.png)
Okay, so I've seen a few posts where the statement is made that males are incapable of love (narcissistic by design). This is usually refuted by claiming that this is a defeatist, hopeless and scarcity mindset. I wanted to chime in on this with my two cents. I would greatly appreciate more discussion on this, because I believe it cuts at the core of what FDS and female liberation is.
First of all, on labelling people as narcissists:
Dr Ramani, who is a pretty much a leader in studying narcissism- has always stated that narcissism is a term that can and must be used liberally. It is simply a personality trait- just like "quiet", "extroverted", "easy-going", "selfish", "difficult", etc. Narcissistic Personality Disorder, is a different thing (much higher levels on the scale) and is the diagnosis that should be given by professionals only. However, Dr Ramani has advocated for removing the diagnosis altogether. Here are some videos on labelling Narcissism that I found interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0OHXUb4vqM
In summary:
The people who suffer the most are the ones around the narcissistic person and not the narcissist himself/herself
People with narcissism are less likely to go to therapy for this on their own
Insurance companies don't support the diagnosis because they feel it's incurable and they don't want to pay for that
Professionals are reluctant to diagnose people with NPD even when it fits because the patients are unaccepting and get extremely angry (threaten to sue, threaten the psychologist in general)
At the end of the day, the diagnosis does nothing to help narcissists and it's pretty much incurable in a practical generalizing sense
Also, I don't think saying men are incapable of love is defeatist or blanket. In my humble opinion, something is only defeat when the other side/option is a "win". I feel that at the core- the choice between man or no man is equally good either way. Being single is not the absence of having a (good) man. Even if all the men on the planet were HV, being single is still an equally valid choice. When we say a (good) man will make our life better, he will make it better in *some* and not *all* ways. Similarly, being single also will make our life better in *some* ways.
In my opinion, scarcity mindset doesn't go away if you believe that men can be good- it goes away when you believe that life will be the same whether not not you have a good man. Good men are not the resource that have become scarce, make sense? Good men are scarce *by design*- which lead me to my second point.
I don't think the statement is blanket either because I believe that patriarchy and the oppression of women starts at a biological level. Here's what I read to make me believe that: (https://trustyourperceptions.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/semen-mens-chemical-war-against-women-no-skip-intro/)
So, good men are natural anomalies but not the ideal imagined rule. Of course there are good men out there in the planet- I certainly haven't seen all of them to ever exist in the past, present and future to claim otherwise. But they will always be only a few of them, unless we change males at the biological level.
My final point is on hope. And it ties back to narcissism. My opinions on hope are also heavily influenced by narcissism and abuse. It is warned by many experts (even my favorite Dr. Ramani) that hope is a tricky thing. It can be the KEY to your downfall. Hope makes us disbelieve reality, hope keeps us in toxic relationships and hope can leave us vulnerable. I am of the personal opinion that hope is a fairytale used as a tool to keep us collectively making the same mistakes. We hope he will be an exception to the rule. We hope we will be an exception to the rule
But if there is no hope, how will we dream and make the world a better place? I think that the opposite of hope is not de-motivation, depression and defeat. I think the opposite of hope is Radical Acceptance- a more realistic view of things and focus on more *effective* ways to change the world. Hope that we can do something different now, instead of trying to fix what clearly cannot be fixed. Just like FDS. Hope in itself is not bad, it is in fact key to our mental health- but we must hope for the right things. I personally think that hoping and believing men are capable of love is a bad idea.
The question may arise- how will we ever be in a genuine loving relationship with a man if we don't believe in their capacity for love? Like I said- if you are in such a relationship, if you have met a truly loving man, you have met an anomaly. That's great- it's not impossible. But we do not hope for anomalies. Like another poster said here, it's as sensible as hoping for the lottery
TLDR- Making "blanket" statements about men is not a bad thing, nor should it increase the scarcity mindset- because of the fact that not having a good man is not a bad thing either.
PS- this is indeed a tough conversation and I certainly don't have all the answers. I also have a sheepish confession to make- Being a heterosexual, I hope to find a good man in the future lol. I welcome you opinions and any more resources on these topics of narcissism, hope and male nature.
(https://trustyourperceptions.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/semen-mens-chemical-war-against-women-no-skip-intro/)
About the article linked above, I totally agree with its research. We women have been evolved to be receptive towards men, and (sadly) there is nothing that we can do about it as of now. I believe this emphasizes the importance of finding a HLM that won’t do this to you.
The claim that semen contains substances fostering loyalty in females is presented as a form of manipulation, however, from an evolutionary standpoint, the bonding effects of oxytocin and vasopressin can be viewed as mechanisms encouraging pair-bonding and cooperation for successful offspring rearing. Rather than manipulation, this emphasizes the cooperative aspects of reproductive strategies. Also, the article introduces the idea that males block genes in females to prevent parthenogenesis, linking it to the effects of semen on behavior. While certain genetic mechanisms prevent parthenogenesis in mammals, connecting this to memory or behavior effects seems speculative and lacks direct evidence. The lack of substantial scientific evidence, coupled with the apparent alignment with a particular ideological viewpoint, calls for careful consideration. I think the author is misinformed, so we sisters must do our own research to circumvent the ever-present male influence on our rise to power.