Sex & Violence
Simon Sheppard gives an analysis for which the world may not yet be prepared
Published in Heritage & Destiny, issue 74, Sept-Oct 2016
Bovver boys, boot boys, hooligans, bruisers. In today’s over-sensitive, feminine world, aggro is definitely not in fashion. Females equate ‘what is said’ with ‘what is done’ and this makes discussing violence from a masculine standpoint a perilous undertaking. Despite all this, the subject needs to be aired. If I don’t do it, who will? A politician who gave an objective view would be excoriated, similarly with a journalist or judge. A mainstream, male psychologist, now in the minority, would be pilloried and probably have his lectures boycotted. The women who have practically taken over psychology are silent for obvious reasons. Who else beside a maverick psychologist with no established career to harm is able to do it?
Of course, virtually all the “controversy” which exists in today’s media-dominated culture is manufactured, in order to raise the cost of questioning the party line. Challenging such orthodoxy is what heretics are for.
The modern dogma is that practically any form of violence is unacceptable, and especially so when it is directed toward women. This is not natural. Humans are animals, subject to the same laws as every other creature. It is true that as humans we are able to defy our instincts, but the important corollary is that doing so takes effort, which we would rather avoid. Following our instincts is the default state.
Although we may inhibit the actions our instincts impel us toward (or more likely, divert them inappropriately, which is displacement), the essential foundation still accords with the natural world. We tend to follow our instincts, unless social prohibition or other factors supervene. Plus, is it not true that satisfying our instincts brings us happiness and contentment?
Feminist psychologists have spent decades trying to work out why “abused” women remain with, and return to, their “abusive” male partners. For them it is utterly incomprehensible. Yet a solution to this mystery exists which they cannot countenance. So let’s get the hard part out of the way. Violence against women is normal, or at least, near-normal.
During the whole of our evolutionary history, for at least a million years excepting the last few decades, a female who sufficiently angered a male could expect a physical response. In 1782 Judge Sir Francis Buller is reputed to have given, from the bench, his famous ‘rule of thumb,’ that a husband may beat his wife provided the stick was no thicker than his thumb. Whether this utterance was really made has been disputed, since the evidence seems to exist entirely in its parody, but nonetheless it was the operative rule at the time. The State did not interfere in such matters until very recently.
One basis for this rule was the principle of coverture, which meant that a husband was responsible for the debts and often even the criminal acts of his wife. In law, husband and wife were a single entity, and it was always the husband who was called to account.
Back then, the man of the house held absolute authority, not just due to his physical strength but also because he was the breadwinner. Earning an income in those days required physical strength and practical ability, with which females are generally not well-endowed. Because of the male advantages of physical strength and aggression, the female has evolved a large set of procedures to compensate for her handicap.
In the village or town of at most a few hundred which would have been the typical circumstances of our past, a husband who really did go too far would have had to face the brothers or other relatives of his mistreated wife. Or perhaps the opprobrium of his neighbours. Notwithstanding, the traditional attitude to a married couple is ‘What goes on between them is their private affair.’
Some have claimed that women were not subjugated in the past, but this is not a view I share – not least because in truth, women inspire their own subjugation by their behaviour. Even so, females have many devices by which an undesirable situation can be ameliorated. Darwin describes how among savages (his term), on a superficial view women were traded like cattle, yet there were wealthy, albeit ugly, men who were unable to secure a wife. There was also his account of the traditional Kalmuck marriage race: the “bride” was given a head start, and “no instance occurs of a girl being caught, unless she has a partiality to the pursuer.” In our own Victorian era, a middle-class wife automatically became the manager of the household, with absolute authority over the domestic staff. This made women the single largest group of employers in those times. It is unlikely that women in Muslim countries are as down-trodden as Western liberals like to think.
To the extent that women were subjugated, it did not take place out of malice, or sadism, or for male pleasure, but out of necessity. Feminine instincts were completely inappropriate to wider, masculine society. Now society has been made feminine to enable females to flourish. This however is an aberration, a short-term chimera which is as false as the dogma that men and women are the same, save for a few superficial differences concerning reproduction.
Given that we are subject to the laws of nature, how is it in the natural world, free of political, moral and religious constraint? We have only to look at birds eating breadcrumbs thrown onto a flat roof. Innumerable contests take place, during which the birds constantly threaten and posture, but there is hardly ever any injury.
The same happens with practically every other animal; very few contests result in injury. The smaller animal gives way to the larger. All that is required is the larger animal’s arrival, or an aggressive gesture, and the smaller animal retreats. Only if a resource confers great benefit will a contest be escalated to a point where actual injury could take place.
Formerly the female was controlled, just as in nature, by implicit threat. In the vast majority of situations all that was required was threat. The usually rare occasions when physical violence was employed functioned to limit the excesses of her behaviour and validate the threat.
Now the situation has arisen in which the mechanisms the female has evolved to compensate for males’ physical strength can be employed practically without limit, while the male is incapacitated by being unable to use, or even threaten to use, his natural power.
Females abhor violence for the simple reason that any conflict involving it they lose. By a sequential but wholly unnatural progression, nowadays she may not tolerate even the threat of violence. A man who issues a threat to a woman risks her calling the police, whereupon various State and State-supported agencies will descend in support of the “vulnerable” female. The male will likely be removed and the family, if there is one, severely upset or even destroyed.
Sometimes people are impervious to rational argument, and women can display astonishing arrogance in this regard. Women believe what they want to believe. In my conversations with them, several adamantly maintained that “feelings are never wrong.” They can insist that their emotions are sacrosanct and infallible. The reality is that many female instincts are anachronistic; they originate in our deep dark past when society was very different than it is today.
Here is a shocking example of those primitive instincts. In the less affluent area of Groruddalen, Norway, packs of Moslem youths pick on lone boys and beat them. Any slight or retaliation by a Norwegian native is met with action by a gang. The battles are never one-on-one. This is what happens when a culture which is organised around the tribe or clan invades one that is traditionally individualistic. However, rather than standing by their young men in this appalling situation, the girls are taking Moslem boyfriends, perceiving them as victors in a mating contest, and superior. The same is happening in many countries, although usually less blatantly than in this Oslo suburb.
One cannot reason with an animal, and similarly one cannot reason with a capricious, impulsive female whose ambition is to blindly follow the dictates of her emotions. Comparisons can be made with children. Children up to about the age of seven believe in magic, are unable to distinguish dreams from reality, and attribute animals and objects with human traits – hence the enduring popularity of animal fables. They are incapable of concrete reasoning and unable to appreciate logic. Children’s view of the world is dominated by their immediate sensations. Piaget (1955): “The child always considers his own perspective as absolute.” Possibly it was these features which led to the old Roman legal doctrine that women were perpetual minors. I have to say, this idea has a lot going for it.
Most children probably do not need physical punishment more than a handful of times in their entire childhood. In exceptional cases though, when punishment is called for, failing to give it creates greater problems. A single unruly pupil dominates and disrupts the classroom. Other children, seeing that he escapes punishment, follow his example.
Reasonable physical punishment is also kinder on the child – it is certainly preferable to the alternative. Attempting to reason, adult-like, merely encourages dishonesty and is likely to leave him with a burden of unresolved guilt. The child longs for security and this entails having the boundaries of behaviour firmly set. I remember as a child once, having the feeling of wanting to be punished, though it may be rare for this to reach consciousness. Not giving punishment leads to dysfunction, which is where many Western societies are today.
Among whites, it could really be true that “might is right,” because social pressures deprive the wrong of the confidence to act forcefully. There are exceptions of course, most notably criminals, but it could be valid in the main. Numerous psychological studies have demonstrated the astonishing reluctance people have to defying our social conventions.
An interesting case, from this psychological perspective, is a thug who attacked a smoker in a pub. This actually happened, shortly after smoking in such places was banned in Britain. A smoker lit up and the thug took umbrage and punched him. Was he offended by the smoke? Surely not: until very recently he would have thought nothing of it. The smoking was a pretext, and he certainly would not have acted as he did without feeling that he had right on his side.
The key word here is “feeling.” It was masculine aggression, but impelled by emotion, which is feminine. Males, having held their power for millennia, have learned to show restraint, and know when to stop. Consequently violence by the female, or by a feminine or feminized male, is much more unpredictable and dangerous. For instance a man who has downed his opponent is unlikely to kick him in the head.
The topic of violence against women was framed in different terms by F. Roger Devlin in his now famous essay, ‘Sexual Utopia in Power’:
Men, at least within Western civilization, have been socialized into extreme reluctance to use force against women. This is not an absolute principle: few would deny that a man has a right of self-defense against a woman attempting to kill him. But many men will refuse to retaliate against a woman under almost any lesser threat. This attitude is far removed from the feminist principle of equality between the sexes. Indeed, it seems to imply a view of men as naturally dominant: It is a form of noblesse oblige. And it is not, so far as I can see, reducible to any long-term self-interest on the part of a man; in other words, it is a principle of honor. The code of chivalry holds that a man has no moral right to use force against women simply because he can do so.
An obvious difficulty with such a code is that it is vulnerable to abuse by its beneficiaries. I had a classmate in grade school who had heard it said somewhere that “boys are not supposed to hit girls.” Unfortunately, she interpreted this to mean that it was acceptable for girls to hit boys, which she then proceeded to do. She became genuinely indignant when she found that they usually hit back.
The special character of noblesse oblige is that it does not involve a corresponding entitlement on the part of the beneficiary. On the traditional view, a man should indeed be reluctant to use force against women, but women have no right to presume upon this. The reluctance is elicited by a recognition of women’s weakness, not commanded as a recognition of their rights.
The most persuasive argument for the subjugation of women however is to look at the situation we find ourselves in today. Western societies are beset by hordes of “special snowflakes” convinced of the validity of their perceptions and intent on conferring special-snowflake status on millions more. The question might be posed, How far can the feminist madness go? The answer is all the way, there is no limit. The natural world involves a balance of opposing forces in a dynamic system. The incapacity of one leads to extreme activity by the other, a massive imbalance.
Then, what are we to do when a woman refuses to do the only things she is genuinely good at? I am thinking of the management of successful relationships, supporting her menfolk, and nurturing the next generation. Biologically speaking, furthering her kind is the very reason for her existence.
It has always been the case that the male who could not control his instincts would be punished or killed by the other men of his tribe or group. For the female, it was her father or husband who governed her behaviour. The only limits to female excess are either one, male response, or two, natural consequences. This last includes economic or environmental collapse, or our genocide through invasion by more primitive, more aggressive populations. It is to be hoped that when the denouement arrives, as it inevitably must, it will not be catastrophic.
The last word shall be given to Tim Larkin, who seems to be big on this. “Violence isn’t always the answer, in fact, it’s rarely the answer, but when it is the answer, it’s the only answer.”