Feminism, if not infiltrated has without doubt become infected by the same strains of pathology as any other ideology or belief that has the seeds of truth within it and thus a threat to the Pathocracy. Nowhere is this more evident than in its response to the many dissenters of the new feminism that was riding the wave of acceptance in the early seventies.
One antidote which provided plenty of vitriolic critique came from Argentine-German Esther Vilar whose book: The Manipulated Man made plenty of fresh-faced feminists even more apoplectic with rage and shock. Rather than white, middle-class women being the object of oppression and exploitation Vilar claims that the reverse is true – it is women who employ a sophisticated mixture of emotional manipulation, blackmail and psycho-strategy to gain the upper hand in a relationship of which most men are not aware. Some of the strategies she believes women use include luring men with sex and specific seduction strategies; using praise to control men administered at optimal moments for maximum effect and the use of love and romance to mask real intentions.
Though it might seem obvious now, it was heretical stuff and mightily controversial at the time. As regards men in contemporary society, Vilar listed some of the disadvantages she saw for men compared to women:
- Men are conscripted; women are not.
- Men are sent to fight in wars; women are not.
- Men retire later than women (even though, due to their lower life-expectancy, they should have the right to retire earlier).
- Men have almost no influence over their reproduction (for males, there is neither a pill nor abortion — they can only get the children women want them to have).
- Men support women; women never, or only temporarily, support men.
- Men work all their lives; women work only temporarily or not at all.
- Even though men work all their lives, and women work only temporarily or not at all, on average, men are poorer than women.
- Men only “borrow” their children; women can keep them (as men work all their lives and women do not, men are automatically robbed of their children in cases of separation — with the reasoning that they have to work). 
Vilar’s book certainly caused a veritable storm of indignant protest in its day, mostly from feminists. Admittedly, even by today’s standards decrying all women as essentially “bitches” and “stupid” is as extreme as generalising that all men are chauvinist thugs. This serves only to polarise gender issues rather than offer progressive understanding. It is an extreme book by anyone’s standards, not least the reaction it caused including death threats and the most abject vitriol that understandably took Vilar by surprise. However, not only did the book provide a counterpoint to the unassailable feminist movement as a whole, it also acted as a mirror for narcissistic feminists and their unfortunate trajectory. It certainly got people talking and allowing more moderate versions of Vilar’s critique to emerge.
Regardless of the psychological reasons for writing such a work, in her 1998 preface to the new edition she stated:
As absurd as it may sound, today’s men need feminism much more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their instincts. Therefore the most aggressive Women’s Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else. Without arrogant accusations, the macho man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press stylise men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this ‘men’s society’, men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently.
So I hadn’t imagined broadly enough the isolation I would find myself in after writing this book. Nor had I envisaged the consequences which it would have for subsequent writing and even for my private life — violent threats have not ceased to this date. A woman who defended the arch-enemy — who didn’t equate domestic life with solitary confinement and who described the company of young children as a pleasure, not a burden — necessarily had to become a ‘misogynist’, even a ‘reactionary’ and ‘fascist’ in the eyes of the public. [Emphasis mine]
Though conveniently brushing aside her tendency to reduce issues down to simplistic, hackneyed white-washing she nevertheless raises important points in the above. Is a woman allowed to be all the things that feminism seems to squash? Or have we indeed arrived at a strange point where much of feminism in the modern Western world is unyielding to the point that it has indeed become another belief without the ability to evolve? It certainly seems that way.
Though economic shifts have played an enormous part in twisting the gender roles, of far more importance is the effects of an anti-human world on our core selves. In post-modern societies of cynical materialism and fake spirituality everything is filtered through this narcissistic façade where the perfection of the body is sought for and according to the whims of advertising, fashion and the stale clichés of male and female stereotypes. The effects of this on women are processed differently.
Studies show that emotional intelligence or a social cognition is higher in women with logical/mathematical intelligence and IQ tests persistently higher for men.  Does that mean women are more stupid? Absolutely not. Knee-jerk reactions from academics and media commentators feed into preconceived definitions of what it means to be male and female, each grinding their respective axes on the wet-stones of their own visions of emancipation.
In the same way, recent studies have confirmed the obvious assertions (obvious accept to the financiers of this research) that when either sex shows more flesh they are considered less intelligent. Once again, for both sexes it is the body and the mind as separate entities just like the functioning of male and female that promotes erroneous conclusions:
The new research suggests we see others as having two aspects of the mind – called agency and experience. Agency is the capacity to act, plan and exert self-control, while experience is the capacity to feel pain, pleasure and emotions. Interestingly, the amount of skin shown can determine if we see another as one of ‘experience’ or ‘agency’. During the study, men and women who focused on the body regarded that person as ‘experience’ with little capacity to plan and act. Professor Gray suggested this was because people automatically think of minds and bodies as separate things, even opposites. The capacity to act is more often tied to the ‘mind’ while experience is linked to the body.”
Could it have anything to do with the strictly rationalist and reductionist brand of science still holding sway in the halls of academia? 
The above findings says much about our conditioned learning that sees mind and body as separate rather than a holistic system. This also explains why both sexes are trapped in their respective mirrors. If showing more skin immediately equates women with the “experiencer” label and man with “agency” this not only confirms how disconnected we have become from our natural bodily state but a culture that glorifies commodity and quantity over quality and substance. It is little wonder that women will be placed in the “bimbo” with “little capacity to plan and act” while feeling “pain pleasure and emotions,” and thus “sexually available”. Conversely, men will automatically confirm the sporty, alpha male as well as being sexually available rather than the sensitive, “touchy-feely” type.
With the onset of largely iconic gay influences which have helped to encourage the uniform brand of gym-bodies in the last several years, this describes the upward curve of narcissism and vanity rather than health and fitness based on useful service to others. More gender clichés are served up for consumption from a technophilic society keen to keep it that way.
If women are suffering inside from a battery of historical and feminist led modern influences then men’s role as an emotionless robot with pectorals bigger than his porn-rag fantasy and the excess feminisation that produces the little boy syndrome unable to do anything but watch TV and play video games is directly related. But both sexes have been responsible for its continued fixation as they try on new ways of viewing their relative positions without awareness of natural predispositions.
For instance, women’s beauty is both a complex mix of power and pariah. Naomi Wolf illustrates on the one hand, the relentless push to find love and appreciation from readily available masks which women have donned as much for competition with other females as the goal of material acquisition which drives some men’s ambition. She explains:
Whatever is deeply, essentially female — the life in a woman’s expression, the feel of her flesh, the shape of her breasts, the transformations after childbirth of her skin–is being reclassified as ugly, and ugliness as disease. […] At least a third of a woman’s life is marked with aging; about a third of her body is made of fat. Both symbols are being transformed into operable condition–so that women will only feel healthy if we are two thirds of the women we could be. How can an ‘ideal’ be about women if it is defined as how much of a female sexual characteristic does not exist on the woman’s body, and how much of a female life does not show on her face?” 
When men respond to the facade it often acts as a mirror of his narrowing values and lack of authenticity. Or in the words of H.L. Mencken, he has been directed to worship “the libido for the ugly” and take this as reality. Wolf comments: “What becomes of a man who acquires a beautiful woman, with her “beauty” his sole target? He sabotages himself. He has gained no friend, no ally, no mutual trust: She knows quite well why she has been chosen. He has succeeded in buying something: the esteem of other men who find such an acquisition impressive.”
Despite Wolf’s assertions in her writings that this is all about men oppressing women the truth is somewhat more complex which should become evident as we continue. And let’s not pretend that women do not do exactly the same by setting the “trap” for such mutually satisfactory contracts while claiming innocence. Nonetheless, it is little wonder that women are still seen as sexual objects when relationships at both ends of the spectrum are determined by sex as “fast food” trail-blazed by the mainstreaming of pornography and online dating.
Again, do women really want to be “equal” when that equality is dysfunctional at the outset?
Wolf reverses the male objectification:
Women could probably be trained quite easily to see men first as sexual things. If girls never experienced sexual violence; if a girl’s only window on male sexuality were a stream of easily available, well-lit, cheap images of boys slightly older than herself, in their late teens, smiling encouragingly and revealing cuddly erect penises the color of roses or mocha, she might well look at, masturbate to, and, as an adult, “need” beauty pornography based on the bodies of men. And if those initiating penises were represented to the girl as pneumatically erectible, swerving neither left nor right, tasting of cinnamon or forest berries, innocent of random hairs, and ever ready; if they were presented alongside their measurements, length, and circumference to the quarter inch; if they seemed to be available to her with no troublesome personality attached; if her sweet pleasure seemed to be the only reason for them to exist–then a real young man would probably approach the young woman’s bed with, to say the least, a failing heart.” 
And such a “training” for the young woman has already been taking place for many years. “Failing hearts” are occurring in both men and women though expressed differently. Sure, the above sexual objectification occurs on a daily basis. But let’s not forget the same toxic effects from the narcissistic arsenal of damaged women who objectify men through manipulation and dangerous emotional games which have nothing to do with appearance but everything to do with a deeper imperative, whether it be the biological urge for birthing or the need to have emotional control., the effects of which can be highly toxic in both marriage and partnership. But because the “fairer sex” are historically “oppressed” then it cannot be possible that covert forms of female induced oppression against the male exist…
What remains true is that our identity – whether we are gay, lesbian, straight, bi or transgender – is under attack from social engineering where movements become progressively hollowed out by pathological individuals who corrupt the purity of intent and replace it with a counterfeit version – a form of psycho-subversion, if you will. It is truly a “group-think” which derives its energy from an Orwellian “double think” where paramoralisms and paralogic reign supreme. (You’ll see why if you keep up to date with future series).
Feminism isn’t the only one.
TAMARA KVESITADZE: opening ceremony of statue |‘Man and Woman’ on October 30th, 2010 in Batumi, Georgia (Effigies)
Women in the West have finally clawed back many of their rights to find that they are ironically mirroring the male who was already a victim of an economic and social contract drawn up by those who cannot be considered in anyway “normal”. When you fight for the right not to be objectified, to have a place in politics or to be treated as an intellectual equal – this is right and proper. But such a wish has gone much further so that the same quality of injustices are visited upon the male the recognition of which is largely swept away by a form of narcissism masked by largely white, Western feminism. Whether in the family courts or the toxic effects of feminist belief within relationships, this is not going anywhere good for either sex.
We are spiritually and psychologically compromised in ways we are only just beginning to fathom. And feminists are in danger of fighting for the right to be exploited at a higher rung of the ladder that actually leads nowhere.
Whatever has been “deeply, essentially female” and male is in danger of being comprehensively discarded by the feminism of the 21st century. A new way to perceive ourselves and the material world is desperately needed. It is not the lack of material power, freedom in the work place or the red herring of gender equality but the toxic effects of a body-centrism that claims both male and female – the objectifying of the female form and women’s embrace of such a caricature and the disempowerment of both gender roles. This may be one reason that women’s narcissism is through the roof whilst the recognition of the female paedophile, child abuser, pathological narcissist and psychopath are only just managing to break through the cultural bias so that deep research can take place.
A recent report distinct for its large demographic analysis confirmed the emergence of women “reclaiming their power” both in the market place and in relationships. The objective of the project was to: “… find out how close, intimate relationships vary over a lifetime.” The results of the study which were published by Professor Robin Dunbar of Oxford University, UK in the Journal of Scientific Reports came from the analysis of the texts of mobile phone calls of three million people incorporating the age and sex of callers providing a very “big picture” of people’s lives. It gave overwhelming evidence that “romantic relationships are driven by women” based on “pair-bonding” proving that this is much more important to women than men. From the data as a whole, researchers determine that: “…a woman’s social world is intensely focussed on one individual and will shift as a result of reproductive interests from being the mate to children and grandchildren.” 
The project also wanted to “…find out how the gender preference of best friends, as defined by the frequency of the calling, changed over the course of a lifetime and differed between men and women.” Professor Dunbar’s team reported that: “… women start to switch the preference of their best friend from about the mid-30s, and by the age of 45 a woman of a generation younger becomes the ‘new best friend.’ Men tended to choose a woman (a girlfriend or wife) as a best friend much later in life and for a shorter time.
“Women, however, choose a man of a similar age to be their best friend from the age of 20. He remains for about 15 years, after which time he’s replaced by a daughter.” At the beginning of a relationship women call their spouse more than any other person, but as their daughters become old enough to have children, the focus is transferred and they become the centre of the woman’s life. In the words of Professor Dunbar: “…at root the important relationships are those between women and not those between men.” 
Let’s re-visit Esther Vilar’s somewhat wild musings on this issue back in 1971:
… only women exist in a woman’s world. The women she meets at church, at parent-teacher meetings, or in the supermarket; the women with whom she chats over the garden fence; the women at parties or window-shopping in the more fashionable streets; those she apparently never seems to notice – these women are the measure of her success or failure. Women’s standards correspond to those in other women’s heads, not to those in the heads of men; it is their judgment that really counts, not that of men. A simple word of praise from another woman – and all those clumsy, inadequate male compliments fall by the wayside, for they are just praises out of the mouths of amateurs. Men really have no idea in what kind of world women live in; their hymns of praise miss all the vital points. 
This extract at least, is not quite as extreme when there is some statistical and socio-biological data to back it up. Professor Dunbar believes this proves that we are returning to a more matriarchal based society. However, if under psychopathological dominance it is unlikely to resemble the kind of “equality” that human society yearns for.
With this in mind, could the real shift that ripped the sexual and emotional inheritance from our daily lives have buried a truth that there was something sacred and mutually empowering in the sexual act and by extension, the relationships between men and women – and other sexual orientations?
Eisler and many others believe so:
The search for this lost wisdom by mystics – and by women and men throughout the ages – is the search for reconnection with our partnership roots. It is the search for a way of relating that is the antithesis of the dominator mode, where in both reality and myth polarization and strife, conflict and separation, winning and losing, dominating and subduing, dismembering and disembodying, conquering and controlling, in short, force, fear, and violent disconnection, are the central themes. And its very essence, as mystical writings have so often brought out, is the search for a means of healing what was so brutally rent asunder with the shift to a dominator world: the fundamental erotic, and with this also spiritual, connection between women and men. 
Perhaps the only thing that will change the fortunes of both sexes is the recognition that male and female understanding lies beyond the terminal dance within the society’s economic, corporate and political framework. The success of one gender over another in order to retain the same consequences of mass pathology perpetrated by high level psychopaths and stepped down to endemic narcissism, must be seen for what it is if we are to free ourselves from a perception that men and women are constantly equated with inferiority or superiority – my rights as opposed to your rights. Perhaps we need to obtain a big picture view of the forces that shape us, otherwise, all the wonderful creative ideas that lie within so many great minds will prove to be still-born, yet again. That necessarily means an equally radical shift in perception that saw the division between the sexes all those years ago, so that a bridge may once again be formed.
The devaluation of women is a disaster for men. The devaluation of men is a disaster for women. Our misplaced anger and its projection into the external world are too easily channelled into causes and beliefs that temporarily mollify but ultimately benefit no one. The psychological knowledge of the psychopathic trickster that exists to create division between the two must form part of our collective education for young and old. Until we begin to see the culprit is the institutional and ceremonial psychopath – the embodiment of natural evil – that loves to create ideologies to divide and rule, then the true roles of men and women – heterosexual and homosexual – will continue to be obscured and pathologised.
In the next post we’ll have a look at some of the causes and effects of our present confusions in order to observe what we may call the “Sex Establishment” and how it not only benefits from such gender divisions, but has grown to distort and subvert the very concept of sex and sexuality.
 The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar Published by Abelard-Schuman 1972 | ISBN-10: 0200718754
 ‘Men cleverer than women’ claim BBC News, August 25, 2005.
 ‘Cover up to look smart: Men and women who bare more flesh are regarded as less intelligent, study finds’ By Lauren Paxman, The Daily Mail, Femail, 11 November, 2011.
 For more on this do read The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake.
 p.232; The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women by Naomi Wolf. Published by Harper Perennial, 1992 Reprint: 2002 | ISBN-10: 0060512180.
 Ibid (p.154)
 ‘Phone data shows romance ‘driven by women’ BBC News, April 2012.
 op. cit. Vilar.
 Eisler, Riane; Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body, Published by Harper Collins, 2012.