It's sure though that sexuality lays at the foundation of woman hate. What else? They are the different sex. Like we are too.

Yes, that's the thesis of The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Interesting note. — Olivier5

↪Amity Yes. This view is in contrast with Freud's, who frequently spoke of how repressed sexual energy can be turned into socially acceptable creativity and hard work through 'sublimation'. Reich says: "it can also be turned into hatred". He posited that as an explanation for the rise of fascism in the 1920s. I read the book a long time ago and was left unconvinced that Reich 'nailed' it. — Olivier5

The theme is rather current. We have turned sexuality into a means of oppression and the vice of this oppression gives rise to violence. Even J.J. Martin argue that Game of Thrones was built around this theme. There is something peculiar in that line of reasoning though, because the solution is so obvious, release the taboos around sexuality. However, that has never been the case. One of the oldest most universal taboos is the prohibition of incest, a law regulating sexuality. If we take both tendencies seriously we have within ourselves the conflicting desire of regulating sexuality and of releasing it.

I think anthropological research could show us how societies cope with these two opposite demand. Does it have something to do with patriarchal structures? Are the 'means of reproduction' somehow the real 'means of poduction in the Marxist sense? Is sexuality how it is practiced among man somehow conjoined to religious ritual, with a similar root as butying one's dead?

The theme is rather current. We have turned sexuality into a means of oppression and the vice of this oppression gives rise to violence. Even J.J. Martin argue that Game of Thrones was built around this theme. — Tobias

I agree and want to congratulate @EugeneW for bringing it up. The incels do tend to turn their sexual frustration into violence. Now, sexual violence is nothing new, but to murder women out of sexual frustration is NOT something we've seen in the past. It is new, historically, a deeply troubling development. It's a new level of perversion.

Another 'theory' is that of Michel Houellebecq in his Elementary Particles: sexual liberation during the 60's and 70's led to high sexual competition between males, and between females, with the most attractive people screwing all their content and less attractive folks living in eternel sexual misery. Freedom leads to inequality between the haves and the haves not, now applied to sex as well.

The tittle of Houellebecq's first book is also about that: Extension of the Competitive Domain ie an extension of competition from the sphere of production and consumption (under capitalism) into the sphere of reproduction. Like an extension of capitalism to sex.

This theory works well. It explains the nostalgia for some idealised past when young folks were only trying to find a mate for life, and when therefore, while the attractive ones would be taken by similarly attractive persons of the other sex, the less attractive ones could also mate with less attractive persons of the other sex...

Now, in a competitive sex scenario, even the less attractive people have their eyes set on the most attractive people of the other sex, and there lies the problem. The sex game is open (or so they've been led to think) so they want to compete. Note that the incels are obsessed with the most popular girls. They've given a name to them, Karies? They can't let go of them, while in their idealized past, wise unattractive boys would think something more practical eg: "I can't fuck a princess, 'cause they are for the princes, so I'll fuck my less attractive neighbour instead. I'd rather get a paycheck than wait to win the lottery."

If we all want to win the lottery, we'll all end up unhappy and frustrated.

Another 'theory' is that of Houlebeck in his Elementary Particles: sexual liberation during the 60's and 70's led to high sexual competition between males, and between females, with the most attractive people screwing all their content and less attractive folks living in eternel sexual misery. Freedom leads to inequality between the haves and the haves not, now applied to sex as well. — Olivier5

Too deterministic and neo-liberal for my taste. It would only work when there is some objective criterion for attraction and only on the assumption everyone wants the same thing screw around as much as possible. I think there are deeply felt anxieties around sex but not of the sort, "hey, I want to do only a prince or princess". That to me smacks of rationalization. "yeah, I do not have sex but I have too high standards".

I would look to a sociological explanation. Sexuality, like many other walks of life have become gamified, framed as competition and considered markers of success. The current anxiety around sexuality is not very different from the anxiety around having the best education, the highest grades, the best most earning job etc. The law of competition is a man made law, not a given

I would look to a sociological explanation. Sexuality, like many other walks of life have become gamified, framed as competition and considered markers of success. The current anxiety around sexuality is not very different from the anxiety around having the best education, the highest grades, the best most earning job etc. The law of competition is a man made law, not a given — Tobias

Yes, but that's pretty much how Houellebecq phrases it. He would agree with all that.

It would only work when there is some objective criterion for attraction and only on the assumption everyone wants the same thing screw around as much as possible. — Tobias

Isn't this precisely the problem? Incels totally internalize the gaming pressure AND the rules saying which kinda girl/boy is popular and hence likeable by all, and which type of girls/boys is NOT popular hence NOT likeable by all. There's such a thing as a 'canon of beauty', everywhere, but they sacralized it. They carved it into the bloody stone that their brain is made of.

I didn't realise incels now classify a rejection as a reverse rape. Makes me really glad these people get rejected and fail to procreate.

Isn't this precisely the problem? They totally internalize the gaming pressure AND the rules saying which kinda girl/boy is popular and hence likeable by all, and which type of girls/boys is NOT popular hence NOT likeable by all. There's such a thing as a 'canon of beauty', everywhere, but they sacralized it. They carve it into the bloody stone that their brain is made of. — Olivier5

Yes I would agree, though I would not blame their brains. I would point to the societal forces feeding them this kind of morality. It is the story of our age.

I would not blame their brains. I would point to the societal forces feeding them this kind of morality. It is the story of our age. — Tobias

Oxford philosopher Amia Srinivasan has written about this:
https://www.anothermag.com/design-living/13510/the-right-to-sex-how-amia-srinivasan-wrote-the-most-divisive-book-of-2021

Yes. The US can be a tough place.

Oxford philosopher Amia Srinivasan has written about this: — Olivier5

Thanks for the resource!

You're welcome. What I wrote here is influenced by her.

Finding a convincing explanation for the historical rise of fascism is an important task, still unfinished I think. — Olivier5

:fire: that is something I have been fascinated by in recent years. I have researched it a lot and have come to the same conclusion. There are some good theories, but recent events have put some of them into question.

Another 'theory' is that of Michel Houellebecq in his Elementary Particles: sexual liberation during the 60's and 70's led to high sexual competition between males, and between females, with the most attractive people screwing all their content and less attractive folks living in eternel sexual misery. Freedom leads to inequality between the haves and the haves not, now applied to sex as well.

The tittle of Houellebecq's first book is also about that: Extension of the Competitive Domain ie an extension of competition from the sphere of production and consumption (under capitalism) into the sphere of reproduction. Like an extension of capitalism to sex. — Olivier5

:up: Elementary Particles was quite good. Sex is like money: some people have a lot of it, most people have some but nothing to brag about, and some don't have any.

But that's about where the similarities end, since nobody deserves sex like how they deserve money (or the means to afford life requirements)

Sex is like money: some people have a lot of it, most people have some but nothing to brag about, and some don't have any. — _db

Except that sex gets stale, money does not.

Finding a convincing explanation for the historical rise of fascism is an important task, still unfinished I think.
— Olivier5

:fire: that is something I have been fascinated by in recent years. I have researched it a lot and have come to the same conclusion. There are some good theories, but recent events have put some of them into question. — _db

What are the theories and how does the current situation make you question them?

I agree it's a fascination. Fascism and would-be dictators, the prevention of.
Is it possible?
Another discussion, perhaps. But in the meantime...

***

What are the characteristics of a dictatorship or someone who aspires to such?

A dictatorship is a government system that concentrates all power in a single person or group , who exercises absolute control by force or fraud, without respecting democratic constitutional principles and repressing individual freedoms .

The main types of dictatorships are:
1/4 Authoritarian:
Authoritarian leaders often come to power through democratic elections and, during their tenure, use force or fraud to perpetuate themselves in power, restrict civil liberties, and view any confrontation as an act of conspiracy...

Some examples of dictatorships throughout world history are:

The totalitarian dictatorship of Adolf Hitler in Germany , from 1933 to 1945.
The dictatorship of Francisco Franco in Spain , from 1939 to 1975.
The fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini in Italy , from 1943 to 1945.
The totalitarian dictatorship in the People’s Republic of China , from 1949 to the present.
The totalitarian dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile , from 1973 to 1990.
The military dictatorship in Argentina , from 1976 to 1983. — Types and Characteristics of Dictatorship with Examples

So, given a short-list we should be able to connect the dots, no?
What attributes do they have in common? What immediately stands out?
What about drawing a Venn diagram...
I haven't analysed any of the above but my feeling is:

It's about maintenance of perpetual power by a certain kind of regressive, repressive male, no?
I know that's a simplification but a useful start to another necessary discussion, perhaps...

It's about maintenance of perpetual power by a certain kind of regressive, repressive male, no? — Amity

Yes. I wonder which way round the explanation goes. I mean, do men get the opportunity to be nasty because they have power or do they maintain power on account of being already nasty? Well, both, probably. In a matriarchal society would women end up being the nasty ones on account of having power or would the world be kinder on account of women being in charge?

In a matriarchal society would women end up being the nasty ones on account of having power or would the world be kinder on account of women being in charge? — Cuthbert

Good question.
We could look at where in the world women currently have power, or have had power as a leader.
How did their countries and people fare? Well, bad, better, worse...what are the criteria?

Thatcher in the UK was a bit of a bitch with her:
"There's no such thing as society".

Perhaps the problem lies more in only having one charismatic leader whose power goes to their head.
Would a woman be more cooperative and listen...take note...and then do what the hell she liked?

Do women in charge tend to want progress and growth...?
Are they more open to reason? Some would say that females are too emotional to lead...

Do they not even recognise the emotions that men have?
Fear and desire prime motivators for all...

Is there a female leader you admire? And why?

Is there a female leader you admire? And why? — Amity

I was a fan of Merkel, but not because she was a women. Because she a regular nice bloke, cautious, smart, not an asshole.

Is there a female leader you admire? And why? — Amity

There are many, but I would also say 'leadership' includes a lot of roles that do not include political power. There was (perhaps still is) a view that Thatcher was a token woman who acted as a stooge in a prevailing patriarchy and who internalised the surrounding culture of male aggression. Well, OK, I can see that. But there is a danger in this view of denying womanhood to any woman who transgresses stereotypical expectations of the feminine. At least, that was how the debate went in English pubs in 1983 and I suppose that is not the end of the matter.

:up: Elementary Particles was quite good. Sex is like money: some people have a lot of it, most people have some but nothing to brag about, and some don't have any.

But that's about where the similarities end, since nobody deserves sex like how they deserve money (or the means to afford life requirements) — _db

I think that is the root of the problem. We have come to compare everything to money.

It's about maintenance of perpetual power by a certain kind of regressive, repressive male, no?
I know that's a simplification but a useful start to another necessary discussion, perhaps... — Amity

Yes. I wonder which way round the explanation goes. I mean, do men get the opportunity to be nasty because they have power or do they maintain power on account of being already nasty? Well, both, probably. In a matriarchal society would women end up being the nasty ones on account of having power or would the world be kinder on account of women being in charge? — Cuthbert

Well, it raises a lot of very thorny questions and none of the conclusions seem especially agreeable to either sex. First of all, who teaches the aggressive (rather than regressive) repressive male? Or are males somehow by nature bound to be aggressive and repressive and is it best to keep them under perpetual surveillance? If it is somehow a natural defect in males, is it then far fetched to hypothesize that females have some natural traits that cause them to become more easily attracted to a certain class of men?

Secondly, if it is cultural: where does machismo come from? It is a cultural trait perpetuated in a patriarchal society, but as the advantage men have over women due to superior physical strength (in terms of 'bursts' of strength, not tenacity or fitness in general as women love long than men and if the sport emphasizes durability fmelae bodies tend to outplay men's at some point) dwindles, so too should the advantage in terms of societal power. It would make the authoritarian male a species on the verge of extinction.

There are indications however that it is not very clear cut. Feminist criminologists hypothesized that crime rates of women would come to resemble men's. That has not happened.

My hypthesis is that there is a system of 'subterranean norms' squarely in place that keeps the existing structures of dominance and power alive. Both men and women keep them intact. These norms which are perpetuated in everyday conversation, on television, in movies, on school playground and on university campuses and tell us that having a sexually attractive man or women as a partner is superior to having a bright or witty one. From Lady Chatterly's lover to Material Girl by Madonna and from James Bond Maria Magdalen, the sexual always trumps the intellectual. That is no complaint, just an analysis. You and I, all of us, perpetuate these subterranean norms. 'Officially' though we all argue against them and tell ourselves but especially others we all want a partner that is intelligent, smart and kind.

Secondly, if it is cultural: where does machismo come from? It is a cultural trait perpetuated in a patriarchal society, but as the advantage men have over women due to superior physical strength (in terms of 'bursts' of strength, not tenacity or fitness in general as women love long than men and if the sport emphasizes durability fmelae bodies tend to outplay men's at some point) dwindles, so too should the advantage in terms of societal power. It would make the authoritarian male a species on the verge of extinction. — Tobias

I used to think exactly that but I have gradually become less convinced that extinction or even dwindling are anywhere near.

We’re scared. We don’t want to mention it, because it’s kind of a bummer, chat-wise and we’d really like to talk about stuff that makes us happy, like look at our daughters – and we can’t help but think, “Which one of us? And When?” We walk down the street at night with out keys clutched between our fingers, as a weapon. — Caitlin Moran, What Men Need To Know About Women, 2016

That was 2016 - then Me Too, then Sarah Everard. The expression of fear is getting more confident but I don't see the fear getting any less, because of the 'subterranean norms' and everyday sexism.

As any woman will tell you, men don't have a monopoly on being nasty.

This dynamic is also breaking up in modern culture, hence we see the reaction of both women and men on the extreme ends aggressively enforcing against or for the dynamic.

It's the reason we have this toxic male incel culture of dividing up men in Chads, Sigmas Alphas etc. It's a way for them to cope with the reality that the traditional dynamic has broken down and it doesn't work to "just be a man" anymore, you have to naturally fit the narrative of the dynamic, otherwise, you're an outsider and women will see you as an outsider, excluding you from this dynamic.

Basically, people have realized that this dynamic is bullshit (outdated) and doesn't include the complexity of gender relations as it exists today. So people who aren't capable of accepting (either mentally or unwillingly) this new status quo, rebel against it and tries to build a new narrative that incorporates new simplified explanations for this complexity.

In doing so, the exclusion from this complexity means they are also excluding themselves since they gravitate towards the old dynamic more and therefore men more openly show hate towards women today.

This also generates a counter-act from women, who has found liberation in this new complexity and want to defend it. Some so extreme that it becomes a counter-culture towards that incel culture. They start to hate men because they view everyone man as promoting the old dynamic.

In some Hegelian manner, all of this will synthesize through generations. We have two extreme thesis and antithesis sides that will eventually synthesize into the complexity they are pro or opposed to. We're almost seeing it in new generations of kids growing up, gender relations aren't as toxic outside those outliers growing up with older men and women who are teaching them to be toxic.

I used to think exactly that but I have gradually become less convinced that extinction or even dwindling are anywhere near. — Cuthbert

I agree but what would be the causes for that?

That was 2016 - then Me Too, then Sarah Everard. The expression of fear is getting more confident but I don't see the fear getting any less, because of the 'subterranean norms' and everyday sexism. — Cuthbert

I agree with this too. I do not think there are subterranean norms idealizing sexual violence between strangers. That is generally loathed upon I intuit. However, our society portrays the norm that if you want something you should come and get it, that success is a choice and that if you just want it hard enough success will be there for you. That mentality I consider to be spilling over to the gender relations as well. I just googled around a bit and found this plethora of videos telling us guys how to set up the ideal dating site profile that will get us the match we want. It is sad, everyone trying to be unique in exactly the same way. Authenticity stylized. This kind of commodification of love brings forth the appeal to 'distributive justice'. If love is a matter of goods, why would I have less of a right to them then you?

I just googled around a bit and found this plethora of videos telling us guys how to set up the ideal dating site profile that will get us the match we want. — Tobias

Oh oh... Now you'll be bombarded forever with ads from dating consultants and firms, telling you how you are doing it all wrong.

I get them. Because I did a similar search.

I haven't hit on a woman for the past 20 years, and prior to that I did it three times in my entire life. But now I can't go on Youtube without this c..t in an advertisement, telling me how I am doing it all wrong... Hey, I'm not doing anything.

I don't have any particular point to make by posting this graph, but I think it's interesting.

I am so very sorry for what you have endured as the result of another's personal choice.
I mean nothing more and nothing less than to let you know that my heart aches for you. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Thank you, you are very kind. Honestly I failed her, but yes, in the end it was her choice.

I don't know your circumstances but I reckon you're one of the brave guys. — Amity

It seemed more like self-preservation at the time. Nothing brave at all there.

Note: this is out of topic so mods, feel free to delete or reposition.

There are some good theories, but recent events have put some of them into question. — _db

That was intriguing. My current hypothesis goes from Darwin to the death of God and the triumph of materialism over humanism. IOW, I lean to a philosophical explanation along the lines of Camus in Letters to a German Friend:



We have long believed together that this world had no higher reason and that we were frustrated. I still believe that in a way. But I drew other conclusions than those of which you spoke then and which, for so many years, you have been trying to force into history. [•••]

You have never believed in the meaning of this world and you have taken from it the idea that everything was equivalent and that good and evil could be defined as one wished. You assumed that in the absence of any human or divine morality the only values ​​were those which governed the animal world, that is to say violence and cunning. You concluded from this that man was nothing and that one could kill his soul, that in the most insane of stories the task of an individual could only be the adventure of power, and his morality, the realism of conquest. And in truth, I who thought I thought like you, I saw hardly any argument to oppose you, if not a violent taste for justice which, in the end, seemed to me as unreasonable as the most sudden of passions.

Where was the difference? It's that you accepted to despair slightly and that I never consented to it. It is that you admit enough of the injustice of our condition to resolve to add to it, while it seemed to me on the contrary that man had to affirm justice to fight against eternal injustice, to create happiness to protest against the universe of misfortune. Because you have turned your despair into intoxication, because you have freed yourself from it by erecting it into a principle, you have agreed to destroy the works of man and to fight against him, to complete his essential misery. And I, refusing to admit this despair and this tortured world, I only wanted men to rediscover their solidarity in order to enter into a struggle against their revolting destiny.

You see, from the same principle we have drawn different morals. It's because along the way you abandoned lucidity and found it more convenient (you would have said indifferent) for someone else to think for you and for millions of Germans. Because you were tired of struggling against the sky, you rested in this exhausting adventure where your task is to maim souls and destroy the earth. In short, you have chosen injustice, you have placed yourself with the gods. Your logic was only apparent.

I chose justice on the contrary, to remain faithful to the earth. I continue to believe that this world has no higher meaning. But I know that something in it has meaning and it is man, because he is the only being who demands to have it. This world has at least the truth of man and our task is to give him his reasons against fate itself. And it has no other reasons than man and it is he who must be saved if we want to save the idea we have of life. Your smile and your disdain will tell me: what is it to save man? But I shout it to you: it's not to mutilate him, and it's to give a chance to this justice that he is the only one to conceive!

This is why we are in struggle. This is why we had to follow you first in a path that we did not want and at the end of which we, in the end, found defeat. Because your despair was your strength. From the moment it is alone, pure, sure of itself, pitiless in its consequences, despair has a merciless power. It's the one that crushed us while we hesitated and still had a look at happy images. We thought that happiness was the greatest of conquests, the one we make against the destiny that is imposed on us. Even in defeat, this regret [for happiness] did not leave us.

But you played better, you made history. And for five years, it was no longer possible to enjoy the cries of birds in the cool of the evening. We had to desperately despair. We were separated from the world, because at each moment of the world was attached a whole people of mortal images. For five years there has been no morning on this earth without agonies, evening without prisons, noon without carnage. Yes, we had to follow you. But our difficult feat was to follow you into war, and not to forget happiness. And through the clamor and the violence, we tried to keep in our hearts the memory of a happy sea, of a hill never forgotten, the smile of a dear face. Just as well, it was our best weapon, the one we will never lower. Because the day we lose it, we will be as dead as you. Simply, we now know that the weapons of happiness require a lot of time and too much blood to be forged.

We had to enter into your philosophy, agree to resemble you a little. You had chosen heroism without direction, because it is the only value that remains in a world that has lost its meaning. And having chosen it for you, you have chosen it for everyone and for us. We were forced to imitate you in order not to die. But we saw then that our superiority over you was to have a direction. Now that this is going to end, we can tell you what we have learned is that heroism is little, happiness more difficult.

Now everything should be clear to you, you know we are enemies. You are the man of injustice and there is nothing in the world that my heart can hate as much. But what was only a passion, I now know the reasons for. I fight you because your logic is as criminal as your heart. And in the horror that you have lavished on us for four years, your reason has as much a part as your instinct. This is why my condemnation will be total, you are already dead in my eyes. But at the very time when I judge your atrocious behavior, I will remember that you and we started from the same solitude, that you and we are with all of Europe in the same tragedy of intelligence. And in spite of yourselves, I will keep the name of man for you. To be faithful to our faith, we are forced to respect in you what you do not respect in others. For a long time, this was your huge advantage since you kill more easily than us. And until the end of time, it will benefit those like you. But until the end of time, we, who are not like you, will have to bear witness so that man, above his worst errors, may receive his justification and his titles of innocence. [•••]

This advantage you had over us, you see that you continue to have it. But it also makes our superiority. And it is it who now makes this night light for me. Here is our strength which is to think like you on the depth of the world, to refuse nothing of the drama which is ours, but at the same time to have saved the idea of ​​​​man at the end of this disaster of intelligence and to draw from it the indefatigable courage of rebirths. Certainly, the accusation that we bring against the world is not lightened. We have paid too dearly for this new science for our condition to cease to seem hopeless to us. Hundreds of thousands of men murdered at daybreak, the terrible prison walls, a Europe whose earth is smoking with millions of corpses which were its children, it took all of that to pay for the acquisition of a couple of shades that may serve no purpose other than helping a few of us die better. Yes, this is hopeless. But we have to prove that we don't deserve so much injustice. This is the task.


https://livre1.com/lis/lettres-a-un-ami-allemand/chapitre-1/

It seemed more like self-preservation at the time. Nothing brave at all there. — Olivier5

Self-preservation necessarily comes first so that difficult and brave choices can be made.
To take time to assess the dangers; real and potential for all concerned.
Self-preservation means you live on. Your girlfriend didn't. Is that why you say you failed her?

It seems to me that you had to choose to protect your own mental/physical health and emotional wellbeing knowing that you would have to live with the consequences.
Her suicide, the guilt, the memories, the emotional or psychological scarring.
That takes courage.

... it is meant to scar others permanently. And it does. The suicide of a loved one is not something one can forget. — Olivier5

I hope you had and still have support from family, friends or any other caring and good listener...
:sparkle: