Misogyny
I have come to understand the underlying psychological causes of misogyny in our history. The general gist is that the way we act as individuals stays the same when we turn into a group of individuals. There are certain things that change. The key is to understand which ones are which, and what happens to each characteristic. For instance, when dealing with a group, the size of the group is inversely proportional to its ability to handle and internalize change, to name just one.
The problem with defining an individual's behaviour in such broad terms is that you need to take a generalization and translate it to a specific. The best way to do that is to observe and analyze behavioural trends in both individuals and groups, and be aware as possible of all the specific circumstances involved (typically all those things which we're not allowed to discriminate against have pretty big roles) and how they are going to affect the individual's behaviour.
Now 90% of this is all horseshit nonsense; but it has the potential, if properly utilized, to be extremely useful horseshit nonsense.
With regards to misogyny: People are inherently lazy. We're hard-wired for the path of least resistance. Absolutely we may have life experiences which impel us towards the path of most resistance, but without those experiences, we generally speaking are much taken with the idea of safety and security, and again, generally speaking, most people tend to find that the path of least resistance offers the greatest chance of obtaining safety and security---which explains the behaviour of the german public during World War II. Much safer to keep your head down and go along with the herd mentality. Except of course for the wolves.
But the domestic life is one that I've long held is not one that the human male is designed for. Yes, absolutely we've adapted to it, but there are still those endogenous retroactive incompatabilities that create all manner of problems. Women are much better designed towards a domestic lifestyle. Both of us recognize that there are safety in numbers (pack vs. herd), but women are more vulnerable than men, particularly when men are present :P Simply put, men can't really cut it when it comes to living with women. They're not designed for it.
But men *are* designed with power and authority structures built into their psychology. So naturally, they're going to trend towards those circumstances where power and authority structures are important. Hence their need to create a power relationship between themselves and the woman/women in their life---with themselves as the alpha male.
However, man is setting himself up for a fall: because he's effectively encroaching on territory that is not his; the terrain is not as well known to him as it is to women. And he has *no idea* what he's gotten himself into, the only thing he recognizes is that he must somehow retain control, or at least the illusion of control.
So what's the best way to deal with the problems that come with inter-gender relationships? Well, the adult, mature thing to do would be to recognize and work through differences through communication. Except communication is not his strong point; and will never be his strong point. Power structures work via a chain of command, a mostly one-way communication channel. What his job function in a domestic environment requires is a network of two-way communication which fast overwhelms his ability to effectively cope with the environment.
So what tends to happen is that a man loses patience with his "crazy woman" and tends to ignore, marginalize, or "demote" what he subconsciously views as a subordinate, but which should be his equal (and in many cases, his superior, if one simply MUST have a hierarchy set up). This demotion can be brought about through the infantilization (the treatment of the female as an infant or child whose viewpoint is down-graded to an amusement that's not to be seriously listened to). The justification for this that comes to mind, at least the 19th/early 20th century was that a woman's emotions render them incapable of rational thought, and hence remove their ability to, say, vote.
Essentially speaking, men have *no idea* how to properly interact with women, and just got lazy. It's much easier to say "Is your woman going mad again? Well, just treat her like a child/invalid and marginalize/oppress her." As long as they were able to successfully impregnate a female, their genes are (most likely) passed on (assuming the child does not die before procreating as well). So really, men never really *needed* to evolve the neurology that allows for more in-depth communication. I imagine that process is only happening very recently (ie, the last few hundred , or the last thousand years or so).
What's interesting to note is that this same relationship can recreate itself in societal relationships as well. I'm sure that the Sri Lankans and Tamils had some of that going on--listening to the Tamils is too difficult, leaves too much of an unpleasant taste in our mouths, and so we will simply stick our fingers in our ears, and presto, they don't exist anymore. And everyone knows how that turned out. I'm sure that the Palestinians/Israelis have some of that going on. The difference here is that the Palestinian "woman" has a "herd" of support. The other Islamic countries will make sure that Israel abuses Palestine at their own risk. The problem however, is, just like you have in an individual's domestic relationship, is that the injustice and impotence inherent in Israel's situation is that any and all blame for their problems is going to fall squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinians. It's spousal abuse on an international scale. And it's never going to end, because like it or not, they're married. Any number of societal conflicts will likely manifest that type of relationship. The key is finding them without creating them out of self-involvement with the theory.
In the end, when it's too difficult to deal with someone like adults, we decide to deal with them like children. Which isn't just stupid, it's destructive. It's regressive both for the individual and for the group. but how else are we to avoid our very nature? When we are stressed, we revert to the coping mechanisms that worked when we were younger--ie, we refer to previous experience. If much of those mechanisms were based on our behaviour and circumstances as children, is it really that surprising that we, when stressed, have a pretty good chance of behaving like children? At that point, it's really only necessary to determine gender to determine how they're likely going to act when presented with certain stressors. Again, the generalization has many many holes caused by individual personality/behaviour variants, but if you look for trends, I'm sure you'll find what I predict. A mixture of instinct combined with "younger" behaviour. If pushed far enough, they'll behave childishly.
What we must learn is that life isn't easy. We must learn this fact as quickly as possible, to create an experience base that revolves around this fact. The problem that this presents is that this overwhelms our ability to survive psychologically. Instincts take over when you're pushed too hard, too fast. So it's simply a matter of being aware that instincts will try to get you to do stuff that sometimes doesn't make sense--differentiate between good instinctual responses and bad--and that life isn't easy. Once you get a handle on those, I'd say you've set the stage for beginning your proper development as a person.
There is a chinese saying that goes somewhat like this: If a man cannot keep balance in himself, he cannot keep balance in his household. If a man cannot keep balance in his household, he cannot keep balance in his village. If a man cannot keep balance in his village, he cannot keep balance in his country. etc.
The problem with defining an individual's behaviour in such broad terms is that you need to take a generalization and translate it to a specific. The best way to do that is to observe and analyze behavioural trends in both individuals and groups, and be aware as possible of all the specific circumstances involved (typically all those things which we're not allowed to discriminate against have pretty big roles) and how they are going to affect the individual's behaviour.
Now 90% of this is all horseshit nonsense; but it has the potential, if properly utilized, to be extremely useful horseshit nonsense.
With regards to misogyny: People are inherently lazy. We're hard-wired for the path of least resistance. Absolutely we may have life experiences which impel us towards the path of most resistance, but without those experiences, we generally speaking are much taken with the idea of safety and security, and again, generally speaking, most people tend to find that the path of least resistance offers the greatest chance of obtaining safety and security---which explains the behaviour of the german public during World War II. Much safer to keep your head down and go along with the herd mentality. Except of course for the wolves.
But the domestic life is one that I've long held is not one that the human male is designed for. Yes, absolutely we've adapted to it, but there are still those endogenous retroactive incompatabilities that create all manner of problems. Women are much better designed towards a domestic lifestyle. Both of us recognize that there are safety in numbers (pack vs. herd), but women are more vulnerable than men, particularly when men are present :P Simply put, men can't really cut it when it comes to living with women. They're not designed for it.
But men *are* designed with power and authority structures built into their psychology. So naturally, they're going to trend towards those circumstances where power and authority structures are important. Hence their need to create a power relationship between themselves and the woman/women in their life---with themselves as the alpha male.
However, man is setting himself up for a fall: because he's effectively encroaching on territory that is not his; the terrain is not as well known to him as it is to women. And he has *no idea* what he's gotten himself into, the only thing he recognizes is that he must somehow retain control, or at least the illusion of control.
So what's the best way to deal with the problems that come with inter-gender relationships? Well, the adult, mature thing to do would be to recognize and work through differences through communication. Except communication is not his strong point; and will never be his strong point. Power structures work via a chain of command, a mostly one-way communication channel. What his job function in a domestic environment requires is a network of two-way communication which fast overwhelms his ability to effectively cope with the environment.
So what tends to happen is that a man loses patience with his "crazy woman" and tends to ignore, marginalize, or "demote" what he subconsciously views as a subordinate, but which should be his equal (and in many cases, his superior, if one simply MUST have a hierarchy set up). This demotion can be brought about through the infantilization (the treatment of the female as an infant or child whose viewpoint is down-graded to an amusement that's not to be seriously listened to). The justification for this that comes to mind, at least the 19th/early 20th century was that a woman's emotions render them incapable of rational thought, and hence remove their ability to, say, vote.
Essentially speaking, men have *no idea* how to properly interact with women, and just got lazy. It's much easier to say "Is your woman going mad again? Well, just treat her like a child/invalid and marginalize/oppress her." As long as they were able to successfully impregnate a female, their genes are (most likely) passed on (assuming the child does not die before procreating as well). So really, men never really *needed* to evolve the neurology that allows for more in-depth communication. I imagine that process is only happening very recently (ie, the last few hundred , or the last thousand years or so).
What's interesting to note is that this same relationship can recreate itself in societal relationships as well. I'm sure that the Sri Lankans and Tamils had some of that going on--listening to the Tamils is too difficult, leaves too much of an unpleasant taste in our mouths, and so we will simply stick our fingers in our ears, and presto, they don't exist anymore. And everyone knows how that turned out. I'm sure that the Palestinians/Israelis have some of that going on. The difference here is that the Palestinian "woman" has a "herd" of support. The other Islamic countries will make sure that Israel abuses Palestine at their own risk. The problem however, is, just like you have in an individual's domestic relationship, is that the injustice and impotence inherent in Israel's situation is that any and all blame for their problems is going to fall squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinians. It's spousal abuse on an international scale. And it's never going to end, because like it or not, they're married. Any number of societal conflicts will likely manifest that type of relationship. The key is finding them without creating them out of self-involvement with the theory.
In the end, when it's too difficult to deal with someone like adults, we decide to deal with them like children. Which isn't just stupid, it's destructive. It's regressive both for the individual and for the group. but how else are we to avoid our very nature? When we are stressed, we revert to the coping mechanisms that worked when we were younger--ie, we refer to previous experience. If much of those mechanisms were based on our behaviour and circumstances as children, is it really that surprising that we, when stressed, have a pretty good chance of behaving like children? At that point, it's really only necessary to determine gender to determine how they're likely going to act when presented with certain stressors. Again, the generalization has many many holes caused by individual personality/behaviour variants, but if you look for trends, I'm sure you'll find what I predict. A mixture of instinct combined with "younger" behaviour. If pushed far enough, they'll behave childishly.
What we must learn is that life isn't easy. We must learn this fact as quickly as possible, to create an experience base that revolves around this fact. The problem that this presents is that this overwhelms our ability to survive psychologically. Instincts take over when you're pushed too hard, too fast. So it's simply a matter of being aware that instincts will try to get you to do stuff that sometimes doesn't make sense--differentiate between good instinctual responses and bad--and that life isn't easy. Once you get a handle on those, I'd say you've set the stage for beginning your proper development as a person.
There is a chinese saying that goes somewhat like this: If a man cannot keep balance in himself, he cannot keep balance in his household. If a man cannot keep balance in his household, he cannot keep balance in his village. If a man cannot keep balance in his village, he cannot keep balance in his country. etc.