 The Nature Of Man (Human Evaluation)~ The UT Instinct ~Chapter 11: Gender UT GroupsIf this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary Please note: there is an introduction and 17 chapters in this section. If you have not read the introduction and all the chapters preceeding this one you will not understand the points I am trying to make. To gain understanding you should start - at the beginning Chapter 0.
Gender UT GroupsOne striking example of the result of the UT Instinct and human evaluation mechanism is men's attitude towards women. The gender UT Group is one of the main differentiating UT Groups in our species (one could dedicate a book merely to the subject of the UT Instinct and gender UT Groups). When a baby is born be automatically belongs to one group or the other. And this colours the thoughts and values of every individual towards that person thereafter. It is important to understand that this is just one example of differing UT Groups. Some psychologists are under the impression that sex ‘makes the world go around’ - that the sexual drive is the main force in a human's life etc. I do not agree. UT Groups are based on differences and sex is merely one difference of many many differences. In fact you could say that there are as many differences as there are human beings. Gender may be a main UT Group but so also is religion, nationality, race, skin colour etc etc, and most of these UT Groups are ‘natural’ UT Groups in that an individual does not actually decide to belong to or not. Men, in general (I will leave out ‘in general’ from now on), are of the opinion that women are not equal. The UT Group logic naturally tells them that. This is very similar to the Hightribe and the Lowtribe - the UT Instinct tells us that not being the same is being different; and that being different is being not-equal - therefore they don't deserve the same equality and justice; therefore the laws governing the male is different from that governing the female; therefore the respect towards and protection of the female is different than that given to the male. The male is the dominant UT Group (at present!). But one point I would like to stress and that is that men are no ‘worse’ than women as regards injustice, inequality etc. It just so happens that the male is the dominant UT Group of the gender UT Groups. Human beings are totally equal as regards being controlled by the UT Instinct and human evaluation mechanism. The oppressed often, or one could nearly say always, become the oppressors when the tables are turned. As previously discussed, opportunity is the operative word as regards the physical results (actions) of any particular UT Group. I've attempted to divide the nature of the relationship between men and women into the categories below but, in general, they are all just part of the result of the evaluation mechanism of the male of the species. The Weaker SexOne of the general myths the male has as regards women is that they think that females are weaker. This attitude is used, for example, to justify paying females less than their male counter-parts, and denying them certain careers which the male would prefer to keep to themselves. Yet, how often have we seen photos of women, in less developed countries, carrying enormous loads of firewood long distances with no sign of a male giving any thought whatsoever to the notion of doing the carrying in order to alleviate the toil of the ‘weak’ female. Likewise the women will walk long distances and carry heavy pitchers of water back from a well without the helping hand of a male. Meanwhile the male is either sitting under the shade of a tree, scratching his...... himself, or else away hunting - a much more enjoyable and interesting task compared to the tedious task of gathering firewood or water. Evaluating females as the weaker sex and yet getting them to do the hard work seems illogical - exactly! The ‘us’ UT Group can always justify exploiting the ‘them’ UT Group. The UT Group logic tells them that the Hightribe deserve the ‘good life’ because they are civilised etc and that the ‘them’, the Lowtribe, who are not as civilised do not deserve the same equality, and therefore, obviously, the same ‘good life’. Thus it seems perfectly ‘fair’ and ‘natural’ that the Lowtribe should be considered as being in existence for the benefit of the Hightribe. So, just as most people will consider the ass, or the horse, or any other suitable ‘them’ (eg Blacks, non-nationals, the uneducated etc), as being suitable for carrying heavy burden, males will consider the female as being suitable for exploitation for their own (the male) pleasures and comforts. And it all seems so ‘fair’ and ‘natural’. Voting RightsIt was ‘obvious’ to males that females just couldn't be trusted with the right to vote; they weren't sensible ‘like men were’; they would ‘waste their vote’, or vote along ‘emotional’ lines. Women didn't think in exactly the same manner as men and therefore to the subjective blinkered pathetic mind of the male it was impossible for them to consider that women could think ‘rationally’. Men, somehow!, decided that they themselves thought in a rational manner, females didn't, and therefore women didn't deserve the right to vote. It was rarely a conscious opinion, or a conscious desire, to deny women their rights per se, but rather that it was not the ‘natural’ way of the world. To men, the idea of women voting was unthinkable; just as the idea of the Lowtribe having equal voting rights as the Hightribe would be totally unthinkable to the Hightribe. To give the ‘them’ equal rights, in general, would be to admit that they deserved equal rights, which in itself, would be to admit equality; but the nature of UT Groups tells the members of one UT Group that an ‘opposite’ UT Group absolutely, without any question whatsoever, could not ever be considered equal - otherwise they would be the same UT Group! How could one consider equality when they were so obviously not equal?! Freedom‘Freedom’ is for those who deserve to be free - those capable of ‘looking after themselves’ - those ‘rational’ enough. Men considered that they deserved freedom; many wars, civil wars and unrest were brought about by the desire for freedom. For a person to be called a ‘freedom fighter’ is a compliment (though, as always, depending from which UT Group you are viewing the struggle!). In actual fact, fighting for freedom is, in more cases than not, a selfish act. It is done to benefit those who are fighting. It is rare that a person fights for freedom for others only; where the freedom gained is not for the benefit of those fighting. It is the UT Group fighting for that particular and individual UT Group to gain the freedom - it is not fighting on behalf of every UT Group, or every individual (that is why freedom fighters usually become dictators). The Male UT Group fought for freedom FOR ITSELF and wanted to maintain the subservience of the Female UT Group. There was little point in the Female UT Group fighting as their freedom was denied by ‘their own’ males. Human beings are selfish bioents, just like all other bioents and a dominant UT Group will exploit any other UT Group that it can. Females, being a subordinate UT Group are exploited by the Male UT Group. Naturally enough, since the prize for dominance is both sexual pleasure and domestic comforts, it is well worth while for the Male UT Group to control and own the Female UT Group and to prevent them from ever gaining power. At no time did males consider that they were acting in a ‘dishonourable’ fashion. Until recently, in the ‘West’ anyway, when a man married a woman she became his property. He literally owned her. Any property belonging to the female before marriage, in many cases, became the property of the husband. There was no thought of justice and equality, for reasons already explained; so it wasn't a simply case of the male consciously using his dominance for his own benefit - it actually made ‘moral’ sense instinctively that this should be so, the UT Instinct is a very natural instinct. RapeMen, throughout history, have desired sex with females - with or without their consent. In some cases it may seem that great and very sincere protection, and respect, was given to the female thereby giving the impression that males regarded females and their rights highly; but that is not the case. The reason why rape, on one level, was considered a serious offence was because the male owned the female. This was male property and a rape automatically changed a suitable marriageable (financial) asset into a financial burden. This was destroying good property. This was creating ‘damaged goods’. A husband, until recently in many countries, could not ever be considered as having raped his wife. He owned her. Therefore he decided when to have sex and it was not her option to deny him his rights. She was not an individual in her own right. For the most part this thinking included any violence metered out by a husband to his wife. If she needed to be ‘reprimanded’ then so be it; it was his right to do so. If a man beat a woman not ‘related’ to him (and thus not his property) then he would be breaking the wider UT Group laws - attacking someone else's (another male's) property. The only defence a man needed for a physical attack on a female was to say that she was his (wife or ‘girl’); thus challenging the outsider - the non-owner - as to their right to interfere in ‘his’ business. All these items demonstrate the UT Instinct at work but there is a more clear and subconscious revealing of the UT Instinct in situations where a man rapes a woman and then puts the blame on the woman - the victim. The ‘logic’ of the situation can seem so so reasonable. Here is a male, living by the Male UT Group laws, he doesn't at this particular time have a sexual desire; he sees a beautiful female and is filled with sexual desire; therefore ‘it was the woman who created the sexual desire in the man, and caused him to break the law’ - ‘it is her fault’! She is the cause of his weakness. On a superficial level this is so obviously an incorrect assessment of the situation that one could be lead to believe that the male is desperately, but very feebly, seeking an excuse for his uncivilised behaviour, but it only seems that way if you do not understand the UT Instinct and how subjective we are. It is so easy to think, from a man's point of view, that the female is the cause of the ‘anti-social’ behaviour (‘anti-social’ as regards his fellow Male UT Group opinion - for he attacked the property of a fellow member). The male is a member of the Male UT Group. The very nature of the UT Group tells the male that he is superior, civilised, decent, intelligent etc etc - he is in control - he has self-control. He has the respect of his fellow members (and respects them - and their ‘property’). Then, ‘because of the female’, he breaks the rules of the Male UT Group (as in the basic tribal laws of the Hightribe), thus endangering the very stability of the UT Group and thus creating a situation whereby he may be considered as not being a suitable member of the UT Group. The perpetrator will blame the victim. ControlWhat follows on from the previous sub-section is the notion that the male should control the female. There are two main avenues of ‘thought’ with regards to this attitude. Firstly, as already mentioned, it makes sense for the male to want to control the female. He wants to have sex available whenever he wants; he may want offspring; he certainly wants the usual domestic comforts - clean house, cooked meals, clean clothes etc. Family life suits the male very much indeed. But, the one major flaw in this cosy state of human affairs is that if females had total liberation and equality then the question arises as to why a female should somehow think that her raison d'être was to look after the male and any offspring they may have. What would prevent her from having the notion that the roles should be reversed - that the male should domestically provide the comforts for her? The only possible and suitable arrangement was to take the rights away from the female so that she literally had no choice but to look after the males and accept the status quo. They would have to create a situation and social organisation where the females didn't have a ‘place in society’ unless within a relationship dominated by a male. This was the case for centuries and only now, in the West, are females actually getting equal rights (only legally - the Male UT Group is still very much in existence). This is changing, and will even do so more in the future, the very nature of relationships and society - for better or worse. It may seem that the male is totally selfish - and he is! - just like all bioents (the female just happens to be the subordinate UT Group) but it is the second and main thought process, controlled by the UT Instinct which explains how this treatment of females was considered as being moral, natural and acceptable. The One Tribe Scenario explained how it is totally acceptable for the Hightribe to attack, abuse and plunder the Lowtribe, without it being seen as a reflection on the barbarity and savagery of the Hightribe. Equality of esteem, equality of ‘human rights’ could only be considered for fellow members of the ‘us’ - the Hightribe. The Lowtribe didn't have the same laws etc, and thus didn't have the same level of civilisation - and self control. This is the same attitude that males have towards females - they are not as ‘logical’, they are not as ‘trustworthy’ (they are the tempters, don't forget!), they do not have the same self-control as the males; therefore the ‘logic’ of the situation, to the male mind, is that females need to be controlled (just as a child is considered, by adults, as requiring control) - for their own good! So, the denying of the female her property and physical (sexual) rights was considered by the male as actually doing what was his obligation to do. Thus the male could consider himself as being civilised, decent, fair and respectable even while acting in a manner which denied others their equality, which denied them justice, which denied them their own freedom to act. How could subjective males see that they were behaving in a totally uncivilised manner when the UT Instinct told them that their behaviour demonstrated beyond any doubt or question that they were superior; that they were more civilised; that ‘this is the way things should be’! This is the power of the UT Instinct. One Law For You - One Law For MeAnother aspect of the UT Instinct and UT Group logic is that, because firstly; each UT Group is controlled by its own laws, and secondly; that similar laws within another UT Group are not seen as equal, ACTIONS OF ONE UT GROUP CAN BE SEEN AS ACCEPTABLE WHEREAS THE EXACT SAME ACTION OF A MEMBER OF A DIFFERENT UT GROUP CAN BE SEEN AS BEING UNACCEPTABLE. As I will be showing later, this can lead to really bizarre attitudes. In this case we are concentrating on sexual behaviour. The attitude which males have towards an over-sexually-active male is completely different to that towards an over-sexually-active female. The male will be considered as being a ‘stud’; a sower of wild oats; a ‘jack the lad’. ‘Isn't it only natural!’ Basically he will be seen in a positive light - unless he ‘threatens’ a female belonging to any of the inner UT Group, of course! But a female of like type would be considered by the males as being a ‘slut’; a ‘whore’; a nymphomaniac; a loose woman. (Note the term ‘nymphomaniac’ - giving the impression of uncontrollable sexual madness, as such). She would be seen in a totally negative light. [This attitude is slightly changing in the ‘West’ due to the ‘fact’ that the female is becoming less the property of the male and thus more independent and ‘equal’]. Whereas the male was acting within the (Male) UT Group laws; the female was not acting according to the Male UT Group laws - the laws governing the behaviour of the female as decided by the males. Thus the male deserved respect and equality and the female deserved contempt, inequality and punishment. [At this point I would like to introduce another term, - UT Word (and UT Phrase)]. As you can see from above - words can be used in very defined and subjective ways and can be subject to UT Group logic and can confirm and reaffirm inequality. Words can be used to justify inequality and injustice by merely stating that the individual described is not of the same UT Group and therefore not deserving equality etc as earned by members of that Hightribe UT Group. By calling a woman ‘slut’, or ‘whore’, or ‘nymphomaniac’ automatically places her in a group which deserves contempt. For example, an imaginary scenario could be a man slapping a woman. This would, on the face of it, reflect the savagery and brutality of the male. But if the male was able to demonstrate that she was a ‘slut’, a ‘whore’, and a ‘nymphomaniac’ then this act of slapping her would immediately discontinue to be a negative reflection on the male's behaviour and would become a reflection on the baseness of the female - it would be HER fault that she was being slapped! The male could think, ‘and rightly so’, that he was behaving in a civilised manner! (How many people shout at and punish ‘their’ pets who don't behave exactly as the master desires? When one is dominant one makes the rules to control the subordinates.) The UT Instinct tells the person that it is their duty. A very good example of an UT Word is when the word ‘boy’ is, or was, used to signify a Black male adult. Using the term ‘boy’ automatically justified treating the Black person in an undignified, insulting and humiliating manner. That person couldn't be seen as someone equal, and deserving of respect. Although the fact of calling them ‘boy’ may have been a conscious decision - it was the UT Instinct which controlled the attitude towards the ‘boy’. Honour KillingsTo understand the UT Instinct is to understand the savage and brutal behaviour of humans but in some cases it can be very difficult to examine certain situations without getting angry at the utter stupidity, irrationality and selfishness of this species. Honour killing is definitely one of those situations. In some Islamic societies (though the religion is irrelevant), the honour of the male - and thus his household, is partly dependant on the respectable behaviour of the female within that household, and more so, on the opinion of the local ‘tribal’ UT Group within which the male (owner) lives. If there is even a hint of the female, usually the daughter, having had sex before marriage (or without the consent of the males of the family eg if she marries without consent), then the males feel obliged to kill the female so as to restore ‘honour’ to the household. This shows just how utterly subjective and pathetic the UT Group is. The laws and ‘codes of behaviour’ within the UT Group define the moral level of each member and are more important than the laws of the country in which they reside. What is the point in gaining the respect of outsiders who have no actual control or influence on their lives and in the meantime losing the respect of those among whom they live? The respect desired is from equals - respect from those who are respected by that individual - members of their own UT Group. And so the males set out to kill the female who has dishonoured them. When they kill the female honour will be restored to the household and the males can be proud of their actions - proud of a savage and brutal act and will come out of this situation so sure and positive of their level of civilised living and proper and decent behaviour. They will have ‘done the right thing’. (This is actually a direct result of the male notion of ownership of the females and the control of their sexuality - the ‘justification’ mechanism is the UT Instinct and the male UT Group laws). What About The Females! - Are They Perfect?There is another point to be made here and that relates to our irrationality and the tribal nature of our values. Above I stated that ‘according to men, women are not considered as being equal’ but the fact is that some women also think the same. This is about our instinctive evaluation mechanism. It is not about the selfishness of the males (all bioent are selfish - it is natural!). The fact is that some females would judge the behaviour of the male in the above scenario as being acceptable. Throughout the twentieth century when many females were demanding more freedom in the workplace, voting rights etc I am sure that there were many females who thought that a ‘good wife’ should stay at home and look after the household. They would have thought that this was the ‘natural’ way of the world. It is similar to the notion that it was acceptable for men to smoke but not so for women. Also I am sure that many females thought that politics should be left to the male - ‘who understood it better’! The UT Instinct isn't about rational evaluations. It is tribal. It is subjective. It is illogical. It is stupid. It is based on our very natural bioent instincts. It is irrationality to the nth degree. And females also have the UT Instinct - they are as dumb and stupid as the males. The female of the species has been treated disgracefully by the male throughout history, and unfortunately and sadly, in many countries and cultures, even to the present day. Though it is easy to condemn those who deny females their equal rights as regards: employment - equal rights to the types of jobs and equal pay rates; their own physical and sexual rights - their right to deny a male sexual relations; this booklet is about the nature of humans as a species, and to condemn any section, or group within the species is a waste of time. The species is the problem. The flaw, if you want to call it that, is in our evaluation mechanism - is in every individual. It is an integral part of each and every one of us. We are a savage and brutal species; we are a selfish and destructive species; we are an exploitative and abusing species; we are a stupid and irrational species - though the UT Instinct manages to tell us . . . . the very opposite! Lou Gogan
published: 2006
|
If you want to contact me if there is a specific point you want to make or you want to ask a question about an incident in life which you would like explained within the UT Instinct theory. If you intend to argue a point, or correct an error in the logic - if there are any ;0) PLEASE ONLY DO SO AFTER YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ EVERYTHING IN THE RELEVANT SECTION. Use the form (if visible) on all the Chapters and Articles pages or email me (especially if it is a longish piece of text).
|