Male Separatism And Emotional Self-Defence

A most unfortunate aspect of our culture, or rather, of certain subcultures thereof, is that a verbal response to psychological abuse is considered unmanly. A Real Man™ therefore returns physical violence for verbal torment. In addition to all the other reasons why this is a bad thing to do, it is a well-laid trap, designed to catch us both ways.

If the man retaliates to abuse physically, he loses. Society does not recognise much or any difference between offensive and defensive domestic violence, between, on the one hand, violence perpetrated out of pleasure in the infliction of pain, the demonstration of power, or sheer knuckle-dragging ignorance; and on the other hand, violence perpetrated in order to make someone cease and desist from verbal abuse. Indeed, only recently has society begun to recognise psychological abuse as a concept; for the rule used to be that one could do whatever one liked as long as the currency was words rather than blows. I do so wonder who invented that rule!

Quite apart from the social and legal consequences of becoming a wife-beater, men who commit defensive violence, or lash out at the end of their tether, may become consumed with guilt, and so find themselves at a moral disadvantage vis-à-vis the Designated Official Victim for the rest of their lives. The woman will generally know how to exploit this, not only financially but also as carte blanche for even more intense psychological harassment. The payoff from so doing can be much greater than the utility of not getting hit in the first place, which is why spousal abuse is a co-dependency dynamic.

If the man does not retaliate physically, however, he also loses. If he fails to react to the put-downs, whether by going fishing or withdrawing into himself – for there is a form of catatonia observed in the long-married husband whose wife’s chief topic of conversation, even in company, is the list of his deficiencies – he is open to the customary female accusations of male emotional absence, emotional incompetence and general neglect. She will insist on his “relating”, which means being genuinely attentive when informed at inordinate length of his own faults. Some women will even taunt a violence-averse man with being unmasculine until he finally does hit them, whereupon they now get to taunt him with being brutish.

It should by now be obvious that the only viable male strategy is complete avoidance of the psychologically abusive woman, ignoring whatever she might say to our departing backs. Such withdrawal is best performed before any children are engendered, better still before any sexual contact whatsoever, or best of all before actually meeting her in the first place. Unfortunately, psychologically abusive women are precisely like male psychopaths, in that they are quite capable of putting on a charming front until it is too late. Moreover, they are so numerous that this avoidance strategy may equal lifelong celibacy. So be it.

It is of course gratifying when the abusive men and the abusive women end up with one another, leaving the rest of us in peace, but what actually happens is rather the opposite. Just as the nice girls so often end up with the nasty guys, so too do the nice guys end up with the nasty girls, for the excellent reason that wolves prey on sheep and not on other wolves.

What is required, therefore, is that men become very much better at detecting psychologically abusive women, and, in the event of failure in this, very much better at emotional self-defence and verbal retaliation. If the rules of the game lay down that purely verbal abuse, that is, the dismantling of other people’s psyches, is good clean fun, then we should learn how to do it too. Perhaps we need a new television programme, where bitchy homosexuals make over verbally ponderous he-men as Wildean wits: “Queer Words for the Silent Guy”?

Given the sheer amount of work that the ideologues put into disguising the fact that human evil is more or less equally distributed between the sexes, such detection is by no means an easy task. For a good deal of our public space has long been occupied by a discourse tailored to prevent the identification of psychologically abusive women, or even to recognise that any such creatures can exist. In all progressive circles, we may by decree only speak of male abusers and female victims. This tactical smokescreen, which serves the interest above all of abusive female individuals, became a progressive orthodoxy, an academic discipline and sometimes even government policy. It may now be fading, but not before more than one generation of women has not only learned the techniques of universal self-exculpation but has come to believe them as well.

In our culture the woman always has two votes; her own and that of the Relationship. That is, she has exclusive and infallible insight into the needs and interests of the Relationship, which by a strange coincidence are just precisely what she herself needs and wants. Emotional self-defence for men must therefore involve a massive intellectual effort, a sort of Marshall Plan of enlightenment. We need to acquire a deep understanding of emotional manipulation and moral ju-jitsu. Some men already have as good a grasp of these things as the average five-year-old girl, and we call them psychopaths; well then, what is necessary is for the rest of the male sex to learn how it is done, and to use the insight non-malignantly and in self-defence.

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by urban
    on January 12, 2013 at 03:26

    Although I agree that women tend to be more subtle and cunning than men, I’m not at all convinced that they are any less physically violent. It may well be, as you suggest, that a not particularly violent man such as myself attracts the ones that do like to kick and flail, who are prone to throwing things. Sure, sure, but I have broader experience of this phenomenon. I think it’s more prevalent than that, and thereby more complex. There are differences between male violence and female violence. I just don’t know how to read them.

    Not only do I have a wealth of personal experience with violent female behavior, I hear supporting anecdotes from friends, including some pretty outrageous stuff that I might be sceptical about except that I’ve known this man for twenty years. I believe him. I never hit back. I leave. That’s what he tried to do to. Crazy!

    I also see instances of female violence regularly just by living in a city. I’ve got some completely shameless neighbors that love to work on their relationships in the most public possible way, often at great length. The men are no prizes themselves, so don’t get me wrong, these creeps all deserve each other. The only victims here are their children.

    Mostly I just witness fragments of some larger drama. But sometimes it unfolds right in front of me and I’ve seen a couple clear examples, not just of the woman escalating the conflict verbally, emotionally, or psychologically–that’s too easy, shooting fish in a barrel–but physically assailing, both first and repeatedly before he retaliated. And in one instance which I witnessed, he retaliated quite moderately. He’s a knuckledragger, let there be no doubt, but he didn’t beat her. He pinned her to stop her from hitting him as she shrieked bloody murder. Guess who the police took away.

    So I suspect that this myth of women as non-violent is cut from the same cloth as another great myth, that women are good at talking about their feelings.

  2. Written by Hugo Grinebiter
    on January 12, 2013 at 17:31

    “It may well be, as you suggest, that a not particularly violent man such as myself attracts the ones that do like to kick and flail, who are prone to throwing things. ”

    I would suggest that you are a special case of a general law of human nature, that whatever you allow to be done to you, will be done to you.

    People seek partners who will let them get away with their own agenda. If everyone else these ladies know responds to flailing and throwing things by breaking their jaws or worse, and you don’t, then we have an incentive structure, don’t we? It’s like a travel ad for Urbanland — the world’s best flailing, all in perfect safety.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply