Regarding the pervasive and dangerous effects of Hypermasculinity, Dr. Erich Fromm said that
"The purely Matriarchal society stands in the way of the full development of the individual, thus preventing technical, rational, artistic progress. The purely Patriarchal society cares nothing for love and equality; it is only concerned with manmade laws, the state, abstract principles, obedience. It is beautifully described in Sophocles’ Antigone in the person and system of Creon, the prototype of a fascist leader. When the Patriarchal and Matriarchal principles form a synthesis, however, each of the two principles is colored by the other: motherly love by justice and rationality, and fatherly love by mercy and equality. Today the fight against Patriarchal authority seems to be destroying the Patriarchal principle, suggesting a return to a Matriarchal principle in a regressive and non-dialectic way. A viable and progressive solution lies only in a new synthesis of the opposites, one in which the opposition between mercy and justice is replaced by a union of the two on a higher level"
From his book, "The Crisis of Psychoanalysis: Essays on Freud, Marx and Social Psychology
Are you following the fascist philosopher Bronze Age pervert? He espouses the same concept as George, in the previous comment, notes. He uses the term “longhouse” for, I think, the smothering intrusive effect of supposedly feminine collective rule.
Hi Nina, I had to look up what you are talking about. Urban Dictionary says that
" Bronze Age Pervert, is an internet right-wing personality to describe society that is gynocentric/matriarchal, lacking in privacy, personal liberty, in which one is constantly forced to share their living space with others, where hectoring (usually old) women enforce their social power to police men"
Well, if you were to read again Dr. Fromm's quote, he is far removed from this perverted definition (his user name is quite fitting). As I understand Fromm, he wants men to develop their capacity for love and compassion and women their sharpness of mind. We need both balanced because, if we don't, the emotional, psychological, and spiritual evolution of humanity will continue crawling at a snail's pace- as it is now.
Dr. Karen Horney takes another but different perspective on this as she calls out -not so much Patriarchy itself- rather, the ongoing inherent malignancy within patriarchy BECAUSE it is devoid of love and compassion- the very virtues inherent in Matriarchy. Says she
“Any sudden increase in interest over sex differences, therefore, must be regarded as a danger signal for women, particularly, in a patriarchal society where men find it advantageous to prove on biologic premises that women should not take part in shaping the economy and the political order. On these premises elaborate convictions serving the interests of masculine ideologies become strategical means of preserving masculine superiority in the economic and political world by convincing women that innately she is glad to keep out of it”
Elsewhere she says
“Once and for all we should stop bothering about what is feminine and what is not. Such concerns only undermine our energies. Standards of masculinity and femininity are artificial standards. All that we definitely know at present about sex differences is that we do not know what they are. Scientific differences between the two sexes certainly exist, but we shall never be able to discover what they are until we have first developed our potentialities as human beings. Paradoxical as it may sound, we shall find out about these differences only if we forget about them. In the meantime what we can do is to work together for the full development of the human personalities of all for the sake of general welfare”
Excerpts from Dr. Bernard J Paris’s book “Karen Horney: A Psychoanalyst's Search for Self-Understanding Appendix B Women’s Fear Of Action”
How would you classify a female, authoritarian leader, such as Indira Gandhi in India. She went so far as to implement, forced sterilization for women and men and declared a “state of emergency” in order to maintain her authoritarian rule.
Female authoritarian leaders display some of the same hyper-masculine behavior and attitudes as authoritarian men. Male fascist leaders present a persona of an exceptional male; female authoritarians often do the same to prove they are not too be dismissed as "just another woman". Further, they tend to look at their achievements as their own, not as achievements for women as a class. Fascists are not feminists, be they male or female.
Indira Ghandi, Jiang Qing, Elena Ceaușescu, Imelda Marcos, and Golda Meir come to mind. Some would argue that Margaret Thatcher could be on this list, but I think that case is harder to make.
Very well said. I also think that hypermasculinity, misogyny and homophobia hide behind and use religion to justify their actions. Modern organized religions have never viewed women as equals - watch what they do, not what they say. The Catholic Church (ex-Catholic here) in the 21st century still does not recognize the equality of women, changed its stance on abortion time limits once women gained more social and economic power in the '60s, is against birth control, and makes those in the LGBTQ+ communities unequal. The cherry-picking and choosing of lines from the Bible to support the positions you discuss makes it clear that religion is only useful when it can be used to oppress others. The scene in The West Wing says it all https://youtu.be/3CPjWd4MUXs?si=rSe1VrlfRqXI2juK (Sorry, I can't figure out how to make it a real link on Substack).
Not to mention factions of the Catholic Church are the groups , mostly, that are behind the book ban crusades regarding LGBTQ content. We found a group of them in my town this entire past year and uncovered wretched things happening in their private “Christian” school that was nothing short of horrifying. Yet our group who were simply trying to keep our public library open to ALL of the public were labeled “anti-Catholic bigots”. 🤷🏻♀️. Honestly, I thought hard on that and in the end didn’t come to an answer.... but is there a reason I SHOULDNT be anti-Catholic? They have treated LGBTQ horrendously as long as they’ve existed. Women still are. The sex abuse that is constantly protected and covered up in a systematic way is disgusting. Frankly, even the Pope has called out the United States Catholics, why can’t non-Catholic Americans? I’m tired of people hiding behind the cross. Btw, we won. In a seriously red area. First time in the country.
Former Catholic here and it’s morally imperative to be against these bigots. Jesus Himself would be horsewhipping them out of his Church. They’ve transformed the sweet parish in my little town to a nest of Trumpers who pack guns in their waists (and fall out at Mass, nice!) and favor pedophile priests over their neighbors who are Democrats. They’re dangerous. Keep not tolerating them, please. 🙏
I'm glad that you persisted and won the fight to keep the library open. My position is that I'm against the Catholic Church and I'm against the misogyny and bigotry it fosters. I do think that it's important to call out all hatred, in every form, and to keep fighting the exhausting fight against hate. FYI: I'm anti-organized religion. I'm pro morality and ethics.
It occurred to me during my read that Republicans are now the “Incel party”. Not just that Incels support them (shared misogyny), but because both groups are deeply offended that they can’t attract women/voters, but rather than change to be more attractive, they complain and try to change the rules.
With the GOP's adoption of fascism, their new stance reflects the social Darwinism of fascism. Women are placed low on the pecking order in this ancient thinking hierarchy. Fascism is a cult of machismo.
Perfect assessment of the fascist movement in the world. It appears that weak and/or unaware people are more susceptible to it! The manipulation of people is the strength of fascism. The US voters must awaken before it’s too late! Trump must not be allowed near the presidency again!
This analysis brings to mind aspects of Wilhelm Reich's The Mass Psychology of Fascism (2nd edition, 1945). Here are a few sentences from a lengthy, densely written tome:
". . . .It was not until relatively late <in cultural development>, with the establishment of an authoritarian patriarchy and the beginning of the division of the classes, that suppression of sexuality begins to make its appearance. . . . .In short, morality's aim is to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order. . . .There is good reason for all this when seen from the perspective of the now-thriving exploitation of human labor. . . .
I've been thinking about this essay since I read it yesterday. As I therapist, my question is which comes first, the misogynistic authoritarian leader or the rise of a level of comfort in a society that allows for diversification regarding the status of women and gender diversity? I think of the Weimar Republic and the United States before the ascendance of Trump, for example. Then come the great intellectual depression and social represssion of the Nazis and MAGA. It seems to be a cycle as old as humanity itself, because you can see similar patterns in ancient Athens and Rome.
Economically broken societies are ripe for the ascendancy of sociopathic/psychopathic authoritarians like Trump, Mussolini and Hitler. Citizens, in their desperation choose a madman to solve their nation's problems. It seems to matter little that their hero has no conscience, empathy or remorse, or views women as inferior.
The marginalization of certain groups in society is very much in keeping with fascist social Darwinism. Fascism is all about dominance and submission. Women and LGBTQ individuals are considered inferior in the social Darwinist pecking order. Sociopathic fascist leaders view themselves as demigods, and this self image leads to the marginalization of others surrounding them. Sociopathic thinking is very "dominance and submisson" oriented, and therefore so is fascist thinking.
The women's Equal Rights Amendment has long been seen as a danger to our fascist leaning politicians' self image of superiority. This attitude seems to be right out of the Middle Ages.
Regarding the pervasive and dangerous effects of Hypermasculinity, Dr. Erich Fromm said that
"The purely Matriarchal society stands in the way of the full development of the individual, thus preventing technical, rational, artistic progress. The purely Patriarchal society cares nothing for love and equality; it is only concerned with manmade laws, the state, abstract principles, obedience. It is beautifully described in Sophocles’ Antigone in the person and system of Creon, the prototype of a fascist leader. When the Patriarchal and Matriarchal principles form a synthesis, however, each of the two principles is colored by the other: motherly love by justice and rationality, and fatherly love by mercy and equality. Today the fight against Patriarchal authority seems to be destroying the Patriarchal principle, suggesting a return to a Matriarchal principle in a regressive and non-dialectic way. A viable and progressive solution lies only in a new synthesis of the opposites, one in which the opposition between mercy and justice is replaced by a union of the two on a higher level"
From his book, "The Crisis of Psychoanalysis: Essays on Freud, Marx and Social Psychology
Thank you for sharing this new to me, explanation and prism of perspective of patriarchy and matriarchy.
I don't see this huge rejection of patriarchy in the US, nor do I agree with the supposed limits caused by matriarchy. That sounds very sexist to me.
Are you following the fascist philosopher Bronze Age pervert? He espouses the same concept as George, in the previous comment, notes. He uses the term “longhouse” for, I think, the smothering intrusive effect of supposedly feminine collective rule.
Hi Nina, I had to look up what you are talking about. Urban Dictionary says that
" Bronze Age Pervert, is an internet right-wing personality to describe society that is gynocentric/matriarchal, lacking in privacy, personal liberty, in which one is constantly forced to share their living space with others, where hectoring (usually old) women enforce their social power to police men"
Well, if you were to read again Dr. Fromm's quote, he is far removed from this perverted definition (his user name is quite fitting). As I understand Fromm, he wants men to develop their capacity for love and compassion and women their sharpness of mind. We need both balanced because, if we don't, the emotional, psychological, and spiritual evolution of humanity will continue crawling at a snail's pace- as it is now.
Dr. Karen Horney takes another but different perspective on this as she calls out -not so much Patriarchy itself- rather, the ongoing inherent malignancy within patriarchy BECAUSE it is devoid of love and compassion- the very virtues inherent in Matriarchy. Says she
“Any sudden increase in interest over sex differences, therefore, must be regarded as a danger signal for women, particularly, in a patriarchal society where men find it advantageous to prove on biologic premises that women should not take part in shaping the economy and the political order. On these premises elaborate convictions serving the interests of masculine ideologies become strategical means of preserving masculine superiority in the economic and political world by convincing women that innately she is glad to keep out of it”
Elsewhere she says
“Once and for all we should stop bothering about what is feminine and what is not. Such concerns only undermine our energies. Standards of masculinity and femininity are artificial standards. All that we definitely know at present about sex differences is that we do not know what they are. Scientific differences between the two sexes certainly exist, but we shall never be able to discover what they are until we have first developed our potentialities as human beings. Paradoxical as it may sound, we shall find out about these differences only if we forget about them. In the meantime what we can do is to work together for the full development of the human personalities of all for the sake of general welfare”
Excerpts from Dr. Bernard J Paris’s book “Karen Horney: A Psychoanalyst's Search for Self-Understanding Appendix B Women’s Fear Of Action”
How would you classify a female, authoritarian leader, such as Indira Gandhi in India. She went so far as to implement, forced sterilization for women and men and declared a “state of emergency” in order to maintain her authoritarian rule.
Gandhi also outlawed over 20 opposition groups and sent many of their members to prison without trial, and subjected them to torture also.
Female authoritarian leaders display some of the same hyper-masculine behavior and attitudes as authoritarian men. Male fascist leaders present a persona of an exceptional male; female authoritarians often do the same to prove they are not too be dismissed as "just another woman". Further, they tend to look at their achievements as their own, not as achievements for women as a class. Fascists are not feminists, be they male or female.
Indira Ghandi, Jiang Qing, Elena Ceaușescu, Imelda Marcos, and Golda Meir come to mind. Some would argue that Margaret Thatcher could be on this list, but I think that case is harder to make.
I’d classify her as authoritarian.
I hear you.
There’s always been something about ‘those men’ that sets my teeth ajar. And I have to say just a bare few women have hit me that way.
My flags just ‘go up’. Interesting....the why, huh?
Very well said. I also think that hypermasculinity, misogyny and homophobia hide behind and use religion to justify their actions. Modern organized religions have never viewed women as equals - watch what they do, not what they say. The Catholic Church (ex-Catholic here) in the 21st century still does not recognize the equality of women, changed its stance on abortion time limits once women gained more social and economic power in the '60s, is against birth control, and makes those in the LGBTQ+ communities unequal. The cherry-picking and choosing of lines from the Bible to support the positions you discuss makes it clear that religion is only useful when it can be used to oppress others. The scene in The West Wing says it all https://youtu.be/3CPjWd4MUXs?si=rSe1VrlfRqXI2juK (Sorry, I can't figure out how to make it a real link on Substack).
Not to mention factions of the Catholic Church are the groups , mostly, that are behind the book ban crusades regarding LGBTQ content. We found a group of them in my town this entire past year and uncovered wretched things happening in their private “Christian” school that was nothing short of horrifying. Yet our group who were simply trying to keep our public library open to ALL of the public were labeled “anti-Catholic bigots”. 🤷🏻♀️. Honestly, I thought hard on that and in the end didn’t come to an answer.... but is there a reason I SHOULDNT be anti-Catholic? They have treated LGBTQ horrendously as long as they’ve existed. Women still are. The sex abuse that is constantly protected and covered up in a systematic way is disgusting. Frankly, even the Pope has called out the United States Catholics, why can’t non-Catholic Americans? I’m tired of people hiding behind the cross. Btw, we won. In a seriously red area. First time in the country.
Former Catholic here and it’s morally imperative to be against these bigots. Jesus Himself would be horsewhipping them out of his Church. They’ve transformed the sweet parish in my little town to a nest of Trumpers who pack guns in their waists (and fall out at Mass, nice!) and favor pedophile priests over their neighbors who are Democrats. They’re dangerous. Keep not tolerating them, please. 🙏
I'm glad that you persisted and won the fight to keep the library open. My position is that I'm against the Catholic Church and I'm against the misogyny and bigotry it fosters. I do think that it's important to call out all hatred, in every form, and to keep fighting the exhausting fight against hate. FYI: I'm anti-organized religion. I'm pro morality and ethics.
It occurred to me during my read that Republicans are now the “Incel party”. Not just that Incels support them (shared misogyny), but because both groups are deeply offended that they can’t attract women/voters, but rather than change to be more attractive, they complain and try to change the rules.
With the GOP's adoption of fascism, their new stance reflects the social Darwinism of fascism. Women are placed low on the pecking order in this ancient thinking hierarchy. Fascism is a cult of machismo.
As always, an excellent analysis of core dimensions of authoritarianism.
Thanks Ruth for pointing out how DeSantis copycats Orban.
Orban takes advantage of Hungary being a member of the EU. His regime would flop miserably if he wasn’t in the EU.
Perfect assessment of the fascist movement in the world. It appears that weak and/or unaware people are more susceptible to it! The manipulation of people is the strength of fascism. The US voters must awaken before it’s too late! Trump must not be allowed near the presidency again!
This was powerful and clear. Thanks, Ruth
This analysis brings to mind aspects of Wilhelm Reich's The Mass Psychology of Fascism (2nd edition, 1945). Here are a few sentences from a lengthy, densely written tome:
". . . .It was not until relatively late <in cultural development>, with the establishment of an authoritarian patriarchy and the beginning of the division of the classes, that suppression of sexuality begins to make its appearance. . . . .In short, morality's aim is to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order. . . .There is good reason for all this when seen from the perspective of the now-thriving exploitation of human labor. . . .
I've been thinking about this essay since I read it yesterday. As I therapist, my question is which comes first, the misogynistic authoritarian leader or the rise of a level of comfort in a society that allows for diversification regarding the status of women and gender diversity? I think of the Weimar Republic and the United States before the ascendance of Trump, for example. Then come the great intellectual depression and social represssion of the Nazis and MAGA. It seems to be a cycle as old as humanity itself, because you can see similar patterns in ancient Athens and Rome.
Economically broken societies are ripe for the ascendancy of sociopathic/psychopathic authoritarians like Trump, Mussolini and Hitler. Citizens, in their desperation choose a madman to solve their nation's problems. It seems to matter little that their hero has no conscience, empathy or remorse, or views women as inferior.
The marginalization of certain groups in society is very much in keeping with fascist social Darwinism. Fascism is all about dominance and submission. Women and LGBTQ individuals are considered inferior in the social Darwinist pecking order. Sociopathic fascist leaders view themselves as demigods, and this self image leads to the marginalization of others surrounding them. Sociopathic thinking is very "dominance and submisson" oriented, and therefore so is fascist thinking.
The women's Equal Rights Amendment has long been seen as a danger to our fascist leaning politicians' self image of superiority. This attitude seems to be right out of the Middle Ages.