creates a generalized attitude which they take in life, of “focusing” or becoming “fixated” on certain things.  This creates the qualities described above.  I call this tendency “feminine near-sightedness”.   Males, on the other hand, tend to be far-sighted and, accordingly, display “masculine far-sightedness”.  As a result, males tend to get more of the “big picture” whereas females get more of the “little picture”.

“Feminine near-sightedness” tends to cause some unique traits in the female, such as:

  • They see more of the “suttle” things of life, the small nuances, and meanings in life (which the male tends to overlook). 
  • They can often read the “hidden meanings” between people.
  • They live “second-by-second”.
  • They are often more “in tune” with the social mood.

At times, this quality can be the greatest strength of the female.  At other times, though, it can be their greatest weakness.  This is generally because they become too “focused” on small things, forgetting the bigger picture.

The tendency to “fixation” often figures in the female-as-victim.  This is because of the association between “fixation” (that is, on the child representation) and the victim mentality . . . they reflect the mother instinct.  As a result, when they feel a victim its not uncommon for them to become “fixated” on things such as:

  • The fact that they see themselves as victims.
  • What the view as the cause.
  • Who they blame and accuse.

Once this “fixation” takes place they often display these qualities:

  • They often cannot get their mind off of it.
  • They see it in everything.
  • They act as if the whole world revolves around it.
  • It dominates their interpretations of things.

In this way, the female-as-victim often takes on qualities of an obsession disorder.  What this shows is that there is a close association between the female-as-victim and obsession.  Many females become obsessed with being a victim and often can’t get it out of their minds.  This is why it dominates and controls their lives.  I’ve seen some females where the female-as-victim becomes a world view, and a basis of how they interpret the world (for example, I’ve heard some say something to this effect: “the female has been oppressed by the male since the beginning of time”).  When this happens it almost looks “insane” or “psychotic”, in a way.  They start conjuring up all these weird threats and victimizing as if pulling rabbits out of hat.  Feminists are well known for this.


Overall, there are common themes associated with the female-as-victim.  These are:

  • The idea that the female is a victim or damaged in some way
  • Menstruation – “negative childbearing”
  • Childbearing – “positive childbearing”
  • Sex
  • The male

These themes are as if intertwined and are often closely related, equated, and in different ways and forms.  For example, sex is viewed as the means for childbearing but some females see sex as a form of victimizing or damaging of the female.  As a result, the male is often viewed as the “victimizer” as he is associated with sex and childbearing.  Another example is that the male is viewed as “enslaving” the female but this really is a manifestation of menstruation.  The reason why this interests them so much is a deep desire to be pregnant which is associated with menstruation.  This reveals a theme I see all the time, that when the female feels she’s a victim, or is damaged in some way, it often hides a desire to be pregnant.  This is why some females will become preoccupied with being a victim.  Other females will even seek to be victims of the male for this very reason (such as by going to bars or being attracted to abusive males).

All in all, its quite clear that motherhood, and the mother instinct, is closely associated with a sense of being hurt, damaged, or victimized in some way.  Its as if this is the “price of motherhood”.  This is a deep inner sense that females have, some more than others.  This means that females innately feel “victimized” as a result.  Because of this, the female-as-victim sense affects the female life in many ways such as:

  • It figures prominently in the mentality of the female, as a general rule.
  • It tends to appear when females have problems.
  • It motivates and causes many problems.  

In this way, the female-as-victim sense is inherent in the female condition.  Its a question of how far it gets out of control.


One interesting effect of motherhood is that it creates a particular type of tug-of-war in the female.  This can be quite a crisis for some females.  Others may not feel it at all.  Its a tug-of-war between two impulses:

  • A desire to be “violated”The desire to be a mother.
  • The fear of being “violated”The fear of being “damaged” by motherhood (childbearing, sex, the male) which incites the self-preservation of the womb tendency or conceit (see above).

In this tug-of-war its as if “on one hand they want to be violated and on the other hand they are frightened to be violated”.  Common ways females struggle with this issue include:

  • They desire to be violated which can be a desire for sex or even a desire to be abused.
  • They alternate between wanting to be violated and being frightened, often changing with their mood.
  • A part of their mind wants to be violated but their conscious mind isn’t aware of it . . . consciously they act frightened.
  • They are frightened.

This shows that motherhood innately entails what can be described as a “violation theme”.  This is an innate sense that their body must be “violated” or, rather, transgressed in order to have a child.  There are two things that “violate” the female:

  1. The child
  2. The male

It is one, or both, that frightens them.  It is perceived that this “violation” will “damage” them.  In other words, there is a deep unconscious awareness that the female body must be “damaged” for motherhood to happen.  This, of course, conflicts with the self-preservation of the womb.  This is the paradox of the childbearing and the cause of the tug-of-war . . . the female innately protects the womb as something “precious”, as its the source of childbearing, but in order for this “precious” womb to come to fruition it must be “damaged”.  They don’t want to damage something they view as “precious” but they need to.

How is this dilemma resolved?  Several things seem important:

  • A firm female identity.  This gives them a firm base and understanding of what a female is and what a female does in life.
  • The “female niche”.  This gives a sense of security and well-being as well as a sense that motherhood is part of a greater story involving all the females and the mothers that have come before you.
  • Established and accepted social conventions which makes it all non-threatening.  These include things like courtship, marriage, a culturally based respect for childbearing, an understanding of the role of a mother, etc.  These social conventions ease the conflict by making it “make sense” and “acceptable”.

These give the dilemma a “security” in its resolution.  But all these things tend to be either missing or weak in the female-as-victim.  As a result, the female-as-victim tends to have conflict with the tug-of-war and “violation theme” and are not able to resolve it.  One effect of this is that they tend to always feel “violated”, “damaged”, “hurt”, or somehow adversely affected.  In this way, the female-as-victim has a quality of someone who is really groaning about the ordeals of childbearing.  After watching it all these years I’d say that there is a lot of truth in that.  Its like they are saying, “motherhood is too much for me” but its said in roundabout ways, such as:

  • A female becoming upset because she heard a “dirty joke”.
  • A female feeling “raped” because guys look at her.
  • A feminist saying “we’re all oppressed by the male because they force us to cook”.
  • A female becoming traumatized because a male touched her breast (whether its intentional or not . . . does it matter?).
  • A female who tries to outdo the male.

These are just some of the claims of the female-as victim but I think you get the idea.


As I mentioned above, the female-as-victim mentality often creates a tendency to be over reactive, offended, bothered, and “traumatized” by things like statements.  In other words, nothing happens to them but yet they act like its going to kill them!  We once had to go through a ridiculous seminar over sexual harassment many years ago.  A great deal of what they said was reflective of the female-as-victim mentality.  Basically, what we were told is that the male has to walk on “tip toes” around the female so as to not aggravate the over sensitive and neurotic female-as-victim mentality.  If the male does aggravate it then the male is at fault . . . there was no mention, at all, that maybe the females ought to not be so ridiculously over sensitive and learn to “deal with it”.  Instead, the male was told to “deal with” the ridiculousness of the neurotic female-as-victim female.  This point of view, in my opinion, is not acceptable.  After looking at the female-as-victim mentality all these years I feel, very strongly, that a number of things should happen, such as:

  • The female needs to take responsibility for her behavior.
  • The female cannot expect everyone, especially the male, to change for her over sensitive nature.
  • They need learn to deal with certain realities (such as that some males do tend to do “dirty jokes” and be vulgar).
  • They should be reprimanded, and even punished, for their behavior.

A good example is that if a female hears a dirty joke they need to “tune it out” and ignore it.  That’s basically what the male is told to do with the female.  Well, the female should do the same for the male.  I will say that, after being around the female-as-victim mentality all these years I’m tired of walking on “tip toes” around them.  Its like catering to someones delusion and neurosis.  The more its catered to the less likely its going to be overcome.  At any rate, during this seminar they told us that even if a female is in another room and overhears a “dirty joke” between two guys that, god help us, offends her then that is considered sexual harassment.  I was so appalled by that.  I just about stood up and said, “my god, you girls are the weaker sex . . . when you can’t even tolerate a dirty joke!”  I’ve heard jokes that have disgusted me to but, by god, I don’t get traumatized by it.  What all this shows is that the female-as-victim female expects that a “sterilized shell” is place around her, where they do not feel threatened, harmed, or bothered in any way If this “sterilized shell” is not maintained then they tend to blame someone else for it (the all-so-familiar blame and accusation tendency).

This “sterile shell” goes so far that one must be careful of things like:

  • Manners and etiquette.
  • The”pleasantness” of things.
  • What they see.
  • What is said.

Its like the female-as-victim female needs to be in a fantasy land world where there is nothing that bothers them, where everything is “fine and dandy”, pleasant, and non-threatening.

This “sterile shell” is really an exaggeration and distortion of the “female niche” to the point of being neurotic.  In fact, I tend to view the “sterile shell” as a reflection of the breakdown of the “female niche”.  In actuality, its an abortive attempt at trying to create a “female niche”.  Some of the differences include:

  • The “female niche” is generally focused on a physical location.  The “sterile shell” is their immediate surroundings regardless of wherever they are.
  • When they are out of the “female niche” they to tend to “respect” the conditions of the new surroundings.  In the “sterile shell” they do not respect the conditions of the new surroundings . . . they expect the “sterile shell” to be maintained and around them at all times.  
  • The “female niche” is female focused where the females tend to themselves, their issues, their dilemma’s, and their conflicts.  These generally do not leave the “female niche” (as a result, males are not usually aware of “female problems”).  This point of view is absent in the “sterile shell”. 

So we see that with the “female niche” there is a perception of “their place” and “not their place” which is absent in the “sterile shell”.  In so doing, with the “sterile shell” mentality they expect the world to conform to their “issues”.  

The “sterile shell” tends to be equated with their bodies and they treat it as if it was their bodies.  As a result, when the “sterile shell” is “violated” by something that offends or bothers them, they treat it as if their bodies have been “violated”.  This causes conceit and the self-preservation of the womb (see above) to come in and take over.  This causes a tendency where they over react to the situation.  Because of this, the “sterile shell” mentality tends to cause a tendency of over reaction in females.  

In addition, conceit and the preservation of the womb tends to make females feel threatened, violated, damaged, and frightened . . . that is, they feel victims.  As a result, the “violation” of the “sterile shell” is generally taken personally to the point of being a “personal attack”.   This can get to the point that they become “traumatized” by it, even though nothing has happened.  Remember that this “violation” can be something as simple as a “dirty joke” by a male.


As I said above, the mother instinct is instinctual.  It is so deep that females are not aware of it.  Despite this, they are still affected by it.  As a result of this discrepancy, females who are suffering its effects tend to need to find a “scapegoat” for it since they don’t know whats causing it.  In so doing they basically create or fabricate a victimizer that doesn’t exist (or exaggerate or twist things around to the point that they become a victimizer).  In this way, the female-as-victim sense tends to cause a lot of blame and accusation.   In this society, the male or society is usually the “cause” for their problems . . . they become the “scapegoat” of the mother instinct.

The problem with this, and which I find appalling, is that they end up blaming and accusing innocent people.  In this way, the female, who claims to be the victim, actually becomes a victimizer.  I first noticed this with a group of people called feminists whose blind and ridiculous accusations I find appalling and unacceptable (see my article “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists“).  In fact, the older I get the more appalling their claims have become.  Many have created a whole world view where the female is nothing but a victim since the beginning of time, usually by the “tyrant male”.   Some even think there is some sort of a “male conspiracy” against the female, a great plot to degrade, enslave, or abuse the female.  Totally absurd!

Many females with the female-as-victim sense will claim all forms of abuse, victimizing, attacks, violations, and such which are often not true and may not of even happened at all. These are usually the males fault (showing its connection to sex and childbearing).   There seems to be a number of patterns in which victimizing took place:

  • A victim-by-principle.  This refers to them being a victim because they have some principle they favor “violated”.  This could be things like a “rights violation”, an “attack” on their high views of themselves, a moral transgression, and such.  This was used a lot by feminists who generally cited principles from the American Constitution and law.
  • A victim-by-exposure.  This means that they are a victim because they have been “exposed” to something they don’t like or which bothers them.  This could be something like an idea that doesn’t agree with them, an “obscene joke”, a vulgarity, parts of the male body (intentional or not), and so on.
  • A victim-by-emotion.  This is when they feel a victim because some unpleasant or unwanted emotion has appeared in them.  What they usually do, though, is blame the person or persons who instigated it . . . its their fault!  But its actually their inability to deal with the emotion that victimizes them.  In other words, they are victims of the emotion!
  • A victim-by-act.  This means that something has happened to them.  Probably the best example is rape.

As I’ve looked at this these past 30 or so years it seems, at least to me, that claims of abuse and victimizing tends to go in thirds:  one third did happen, another third is “questionable”, exaggerated, or a matter of opinion, and the last third is made up or fabricated.  I should point out that, because of the females tendency to social hysteria particularly when feeling “threatened” in some way (as I mentioned above), there is a tendency to fabricate stories of abuse once something becomes public, particularly after appearing in the media.  Its like dominoes, once it starts the feelings of abuse spread like wildfire.  In this way, once something becomes public, and a hysteria starts in the female population, there are more likely to be more stories of fabricated and false abuse and victimizing.  Because of this, the third that is normally for fabricated and made up abuses rises in quantity, even to over a half.  Some of the ways these stories start to appear include:

  • They start “seeing” abuse and victimizing in things that happened in the past.  In other words, once the social hysteria gets going they start seeing things that have happened in the past in a bad light.  Often, this is not something that bothered them enough for them to mention before.  This, it seems to me, is the cause for many females “all of a sudden” saying they were abused or victimized so many years or even decades ago.  They will often say, “they were scared to tell anyone”, or something like that, but my observation is that this is just a continuation of the victim line of thought:  they blamed the male first, then they blame society.  In this way, they complete their victimhood . . . the female becomes the victim-of-the-world!
  • They start seeing abuse and victimizing in things that are happening now.  In other words, situations that normally don’t bother them all-of-a-sudden do.  They start to exaggerate and twist things around to make themselves victims.
  • They start to become overly oversensitive about things.  “Little things” start to bother them or things that they don’t like are blown out of proportion.  These are then elaborated to the point that they turn into abuse and victimizing.
  • They start fabricating stories of abuse to “get in” on the hysteria.  Here, they actually make the stories up.  But, because of “conceit”, and its self concern, they are not aware that they are making up the stories.  To them they seem true.  We must remember that they are motivated out of self-concern, not the truth of the stories . . . the point is to “play the victim”.  This shows the neurotic side of all this.
  • Some will fabricate stories for some ulterior motives.  Some good examples are money, revenge, and just being malicious.

Interestingly, during a social hysteria the claims of abuse and victimizing seem to be everywhere, coming out of the woodwork.  But, its interesting to note that, once the social hysteria subsides, these claims disappear almost overnight.  I’ve seen this happen a number of times.  This fact hints at how the stories have been fabricated as a result of the hysteria and to support the hysteria.  Because of this, they are hysteria-dependent and, as a result, quickly die when the hysteria dies.  It shows the stories aren’t really true to begin with regardless of how convincing they sound during the hysteria.  Once the “smoke clears”, and you look back on it with a calm mind, its often quite easy to see that they have been fabricated.  This is one of the ways I learned about all this.  But what scares me about all this is that these fabricated stories sound so convincing during the social hysteria.  In this way, it shows that social hysteria has a drug-like quality, making things appear one way when they are not.

What all this shows is that a lot of the claims of abuse and victimizing of the female is generally not true.  So far, I’ve seen nothing to prove that wrong.  Regardless of this, the female-as-victim mentality is all too willing to blame and accuse . . . and so easily too.  In fact, as I’ve watched things throughout my life I can say now that the female who has the female-as-victim mentality now has a history of accusing innocent people on a scale I have never seen before.  No other group of people have done so much false accusation as they have.  As a result of this, I am very skeptical when a female blames and accuses people.  I’ve learned that any claim of victimizing by the female must be validated and confirmed by other means . . . you don’t automatically assume its true.  Since this is so prevalent I tend to feel that females who falsely accuse people and “conjure up threats and abuse out of the woodwork” (that is, that don’t exist) should be held accountable and even be punished.

An interesting event took place in the mid 198o’s that shows some interesting points about the tendency to fabricate stories.  I used to love to walk around outside in the middle of the night.  I lived across the street from a school.  Sometimes, I’d go and stand next to a door beneath a light.  I’d lean up against the wall and think about things.  I began to notice that one of our neighbors used to leave the house when I was there.  This was probably about midnight.  I’d watch her come out, get in her car, and leave.  She was several years younger than me.  I was also about 500 feet across the street from her standing there, leaning against the wall usually.  About 5 or so years later I heard my dad mention that he had talked to our neighbor and he said that her daughter had continually complained about a “suspicious man” across the street when she left for work some years ago.  He said that he frightened her and she was scared leaving the house.  She feared she was going to be raped.  She almost called the police on this “suspicious man” because she was so frightened.  As I thought about it I said that “I used to always see her leave when I was outside” and I realized that I was this man!  At first I couldn’t believe it, and was quite shocked and disgusted, but it was comical after I thought about it.  All this just for standing by a building!  There are a few interesting points about this story:

  • I wasn’t doing anything alarming or threatening.  I did no action or act against her nor did I alarm her in any way.
  • Nothing happened.  I didn’t do anything.  I couldn’t of done anything against her, even if I wanted to.  What was I supposed to do . . . run up to her and rape her?
  • She assumed I was going to rape her.  Where did that come from?  Where did the sexual element come in?  How do you see a “sexual predator” from a man standing 500 feet away?  What could I of done to get that in her mind?
  • She felt threatened.  My simple act of “standing there” made her feel threatened.  Wow!
  • She fabricated a story that wasn’t true.  In her mind she created a story about my motives that simply were not true.  Remember, she created it in her own mind.
  • She was so frightened that she felt that she needed protection.  Fortunately, she didn’t call the police on me.  Of course, the police couldn’t of done anything against me.  My guess is that I would of been told to “not hang around there during the time she leaves” or something like that.  With the mentality of this society it would be ME that has to make the change, not the female.

These are common qualities I’ve seen in how females fabricate threats, abuse, and victimizing.  I want to emphasize again how she created all this in her own mind:  the threat, the rape, and the story.  I did nothing to create it.  Also notice the sexual element that seemed to come out of nowhere and unprovoked . . . that’s no mistake.  She is displaying the female-as-victim mentality.  As I have said above, this is associated with the mother instinct, which is associated with sex, which is associated with the male.  As a result, she felt threatened sexually by the male, which happened to be me, and created a story to support it which was not true.  This is not surprising as my observation is that once a female with the female-as-victim mentality creates a story, she believes it, whether its supported by facts or not.  Despite the story she came up with she had nothing to support her story or feelings.

You must remember that I am not saying that females are not abused, victimized, etc. by the male.  I’m a male and I am familiar with the male character.  My observation is that this type of stuff is only seen in a minority of males.  Most males, from my experience, have no malicious intent or motive against the female . . . that’s a myth I’ve seen some females create in their own minds.  I don’t see a whole lot of evidence for it.  What I am trying to point out is that there is actually a spectrum of abuse.  On one side is the male . . . on the other is the female.  The male side tends to be active.  That is to say, the male “does something” (he rapes her, tells a dirty joke, displays contempt, etc.).  We could call this “active abuse”.  The female side tends to be passive, they sit and “become a victim”.  As a result, they blame and accuse but, in so doing, create innocent victims.  We could call this “passive abuse”.  The point is that there is abuse on both sides, its just appearing differently, one actively, the other passively.  I always found this ironic as the female, who claims that they are victims, actually end up being the victimizer.  In other words, they are victimizers by claiming to be victims.

In my opinion, this “passive abuse” is just as bad as “active abuse”.  From some angles, its worse.  The problem is that “passive abuse” is not that dramatic and tends to not be noticed.  I’ve sat here, for 30 years, and watched many females innocently and falsely accuse males, and society, for things that have not happened, painting a horrible view of things.  I’ve also watched how no one seems to notice (I don’t know which is worse, the accusation or not noticing).  I see a number of problems with “passive abuse” which include:

  • It turns innocent people into bad people.  That, alone, is not acceptable and justifies condemnation.
  • It creates false events.  Happenings are created that did not exist but they say it exists.  That’s very “neurotic” and, in some cases, almost “psychotic” in character.
  • It often becomes an overall way of looking at things, people, associations, and conditions.  Its not uncommon that they start to view the whole world from this light.  Everything is interpreted from the light of “everything is abusing me”.
  • It creates a false image of the world and the situation in life.  The image they create basically does not exist.  They as if live in an “imaginary world”.
  • The females hide behind a false innocence and victimhood.  Being victims they do not see that they are the problem.
  • It paints themselves, and the female in general, out in a bad light in the end.  Viewing yourself, and the female, as a victim, or “the abused”, does not create a healthy view of oneself or the female in general.  My observation is that females who take this point of view tend to “eat themselves out” as a result and develop a poor view of the female.  But, you don’t have to worry, they’ll blame it on someone else!

What all this shows is that “passive abuse” hurts everything:  the people they are accusing, the image of the world, and themselves.  It becomes something like a rot or a disease that eats away at things.  It affects them, the people they associate with, and reverberates on society.  To be frank, its one of the reasons why I don’t like to associate with some girls.  I’ve found that, once I sense a victim mentality in a female, its best to avoid her.  Eventually, it will start affecting things.  With some females, if its strong, it can create an ostracizing effect where no one wants to associate with them, even other females.  In some cases, this causes some girls, who have this mentality, to as if congregate together in their own little group.  I often jokingly call this the “female victim club”.

In general, the “passive abuse” does not affect things directly but indirectly, it as if casts a shadow on things.  It creates something like a “mood” or a “tension” that “hangs in the air”.  Sometimes, you don’t notice it until the female leaves and the “tension” disappears.  For example, I’ve heard a number of guys who mentioned that “when so-and-so isn’t there I can relax”.  This indirect quality is one of the reasons why it does not get noticed.

I often think that many females need to learn things such as these to help stop these false accusations:

  • To not be so over sensitive about things.
  • To learn how to tolerate things they don’t like (if someone says something they don’t like, for example, they just “deal with it” . . . that’s what we guys do!).
  • Quit being easily offended by things.
  • Quit acting like the world is against them (in particular, quit thinking the male is against them).
  • Have more respect for themselves.
  • Have a better respect for what a female has been in the world.

I sometimes wonder if they should have classes to teach these things at school.  I have often said that they used to have classes to teach females manners and etiquette . . . now they need classes to teach girls respect for the female and to not view things so negatively.


Looking at all this from a distance I can see that the mother instinct imposes a great burden and weight on the the female.  In addition, it imposes great demands.  Many of these demands are very specific, controlling, and enslaving.  In short, the females don’t have a choice when it comes to the mother instinct.  This creates very unique problems for the female, which the male does not have and generally cannot relate to.  But, at the same time, the females can’t all relate to it that much either as the mother instinct is so deep and they don’t have a self to control it.  As a result of all this, its almost as if the females, as a whole, are doing a collective “mother instinct moan” as part of the female life.  They are basically moaning under the weight of the mother instinct.

The “mother instinct moan” tends to have stages of intensity:

  • The “female victim club” – feeling the moan strongly.  As I’ve said above, females who feel this female-as-victim sense strongly often congregate in a group which I jokingly call the “female victim club”.  I’ve seen some girls who turn this almost into a religion, what I often jokingly call the “victim religion” or the “religion of the abused”.  Admission into this group is to feel a victim, to say “I’m a victim” like its a great truth.  It often becomes somewhat organized, such as with the feminists, and its also seen in some primitive tribes.  There also is a tendency for them to display “male envy”.
  • The “female-as-victim-of-the-world” – feeling the moan mildly.  Because of the power of the mother instinct over the female, they often feel as if the world is upon them, as if the weight of the world is on their shoulders.  This can reach the point of paranoia where they think the world is plotting against them.  We must remember that there is some degree of truth in this as childbearing is a significant element in life for it is the continuation of life.  In a sense, the weight of the world is upon them.  I think it would be more accurate to say that the weight of the continuance of life is upon them.  I tend to believe that this sense is part of the mother instinct and is instinctually felt by females, at least on a deeper level.
  • Feeling a “victim” – feeling the moan weakly.  This, of course, is where females see victimizing in things.  They interpret things as victimizing them, abusing them, are easily offended, and so on.
  • Feeling “fragile” – feeling the moan casually.  I tend to believe that the mother instinct, and the victim theme it creates, is always present in every female even very mildly.  As a result, females always have this sense of being “fragile” in some way.  This often appears as a sense of being “hurt” or, rather, they are easily hurt. This sense is really the basis of being “feminine”.  Of all the stages, this is the healthiest for the female.  I think this is the stage that mature healthy females remain.

All in all, I can see that the female life is very much associated with the demands of the mother instinct and a big part of a healthy and mature female is coming to terms with the burden the mother instinct imposes upon them.  In modern society the females seem to be struggling with this.  Is it any wonder as most females in modern society have no sense of the mother instinct at all.  Because of this, the burden of the mother instinct is even harder and causes even more problems.  One of these is the female-as-victim mentality.


Because of the mother instinct, the female-as-victim tendency is generally seen in females, at least to some extent.  Some cultures, though, greatly exaggerate this problem.  One of these (and the only one I know at this time) is British society or, rather, England.  This not only includes England but most of the societies that come from England including the U.S., in particular, but also other places like Australia or Canada.  From what I have seen this mentality is particularly bad in England (especially London and the south) and the U.S. (especially the northeast and west coast . . . it seems less prevalent in the “old south”).

British society seems to aggravate this condition for a number of reasons such as:

  • Christianity.  This, as I have said above, gave the point of view that we are “sinners” and bad people, which would form a base and foundation for the female-as-victim mentality.
  • Political thinking Because of the Norman Conquest there developed a “schism” between the common people and the people in power.  This caused many theories of the common people fighting the oppression of the people in power.  These points of views would be viewed as having great authority in the society.  This would give an authoritative quality to “I’m a victim of you” or, rather, “you’re oppressing me”. 
  • Social class thinking.  The “schism” between the common people and the people in power created a sense of a class system . . . its “them” and “us”.  This would form a basis and foundation of “I’m a victim of you”. 
  • The Chivalric revival.  This took place int he 1800’s and is a defining trait of Victorian society.  As a result of this revival, the female began to think she was like nobility which, she thought, took her out of the common people.  In addition, it has made many males “put the female on a pedestal”.  This made many females somewhat arrogant.  This caused a general quality of self-righteous and arrogant cause with the female-as-victim mentality.
  • The change in society after the Industrial Revolution.  This deteriorated the female identity, as it did with the male.  The female, though, has not recovered.  As a result, the female is still desperate for a stable identity.  This has caused a great desperation in the female-as-victim-mentality. 
  • The fall of the “female niche”.  This fall, as described above, has created a great insecurity, instability, and fear in the female which is a basis of the female-as-victim mentality.

All these would give the female-as-victim mentality a number of quality which form its basis, foundation, and authority that that it is beyond its psychological origins:

  • Religious
  • Political
  • Social

As a result of these, the British female-as-victim mentality has developed a greater significance than would normally happen.  For the rest of the world, the normal female-as-victim tendency lies within the femalehood and does not venture out of the “female niche”.  But, because of the qualities above, the female-as-victim mentality has been taken way beyond its normal limits in British society.  In so doing, it has done a number of things such as:

  • It has aggravated it.
  • It has exaggerated it.
  • It has intensified it.
  • It has made it more difficult to resolve.

In this way, British society has actually created what can be described as a “female-as-victim culture”.  This is a culture that, by its form and mentality, it actually promotes and creates the female-as-victim mentality.  As a result, the female-as-victim syndrome is prevalent.  In this culture, the female is always a victim.  It becomes part of the female identity and the female life.

These “female-as-victim culture” attitudes were brought over to the U.S. as it is a derivative of British society, particularly as part of the Victorian era.  Over the years the U.S. has, in many ways, only intensified the “female-as-victim syndrome culture” and made it worse.  Several events seems to of particularly promoted this:

  • The Civil War (1860’s).
  • The Vietnam War protests (about 1970).

These events did not really create anything new but, rather, it exaggerated the already existing British elements and intensified them.  Since these are primarily political-based events, the qualities that were exaggerated were political in origin, though with a more “American flare”.  These include qualities such as freedom, equality, and social class issues (such as slavery).  As a result of this, the female, in the U.S., often “fashioned themselves victims” by seeing themselves as “oppressed” and “enslaved” in order to fit into their political viewpoints. This shows how the culture defines how the female becomes a victim.

What we see, then, is that the “female victim” no longer becomes a psychological issue (which it is, as it originates from the mother instinct) but a social/political issue.  One effect of this is that the female-as-victim female (and some males) think that the solution to the “female victim” problems are social/political in origin.  The problem is that the solution is not found there as they are not social/political problems.  As a result, none of their efforts work.  In other words, all their high and mighty preaching of rights and freedoms do absolutely nothing and don’t solve the “female victim” problem.  In fact, my observation is that it generally makes it worse.  This is because it does not address the “real problem”.  We must remember that the female-as-victim problem is psychological in origin as its lies within the mother instinct, within the female and femalehood itself.  Changing laws, social views, and viewing things politically does not even touch the source of the problem.  Because that is what this society does, it means that the female-as-victim mentality has been left to go its own way unhindered and unchecked.  In this way, the “female-as-victim culture” only makes the problem worse.  As a result, it seems to grow and grow.  That’s what my observation has shown anyways.


What the female-as-victim really reveals is that there is an insecurity and fear of femininity and motherhood in Western society (primarily British and American).  In this way, one could say that many Western society females are “scared of their own shadow”.  My observation is that there is a lot of truth in this.  I tend to think this is far more of a problem than it may, at first, appear.

One of the big problems with this issue is that there is really no cause for it.  That is to say, nothing is happening to them to make them feel this way.  In fact, if one looks closer one can’t help but notice how ironic it is that the Western society female has probably been given more than any other female in history and, yet, they have a problem feeling that they are insecure, frightened, and feel they are a victim.  They (and I mean the common people in general) have been given things that most people never had in history.  Some of the things the common people were given include consumer products, adequate homes, well-made clothes, medicine and things to maintain their health, entertainment that has never been seen in the world, laws to protect them, and the list goes on.  As part of this, the Western society female has been given a lot.  In fact, I tend to feel that the Western society female may of been given more than any other group in history.  Not only that, they usually didn’t have to work for it . . . the males and society gave it to them.  But, yet, they are still unhappy, insecure, and feel victimized.  To go even further, they have contempt for everything that gave them this (the male and society) to the point that they make themselves victims of them.  This fact has always struck me . . . how can people who were given so much act this way?

What type of person does this describe?  As I was brought up, we’d call this a “spoiled” person.  If they are really bad then we call them “spoiled brats”.  Typically, a “spoiled” person or “spoiled brat” are a sign of wealth.  But, isn’t that what we are dealing with . . . the wealth of Western industrial society and its effects on people, of how its “spoiled” many people?  More specifically, we are looking at its effects on the female and how it “spoiled” them.

Some aspects of the “spoiled” person, or “spoiled brat”, include:

  1. Their whims are catered to and satisfied easily.
  2. This makes them very selfish.
  3. This creates a lack of self-discipline.
  4. Because of this, their self-esteem is not developed.
  5. This causes a sense of inadequacy which creates a self-contempt.
  6. This causes a contempt of other things.

These are all traits seen in the female-as-victim.  If one watches feminists, in particular, one can see a lot of this “spoiled” quality in a lot of their mentality (that’s where I first saw it, in fact).  In some cases, they act as if the world is supposed to be given to them and get upset when it isn’t (“its discrimination!”).  Many act like “spoiled brats” behind all their high cause and political jargon.

But what caused this “spoiling” of the female?  It seems to me, that some of the things that caused it include:

  • The rise of consumer society.  This caused a whole industry catering to the female and satisfying female whims.
  • The Chivalric Revival in the 1800’s.  This caused a glorification of the female by the female (often as representatives of peace and love, which many still maintain today).  It also caused a worshiping of the female by the male (putting the female “on a pedestal”).
  • The rise of the middle class and the ability to imitate nobility.  This allowed girls to “pretend” to be all-important noble ladies, the great social ideal of British society.  This would carry on down to the U.S.
  • The fact that females, in their youth, tend to be kept in something like a “seclusion” to protect them from “the evils of the world”.  This descends from the “female niche” and is a more extreme version of it.  In this “seclusion” they cannot see certain things, they cannot know certain things, they cannot hear certain things, and so on.  As a result, they only see “pleasant things”. (See more on this below.)
  • The conflict with Christian belief.  All these hedonistic whim-satisfying qualities also went against Christian belief, that life is misery, which is prevalent in the common people, particularly in England.  In a way, this conflict intensified the whim-seeking tendency, making it more stronger.  It made the satisfying of whims more relevant and appealing.

We see a pattern where there are a number of things:

  • Whims are satisfied.
  • Female ‘conceit’ or self-concern is catered to.
  • An avoidance of “unpleasant” things.
  • A lack of discipline and work.

This condition is something that has never happened in history for the common people, at least as far as I know.  This is no doubt because it is part of an industrial consumer society, something that has never been seen before.  The common people, including the female, went from a work-related, disciplined, and restrained peasant-like life to a lifestyle that caters to them and their whims.  All this also happening within a short period of time.

I tend to believe that this has had a far greater impact on people and society, since the 1800’s, than is supposed.  It made a dramatic change in lifestyle and point of view.  For the female, it seems to of created a “spoiled” response which helped to create low self-esteem and contempt, creating a base for the female-as-victim.  Over time, this would create a self-contempt and a contempt of everything female, including motherhood.  The net result is an insecurity in being female and a fear of motherhood in Western society.

This “spoiling” seemed to of affected females differently and to different levels.  Some were greatly affected . . . some not at all.  Overall, the spoiling” caused by Victorian society seems to of played a significant part in the female-as-victim and plays a big part in its creation and how it has appeared.


In the previous section I spoke of female “seclusion”.  This is where a female is put in what can described as a “regulated environment”.  A number of things are “regulated”.  These include:

  • What they see.
  • What they hear.
  • What they know.
  • How they act.

This is generally done with young girls in the years before marriage.  I can particularly remember, when I was a kid, seeing this “regulation” of girls, of how girls had to behave a certain way, of how they couldn’t hear swearing, of how they had to dress a certain way, of how they could only show off certain parts of their body, of how they couldn’t see anyone nude, of how there had to be no mention of sex, of how they had to be cheerful all the time, etc.  As a male, it looked “weird” to me and I couldn’t understand it at the time.  To be frank, I felt sorry for girls because of it . . . but I assumed there was a reason for it.

Female “seclusion” is world wide phenomena but was particularly prevalent in Victorian society, especially as a result of the common people trying to imitate nobility which was so prevalent in that society.  As a result of this, it was “imposed” upon the common people with more force than would normally of happened.  Peasant girls, for example, had a form of “seclusion” but it was rather mild in comparison to the noble imitating city “seclusion”.  This fact, I think, caused many problems for some Victorian females.

Female “seclusion” is a specialized part of the “female niche”, but directed more to the young and unmarried female.  As a result, it is as if “altered” to fit their requirements and needs.  It appears that female “seclusion” is an invention of the mothers.  To be more precise, it reflected a mother/daughter association.  This “seclusion” always appeared to me, even when I was young, as the mothers means of protecting their daughters, primarily as a means to prevent unwanted sexual association.  This was based on the mothers experience, of course.  In other words, the daughters know nothing about whats going on or what its about . . . only the mothers knew.  In this way, the mothers kept the daughters in the dark about certain facts in life, of which they’d only know after marriage.  This kept many females in a naive state.  These facts, of course, were primarily sexual.

The “seclusion” seems to of done several things:

  • To prevent the appearance of sexual feelings.  This way, they don’t have unwanted sexual association.
  • To appear pleasing to the male.  That is, to promote an “acceptable” sexual association.
  • To not develop the “darker” side of the mother instinct.  For example, they to learn to have a “pleasant disposition”, reflecting the good side of the female, and not be a “bitch”.

All of this is to develop, and create, a socially acceptable sexual association.  Once this association is established, by marriage typically, then the “seclusion” generally ended.  It was also at this time that the control of the mothers generally ended as well.

Often, though, females continued the “spirit” of the “seclusion” after marriage.  This, it seems to me, was greatly promoted by Christianity and the Chivalric revival.  These emphasized the female to be a “beacon of Christian principles”.  As a result, the female would maintain a “pure, innocent, peaceful, loving, and faithful” disposition . . . Christian values.  These had qualities of the “seclusion” and by practicing them the female, in a way, maintained a “seclusion” mentality.  This point of view was common with the noble or upper class lady, particularly as envisioned by the common people.  One could probably say that the “respectability” of the noble lady was her maintaining the spirit of the “seclusion”.  As a result of this, when females of the common people aspired to be like the noble lady, in the Victorian world, they would also maintain this spirit of the “seclusion”.  In other words, the identity of the common Victorian female was rooted in the maintaining of the spirit of female”seclusion”, in imitation of the noble lady.  Because of this, female “seclusion” had a great impact on the Victorian female which has been carried on over to today.  

If we look at female “seclusion”, and its “regulations”, we can see that there are parallels in the claims of the female-as-victim. These include:

  • They expects a “sterilized shell” to be erected around her (see above).
  • They expect the “regulations” to be maintained.  For example, she can’t hear a “dirty joke”, everyone has to behave “a certain way”, etc.

When these are not maintained then the female-as-victim feels a victim, are “traumatized”, are “bothered”, and all that.  In other words, a lot of the female-as-victim is a reaction to the female “seclusion” not being maintained.  Its like they have become accustomed to the “seclusion” and expect it to always be there.  When its not there they develop “problems”.  This shows that the female “seclusion” has become something they depend on and need.  Why is this?  I tend to see a number of reasons, such as:

  • It replaces the “female niche” which has fallen.
  • It compensates for their identity problems (see above).
  • Because they have become “spoiled” and expect the “special treatment” the “seclusion” offers.
  • Because it is a place to hide from all the insecurities they have developed for a number of reasons.

Sometimes, the excessive need for “seclusion” turned into the need for the “sterilized shell”, as described above.  In actuality, the “sterilized shell” is nothing but a continuation of the “seclusion”.  

But the nature of “seclusion” tends to bring about some problems, whether they wanted it, needed it, depended on it, or did not want it.  Basically, “seclusion” tended to cause feelings such as:

  • That they were “enslaved”.
  • That they were controlled.
  • That they had no lives.

Sound familiar?  These are common claims of the female-as-victim.  This suggests that some of the “complaining” of the female-as-victim has, to some extent, origins with female “seclusion”.  And since this “seclusion” is implemented by the mothers it shows that the mothers are somewhat responsible for the female-as-victim.  In fact, the more I look at female psychology the more I see that the contribution of the mothers is far more greater than it seems.  My observation is that mothers, oftentimes, have complete control over their daughters and on an unbelievable scale.  This seemed rather prevalent in the Victorian era, particularly around 1900.  I call this the “tyranny of the mothers”.  It basically refers to the mothers control over their daughters lives.  I have been repetitively stunned at the control mothers have over their daughters.  More than once have I said that I was glad I was not a female so that I did not have to deal with it, as you see nothing like this in the father/son relationship.

This control is for a number of reasons:

  • Sexual reasons, to prevent unwanted sexual associations.  Of course, one version of this is female “seclusion”.
  • The mothers jealously of their daughter.  Many mothers feel an unconscious jealousy of their daughters youth, prettiness, childbearing ability, sexuality, and such.
  • Many mothers want to “live through their daughters”.  They want to re-experience their youth through their daughters.
  • They see their daughters as a “mini” version of themselves.  As I said above, the child is perceived as part of their body.  When it is a female child there often develops a more personal feeling, as they see their daughter not only as part of their body but part of themselves as a person, a “mini-me”.  This causes many mothers to feel a special closeness with their daughters.

This control, though it may mean well, often adversely affects girls and ends up causing problems for them.  What I have found is that many females struggle with the control their mothers have over them at least in one way or another.  It can cause problems such as:

  • A hatred.
  • A feeling of being smothered.
  • A feeling as if they have no control over their lives.
  • A feeling that they have no self.
  • Feeling controlled, enslaved, etc.
  • A feeling that they are being degraded.

Interestingly, females generally do not seem to associate these things with their mothers.  They generally appear as “free floating feelings” though they can become attached to things later, such as the male or society.  What this means is that females often do not see the adverse effects their mothers have on them. Its as if their mothers are “ghosts” which is why I call this the “ghost mother”.  Basically, the effects of the mother is there but she doesn’t seem to be there.  A reason for this seems to be because of the absence of self (see above).  The daughter has no self so she adopts the mother as her self, as if they are the same.  When there is a conflict with the mother they as if see it as coming from “somewhere else” as they do not associate it with their mother which is their self-substitute.  In this way, there is a tendency to ascribe the problems and conflicts of the mother to other things.  This causes a number of effects:

  • It leaves the mother, and themselves, as “innocent”.
  • It predisposes some girls to a tendency of blind accusation and blame (as it certainly doesn’t originate from themselves or their mothers!).

These are commonly seen traits with the female-as-victim.  This suggests, at least to me, that many of the problems of the female-as-victim issues may have origin in mother/daughter association.  In other words, when the female-as-victim female complains about being a victim they are often complaining about their association with their mothers.  I believe there is truth in this, at least for some females.

The mother/daughter association, I think, is a subject largely neglected.  This isn’t because its taboo, or secret, or girls don’t want to talk about it.  I think its not talked about because it is silent, not spoken of, and so there is no real awareness of it, not even by the girls.  It is a “ghost”.  The mother/daughter association that is talked about is the more “overt social sides” of it, but I can see that there is a silent side.  Perhaps we could call this the “ghost relationship”?

I see a number of things that create the “ghost” quality in the “ghost relationship”:

  • For daughters, there is often an association between their mothers and the mother instinct (or motherhood or childbearing).  In other words, they see them as the same.  This makes the association based in an instinctual impulse, not a person.
  • Since the mother instinct is without self they see each other as without self.
  • The mutual sense of the mother instinct gives them this deep inner “bond” that often remains nameless, unmentioned, and often unnoticed.

In these ways, we see that the “ghost relationship” is based on an instinctual impulse (the mother instinct), not on a relationship between two people.  This gives it its “ghost” quality and accounts for why it is not reflected upon or spoken about . . . there’s no self to talk about it!  This shows the power of the mother instinct and the control it has over them.  This gives this aspect of the mother/daughter relationship a unique quality.  What it means is that the deeper instinctual quality of the mother instinct is not necessarily felt by the mother or daughter.  As a result, the impulses created by conflicts in this “ghost relationship” have no self to direct it or give it meaning.  In this way, they can, in some cases, run in any direction and cause any numbers of effects.  One of these, it seems to me, is the female-as-victim.

My observation is that one of the things that makes for a “stable and happy female” seems to be a good relationship with a grandma.  In fact, a female with a good relationship with a grandma often has a particular “glow” to them of happiness or it seems to me.  I have always been under the impression that one of the reasons why this is the case is because their relationship with their mothers always has the “strained” quality caused by the mother instinct as well as the effects of the “ghost relationship”.  This generally causes qualities of darker feelings toward their mothers.  When they have a good relationship with their grandma then they have a relationship with an “extended mother”, so to speak, which does not have the “strained” quality they have with their mothers.  In this way, all the “good feelings” go to their grandma’s . . . the mothers get the “strained” feelings.  As a result, the females have good mother/daughter relationships.  But, yet, none of the females are aware of the “strained” relationships with their mothers.  This is because it is a “ghost relationship”.  Basically, many females have conflicts with their mothers that they are not consciously aware of.  

I should also point out that, since this is a relationship based in the instinctual impulse of the mother instinct it often creates some unique associations:

  • A confused association.  Basically, the conflict females have with their mothers often are conflicts they have with the mother instinct.  In many cases, there is no difference.  This gives a unique quality to the mother/daughter “ghost relationship”.  It establishes an association like:  mother instinct=mother=daughter.  One of the effects of this is that there often becomes a confusion between problems with the mother instinct and problems between mother and daughter.  They often can’t be distinguished.
  • A selfless association.  When there isn’t any conflicts there often develops a different type of association.  Since the mother instinct is associated with an absence of self (see above), there is often a “blank association” between mother and daughter, a thoughtless, emotionless association.  They associate but without self.  I’ve seen some mother/daughter associations that are primarily of this form.
  • A conflict-based association.  If there is a conflict with the mother instinct then the connection between mother and daughter often make them develop a “bond in conflict” . . . so they both have the conflict.  Since the mother instinct is so associated with the victim theme, its not uncommon that mother and daughter develop a “bond in victimhood” point of view.
  • A unity-in-the-mother-instinct association.  Many mother/daughter relationships are based in a sense of being unified in the mother instinct.  In other words, their mutual awareness of the mother instinct bonds them together.

Overall, because of the power of the mother instinct, my observation is that most of the mother/daughter relationship is not as much of a person-to-person association as it may seem.  This is sometimes hard to see as it is hidden behind social conventions, manners, ideals, and such.  Overall, what I seem to be seeing is that the mother instinct, and its effects, are a major influence in mother/daughter relationships.  It can bond, unite, interfere with, and destroy the relationship.  Typically, though, it hangs over the relationship . . . its just a question of how it effects it.


Many females will develop a weird fear of the male.  They will “think” that the male is trying to hurt them, usually in a physical way.  Some girls will not want to be around males because of this, or be alone with them.  Generally, there is no reason for them to think this.  I see this in teenage girls, mostly, but it can go into the 20’s, sometimes into the 30’s.

My observation is that this fear is actually what I call “projected lust”.  In this, they project their lustful feelings onto the male and it is this, in actuality, what they fear.  It sort of goes like this:

  1. They see a male they like.
  2. They feel lustful feelings. 
  3. These feelings refers to sexual feelings and, as I’ve said above, this is associated with the female being “damaged”.
  4. They then fear being “damaged”.
  5. Because these feelings are associated with the male they begin to fear him.  
  6. They see the male as a threat.

All these feelings are primarily unconscious, except for the last part, seeing the male as a threat.  Because of this, they are only overtly aware of being threatened but they don’t know why or what for.  That’s why it becomes a “weird fear”, a fear with no reason to fear.

Because of its association with lust, sex, and childbearing it reveals a number of interesting qualities:

  • It shows that “projected lust” is really a desire to be a mother.  In other words, its not uncommon that fearing the male is a sign of a desire to be a mother.
  • It shows that the mother instinct often makes the female “removed from herself”, unable to interpret her motherly feelings.  They do not understand the whys or the wherefores of what they are feeling.  I often feel that this tendency is one reason why mothers often want to “control” their daughters, the “seclusion” (see above).
  • It shows how the mother instinct, with its absence of self, makes it difficult for the female to make a distinction between her and the male.  This is why she “projects” herself.  In actuality, she can’t make the distinction between him and her!

This is a good example of the association between fear, the male, and being a mother.

I should point out that once a female perceives the male as a “threat” (the last stage above) it can put some females in something in what I call the “pre-victim mentality”.  That is to say, deep down in their minds they are already victims (which is the desire to be a mother).  They view themselves as “damaged”, “harmed”, or somehow hurt in their minds, even though nothing has happened to them.  Keep in mind that this sense is unconscious.   They are not overtly aware of it . . .  they just feel it.  Once the “pre-victim mentality” appears all that is needed is for the male to do something to convince the females that they are victims.  This could be anything . . . a touch, a statement, a look . . . anything that the females interpret as something that victimizes them (whether it is or isn’t doesn’t matter, they just have to believe it).  When this happens the sense of being a victim (or the desire to be a mother) ceases to be a sense and now establishes a “connection” to someone . . . they are now victims of the male!  My observation is that when the female has a “pre-victim mentality” they are more likely to blow things out of proportion, even to the point of being “traumatized” by it.  In other words, the “pre-victim mentality” predisposes females to problems.  In some sense, the “pre-victim mentality” as if “sets the female up” to have problems.  One could even say that it is a “dormant problem waiting to appear”.  That is to say, in the “pre-victim mentality” the problem sits hidden deep within the female and remains unseen, by them or others.  Its like a bomb waiting to go off.  All it needs is the spark.

Earlier this year (2017) I saw another example of the “male threat” and how some females responded to it that was quite interesting.  I read it in an article in a newspaper.  Interestingly, I’ve heard a number of other guys who had heard girls say similar things.  Basically it amounts to this:

“In spring and summer girls wear less clothing.  There is no reason why males should look at girls because they wear less clothing.  This is because girls have the “right” to wear less clothing if they want to.”

I see a number of problems with this:

  • It is a denial of real world reality.  The fact of the matter is that when females “dress down” guys do tend to look . . . that’s the way it is.
  • It makes the males out as the “bad guys”.  They make it out as if males looking at half nude females bodies is “their problem”.  Again, the female is “innocent”.
  • They think they can do whatever they want.  Some girls are bordering on being nude.  I saw one girl, during the past summer, in which it looked like her clothes were so tight that they looked “painted on”.  This mentality reflects the fact that many of these girls are “spoiled”.
  • It shows a lack of respect for social conventions.  They think they are above social conventions and don’t have to follow it.  In addition, they think everyone else should follow their conventions and not be bothered by it.  Again, another quality of being “spoiled”.
  • Its nothing but a way for them to glorify their body.  This is a sign of ‘conceit’ and the worship of their bodies.
  • They use or, rather, abuse political and legal theory.  They cite political and legal theory (its their “right”) as if it entitles them to do whatever they want.

Behind much of this mentality, of course, is the themes of the mother instinct and how females have reacted to it in Western society:

  • Being “spoiled”
  • Female ‘conceit’
  • Bringing up politics and law as justification
  • The “hint” that they are being victimized by the male because they are being looked at

So we see that this one statement reveals a lot about Western society, the mother instinct, and the females.


I’ve often joked that the male has a mother instinct.  This, of course, is not true.  In actuality, the male has an innate response to the mother instinct that can be incredibly powerful.  Its so powerful that its almost like a mother instinct.  In fact, just as the female is controlled by the mother instinct, so can the male also be controlled.  The advantage that the male has is that he has the ability to not be controlled by it . . . females don’t have this luxury.  Most males, from my observation, will be controlled by the females mother instinct, at least to some extent.  This is particularly true if they are married.  In fact, one could say that part of the “marriage contract” is that the mother instinct must have some control over the male.  This is not surprising as marriage and its result, the family, is dominated by the mother instinct.  Therefore, its power is there, though its generally acknowledged in a roundabout way (such as a “desire to have children”).

Why would the male be controlled by the mother instinct when he doesn’t have it?  The answer is simple:  deep down the male is concerned about the same thing the mother instinct is concerned about, the preservation of the species.  This makes him have a kinship to it and, accordingly, he reacts to it, often very strongly.  In fact, my observation has given me a saying, “the female is controlled by the mother instinct . . . the male reacts to it”.  This establishes the fact that the male and female have totally different associations with the mother instinct.

A common reaction of the male is that he follows the same themes as the female.  This is because he is really “following her lead”, so to speak.  It is from her that the mother instinct originates and it is this that he is reacting to.  He’s seeking what is contained in the female.  This brings up a point about some interesting aspects of how males perceive the association between the female and mother instinct.  The fact is that, to the male, there is the female herself and then there is the mother instinct . . . they are not necessarily the same.  This causes two orientations:

  1. The male perceives the female and mother instinct as one entity.  This often leads to a tendency to greatly respect the female, sometimes to the point of worshiping them and “putting them on a pedestal”.  Some males will start ascribing almost magical or mystical powers to the female, such as that they can “sense this” or have this uncanny intuition about things.  These are all just representations of the power of the mother instinct that is perceived to be in the female.  It shows that many males view the mother instinct in a magical or mystical way.  In addition, they view it as a power they cannot understand but in which they feel an awe.  In this way, much of the mystery that surrounds the female by the male is really the mystery of the mother instinct.
  2. The male perceives the female and mother instinct as separate entities.  Unfortunately, since the mother instinct is a powerful force it tends to be perceived as more important than the female herself.  This tends to cause problems for the female, as the mother instinct “upstages” them and, in turn, degrades them.  The male tends to look at her not as a person as much as she would like.  As a result, in this orientation the male tends to view the female herself as a “nothing” or an “object”.  I have always thought this bizarre as the mother instincts ends up degrading the female, which is not something you’d expect.

Interestingly, one of the themes the male often follows is the female-as-victim sense.  That is to say, the male will be concerned about “victim issues” as well.  In some cases, the male will be more concerned about it than the female even making a bigger deal about it!

In regard to this “victim issue” there often develops something like a spectrum with two extremes:

  • Seeing the female as a victimThis generally creates a sense of needing to protect the female.  Many males will take great pride in “protecting” the female.  Not only that, they often great meaning, value, and worth in doing it.
  • A desire to victimize the female.  This can take many forms.  They may want to control, manipulate, and molest them.  They may also want to sexually abuse and rape them but it can get to the point of violence and even murder.

So we see that the female-as-victim sense creates a spectrum of response that is opposite to each other on the extremes.  The response, of course, depends on the male.  We must remember, though, that these extremes, though they are opposite to each other, are reflective of the same impulse:  a reaction to the mother instinct.  It shows that, for the male, there is a great range of response to the mother instinct, ranging from good to bad.  In all these reactions it is the male who reacts, the female typically does not act nor does she incite the male.  This shows the power of the mother instinct on the male.  Basically, the male just has to be aware of the mother instinct and it makes him respond.  This response is generally automatic, that is to say, it is instinctual.  Because of this, it tends to have similar effects as the female, such as:

  • It is below the emotional level . . . it just happens.
  • It is below the level of the self so the male often cannot control it even though the male has a more pronounced self than the female.  

In this way, the mother instinct cause reactions in the male such as:

  • It makes the male do things he wouldn’t normally do. 
  • It brings out aspects of himself that he is unaware of.  Sometimes, these are the more darker aspects of his character.
  • It makes males “stupid” as they are not thinking with their normal mind.  

So we see that one of the male responses to the mother instinct is to be controlled by his reaction to it, whereas the female is controlled by the mother instinct itself.  

One of the problems the male has with the mother instinct is that it is “beyond him”.  It is not a part of him.  It is removed from him.  There is a disconnect with the mother instinct.  But, at the same time, he “needs” it.  This same condition is felt in regard to males sense of nature as a whole, which is also “beyond him”  It is seen a lot with primitive societies, especially hunting societies.  Here the male goes out into nature, which is “beyond him”, and is seeking something he “needs” (namely, food).  I should point out that my observation is that though the male appears “civilized” he, deep down, is still a hunter.  The male looks at life in the context of a hunter.  In this way, there is a similarity between the hunting mentality and the males response to the mother instinct.  We must also remember that hunting and the mother instinct hit deep in the male because they are both related in the sense that they entail the need to preserve the species.  This makes them hit deep in the male psyche.  Some of the things we see in these conditions include:

  • A need for a mental or conceptual order.  This often appears in ritualistic and mythological-like thinking.  It also tends to entail a social hierarchy and a “logic” in social associations, motives, and actions.
  • A strong tribal or group mentality.   Confronting what is “beyond him” there is a tendency for the male to congregate in groups and to develop great bonds . . . a tribal mentality.
  • A strong sense of self.  There is great emphasis on what their self can do, what they can accomplish, and what they do.  This is not surprising as the weight of everything rests on them.  This can, sometimes, turn into an arrogance or a haughtiness in some males.
  • A need for controlling the situation.  Since much depends on his actions, there is great emphasis on being able to control the situation to what he wants it to be.
  • A “death” or a dying of ones self.  Since this condition is based in something that is “beyond him” it means that it is beyond his self . . . its too insufficient.  This creates a sense of death in the male.  This often appears as a religious-like spiritual death.  There’s often a sense, as well, of being “born into a new self” and “reborn”.  In some cases, there is something like an initiation into this new self.
  • There’s a need of a “taking”.  In both hunting and the mother instinct the male must “take” something that is “beyond him” as part of what he “needs”.  In hunting societies he “takes” from the animal life (accordingly, a farmer “takes” from the land and crops and a modern man “takes” monetary wealth from business).  This “taking” can, for some males, get to the point of “taking a life”.  This is not surprising as a hunter “takes the life” of an animal” and a farmer “takes the life from the crops”.  But, in some cases, this can turn into a “taking of the females life” . . . murder.  It seems that most, if not all, serial killers are motivated out of sexual motives and reflect the worst side of this problem.  In this way, a lot of serial killers are probably motivated by the mother instinct, and this is probably true of a lot of murder of females by males.  This is probably the most baffling aspect of the males reaction to the mother instinct.

Many of the traits above are seen in the males response to the mother instinct.  In these responses there is a “healthy response” and an “unhealthy response”.  The “healthy responses” lay the framework for a lot of society.  They are beneficial and helpful, strengthening society and people.  The “unhealthy response” is usually a reflection of an unstable male.  They tend to exaggerate and blow one or several of these qualities out of proportion.  The “unhealthy response” tends to upset society and weaken the person.  It can have adverse effects, such as the killing of people.  Again, we see a spectrum from good to bad.

Another theme males follow involves the females absent self.  I mentioned above how the mother instinct tends to cause an absent self in the female.  Males often respond to the females absent self with a similar spectrum seen in the victim sense above with extremes such as:

  • They want to help the female due to the lack of self.  Often the male will treat the female almost like a “helpless child”.  Often, this becomes a strong bond with the female.
  • They want to take advantage of her for her lack of self.  In this case, the females absence of self, which many males can sense, is often a “doorway” for some males to victimize the female, often taking advantage of them for sexual reasons in particular.

Again, the males reaction to the females absent self can range from good to bad.

The “female niche”, even, affects the male as they can sense it.  Again, it follows the spectrum as seen above:

  • Males will “cater” to the female and the requirements of the “female niche”.  They will be polite, cater to her needs, even to the point of “sucking up” to her.  This even turn into a “pussy whipped male”.
  • For some males they will want to “violate” the sanctity of the “female niche”, so to speak.  They will completely disregard the females world.  They will not act the “certain way” the females want in the “female niche” (as I described above).  Doing this, on a mild scale, is often seen in boys as part of a mischievous behavior.  When the sexual impulse of the male gets strong, though, it can become serious.  Another effect is that some males can sense the controlling quality of the “female niche” with the effect that it will make them controlling to the females.  In a sense, the male will try to take on traits of the “female niche” as part of the response to the mother instinct.

What we see by all this is that one of the reactions the male has to the mother instinct is to imitate its effects on the female.  In other words, they do what it does to the female.  In this way, the male as if “becomes” the mother instinct by reflecting its effects, so to speak.  In this way, the female as if has to deal with two forms of mother instincts:

  • The “instinctual mother instinct” that is within the female.
  • The “male imitative mother instinct” which is created by the male.

In some respects, this can make it difficult for the female at times as its effects are compounded.  But it also often helps them as it supports the mother instinct and gives it a place.

I tend to think that the “male imitative mother instinct” takes place for a number of reasons such as:

  • The restrictive effect of society.  The codes of behavior, morality, and such do not allow many impulses, particularly sexual, to be manifested.  One outlet for this restriction is to “imitate” the mother instincts effects on the female.
  • The more imaginative aspect of the male mind Because the male generally has imagination it is often used to satisfy sexual impulses . . . he’s aware of the mother instincts effects and reacts to this awareness in an active way.
  • The stronger sexual impulse of the male This causes something like a drive in the male so that he needs to be “closer” to the mother instinct.  “Imitating” the mother instincts effects helps allow for that.

But in this imitation the male tends to entail the good and bad aspects of the mother instinct.  In this way, the females complaints of the male are often really complaints about the mother instinct.  This is why they often accuse the male of victimizing them, abusing them, etc.  Its because of this that when I hear a female saying “he is doing this” or “he is doing that” I often think, “is it him or your mother instinct?”


I can see a lot of the “female-as-victim culture” in the recent 2016 U.S. Presidential election.  To be frank, its taught me a lot more about it and confirmed many things about this culture.  (Also see my article, “Thoughts on a media-induced mass hysteria . . . the “Trump panic”“).

First of all, we must remember that this whole commotion about this election is based on various statements that Trump has made.  These can be described, probably, as “inappropriate”, rude, ignorant, and such that have basically offended some people (personally, none of the even “phased” me . . . I hear stuff like that all the time . . . they are common statements in “male society”).  Let me reiterate that:  the whole commotion around the 2016 Presidential election revolve around statements that offended some people.  That’s it!  They do not revolve around political theory, point of views, or belief systems nor do they relate to any actual act, abuse, or victimizing of a person.

I’ve mentioned above how being offended, or being bothered by things they hear, is a common trait with the female-as-victim mentality.  As a result, they are particularly sensitive about these things.  Its commonly seen in the “sterile shell” mentality where they often act like its a threat (see above).  Much of this mentality and attitude is seen in some of the reactions to being offended by Trump’s statements.  For some females we see a general pattern something like this:

  1. They became offended over a statement.
  2. They see the offended statements as a threat and turn it into an abuse or victimizing.
  3. They make themselves victims and become victims in their minds.
  4. They make a political issue out of it and turn themselves into the “oppressed” seeking freedom in order to fit the American political point of view.
  5. They now fashion themselves as “fighting for their rights”, even though no rights are being threatened (such as seen in the “women’s march” . . . they were marching for something that wasn’t even being threatened!).
  6. They now “wallow” in their victimhood.

So what we see is that its starts off by being offended and ends with them fighting for their rights and wallowing in their victimhood.  The problem is that none of their rights have been violated nor have they been victimized . . . they’ve only been offended!  We must remember that being offended is not a victimizing nor does it make a person a victim.  This is a very significant point.  If being offended makes us a victim then I have been victimized thousand times.  And if being offended means my rights have been violated then my rights have been violated thousands of times.  Maybe I should start a march, huh?  Here, you can see how they have elaborated, exaggerated, and intensified a problem that isn’t really that big turning themselves into victims.  Also note how the use of American political theory exaggerated it and made it worse than it really is.  

Also note how it is primarily sex-related statements that have offended them.  Again we see the association of sex-male-victim . . . another reference to the mother instinct.  What this sex association suggests, at least to me, is that we are looking, yet again, at the female-as-victim mentality.  This victim mentality has caused them to see the offending statement as some sort of an “attack” on them personally.  Not only that, some of them actually believe that they have been “attacked” even though nothing has happened.  You see, they are all too willing to be victims.  In fact, almost a year after the election many are still taking it not only personally but are still “wallowing” in their victimhood.  They disguise all this under the guise of political theory, of their “rights” being violated and such.  As I said above, they see the solution as being political/social and cite political theory as authority (as well as a defense against the fear of victimhood).  But, in actuality, this is nothing but a demonstration of a deeper female problem, the female-as-victim mentality.  It has nothing to do with political or social themes.  Its only been twisted around to appear that way.

I should point out that I understand that being offended can make a person feel really bad but, my god, this thing has been so over reacted.  I, and many of us, have been offended by things but most of us don’t blow it out of proportion as much as this has been.  This is why I often call this the “great over reaction”.  My observation is that the female-as-victim mentality played a major role in this over reaction.  Some aspects of ways this was over reacted include:

  • They turned the offending statements into a threat which made them frightened.
  • They made it a male-versus-female issue.
  • They took it too personally as if they were personally attacked.
  • They made a political issue out of something that isn’t a political issue.
  • They were too willing to make themselves victims.

All these female-as-victim attitudes caused this to be over reacted and blown so far out of proportion that its ridiculous.  So now we have many females running around in this country all hysterical and absolutely convinced that they have been somehow attacked, abused, or victimized.  Many of us have already noticed a number of things as a result of this mentality.  Some of them include:

  • Some have become very confrontational . . . they act like the male is trying to hurt them!
  • Some take a male-versus-female point of view.
  • Some are becoming arrogant and self-righteous.
  • Some use the American Constitution like a weapon, as if they have some high and mighty politically justified cause (didn’t they claim their rights are being threatened?).
  • Some are becoming very “touchy” and oversensitive.
  • Some are quick to panic, fear, be offended, be hurt, be paranoid, and such.
  • If anything does happen to a female (such as a sexual harassment case) then they make it out like the world is coming to an end and that all the females in the whole world are at threat.
  • Some even think they are superior in some way (showing their insecurity at being female which is at the heart of the female-as-victim mentality).

Many of us have noticed that many females have changed since this election, and not for the better.  From where I stand, it looks like many females are turning into a bunch of “panicky frightened people who make themselves victims and then hide behind the American Constitution”.  To me, this is totally unnecessary, uncalled for, and ridiculous.  It has a quality of a self-undermining (which I believe it is).  That’s how it appears to me anyways.


The victim theme is nothing but a reflection of the mother instinct. In this way, there is a close association between motherhood and the victim theme.  It affects the male and female differently:

  • For the female the victim theme is a reference to having a child.  Females who are preoccupied with the female-as-victim sense are often, deep down, feeling motherly desires for a child.  This is also true for the females who desire to be victimized by the male.
  • For the male the victim theme is a reference to getting a female pregnant.  For some males this can appear as a desire to “hurt”, control, manipulate, etc. the female.  Interestingly, even sex is often described by some males as “hurting the female”.  But this tendency can get out of control so far that it entails actual physical abuse and even murder in the extreme cases.

In both cases, there is an association between various forms of victimizing and childbearing.  In other words, the female is perceived as being “damaged” by childbearing by both the male and female.  This is one of the strange phenomena’s of the mother instinct.  It is a common and prevalent association.  In fact, I tend to believe that a person cannot understand the mother instinct unless they understand the female-as-victim sense and the general victim theme.


From the above we can see that there are many things and qualities that contribute to the makeup of the female-as-victim.  Some of the elements that can be involved in its makeup (such as that is described above) include:

  • Identity problems
  • Fall of roles
  • Trying to be like someone else (such as the nobility or the male)
  • Lack of “female niche”
  • A “seclusion” that is too overbearing
  • Poor associations with ones mother
  • A character clash with the mother instinct
  • Bad experience
  • Bad example
  • Male envy
  • Social ideals
  • Trends, fads, social hysteria’s, etc.
  • Conditions of the times

These, and others, can be combined in a multitude of different ways creating many different varieties and forms in which it can appear.

But, based on how its orientated in their psychological makeup, we could probably say that there are 4 main varieties of the female-as-victim:

  1. Instinctual female-as-victim – This refers to girls being affected by the natural mother instinct.  Because it is so deep rooted they tend to be without the self.  As a result, females are “reacting” to this impulse without knowing why.  This would be like “projected lust”.
  2. Personal  female-as-victim – This refers to when the instinctual elements are blended with their personality traits giving it a more “personal” element.  A good example are girls who think that “being a female is bad”.
  3. Social female-as-victim – This is when it is blended with social belief, circumstances, situation, trends, conditions, etc.  This would be like girls who blame the male or society for their problems and claim that they are being victimizing by them.
  4. Political/legal female-as-victim – This is when it is blended with the political and legal theories and is primarily British/American.  This would be like girls who think everything “oppresses” them or is violating their rights.

These different orientations give the different elements a particular form or direction.  In this society I would say that the most prevalent forms are the Personal and Social forms.


After 30 or so years looking at this I think my overall impression of the female-as-victim can be expressed in this statement I always say:

“The next time I hear about another female becoming a victim I’m going to scream!!!”

Basically, after listening to it all these years its gotten to the point that its all starting to sound so ridiculous and asinine.  In fact, its almost nauseating . . . victim to the right, victim to the left, you look at them the wrong way and you’ve victimize them, you touch them and you victimize them, on and on and on.  I think that its evident that this is not reflective of a healthy femalehood and that females persisting the female-as-victim are only undermining themselves.  This awareness, I think, can be expressed in this statement which I often want to say:

You girls need to pull up your ‘big girl britches’ and start to grow up, find a dignity, and start having a better view of yourselves.”

Here are a few other articles on similar themes:

Thoughts on the female ‘drive to be a victim’

Thoughts on the female and Victorian society – “being Victorian green” – the females envy of the male and the ‘female envy culture’

Thoughts on the ‘female-as-victim-of-the-world’: “feminism”, a poor way to look at things

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in 2016 Presidential election and things associated with it, Britain and British things, Dehumanization and alienation, Identity and identity problems, Modern life and society, Mother instinct, Psychology and psychoanalysis, The male and female, The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Various thoughts on the “Victorian” era – “modernism”, apprehension, war, mass communication, and conflict of ideas

Here are some thoughts I had:


I tend to view that we are still in the “Victorian” era.  Perhaps the term “Victorian” isn’t the best word but I continue to use it as it makes it clear that this era is a continuation of the former era (the 1800’s and 1900’s).  I suppose a person could call it the “modern” era, if one wished, as its also true but, in this article, I will continue to call it the “Victorian” era.  I also don’t like the term “modern” as it seems too “generic” and has too many other connotations.

I would say that there are, so far, two phases in the “Victorian” era:

  1. The classical or royal phase of Victorianismabout 1820 to about the 1970’s.  During this time the image of royalty and nobility were dominant themes.  There is much emphasis on manners, social hierarchy, and such.  It was also very much dominated by British culture and society.
  2. The mass or mob phase of Victorianism – about 1970’s to todayDuring this time mass society is a dominant theme.  As a result, there is great emphasis on mass communication, commercialism, etc.  It is dominated by the U.S. but this seems to be waning in the early 2010’s.

Keep in mind that these are just phases of a larger era.  What defines and unifies these two phases, and creates the “Victorian” era, could be described as a particular point of view and belief system, the creation of a specific idea . . .

The “Victorian” idea:  “modernism”

The “Victorian” idea could also be called “modernism”.  One of the reasons why I like to use the term “Victorian” is because of this association between “Victorian” and “modernism”.  Since “modernism” is still active, and it was created during the “Victorian” era, we are really still in the same era as the Victorians of the 1800’s, but just in a different phase of it.  As a result, I tend to view that the “Victorian” era will end when “modernism” ends.  In some sense, they are too intimately bound to be separated.

There are three phases in the progression of “modernism” so far:

  1. 1800’s  – the idea of “modernism” is created and defined
  2. 1900’s  – “modernism” is realized
  3. 2000’s – “modernism” dominates and controls

The “Victorian” era, then, is really the creation and realizing of the idea of “modernism” and is, accordingly, intimately bound with it.

Most people tend to emphasize the prevalence of machines or scientific ideas as the trait of a “modernism”.  There is some truth to this but I tend to look at it from a greater distance.  To me, the “modernism” point of view is just a new version of an older idea.  In short, “modernism” is really based in an old idea but stated in a different way.  This old idea is really Christianity which dominated Europe for centuries and made a great impact on European thinking.  Being based in Christianity shows that “modernism” isn’t as modern or as new as it sounds or professes to be.

One could say that “modernism” is, in actuality, the creation of a new Christian world, but without the religion, and in the cast of Greek ideas that developed during the period of time known as the Enlightment in Europe (in particular, the 1700’s) as well as the social and political problems that were prevalent during that time.  Many of these problems, interestingly, are caused by overpopulation.  Is it any wonder that, as “modernism” developed, it would cater to and focus on the the masses or mob of people?  Isn’t it any wonder that this would define the later phase of the “Victorian” era?  In my opinion, that’s no coincidence.

So we see that “modernism” is based in four main things:

  1. Christianity – this laid the foundation and set the tone
  2. Science and logic – from Greek philosophy
  3. Democracy – from Greek political thinking
  4. The social and political effects of overpopulation in the 1700’s this gave it a reality and purpose

One thing that this points out is the fact that “modernism”, though it was created and realized in the “Victorian” era, actually reflects the social and political conditions of the era that preceded it (the 1700’s) and is, in actuality, an attempt to solve those problems.  In this way, one could probably say that “modernism” is really a form of thinking that primarily reflects 1700’s reality.  Because of this, “modernism” tends to take points of view that were common then and apply them to current situations.  I often call this tendency “forcing the interpretation”.  Some examples include:

  • That people are oppressed by governments, etc.
  • That we are all struggling for freedom.
  • That life is miserable.
  • That everything is solved by intellectual thought and science.
  • That the solution to problems is something new or some form of reform (reflecting the success of the new scientific thinking over older Christian thinking).

Since these are not constant and all pervasive conditions, and tend to be automatic assumptions of “modernism”, it shows that “modernism” tends to assume certain conditions and realities that are often not existing.  This is why I jokingly say that “modernism is stuck in the 1700’s” which is said in irony as “modernism” tends to professes that it is up-to-date or modern.  Actually, its not as up-to-date as it seems.  In actuality, “modernism” has this tendency to actually be somewhat detached from current existing conditions oftentimes.  As a result, it tends to an idealism over real-world reality.  That is to say, there is a lot of “pie in the sky” thinking with “modernism”.  Oftentimes, what it considers up-to-date, or modern, is the latest thing that IT created, not the real-world reality.  This point of view I’ve seen with some of the so-called Millennials.  They think they are “more modern” over, say, the older generation because they have the latest apps!  But all they are doing is catering to the latest gizmo’s and gadgets that “modernism” has created.  This reflects the idea that “a person is up-to-date, or modern, only if they cater to what the modern world has created”.  But we must remember that there is a whole world beyond what “modernism” has created . . . and this is conspicuously absent!  As a result of this mentality, “modernism” as if creates a point of view where it is a “world unto itself” detached and removed from real-world reality.  Its because of this detached mentality that I’ve often said that we need to move out of the “modernism” way of thinking and a new “up-to-date” and real-world direction that isn’t so rooted in past conditions and realities and “pie in the sky” thinking.

Being that the “Victorian idea” of “modernism” is really a continuation of Christianity it displays similar traits to Christianity, such as:

  • The belief in a specific “doctrine” that must be adhered to (the doctrine of science, democracy, etc.)
  • A sense of self-righteous cause.
  • The idea that it will save humanity.  
  • A tendency to fanaticism.
  • A missionary attitude, they the world must be converted to “modernism” and it will be saved by it.

All these would be seen in the “Victorian” idea of “modernism”.  They would give it its cause, its direction, and its impetus.  I tend to think that the underlying “Christian cause” is what actually motivates “modernism”, in actuality.  One reason for this is the fact that Christianity has been such a powerful influence in Europe for so long.  In many ways, there isn’t any power in anything new . . . its unproven . . . and so the new “modernism” needed the authority and power of existing and firm Christian ideals to rest on.  Without the authority of the “Christian cause’ I think “modernism” would of been powerless.


Interestingly, the conditions of the “Victorian” era have created a unique form of apprehension, which can turn into a fear.  Because of this, “modernism” tends to be associated with an apprehension and it permeates much of its history.  This apprehension is often referred to in roundabout, and simplistic, ways such as the “fear of change” or “fear of the new” but I think there is a little bit more to it than what those simple explanations state.  It seems, to me, that this apprehension has origin in things such as:

  • Its a post war society.  Victorian society was right after the Napoleonic Wars and had all the tension, turmoil, and anguish that follows post war societies.
  • The coming of many new inventions, conditions, and realities.  The new steam engines, locomotives, chemicals, etc. that appeared caused an apprehension.
  • Things were happening too fast.  Many people didn’t have time to get used to or adapt to things.
  • An uncertainty about what will happen.  With all the new things that were appearing no one knew what to expect . . . good? . . . bad? . . . who knows?
  • The Christian idea of sin which caused a doubt about ourselves and what we’re doing.  The Christian idea that humanity is evil-natured did not make all the new things that were being created necessarily look good.

This apprehension, I think, has had great impact on the “Victorian” era far more than it may, at first, seem.  Much of this apprehension, though, was not overtly stated or felt.  In this way, it as if cast a shadow over this era.

As time went on, various things would greatly aggravate this apprehension and even turn it into fear.  This is particularly so with the realization of the many negative sides that “modernism” created such as:

  • The increasingly deadly and efficient weapons of war.
  • The more efficient controlling means of governments, organizations, and society.
  • The damage to culture and belief.
  • The damage to the environment.
  • The changes to society.
  • The fall of a sense of the individual.

But, for many people, this apprehension as if “hangs over them like a dark cloud” and never goes away, regardless of what happens.  In other words, apprehension is a trait of the “Victorian” era and hangs over it like a dark cloud.  This is as much true today as in the 1800’s.


It seems, to me, that a significant aspect of the “Victorian” era is that it is a “post idealistic-cause war” society.  I mean that it follows the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars.  Though these are two different events they are intimately bound and are part of a greater complex of events.  In the end, they had dramatic effect on Europe in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s.  They as if sucked Europe into it and set a tone for the “Victorian” era and the development of “modernism”.  In fact, I think I would go on to say that they had a large hand in the creation of the “Victorian” era and may, perhaps, be largely responsible for its eventual form, direction, as well as the creation of “modernism”.  There are a number of reasons for this:

  • The themes that the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars created were extensive and on many different levels
  • Many of its ideals were very much based in the ideas of the Enlightment, such as science and democracy
  • It became associated with a high cause (freedom, progress, nationalism, etc.) which is why I call it an “idealistic-cause” war
  • It was somewhat traumatic and horrifying
  • It was highly publicized because of better mass communication

These made the issues around the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars a more European affair and exposed certain themes (such as those of the Enlightment) to more of the European population.  It also made the social and political problems of Europe more “real”, so to speak, and the threat of war “at ones door”, so to speak, for many people.  These threats as if hung over the early-mid part of the 1800’s, in particular and influenced much of the thinking at that time.

Interestingly, it seems to me that we are seeing similar conditions between the post French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars and the 2010’s.  This suggests, then, that we are in a similar “post idealistic-cause war” society situation.  I am speaking of the WWII/Cold War/War on Terror wars which, in a way, is like a long complex with each war being a phase.  Like the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars they were also associated with high idealistic cause (that is, they weren’t just wars that came and went).  They are largely an American complex, reflecting wars the U.S. was involved with.  It is this complex which probably started the second mass or mob phase of Victorianism as I’ve described above.  After the War on Terror ended it seemed, at least to me, that there was a big “lull” or “absence” in the society.  I knew what this meant . . . the “great cause” was gone.   This “great cause” actually ended in the early 1990’s, when the cold war ended, but the War on Terror as if revived it for a time.  When it ended it was gone.  This has left something like a big absence in American society, in my opinion.  The U.S., it seems to me, is struggling with it.  For example, it seems to me that it figures prominently in the last Presidential election of 2016.  It motivated Trump’s slogan, “Make America great again” and it has motivated much of the endless and ridiculous nonsense, hysteria, and accusations from the media and the general population of this country about this election.  Its very important to point out that the large part of the nonsense originates from the media and people . . . that’s significant.  It shows that the country, as a whole, is struggling with this absence and loss of the “great cause”.

Some of the conditions that are seen in both the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars and WWII/Cold War/ War on Terror wars include:

  • A post war trauma condition.  The country is as if “shocked” by the war, both socially and economically.
  • A war-based idealistic cause.  This can get to the point of a religion.  This is not surprising as, in both cases, this idealism is actually rooted in Christian belief.  I wouldn’t be surprised if  these war-based ideals are a “descendant” of the Crusades and its crusading war spirit.
  • An improvement in some economic classes, usually the middle class.
  • The arrival of new things, inventions, organization, and such.
  • An uncertainty about the future.
  • An absence or breakdown of defined and accepted beliefs in the society.  This often appears as an absence or breakdown in traditional, cultural, or religious beliefs.  This absence, it seems, is often replaced by the war-based idealistic cause.  This gives the idealistic cause even more power and influence in the society.  It also creates a “great absence” when the idealistic cause is lost after the wars.  This is probably why the U.S. is suffering so much when the “great cause” vanished.
  • The prevalence of mass communication.  This starts off with printed things like newspapers, magazines, and such and now has progressed to electronic forms, such as radio, TV, internet, and social media.
  • A strong sense of self-consciousness as well as a world-consciousness .  People become more aware of themselves and the world as separate entities.  This becomes more marked and distinguished.

In effect, these are some of the traits of the “post idealistic-cause war” society.

Unlike the French Revolution/Napoleonic War situation we are not seeing anything new being created after the WWII/Cold War/War on Terror wars but, rather, an intensification of the “newest modernism”, so to speak.  In a way, its causing us to dig deeper into “modernism”.  In that way, we could say that the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars created the “Victorian” era and “modernism” but the WWII/Cold War/War on Terror wars are intensifying them or, to probably be more precise, they are further enslaving us in “modernism”.  

Because they seem to involve similar conditions it appears that both situations have caused unique and similar reactions in people.  This is because I tend to believe that the “post idealistic-cause war” society is unique and does not display common traits seen in most post-war societies.  I tend to think it is primarily because of these qualities:

  • The high idealistic cause
  • Mass communication

These make the wars more “accessible” to more of the population thereby giving it a more extensive and influential role.  The high idealistic cause makes them believe and mass communication makes it known.  As a result, it hits deeper in the society, and on a different level, than does normally happen.  Because of this, it displays different reactions than in a normal post-war society.  Interestingly, it appears that it has caused different reactions in the male and female, reflecting their different characters . . .

The male reaction

The male reaction seems primarily one of disorientation.  This tends to cause a number of tendencies such as:

  • They blindly follow.
  • There is a feeling of contempt.
  • A sense of indifference.
  • A tendency to apathy.
  • A lack of belief.
  • A lack of unity.

Some of the things that seem to cause these include:

  • The cause is gone and this leaves a big absence in the male.  That is to say, without the cause its as if there is nothing left . . . life afterwords is empty.  If there happens to be any continuing of the cause it becomes passive.  That is to say, it becomes an “idea” and not something “real” . . . it loses its “oomph”.
  • Its almost as if the male has been “spent” by the “post idealistic-cause war” and needs to take a rest. I sometimes think that this is similar to some forms of battle trauma in a way, at least for some males.  This seems to suggest that even though the male is not in the war he feels as if he is in it and, accordingly, suffers from its effects, so to speak.  We could speak of this, perhaps, as a ‘bystander battle trauma’.  If one looks at the after effects of two recent wars – the Vietnam War and the War on Terror – one can see that in each case many males became sort of stagnant or apathetic in the years following the war.  Both of these were highly publicized making many males feel a part of it, just by watching the news.  In other words, mass communication often leads to a ‘bystander battle trauma’, one is traumatized by knowing about it and being made to feel involved as a result!  In other words, the more the war is publicized the more ‘bystander battle trauma’ there is and the more toll it takes on a person.  When it ends one is somewhat “exhausted” by it all.
  • There is a stress caused by the war, because of its tensions, worries, etc.  This often goes by unnoticed in most males, and remains in the back of their mind.  It can come out, sometimes, in displays of anger or contempt or being upset with the government, for example.
  • It seems that the bigger the sense of high cause the worst the problems appear when the war is over.  As the saying goes, “the higher they are the harder they fall”.  This seems to show that there is a relationship between high cause and problems . . . the higher the cause the worst the problems.

One of the things these show is that males generally tend to be affected by war, even though they are not in it.  Knowing that a war is taking place often creates a sense of a cause, a unity, a belonging, and a purpose in the male population.  During times a war there is often a sense of “banding together” with the males.  Because of this, many things can get done during wartime as happened, for example, during the Cold War.  When the war is over, and the “great cause” is gone, the males lose that “banding together” sense, become disoriented, and often as if wander around aimlessly in life.  This seems to of happened after the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars and the WWII/Cold War/War on terror wars . . . males seemed somewhat disoriented afterwords.  Each seems to have different effects though:

French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars.  After the war there was a disorientation in the males.  Also, a great contempt for society and the government was common.  But many males put an effort to find some sort of an orientation afterwords.

WWII/Cold War/War on Terror.  The idealistic cause was very strong.  It was exaggerated by the more efficient mass communication that appeared during that time.  This has caused more disorientation in the males once the wars ended.  In addition, males are doing little, if any, effort to regain an orientation.  The male has as if “come to a stop”.

The female reaction

The female reaction is primarily one of “quiet fear”.  This is something many of them don’t even recognize consciously but yet influences much of their behavior.  Some of the reactions include:

  • They become a slave to social ideals.  They as if wrap themselves up in social ideals, as if it were a warm blanket.  It protects them.
  • They use law, politics, and such as if it were a weapon.
  • They use law, politics, and such as a shield.
  • They try to become like men.
  • They develop a victim mentality.
  • They view the world as threatening them in some way.
  • They become accusatory.
  • They become oversensitive and overreactive.

Its as if the female is defending and protecting themselves from the fear associated with war.  This fear seems to as if eat away at many females.  In short, females feel frightened and helpless as a result of the war.

Typically, the females tend to neither care about the cause or purpose of the war, though they may say otherwise.  It seems that the higher and grander the cause the more frightened and helpless they seem to feel.  As a result of all this, the general character of the female has become one of a frightened and helpless person since the Napoleonic Wars, or so it seems to me.  The later conditions of the “Victorian” era, including the wars, social problems, etc., would only intensify it.  As a result of this fear, much of the female life often has these qualities in it:

  • Defending themselves against the fear (such as saying that everything violates their rights).
  • An attempt at attacking the fear (such as claiming that society is trying to oppress them).
  • Neurotic tendencies as a result of helplessness or inability to resolve the fear (such as conjuring up abuse when there is none).

Much of this is primarily caused by an awareness of war caused by mass communication even though they are unaffected. Unlike the male they have no interest in the cause and are not directly involved nor see themselves as directly involved.  As a result, their primary involvement, and source of fear, is because of mass communication.


Mass communication became widespread during the 1800’s and has only grown since.  In this way, one could call the “Victorian” era the “news era” if one wants.  But, as we’ve seen above, both the male and female reactions show influence of mass communication and how it plays a big role in their reaction to war.  But the effects of mass communication also extends to other things as well, such as social problems, murders, controversies, gossip, and other things one hears in the news.  In short, with mass communication one is, in a sense, “exposed” to the problems happening in the world even though you only see it or read it.  Once “exposed” one reacts somewhat similar to if one is actually there, even if its only in the back of ones mind.  In this way, mass communication makes it so that the worlds problems becomes our problems, even though they don’t even affect us.

In a way, it shows that mass communication has a far greater impact than it may seem.  It doesn’t just “inform”.  As I said above, one reacts to what one is “exposed” to.  As a result, it can cause things like:

  • Fear
  • Distress
  • Mental issues
  • Helplessness
  • Anxiety
  • Worry
  • Uncertainty
  • Stress
  • Anger

Whats most important is that these problems come from knowing, not experiencing!  This means that many problems do not, in actuality, exist . . . they only exist in peoples minds based on the dictates of what the mass communication dishes out.  I think its safe to say that many problems during the “Victorian” era are probably a result of mass communication and don’t really exist.  Perhaps we could call these “phantom problems”?  I think this is far more prevalent than it seems.  In fact, I think most problems don’t exist, nor are they as bad as they seem, making the “Victorian” era the “era of phantom problems”, all because of the prevalence of mass communication.

Females, especially, seem to be affected by mass communication.  In fact, I often have said that “mass communication is destroying the female”.  Basically, mass communication has created a sense of “vulnerability” in females, of being “exposed” to the problems of the world.  The more the females cater to mass communication the more the females feel “exposed” and suffer problems as a result.  With the growth of mass communication, nowadays, this has only intensified.

This feeling of being “exposed” has caused many females to feel things such as:

  • Insecure
  • Vulnerable
  • Over reactive
  • Threatened 
  • Inadequate
  • Oppressed
  • Frightened

Some of the things these cause are:

  • A horrible “victim mentality”.
  • A poor view of themselves and what a female is.
  • A slavish attitude.
  • A loss of “personhood”.
  • A tendency to “take on other peoples problems as if its their own”.
  • A tendency to create problems that don’t exist.

These seem to be common traits with the “Victorian” era female.

Ironically, mass communication as if pulls females into it . . . they are attracted to it (just look at females and their cell phones!).  In this way, the effect of mass communication on females is that it attracts them and undermines them.


The effect of the “Victorian” idea, and “modernism”, would be to cause a great variety of conditions, realities, and situations.  One effect of this is a conflict of ideas.  It would create a world of opposing ideas, ideals, and points of view that plague the era.  Some common types of ideas include:

  • Those that are for “modernism”.
  • Those that are against “modernism”.
  • Those with alternate views.
  • Those that blindly follow along.
  • Those that don’t know what to think.
  • Those that are frustrated by it all.
  • Those that rebel against it all.

These create many different points of view and perspectives during this era.  In some respects, its caused something like an “idea war”, a continual fighting about which idea is right.  This, of course, has never been solved.  In this way, ideas have taken on a quality of an enigma in the “Victorian” era.  Basically, any idea is right only if its said in the midst of other people who believe in the same thing.  This has caused “groups” in the society where people tend to congregate with people who have similar ideas.  As long as they stay in their “group” their ideas are right and they see no conflict or dispute.  I think that if people truly mingled with everyone else there would be more conflicts between people.

Because of all these points of view no one, it seems, is really to fully and adequately describe “modernism” and its effects.  It all depends on where you stand and what point of view you take.  One person would say this, another would say that.  This would cause conflicts of points of view about “modernism”, such as the “optimism versus pessimism” dispute.  Because of this, how the “Victorian” era, and “modernism”, is interpreted depends on the point of view of the person making it.

The conflict of ideas would cause an instability and uncertainty of its own.   Perhaps, in many ways, this instability and uncertainty would eat away at the era.  There becomes an inability to resolve the conflict of opposing ideas.  Because of stuff like this, the conflict of ideas has sort of undermined ideas over time devaluing their meaning, worth, and authority.

Not only that, the “Victorian” era would slowly undermine itself with its own ideas.  The era began with defined beliefs, ideals, and morals and would slowly end in a more nihilistic condition, a belief in nothing, and too many ideas and points of views.  All this because of the conflicts of ideas and the effects of “modernism”.


My feelings toward the “Victorian” era, and the effects of “modernism”, is that there is both good and bad in it.  It is neither a tragedy nor a utopia.  Despite all of its good, it has done extensive damage and caused great tragedies, some of the worst in history.  This fact must be acknowledged.  It makes me apprehensive about it all.  This causes me to question everything “modern”, regardless of its appearing good or not.  In short, I’m not convinced that “modernism” is a solution nor do I believe that it should be viewed as the way of the future.  In other words, I don’t see a utopia in “modernism” or the “Victorian” era, even though it has done some good, nor do I see it as an answer.  It seems, to me, that we need a new direction.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Battle trauma, Britain and British things, Christianity, Christian conversion, Post-Christianity, and Christian influence, Historical stuff, Mass communication: media, social media, and the news, Modern life and society, Science and technology, The male and female, The military and war, The U.S. and American society, Victorianism and Victorian society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the expressions: “mother nature” and “the birds and bee’s” – aspects of the Victorian symbolism of springtime

Here’s a thought I had:

I have often heard two expressions that has always made me wonder of their origin:

  •  “Mother nature”
  • “The birds and the bee’s”

It seems, to me, that both of these have origin in the Victorian era (1800’s).  They primarily reflect a movement that was popular at the time:  Romanticism.  This movement put great emphasis on romance and love and was very popular during the Victorian era. This movement also used a lot of poetry and poetic expression.  Because of this, there was great use of poetic words and expressions to express romance and love.  These two expressions seem to be a reflection of that poetic tendency.

Both of these expressions seem to originate from a common symbol that was used during the Victorian era: springtime.  The symbol of springtime would have many different associations:

Springtime as symbol of a mother

It is in spring that “things are born” and “come alive”.   Spring gives birth to the “life of summer”, so to speak.  As a result, springtime is often associated with the idea that “nature becomes a mother” or, rather, the “motherly trait in nature”.  In this way, the expression “mother nature” is really a reference to springtime.

I should point out that this only refers to when the motherly aspect of nature manifests itself.  It does not state that nature is a mother, and its certainly not referring to nature as being something like a goddess, as I’ve heard some people suggest, nor is it a remnant of a pagan “mother nature goddess”.  I know of nowhere, in any culture, where all of nature is viewed as a mother or a goddess.  In all cultures, that I know of, the “motherly” qualities of nature are generally viewed as something specific in nature, happening at certain times and certain conditions, not as something all pervasive.  Its really no different here.  In this way, spring is, in a sense, the “time of the mother quality in nature”.

I get the impression that, by the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, “mother nature” became an almost “generic” word for springtime.  It seems that it may of become widespread by the use of advertisements and other popular media.  As time went on, though, the romantic movement slowly weakened and much of the symbolic associations associated with springtime (including those described below) became forgotten.  It seems that the world wars, in particular, have contributed a great deal to the forgetting of these associations.  No doubt this is because the world wars destroyed and opposed the idea and themes of romanticism, and its symbol of springtime, and leaning to a more dark and grim sense.  Because of things like this, “mother nature” would lose the original symbolic associations.  As time went on, and these associations disappeared, it would slowly become a “generic” word for nature in general.

Springtime as a symbol for love and romance

It is during springtime that things “come alive” . . . flowers bloom, birds chirp, and so forth.  Love and romance tends to evoke similar feelings of “coming alive” and, as a result, are commonly associated with springtime.  Its really no surprise, then, that springtime would become associated with love and romance.  Not only that, the inevitable result of love and romance is motherhood.  Even recently a friend of mine made this statement:  “isn’t springtime mating season?”

Springtime as a symbol of sex

Because springtime is associated with the appearance of flowers, bugs, nice weather, and such this would become associated with springtime’s association with love and romance. Over the years, this association caused an expression to develop:  “the birds and the bee’s”. Its a reference to how, during springtime, the birds and the bee’s appear and do their thing.  What’s interesting about this is that it became associated with a particular aspect of love and romance, namely, sex.  As a result, to tell a kid about “the birds and the bee’s” became a poetical and “polite” way of speaking to them about sex.  It originates from the association of springtime – when birds and bee’s flourish – with love and romance which is, of course, associated with sex.

Springtime as optimism and love of life

Since springtime is the time when things “come alive” it became associated with great optimism for nature and life.  As a result, its often a reference to a generalized love one may feel, such as the love of nature or life, that is not necessarily romantic or love-based.  This optimism also made it associated with a great joy and of “feeling good” about things.

Springtime as a symbol of an awakening

Since things “come alive” during springtime it is associated with an “awakening”.  I, myself, tend to say that I “come alive” in spring and “wake up” out of the slumber of winter.

Associations and theme

What’s particularly interesting is that these all reveal an association between a number of things with an underlying theme.  These seem to be made unconsciously.  That is to say, people didn’t come up with these associations logically. Even though many of these expressions are said individually, and seem separate and distinct, when you put them all together there is a single theme that can be seen.

So we see the expressions “mother nature” and “the birds and the bee’s” describe an interesting symbology to springtime which is also associated with other themes as well:

  • Life in general.
  • The life that appears at springtime (birds, bee’s, flowers, etc.).
  • Optimism and a love of life.
  • An awakening to life.
  • Romantic feelings.
  • Birth.
  • Motherhood.
  • Sex.

All these different associations, though different, point to a specific theme.  In short, they all reveal that the theme of springtime refers to a “the birth of life and in creating life”.  In so doing, it tends to refer to the “joy of life” as well.  The Victorian romantic movement seems to of made great emphasis of these themes and in many different ways and creating many poetic descriptions to illustrate it, as those I have described above.

Much of the world, at least to some extent, seems to of made similar associations with springtime though, perhaps, on a much milder or in more specific perspective.  In some respects, the Victorian romantic movement was different from the rest of the world as it has qualities that is more like a worship of nature that was almost religious in orientation but was actually non-religious in orientation, sort of a half religious worship.  In addition, it seems that they tended to see a broader view in its symbology than most of the world.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Historical stuff, Mythology, Other stuff, Victorianism and Victorian society | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Innocent obsessions”


A short story by Mike Michelsen

“I swear it was all harmless,” the man cried out, tears streaming down his red water-soaked face.  “I wasn’t trying to do anything bad . . . oh God, please believe me!”

The Police Officer takes one last look at the man handcuffed to the chair.  Tears continued to stream down his face as he slowly brought his head down toward the table eventually letting his head drop the last few inches with a resounding ‘thud’.

Turning away as he closed the door, the Police Officer couldn’t help but let an expression of contempt come across his face.

“What do you think?” came a voice from the other side of the hall.

Startled, the Police Officer quickly jerked in the Sergeants direction, and looked at him quizzically.

“Its most unusual . . . I mean, I think I know what happened but its most unusual.  In all my years . . . ”

The Police Officer began to walk down the hallway, the Sergeant following behind.

Turning into the cafeteria they both quietly walk to the coffee machine as if by habit.

“Here, let my buy you a cup!” the Sergeant cries out.  The Police Officer grabs a cup and lets the Sergeant pour his cup, then turning and pouring his own cup.  They both then wander through the labyrinth of people to find an open table where they both sat down quietly.

“Well?” the Sergeant asks.

“Hmm . . . well?”

“People say the man is insane or angry or both . . . didn’t he lose a lot of money gambling?  The psychologist said he lost so much that he began to feel resentful and had to take it out on people.  This, he said, coupled with an insecure character.”

“Yeah, yeah, but its just too simple.  It sounds good, I agree, but from what I’m seeing there is a little bit more.  Insane? . . . Angry? . . . Hmm.  I mean, he didn’t talk that way.  I just don’t get that impression.”

“Why, what do you think?”

“To be frank, the picture that has formed in my head is quite interesting and does not fit what everyone else says.  Its still unclear.”

“What’s the picture that you’re seeing?  Maybe if you talk about it the picture will become more clear?  Besides, I’m curious.”

“First to all, everybody wants cliche’s and simple explanations.  You know . . . he’s insane . . . he’s unstable . . . these explanations seem so simplistic to me.  They also want dramatic and grand explanations . . . he hates . . . he’s angry . . . he’s so and so.  My experience is that there is so much more to what causes people to do things like this.  Its not just a simple ‘this or that’ type of deal.  Its a bit more complicated.”

“Yeah,” the Sergeant agree’s.

“He said it started after he bought a Glock handgun.  He had never had a handgun, or any gun for that matter, before.  His brother was the first to buy a handgun and asked him to go to the gun range with him.  When I talked to his brother earlier today, he said that he was hoping that it would help him with his gambling addiction, which he had been suffering from for some time.  You know, it might divert his attention in other directions.”

“It definately diverted it!”

“After shooting it a few times he says he had to have one.  He says he was fascinated by it.  Some days later he bought his Glock.”

“A lot of people enjoy shooting but I don’t still don’t see how that leads to what he did.”

“Yeah . . . I get the impression that he started out like everyone else.  Like many other people, he was having fun and enjoying himself.  He enjoyed to go shooting and was on his way to be a competent target shooter.  He even said that, later, he considered getting in a target shooting competition but, after watching some people shoot, he said he felt he wasn’t good enough.  He felt that there was no way he could possibly compete with these other people.”

“Are you saying that he was upset  because he couldn’t compete?”

“No, not at all.  He was dejected and quit shooting for a while.  Instead, he went back to gambling.  Then, one day after winning at craps, he thought, if he could win by shooting craps he could win at shooting his gun and maybe win in a competition.  I get the impression that winning is important to him.  He went to the shooting range and practiced.  He went every weekend for some months.  His shooting improved.  And then, one day while shooting, a thought went through his head . . . of shooting a person.  He wondered what it would be like to shoot a person.  Every time he shot this thought came through his head.”

“I’m sure that many people have had that thought before, even I have, especially as a policeman.”

“That’s probably true . . . the thought has come to me before too.  Of course, for me it was different.  I wondered if I could do it if I had to . . . could I really shoot down a criminal?  I think a lot of policemen think of that but his was different.”

“Do you mean that he secretly wanted to kill someone?  Some people harbor a secret unconscious desire to kill that can come out in the right conditions.  Sometimes people are pushed to this point.  I think that was the psychologist said, that when he lost the twenty thousand dollars gambling, or whatever it was, he as if snapped.”

“I don’t think so.  I don’t get the impression that he wanted to kill anyone or that he snapped.  I think it was that sense of morbid curiosity that comes out in some people about death and killing.  I think everyone wonders about this, at least to some extent but that doesn’t mean they want to kill people.  I certainly didn’t see any desire to kill, or a hatred, or an anger in him.  At first he said the thought was mild.  He said it was as if in the back of his mind, but it was often there when he went shooting.”

“That doesn’t sound like much.  You’re telling me that this was all a thought in the back of his mind?”

“You know, in a way it was.  It was never in the forefront of his mind.  It always remained in the background as if in a fog, unclear and vague.”

“That’s what motivated him?”

“Well, you’ve only heard a small part of the story.  It remained in the back of his mind.  He continued to shoot, off and on, for some months but his gambling increased.  As his gambling increased his shooting decreased.  Over time he sank more and more into gambling . . . he simply couldn’t stop.”

“I had heard he had gambled a total of about one hundred and ten thousand dollars away.”

“Something like that . . . he didn’t even know for sure.  He lost his car, his house, and even his wife.  Even after all this he didn’t snap or show signs of instability, as people would think.  His brother said that he was calm and collected during this time and showed a desire to improve.  Eventually, his brother and ex-wife decided to help him get into rehab.  He was in this for about a year.  He seemed to improve.  While he was in rehab he would occasionally go shooting with his brother.  His brother was impressed by his improvement.  During this time, he didn’t gamble and seemed to of been cured.  As near as I can tell everyone felt his gambling problem was over.”

“I don’t know . . . that doesn’t sound like a violent person to me.”

“It isn’t!  This is not about a violent person nor is it about violence.  That’s what no one understands.  Its actually a problem that eventually happened to involve violence, not as a motive or drive but incidentally, as if by accident.”

“You’re telling me that there is no violent tendencies in this case?  I find that hard to believe.”

“I had a difficult understanding too, at least at first, but as I looked at it as a whole it all started to make sense.”

“So this is a case of a non-violent violent person . . . I wonder how the courts will view that?”

“Who knows?  More than likely he will be viewed in a sinister way.  Something tells me that he is not going to any understanding.”

“And the media . . . I wonder how they will portray it?  It can’t be good.”

“All I know is what I heard from him.  One day, he went shopping in one of those mini-marts.  There were a few slot machines in the corner.  He felt that it wouldn’t hurt to put some money in.  He said he ended up being there for about two hours . . . lost several hundred bucks.”

“So he got hooked again?”

“Eventually . . . that is, over time.  It didn’t come at once.  It was bit by bit and, several months later, he was gambling daily.”

“Didn’t anyone notice?  They could of got him back to rehab.  Maybe his brother . . .”

“No, no!  He gambled secretly.  No one knew, not even his brother.  At least, his brother claims that he never suspected it.  He said that from what he saw of his brother he seemed cured.  He was stunned to find that he was gambling so much.”

“Yeah, when people hide their addiction then its always a bad sign . . .”

“And so it is.  It did get bad.  It seemed to consume him, dominate him.  He became a slave to his addiction to gambling.  Soon he was selling all that he had, his car, various belongings, his new house.  Thousands and thousands he gambled away.  He made some, lost some.  This went on for months.  He says that he still doesn’t know how he survived during that time.”

“It still amazes me that people can get that out of control.”

“Then one day, he realized all his money was drained.  There was nothing left to gamble.  He claims that he felt as if he was uprooted and detached from life.  The world seemed to be a million miles away even though it was right there in front of him.  He felt as if there was a big wall between the world and him, as if nothing connected him with life.  He said it was a horrible feeling, one of the worst in his life.”

“I guess that makes sense.”

“And then he was rummaging through the small amount of possessions he had and found his gun.  At first he didn’t think anything of it except that, maybe he could sell it to get some money but later in the day the thought came to him, of shooting and the thought of shooting people flashed through his mind.  He said that it was still a thought in the back of his mind and he didn’t think much about it.  Luckily, he was able to get some money from his brother and some relatives.  They would give him the money on condition that he didn’t gamble it away and use it to get back on his feet.  He agreed and did just that.  He got an apartment, bought an old car, got a job stocking shelves and seemed to be on his way to recovery.  He started to feel good about himself and thought about going shooting with his brother again . . . he enjoyed it so much.  They did go shooting and had a good time.  He loved to shoot so much that he started to go to the shooting range on his own everyday.  Soon he was using all his money to go buy ammunition.  Then he thought about getting another gun, a pistol.  Then he wanted a rifle.  Then he wanted an assault rifle.  After about a year and a half he had four hand guns, three rifles, and four assault rifles.  He went shooting again and again.  First at the range, then out in the desert.  He said that it was in the desert, all by himself, that he began to really think about shooting people, even to the point of making cardboard cutouts of people to shoot at.  He said that the idea consumed him.  He couldn’t wait to go out to the desert and shoot those cardboard images.  He thought it was ‘therapeutic’ and it seemed to help him calm down.  It was his way of venting I guess.  When he went back home after shooting he said he was calm and relaxed.  Not only that, he found that if he felt nervous or stressed he’d just go out shooting and it would relax him.  Shooting eventually became a big part of his life.”

“So shooting just overwhelmed him one day?”

“No, not exactly.  Personally, I think it was, as he said, ‘therapeutic’ and it did help him and probably would of continued to do so but something happened.  One day, he happened to pass the casino and had to go to the bathroom so he walked in.  He saw the gambling table.  He thought it wouldn’t be a big deal if he gambled a few bucks.  But, soon, it went into the hundreds, then thousands of dollars.  He went back for several days thinking he would win the money back.  Eventually, he lost it all again and he felt dejected, a failure.  I think this was the turning point.  Back at his place he looked at what was left of his possessions and wondered what to do.  A thought came to his mind, to sell the guns.  He went to the closet and pulled them out.  He grabbed an assault rifle and held it in his hand.  He says that it felt good in his hands.  He felt in control.  He wanted to go shooting.  There he was in control . . . he could hit the targets.  He lifted it up as if to point at a target.  He pretended to fire.  Then he pretended to fire again and again.  It gave him such joy and relief, but there was something missing.  He said to himself, ‘I’m not shooting at anything . . . I got to shoot something.’  The next thing he knew he was putting the ammunition in a backpack and grabbing three of his assault rifles.  As he was walking out the door and down the hall he realized that he could not go to the desert as he now had no car.  The next thing he knew he was walking up the stairway.  Up and up he went to the roof.  He looked out over the ledge to all the people in the streets.  He told me that he had to start shooting at the targets.  It was the only way to feel good and to feel in control.  After all, he said, it was ‘therapeutic’.  He told me that, at that time, he thought it would help him.  He also told me that it never occurred to him that these are real people.  He said that, as he was shooting, he felt that he was shooting those cardboard images.”

“So he was not motivated out of a desire to kill?”

“That’s how it seems.  He chuckled when he told me that, when he first heard the sirens of the police cars coming, he actually looked around wondering what was going on.  He thought that an accident had happened somewhere.  He even stopped shooting and walked around the perimeter of the roof to see if he could find it.”

“That was the delay the police talked about when they arrived?”

“Yes.  He saw all the police cars parked down the street and assumed there was a robbery or something that he couldn’t see.  Eventually, he looked down and saw more of the ‘cardboard figures’ – that was the expression he told me – and started shooting.  He said he felt such a relief as he shot, as if a great weight was being lifted off his shoulders.  He said he didn’t want it to stop and he could of done it forever.  I remember what he said, ‘the control I felt when the cardboard figures fell . . . I was somebody and in control of my life.  You can’t buy that with money’.”

“But he was stopped, thank God.”

“What was it, thirteen minutes?  Wasn’t that how long it lasted from his first shot to when they stormed the roof?”

“It may of been eighteen.”

“The police eventually made it to the roof and opened the door and walked right out . . .”

“You mean, he didn’t even lock it or barricade it?”

“You got to remember that, in his mind, he was shooting cardboard images, not massacring people.  He never dreamed the police would come up.  And that’s exactly what he said too.  When he heard the door slam open it startled him so much that he dropped his assault rifle.  He looked up and saw about thirty police officers aiming their gun at him telling him to put his hands up.”

“They said that he was startled and said, what was it . . .?”

“He said, ‘What is this all about?’ as if he hadn’t done anything.”

“Officer Ruskin’s said that, as they approached him and threw him on the ground, handcuffed and searched him, he was yelling ‘What’s going on? What’s going on?’ and ‘You have the wrong guy’.   He even said, ‘I didn’t do anything’.  He said that he acted as if he was completely innocent, as if he hadn’t hurt a fly.  He seemed oblivious to it all.”

“That’s basically what he said to me as well.  He was stunned by it and felt the police had the wrong person.  In his eye, at least at that moment, he hadn’t done anything wrong.  To use his words, ‘I was only shooting cardboard images, what’s wrong with that?’  He even told me that, as they were walking him away, he was thinking about a lawsuit and fantasizing about all the money he might get and then he could go gambling again.”

“The man’s out of his mind.”

“Its unlike anything I’ve seen before.  The man seemed rational and sane.  His story didn’t seem insane to me, of a mad man.  Do you know what I think?”

“What?  If he’s not gone mad than what is he?”

“To me, it looks as if we’re dealing with a man who has a problem with obsession.  He’s not mad or insane, he just has a minor mental problem that many people have.  The difference, in this case, is that it went in an unusual,  dramatic, and eventually violent direction.”

“What?  Are you saying that this is a minor problem?  It doesn’t seem minor to me.  A lot of people were killed.”

“You must remember that you’re looking at things after the event happened and, because the event was dramatic you are assuming that the cause is dramatic.  I don’t think it is.  I think he is suffering from a common problem that many people have.  It looks like an obsession.  He got this idea in his head that he had to do something and he had to do it.  First it was gambling.  Second it was shooting.  The difference is that it went in the wrong direction and proved dramatic in the end.  This normally doesn’t happen with this type of problem.”

“It sure seems like there has to be more to it than that.”

“Again, you’re looking at the after effects.  I think the man has an obsession problem.  That’s what this is all about.  It first made its appearance as a gambling addiction.  He went to rehab and tried to stop it but this only as if suppressed it.  Shooting offered another outlet for this obsession.  Its as if the obsession had to come out in any way it could.  In addition, I think shooting became something like a form of venting, of life’s frustrations and the problems his obsession and gambling caused.”

“Your saying that one obsession was replaced by another?”

“Yes, that’s what it seems.  Shooting became the alternate obsession to gambling.  If he had remained a gambling addict none of this would probably of happened.  He even said that shooting was much like gambling.  Every hit was a win and, like gambling, he wanted more and more.  When he lost all his money, and couldn’t gamble anymore, it only spurned the shooting obsession.  Shooting was the only way to win and he needed that.  He eventually went on top of the roof and the rest is history.”

“That’s an interesting story.  Do you think its true?”

“I don’t know.  That’s what I got out of it after talking to him for how long? . . . three, no, four hours.  I’m no expert but that’s what it seems to me.  This whole thing has wiped me out.”

The Police Officer leaned back on his chair and rubbed his eyes, let out a big sigh, and stared emptily into his empty coffee cup.


This story was inspired by some conversations I had with a number of people about the motive for the man who did the mass shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017.  Most people, it seems, wanted all these dramatic explanations, that he was insane, that he was angry because he a lost a lot of money, etc.  I said that this could be true but that, in any case, one must leave open the possibility of the unexpected, or the situation that you’d never think of.  Not everything fits the dramatic image you envision.  I also pointed out that, in some cases, things aren’t as sinister as you’d think they are.  That is, people don’t do violence because they are “angry” or “been abused as a child” and such.  Sometimes, bad things originate from simple everyday things that, for some reason, get out of control and just happen to go down the wrong road.

I wanted to write a story reflecting these qualities and this story came to mind.  I was going to write it as a descriptive story but didn’t want to, as it would take too much time.  I didn’t feel like writing a whole complicated story on it.  I also thought it would be different to do it in a different style, of two guys discussing a case and a policeman stating his opinion about it.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Psychology and psychoanalysis, Short Stories | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the ‘progression of expression’ – aspects of creativity

In a recent conversation I said some interesting things:

I spoke of what I called the ‘progression of expression’.  I first used this point of view as I watched how artists worked when I was younger.  Both me, my brother, and a friend of mine were involved in art so I saw a lot of this.  Later I would find that this point of view also worked in many other forms of expressions, including things like learning and knowledge, intelligence, hobbies, crafts, interpretations of the world, etc.

I should point out that these progressions refers to various forms of creativity.  In other words, the expression I speak of is through creativity.  I generally define creativity as “making something out of nothing”.  My observation, though, is that this is far more rare than it seems . . . “making something out of nothing” isn’t as easy as it sounds.


This progression makes something like a spectrum:

  1. A “copyist” orientation
  2. A style-based orientation
  3. A personal/style orientation
  4. A personal orientation
  5. A creative orientation

1 – A “copyist” orientation

A “copyist” is someone who primarily copies or duplicates existing things.  In this way, they “stand on the shoulders” of other people.  In many cases, all they are doing is “duplicating” something that already exists.  In some respects, its nothing more than imitation.

My observation is that most of what people do is “copy” things.  Many people mistake it for creativity and often consider it “new”, even though its a copy.  A lot of art, knowledge, and so-called intelligence is of this form, believe it or not.

This form, though it appears creative, actually has little creativity involved with it.

2 –  A style-based orientation

Something that is style-based means that any creativity is based on an established style or way of doing something.  In this way, any creativity is based on applying that style, it is under the “control” or dictated by the style.  In this way, all they are doing is something like an “applied style”.  An artist may draw, for example, in the “Marvel style” or “Disney style”, a psychologist may be a “Freudian” or “behaviorist”, etc.

Interestingly, a lot of education is nothing but learning a “style of thinking”.  Once this style is learned or “copied” in ones mind, one uses it as a basis of interpretation.  A medical doctor, for example, will learn to interpret symptoms according to the style the style established by the medical school or hospital, and so on.  Most education, learning, or knowledge is nothing but a form of style one adopts. 

3 – A personal/style orientation

In this orientation people tend to mix an established style with their own personal qualities.  Style is used but its used as a form or medium of personal expression.  In many ways, the person takes a style and “tweaks” it to give it a “personal stamp”.  Typically, it still has qualities of the style but its a little “different”.  This, really, is where creativity starts to truly appear as there are qualities coming from the person.

4 – A personal orientation

In this orientation people create things on a personal basis, reflecting personal tendencies, inclinations, and abilities.  Because its more personal it tends to be unique and “uncommon”.  Because of this, it tends to reflect themselves and may or may not be “appealing” to other people.  As a result, a lot of personal creativity tends to go by unnoticed. 

There seems to be two forms of the personal orientation:

  1. It originates from a style but the personal element as if “usurps” the style making it more personal and unique.
  2. It originates from within the person.

The end result of it all is that it creates a purely personal style.  Accordingly, it is a personal form of expression of the person.

5 – A creative orientation

In this orientation a person purely creates “out of nowhere”.  There is no copying, imitating, and no style.  In some cases, there isn’t any personal style.  In fact, there seems to be two forms:

  1. It comes from within the person, reflecting personal qualities.  This would be like a Van Gogh painting what they felt inside in the form they wanted, for example.
  2. It comes from without the person, often reflecting a condition, reality, or way of life.  This would be like a person in a primitive tribe who paints pictures on a stone wall reflecting spirits or beings that effect his tribe.

To me, to truly be creative means that it originates from without the person, that it is beyond the person.  When a person is this way, I call it “inspiration”.

Its not uncommon that a person often discovers things in this orientation.  This shows its “creative” quality, as things are made or “come out”.  This is creativity in its purist form.  Its not just “made” its “discovered”.

This form tends to be sporadic and occasional.  In other words, it is not something that remains constant.  A person may, for example, be creative for a period of time and then it stops.  Another person may do something creative one day then do something creative the next week.  And another person may not be creative at all.  It seems, to me, that creativity is a reflection of character.  You cannot learn it.  Learning how to do things, though, may develop it and bring it out.  Despite this, it still cannot be learned . . . “if its not in a person then it does not come out”.

This form is not something that you can will to happen . . . “it comes when it comes”.  Many people, who have a streak of creativity, often fall into despair when it fades and they cannot will it to happen again, though they may try again and again.  This can cause particular problems if a person makes a living off of their creativity.  In fact, making a living off of creativity poses particular problems . . . it can’t really be relied upon to be there all the time.  Many people have suffered as a result of this.


These progressions are like a spectrum, with “copyist” on one end and the creative orientation on the other.  Each end of the spectrum reflects unique qualities that are usually opposed to each other:

  • The “copyist” orientation creates familiarity.  The creative orientation is unfamiliar.
  • The “copyist” orientation creates sameness.  The creative orientation causes variety.
  • The “copyist” orientation creates security.  The creative orientation often causes apprehension.
  • The “copyist” orientation tends to be accepted.  The creative orientation tends to not be not accepted.
  • The “copyist” orientation tends to be easy.  The creative orientation tends to be hard.
  • The “copyist” orientation tends to be common.  The creative orientation tends to be uncommon.
  • The “copyist” orientation tends to be social-based.  The creative orientation tends to be personal.

In these ways, we see that the “copyist” style tends to be accepted and has the support of society.  The creative orientation tends to be unique and is not necessarily accepted by society.  What this shows is that what is often called creativity is really nothing but doing things in a socially accepted way.  In other words, a lot of creativity is not creativity at all.

It also shows some interesting aspects of creativity:

  • It is unfamiliar
  • It is not necessarily accepted
  • It is personal
  • It is hard to achieve and establish

In other words, creativity is not the dramatic, impactful, and fancy thing its often portrayed to be.  Its also not as impactful as you’d think.  In fact, my observation is that creativity is often ignored and not acknowledged.  In addition, it is often shunned, suppressed, or prevented from happening.


I call American society the “imitative society”.  This more or less says that we are becoming nothing but a bunch of “copyists” in this society.  In other words, there is a lack of creativity here.  In my opinion, the prevalence of education, schooling, media, internet, books, etc. is probably largely at fault for the decrease in the creative orientation and an increase in the “copyist” mentality.  Even as I talk to people I can see that all most people do is “copy”, imitate, and do what is popular or accepted.  I see an absence of creative tendencies and mentality nowadays.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Education and learning, Imitation and the problems it creates, Inspiration, free association, and intuition, Life in general, Psychology and psychoanalysis | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on how ‘connectivity’ is more important than understanding, knowledge, and truth

Here’s a thought I had:

In the West we are taught that understanding and knowledge are what’s important.  Its what you know, what you understand, etc.  Its as if that’s all that matters.  That is to say, everything is viewed in the context of some form of thought or idea.  When you understand the idea, then it becomes everything, almost as if it were god.  Its as if there’s nothing more to do once you understand it . . . its what life is all about.  As a result, this becomes the focus and orientation in life.  In short, life becomes nothing but the pursuit of an intellectual “truth” which means, of course, that we must know everything under the sun.

To me this point of view seems very empty and shallow.  This is primarily because it is based in word-based things . . . the explanation, and knowing the explanation, becomes the focus . . . its ALL based in words and ideas. I found this over-emphasis on word-based things, such as concepts and ideas, very unfulfilling and unsatisfying.  To me, it seems lacking.  It seems that there must be something “more” to things.  It became clear that what “more” means is going beyond word-based things.  This means that I must seek something beyond concepts and ideas.  Over time, it became clear that what I was seeking is what I began to call ‘connectivity’.  This refers to a deep-seated sense of having a “connection” or “association” with something.  In this way, ‘connectivity’ makes me feel as if I am a part of something and it is a part of me.  This sense takes more than words and idea.  I found that it goes way beyond that and hits into more deeper aspect of ones self.

There are many forms of the “something” that we are “connecting” to.  Some of these include:

  • Life
  • The world
  • Our self
  • An activity
  • An awareness
  • A knowing

So we see that ‘connectivity’ is made up of many things with many forms.  In fact, we could probably say that ‘connectivity’ is a conglomeration of many elements and forms.  That’s its power and what makes its effect so extensive and varied.

In reality, it seems to me, that life is nothing but trying to achieve ‘connectivity’ in its many forms.  In this way, we could call achieving ‘connectivity’ the “great education”.  We could also call ‘connectivity’ the “great truth” of life.  In fact, I would even go on to say that a person does not really “live” until a ‘connectivity’ is achieved.  What does this mean?  It means that ‘connectivity’ is a big part of life to such an extent that it makes up life . . . it is life.  One could very well say that “life is nothing but a continual seeking and maintaining of a ‘connectivity’ with things and life itself”.  To narrow things down to concepts, ideas, concepts, and word-based things is like narrowing life down to a small thing.

Word-based things, though, can create a ‘connectivity’ of sorts.  I often speak of this as ‘relevance’ (see my article “Thoughts on my saying: Truth is relevance”).  This form of ‘connectivity’, being word-based, tends to have minimal impact and tends to be shallow.     Despite this, it can be very influential and can lead a person to a greater ‘connectivity’.  It has a tendency, though, to ‘dress up’ ‘connectivity’ with all this jargon and ideas which can be quite deceptive.  When it does this extensively we tend to forget ‘connectivity’.  With this we can see that there is a tendency where word-based things like ideas tend to make us forget ‘connectivity’ altogether.  As a result, they lose a “sense of life” which causes many problems for people.  In my opinion, the forgetting of ‘connectivity’ is one of the common causes for despair and unhappiness in people.  This is quite prevalent as, in this knowledge and word-based society, there is an all too easy tendency to forget ‘connectivity’.  To complicate this further, when people despair and become unhappy there is a tendency for them to look to word-based things as the solution . . . they want to “understand” what’s going on.  But the problem is that this is what caused the problem to begin with!  The solution they are seeking is actually the cause of the problem.  Because of this, some of the “secrets” of life, at least in my opinion, is to do things such:

  • Do not get too involved with word-based things.  Don’t get too wrapped up in having to understand and know things. 
  • Try to not think or use words too much.
  • Look beyond words and ideas, into the “sense” of life.
  • Focus more on experiences and doing.
  • Be more spontaneous.

The point of all this is to not use excessively, not to rely too heavily on, or become dependent on word-based things.  In short, treat word-based things as a tool in life, not the end or motive of life.  In my opinion, words, concepts, ideas, etc. are not a whole lot of different than a hammer or a pencil and should be treated similarly.

‘Connectivity’ is not made up of just one thing.  It is actually made up of a combination of things:

  • Doing . . . an “active association” – this refers to experience, of doing things
  • Framework . . . an “image” – this refers to an image of the world and how it works and how one fits in it
  • Relevance . . . a “meaning” – this refers to that quality that gives value to things
  • Intuition . . . a “sense” – this refers to that quality of insight that attaches ones self to the world

All these work together to create a sense of ‘connectivity’.  One can see that knowing and understanding – with is part of “framework” – only plays a small role in the matter.  It takes all these things to truly make ‘connectivity’.  One could probably say that the effect of these is that it creates a sense that one has, of being-in-the-world.  One finds oneself as an active participant in the world and with meaning.  It is predominately a sense that is interior, wordless, and without conception.  It is something that just “is”.  This naturally makes it hard to “grasp”.  In a way, the inability to “grasp” it makes ‘connectivity’ an enigma, something we never can quite “get”.  It makes it something we continually seek but never quite find.  This is not a failing but something that is good for in having to continually seek ‘connectivity’ we are, in actually, continually seeking life.  This seeking makes life.

In this way, one could say that “truth” is only found in ‘connectivity’.  This would mean that it is not found in knowing or facts.  Really, once you “know” something what use is it?  OK, so it satisfies your intellectual curiosity . . . now what?  Does it really impact you that much?  Knowing, by itself, seems useless and pointless . . . it needs a whole lot more.

Interestingly, since ‘connectivity’ is primarily a sense it means that “truth” is, in actuality, a sense.  It is not knowing.  It is not an idea.  It is not a statement.  This means that “truth” is not really found in knowing or explaining things.  It is beyond that.  It is wordless.  It is an awareness, the awareness of the sense.

This awareness of the sense requires a number of things such as:

  1. A person must be open to it
  2. A person must be receptive to it

I think that many people never find ‘connectivity’ because they lack one or both of these qualities.  In addition, with a person who relies too much on word-based things there is a tendency where the words as if become a wall preventing these two things from appearing.  In short, being word-based actually hinders ones awareness of the sense.  This is why one doesn’t want to get too involved a word-based orientation.  It shows that there are really two phases in ‘connectivity’:

  1. The sense
  2. The reaction

The sense is the beginning and origin, but the sense tends to instigate a reaction almost automatically.  This is because the sense, by itself, is just a sense and is as if incomplete.  It needs something more.  In some ways, the sense requires a reaction . . . it demands it.  The reaction as if completes the sense.  Its has a quality much like a cause and effect.

The reaction appears in a number of ways, such as:

  • A belief
  • Ideas and conceptions
  • Behavior and actions
  • Emotions
  • Awareness

As one can see, these reactions as if give the sense a validity in the world and in life.   Without the reaction the sense is as if “hanging there” doing nothing.  This shows the need for reaction and why the sense instigates it.  Because of this, the reaction makes up a lot of the “matter” of life.  In other words, most of life actually consists of the reaction and not the sense.  Because of this, we tend to view “life” as these reactions and, accordingly, emphasize them.  One of effect of this, though, is that tendency to forget the sense.  In forgetting the sense ‘connectivity’ is no longer whole and basically fails . .  . everything is now about the reaction and living in the reaction.  We then become lost in the reactions.  When we lose the sense, and ‘connectivity’ is lost, we tend to feel detached and removed from life.  As a result, we often have to remind ourselves of the sense from time to time.  People often do this naturally, at least in some way, but it often can appear in involved and complicated ways.  Some ways the sense is reestablished include:

  • A spirituality
  • Having to “get away”, such as on vacation
  • Various ways of forgetting ones self, even including using alcohol
  • Ways of “getting back to nature”
  • Doing things that one enjoys

In ways, such as these, many people will have, at least, a “sense of the sense”.

Forgetting the sense, in a way, is a tragedy but we all do it. Sadly, a lot of the loss of the sense and ‘connectivity’ is a result of the very thing we think is so good:  intelligence, ideas, knowing, and other word-based fabrications.  These things are important, in their place, but too much has adverse effects.  This is why I often speak of the need to “manage word-based fabrications” and to learn to not get too carried away with them and to not let them make us lose contact with life.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Existence, Awareness, Beingness, Consciousness, Conceptionism, and such, Life in general, Philosophy, Psychology and psychoanalysis | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment