Educational Sadism

At the super-liberal progressive woman's colleges, many of which are little more than training camps dedicated to producing borderline personalities, young women were being programmed into participating in all the concepts of social change and progressive new freedoms. They were to graduate as what they were told was a sophisticated, independent, brilliant, liberated, cosmopolitan, progressive woman. As they were programmed, they would mouth to whoever would listen that marriage was not a prerequisite to the enjoyment of sex, and that sex need not be attached to emotional commitment or outmoded concepts such as love, etc. etc. Once programmed, the upper classwomen would take the freshmen under direct command the minute they hit the college gate. I remember talking to a woman student at a liberal college about the big sister program during the early 60s. In the big sister program, juniors and seniors were assigned to help freshmen adjust to the college. She bubbled that the big sister would start out by helping the little sister make arrangements for contraceptives.

We began to see contemporaries of the elite liberal woman's colleges who—pumped up by empty slogans and generalities, and as a consequence considering premarital sex as a militant exercise in their unquestioning pursuit and expression of something called social change—implemented sex with the spirit, style, precision, determination, and sensuality of a nineteenth century Prussian infantry colonel exercising his troops. The less militant would just mouth the programming, whereupon somewhere along the line someone would simply take them at their word, plop them in bed for a while, then move on according to their own stated rules, leaving them unaccountably angry if not infuriated.

One earlier product of this system was Gloria Steinem who according to biographers had an abortion in 1956, and with the aid of her transfixing, Diana-Rigg look went on to establish a powerful political/social movement, and train a militant army rabid with hatred toward men while justifying, if not encouraging, abortion. In the 60s, like flies to dung, it began to attract women with similar backgrounds. The childish self-destructive twist in the movement was that it focused conveniently and exclusively on hatred of men and on abortion while avoiding examination of the behavior and the processing system that put them in the position they were in.

To this day, it's hard to imagine what kind of outcome they expected or what they wanted. Perhaps they thought Margaret Mead or their sociology professor was going to burst into the motel room cheering and give them a Nobel prize. It didn't happen. The slogans they were taught to follow and the lives they began living turned out to be as empty as the sexuality the slogans underwrote. The results clearly didn't conform to expectations. They were disillusioned and angry. They stayed disillusioned and angry. Many are still angry to this day. Anger isn't even a strong enough word. The more they tried it, the angrier they became.

If the purpose of their college programming was to endow women with an independence from men, the type of behavior and relationships into which the woman were being channeled would insure a hostility and distance between them and men—which would be mislabeled as being independence. Many of the alienated and neurotic on faculties were cloning themselves, their discontent, their bitterness, and their type of destructive relationships in women students, calling it independence. Some of them were, and are, practicing sadists using intellectual "questioning" of values as vehicles to cripple people. The high student suicide rates at many liberal schools aren't an accident. It was probably the most hideous crime of this century, but there is no law against it and no accountability. It's a crime that wasn't committed with a hand-gun. It hasn't changed.

More will be said about other consequences. For now, let it suffice to say the new system of sexual values was producing morbid personality changes in women. Young women were becoming as hard as hookers because they were living like hookers and being treated as hookers. Many young women who began as trusting, soft, warm, sensitive, loving creatures were converted into lonely, depressed, cold, mistrusting, angry, jaded shells—and the single world was, and still is, filled with them. A number of women were becoming angry to the point of being warped and vicious. They would snarl at men. When they said, "No! Never again," however unconsciously or subconsciously, they meant it. They developed a strong fear, hostility, and avoidance of close committed relationships with men that became the major self-protective thrust in their lives. Men developed similar patterns.

As part of the woman's liberation movement young women wanted sexual liberation and freedom, but refused to acknowledge the consequences of it. They wanted the new sexual moral/value system which had arisen during the sexual revolution. They didn't want to give up any fun or undergo any realistic adult discomfort. They called it equality of sexual freedom. Again, we were seeing a non-issue which became an immediate exclusionary focus away from the real problems. They were hurt and enraged, but they didn't want to examine the source of it. They didn't want to examine what their behavior might have to do with it.

A number of women showed a type of infantile defiance and denial. They acted as though they could sexually use or exploit men, which is a little like the canary claiming it will exploit the hungry cat's stomach under a new-found digestive freedom. Women could fabricate the appearance of sexual exploitation of men by making men meet a series of demands for sexual performance—almost as if they were hired men or were interviewing for jobs.

As part of the woman's liberation movement young women wanted sexual liberation and freedom, but refused to acknowledge the consequences of it. They wanted the new sexual moral/value system which had arisen during the sexual revolution. They didn't want to give up any fun or undergo any realistic adult discomfort. They called it equality of sexual freedom. Again, we were seeing a non-issue which became an immediate exclusionary focus away from the real problems. They were hurt and enraged, but they didn't want to examine the source of it. They didn't want to examine what their behavior might have to do with it.

A number of women showed a type of infantile defiance and denial. They acted as though they could sexually use or exploit men, which is a little like the canary claiming it will exploit the hungry cat's stomach under a new-found digestive freedom. Women could fabricate the appearance of sexual exploitation of men by making men meet a series of demands for sexual performance—almost as if they were hired men or were interviewing for jobs.

Let it be emphasized that this is not meant to be a unilateral indictment of women. Men eventually developed parallel patterns. It should also be remembered that much of this was brought on by men and their playboy philosophizing/fantasizing which was immature, dishonest, and calloused. What is being explained is a historical context. It should also be understood that the so-called women's movements invested a great deal more organization and clout in developing their own brand of nonsense than in resisting male nonsense.
(Parenthetically, a period anxiety is typical in both sexes in romantic affairs due to the vulnerability involved. --This often sabotages some of the best potential relationships and must be lived through to find a suitable mate.)

With the explosion of male playboy self-centeredness and immaturity, the culture went half nuts with complete collapse being held in check by initial female resistance. The female implementation of their own egocentricism and immaturity reduced critical opposition and initiated cultural pathological free-fall.

The condition of anger toward men and fear of engaging in close relationships with men was a reasonable or predictable consequence of the egocentric sexual value system. The anger and fear were a reasonable reaction to the treatment women were receiving under that value system. If there would have been an examination of that issue and a focusing upon that issue, things might have been resolved and there might have been a return to sanity. However, that was not bound to happen for the same reasons that the so-called sexual revolution occurred in the first place. There was cultural instability. There was the new wave of life styles. There was a deficiency of character, an immaturity and a tendency toward serious psychopathology within too great a proportion of several generations. Borderline psychotic levels of egocentricism became common.

To remedy the issue would require character, clarity of thought, self-discipline and honesty and these have not been in surplus during recent decades. Secondly, the partying and sex were too much fun, even if people were destroying each other over the long term. Nobody was going to give up anything. Rather than admit the situation and the consequences, the predominant social inclination was one of rationalizing around the truth.

Regardless of rationalizations, increasing proportions of women still emotionally distanced themselves from men, practicing emotional celibacy although engaging in sex. This, in turn, put pressure on men of emotional capacity to emotionally withdraw from women rather than be ground up by the new breed of tough women. Warped relationships became a norm. The women's liberation movement began a series of rationalizations to satisfy both the needs of psychological defense and the rampant narcissism of the female half of the I, Me, Now generation.