• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Emotions of Normal People, by William Marston (DISC theory)

T

tps26

Member
Male
The Emotions of Normal People (published 1928) is a book by Psychologist William Marston in which he lays out his DISC theory of human emotion. William Marston was, in terms I believe this circle can agree with, married to two women: Elizabeth Holloway Marston and Olive Byrne, both of whom he lists in the acknowledgement page of this book. William is credited with the invention of the lie detector, which he references the research for in Emotions, and he also was the author and inventor of the early Wonder Woman comics. His family's story is dramatized in the movie, Professor Marston and the Wonder Women, reviewed here. Marston seems to be successful in his marriages; he had children with both women, they resided under the same roof, and his wives continued to live together after his death for the remainder of their lives.

Emotions was written during the feminist revolution in the early 20th century and from what I can tell Marston was sympathetic to the cause. His perspective of what the feminist movement could accomplish however, seems somewhat detached from what it has become today. I would be very interested to hear this man’s perspective on modernity as we know it. As I will elucidate further on, his opinions reside in the assumption that masculine appetite and dominance will always prevent undeviating love, and so all things considered, he believed the human race’s only hope is to re-train women in the traits necessary to lead.

Ultimately I can perceive how he comes to this conclusion because there is no concrete indication in this book that he was a man of faith. What he has unwittingly identified through psychological study and logical deduction is that man is in need of salvation, that we are dead in our sins, and without hope apart from a regeneration of our hearts. Marston, through the lens of humanism, decides to promote a last-ditch effort on equipping women to do this job, as he rightfully identifies a propensity for love and submission more prevalent in that sex. This ideology will ultimately drive the psychology of his Wonder Woman comic, and is also the proposition he makes at the closing pages of the book.

Marston is a keen observer of natural law, and does arrive in the first chapters to the conclusion that the order of things must come from a “vitalistic” or higher, even conscious level down, instead of a “mechanistic” or lower, evolutionary level upward. Many of his observations reveal a lot of wisdom. His observations are worth our consideration as he could certainly be considered a successful polygynist, at least by secular standards, and he went so far as to scientifically evaluate why and how men and women differ psychologically and this without the broken mirror of monogamy-only.
------------------------

The DISC model stands for Dominance, Inducement, Submission, and Compliance. All quotations that follow are Marston’s. I will mostly let him speak for himself in my review, and paraphrase or condense for brevity. (This will still be a lengthy post)

Dominance and Compliance are in opposition to each other with dominance being the greater power forcing compliance. It is the survival of the fittest. Marston seems to recognize this as the dynamic naturally in play between men.

Inducement and Submission are in alliance to the same end with inducement being the stronger power; thus "the weaker (submissive) attractive force progressively weakens itself by facilitating the compulsion exercised upon itself by the stronger (inducing) attractive force." Marston recognizes this as the dynamic naturally in play between women, and to be the ideal for relationships between men and women.

Dominance he defines as “an increase of the self to overcome an opponent”. This could be an environmental or personal antagonist. It is, “a feeling of an outrush of energy to remove opposition". Marston assesses that dominance emotion has “a mixture of pleasantness and unpleasantness throughout the response.”

Compliance is "a feeling of acceptance of an object or force as inevitably just what it is, followed by self-yielding sufficient to bring about harmonious readjustment of self to object. This feeling, unpleasant if the stimulus is too intense to be completely adjusted to, indifferent if the stimulus is of small volume or is composed of inharmonious elements, and pleasant if the stimulus is of moderate intensity, large volume, and is composed of units cumulatively harmonious, constitutes compliance emotion." In other words a reduction of self in the face of a greater antagonistic dominance, but often to just regather and attempt to dominate elsewhere.

Inducement emotion is “a feeling that it is utterly necessary to win the voluntary submission of another person to do what the subject says. This feeling, increasingly pleasant in proportion as the other person submits, constitutes inducement emotion”. “The stronger attractive force progressively strengthens itself by compelling the weaker attractive force to obey its dictates, while all the time the stronger force remains in alliance with the weaker.”

"Many subjects report that inducement becomes very unpleasant if unsuccessful, or when its success remains in doubt. Use of the word “success” in such reports evidences the true dominant nature of the behaviour characterized as “unpleasant”. When one strives for “success” as a conscious end, then one is expressing dominance and not inducement. The purpose sought in such responses is to compel an antagonist into allegiance with the self, and not to lead or induce an ally into conduct favourable to both persons. True inducement is positively pleasant at all times, whether successful or not, because the other person is regarded as a friend, or ally, throughout. Should a wish be entertained to compel the stimulus person to do something against his will, then dominance must have replaced inducement response, and unpleasantness will accompany the failure of the dominance reaction to accomplish its purpose."

Submission is “wanting to give the self helplessly, without question, to the dictation of another person. This feeling, increasingly pleasant in proportion as the self is increasingly controlled by the person submitted to, constitutes submission emotion.”

In other words, compliance is when one has to do something for another, submission is when one wants to do it. “So long as any memory or stimulus intimately associated with the person originally submitted to remains, however, some vestige of pleasantness and of the initial submission reaction also remain. And under no possible conditions can true submission be unpleasant”. "There is only one type of emotional response that is capable of influencing further submission, and that is inducement."

Marston finds it interesting that, “submission is a type of conduct which writers appear quite willing to describe as an attractive sort of behaviour when performed by someone else, but which they rather shrink from acknowledging as a conscious element of their own emotional life.”

Marston notes that similarity between the one doing the inducing and the one submitting is important for the necessary alliance to occur. He observes that women are more likely to submit to other women than to men because they are more alike each other than to a man. He is talking about the give and take of life here – there is nothing that stands out in Emotions to indicate Marston structured his wives in any sort of hierarchy, but some of his anecdotes do leave room for it as a naturally occuring potentiality in female relationships.

It's quite beautiful when you think about it, this mutually supported and cyclic inducement-submission relationship between women, that women could be allied in such natural harmony toward a common purpose.

“My own emotional studies have shown that girls between the ages of five and twenty-five manifest a much larger proportion of submission response in their total behaviour than do males of ages corresponding.” However, Marston notes that this submission is more readily directed toward other women, “it is the girl’s attitude toward her mother, or especially toward her girl friend which, according to my own observations, contains the greatest proportion of true submission.”

A girl's attitude toward her father or husband is noted as more often one of inducement than submission, it's about inducing him to meet her needs (not necessarily a leadership role, although Marston considered capitalizing on it as such for the sake of what he saw as a humanity doomed by constant dominance emotion).

In this case, the submission women are seeking from men is contained in love. Marston defines love as active inducement with passive submission. As patriarchal men we might have a certain aversion to submission as we seek to keep our gender roles clear and delineated, but the conclusion Marston comes to is that love, what we know as man's primary obligation to everyone – God, neighbor, and wives, contains submission as a key ingredient. You can certainly see this in love does not insist on its own way from 1 Cor 13. Likewise if you love God you will keep his commandments. We are not keeping them out of compliance because we are forced to, we keep them because we are induced by him to do so by him, therefore it is an act of true submission, and we in turn induce God on our behalf through thanksgiving and supplication.

"Love is a giving, and not a taking; a feeding, and not an eating; an altruistic alliance with the loved one, and not a selfish conflict with a “sex object”. Whatever the organism has acquired during the expression of its appetitive emotion must be given away again in the expression of love, and “everything” includes the organism itself."

Marston notes that "The development of inducement response in girls and women is quite different from that of males." Marston's premise is that inducement in women does not come naturally mixed with dominant appetite like it does in men.

However when inducement is corrupted by appetite in women we see the following:
"Women who depend solely for their supply upon success of inducements directed toward males inevitably regard all other women similarly engaged as actual or prospective rivals. If the other woman succeeds in persuading Mr. Z. to support her, then Mr. Z is not likely to support the rival female inducer. Even if Mr. Z. were willing to yield to the inducements of both women, he is likely to spend less money upon both than he would spend upon either one alone. Women inducers find themselves in the same relationship to other women inducers that one automobile salesman occupies with respect to another automobile salesman who is after the same customer of moderate means. The result of this situation seems to have been the growth of “society”, or “social” competition between women, wherein each woman treats her rivals with very much the same mixture of inducement and dominance that men exercise toward one another…. Dominance may compel an unpleasant type of compliance response, but true submission responds only to inducement. Social dominance between women, with its thin, transparent disguise of inducement, is the less excusable because the dominance power expressed is borrowed power, originally obtained from males by the use of real inducement."
-----------------------------
Continued in next post...
 
Continued.
----------------------

Marston has a fascination with captivity and how it plays out in love:

"this active love element clearly assumes the characteristic of pleasure in enslaving (making captive) the stimulus person. It must be remembered that the male emotion, just considered, contains a controlling admixture of dominance. The violence, and antagonistic quality of its delight in forcing another person into captivity and subjection, therefore, must be discounted before the true quality of active love emotion can be disclosed. When the dominance is abstracted, and pure active love alone remains, we find still the delight in capturing the weaker, stimulus person. But pure active love requires, for its pleasure, the pleasure of its captive. Active love requires that the person captured must be a willing, wholly submissive captive. The result can be accomplished only when the captor (or captress) makes himself or herself so utterly attractive to the stimulus person that the captured one submits voluntarily to the attraction exercised over him. Active love, according to this analysis, must be defined as capturing a loved person by the power of personal attraction. The term which most nearly conveys this meaning seems to be “captivation”. Captivation means. “Making captive by charm”, which offers a very fair characterization of pure active love emotion. We may, therefore, adopt the term captivation as a verbal symbol for active love emotion.”

Marston explains, "Undoubtedly, both men and women love, and women, at least, love one another in exactly the same way as they love males. Therefore, love emotion cannot be regarded as a “physical difference between male and female”, nor can it be supposed to depend for its existence upon the existence of sex differences. The identification of love emotion with sex is responsible, in a large degree, for the social taboos which occidental civilizations place on love. To regard love as an emotion the expression of which is facilitated by sex differences of body structure is wholesome. But to identify love emotion with sex characteristics in general, especially those of the male leads to a most unfortunate lack of understanding of love, since the male sex is characterized chiefly by a preponderance of appetite. It also leads to a confusion of sex differences in love, with sex differences in appetite.

To call love “appetite” places it at once in a category which the male can understand and dominate. If even active love, or captivation emotion be recognized as a reaction during which the subject must be wholly controlled by alliance with the interests of the person captivated, the response becomes repugnant to the average male because it means that he is not getting, but giving, and the only justification for giving, to the minds of most males, is the possibility of a larger getting to follow. It is dominantly satisfying to a male to think of the love responses as a mere additional source of pleasure, which he can obtain in the ways he is accustomed to obtain appetitive satisfaction; that is, through the exercise of dominance and compliance. If love emotions are thought of as depending wholly upon the degree to which a male is willing to submit to another person, especially a woman, the realization at once follows that he, the male, is no longer able to rule, by his dominance, this love half of life which he knows to be by far the most pleasant. If love is recognized for what it is, it means that the male can never obtain a place of real superiority in love except by learning to become more submissive in proportion to his dominance than is woman. All this is not consciously thought out, of course, but it will be found to exist, I believe, to some degree, as an emotional undercurrent, in the attitude of nearly all males toward love."


If you haven’t detected it already in Marston’s conclusions, what we might today call female bisexuality, Marston just considers normal female sexuality – that a normal disposition for intimacy between women is socially repressed. As previously quoted, he observed that women love other women in the same way as they love men, that is at least in a natural condition, free from appetite and dominance. "The person of another girl seems to evoke from female subjects, under appropriate circumstances, fully as strong captivation response as does that of a male." He even makes a case in Emotions that women are equipped physically to share intimacy with both men and women (i.e. internal and external orgasm), while men are only physically equipped to be intimate with women.

Conversely, he identifies that natural male dominance and appetite make male homosexuality damaging in that "boys entering into such a relationship, tend thereafter to use the primary emotional response of inducement not for its own sake nor for the completion of a true love response, but rather as first aid in furthering the ends of active and passive appetite or both. This use of inducement, as we shall have occasion later to observe, constitutes one of the most unfortunate of personality developments."

Marston closes his book by explaining a phenomenon that is especially pertinent to those with or interested in biblical families, that is, that basing normalcy off of public observation of the majority will lead to erroneous conclusions. What I see in the following paragraphs is a veiled tirade against the frustratingly obtuse population that forced him to keep his polygynist family life a secret (Also note his observation of the effects of this phenomenon on love between women):

"The part of the behaviour of any member of a group of human beings which any other member of the group is able to observe, constitutes a small and unrepresentative fraction of the other person’s total conscious activities. The part of any individual’s behaviour which he permits other individuals to observe is that part which he believes will find most merit in the observer’s eyes and, therefore, will probably procure the maximum benefit, of one sort or another, for the person observed. People are taught, from earliest childhood, that the “right thing to do” is what they are told to do by those who are able to give them rewards. Children tend, therefore, to behave, in the presence of their parents, according to the rules of behaviour set by the parents. With other children, their behaviour is quite different. Still, their responses are not wholly normal, because they have already learned to shape their actions in such a way as to produce the effect upon other children most advantageous to themselves. In absolute secret, however, with no other individuals present, the child behaves in a radically different manner. This secret conduct is most normal. Yet the child quickly learns to regard it as most abnormal. As the individual grows older, his explicit behaviour becomes more and more controlled by what he thinks other people will approve of, and will reward him for most handsomely. His own normal self, determined as it is by his physical body structures, continues to express itself in secret, but gradually this normal behaviour becomes almost wholly implicit, in order not to reveal itself in some action not beneficial to the subject in the eyes of his fellows. Thus human beings, by adhering to the general type of observable behaviour in their own group, learn to regard more than one half of their normal selves as abnormal. In order to continue to be thought normal, they must continue to regard their own natural, secret behaviour as abnormal. Moreover, though they may have a shrewd suspicion that other members of their particular group are behaving in secret very like themselves, they quickly learn to regard such secret normalcy of their fellows, whenever discovered, as disgustingly abnormal also. Upon learning that neighbour John Smith is secretly enjoying a true love relationship with a woman who could not advantageously be presented as Mrs. Smith, each secretly normal individual quickly denounces Smith’s conduct with all the virulence at his command. Another stone has been added to the burden of abnormality under which humanity is labouring. The “Inner Conviction” of Abnormality All of which means, so far as emotional re-education goes, that the stupendously difficult task confronting the clinical psychologist is to convince normal people that the normal part of their emotions is normal. The more normal they are, the more people tend to entertain an “inner conviction” of abnormality. It is very easy, therefore, to detect some normal love longing which the subject already believes to be utterly abnormal, and to convince him (or more likely her), that his secret emotion must be “sublimated” into learning to play church music, or writing essays on art, which will never be published. But it is ridiculous to suppose that these so called “sublimations” will really do anything more than deprive the woman of part of her normal self which, prior to the “analysis”, she had at least a fighting chance of ultimately expressing overtly in a normal way.

The only practical emotional re-education consists in teaching people that there is a norm of psycho-neural behaviour, not dependent in any way upon what their neighbours are doing, or upon what they think their neighbours want them to do. People must be taught that the love parts of themselves, which they have come to regard as abnormal, are completely normal. More than this, people must be taught ultimately, that love (real love, not “sex appetite”), constitutes, in the human organism, the ultimate end of all activity, and that to gain this end appetite emotion must first, last, and always be adapted to love.

Modern appetites are monstrously developed. To satisfy them, even partially, we must have things, and more things, and to get things we are obliged to comply with the people who now possess them. They set the standards. And they set standards, naturally, which enforce compliance with their own thing-getting activities, and which tend to make those activities more successful. The doctrine of taking the average, observable behaviour of any group as the definition of normal behaviour, really means that the degree of compliance with things which any person manifests is the measure of his normality. What an astounding doctrine! You are normal, according to this doctrine, in proportion to the amount of yourself that you are willing to give up, or to consider abnormal, in order to get more things.


The fact is that persons of appetitive superiority have usurped the position of love leaders by virtue of their superior appetitive strength. They assume to dictate not only what other people must do in order to receive a share of their wealth and power, but also what the public in general must do, supposedly for its own good, without any hope of sharing in the spoils. It is impossible for a man who has spent his life in appetitive activity, or whose pre-eminent position depends upon successful maintenance of vast possessions, to prescribe any rules of conduct other than appetitive rules. It is likewise impossible for him to avoid using his dominant supremacy to compel less powerful people to act in a way favourable to his own interests. If, then, the public at large accept men of this type, not only as appetitive dictators but also as supposed love leaders of humanity, the present utterly abnormal suppression of love must continue."


Near the end of the book I am thinking, he could very neatly package up all of these observations into a strong call for men to step up to the plate and become loving leaders toward women and children, however as previously mentioned, he opts instead to proffer a retraining of women even though he acknowledges there are more attributes that women would have to retrain than men, he sees men as a lost cause, and if it weren't for the regenerative love of Christ and adoption as sons of the Creator I think he would be absolutely right:

"As a result of my own observations so far, I have reached the tentative conclusion that male love leadership is virtually impossible, for the two reasons stated. First, a man’s body is not designed for active love, and does not, therefore, keep him sufficiently love stimulated to control his overdeveloped appetite. Second, if he attains appetitive leadership, he is unable to turn this into love leadership, because other people will not submit to him sufficiently.

What are the qualifications of an active love leader, in the situation under discussion? There are four requisite attributes.

First, an organism whose intra-organic stimulus mechanisms cause active love emotion to be evoked, preponderantly over passive love (passion), or any phase of appetite emotion.

Second, sufficient appetitive power for self-support, without dependence, directly or indirectly, upon the persons who submit to the leader’s direction.

Third, a person with sufficient wisdom to understand all the emotion mechanisms of the adult organism.

Fourth, a person with sufficient practical knowledge of existing social and economic institutions to be able to adapt the necessary measures of social reorganization, so as to evoke a maximum normalcy of emotional response from the public.

These four requirements probably cannot be met by any one in the world to-day. But they represent a wholly practical pattern of personality, which can be evolved, within a few generations, if emotional education is directed specifically towards the training and development of love leaders; and simultaneously, toward development of a corresponding attitude of passive love on the part of the people who are in need of love leadership.

We have already seen that males cannot be counted on, unless the male organism changes radically. (It’s almost like we need Christ-like love, humility, and faith in God?) The only possible candidates for love leader training, therefore, are women. But of the four qualifications specified above, women of the present day possess only the first, namely, an organism containing adequate intra-organic love stimulus mechanisms.

Here is where I wish Marston could have time-traveled to the future because I suspect his fear, stated below, of women continuing to turn to self-serving appetite despite appetitive/financial independence has been realized. Ultimately, we are all dead in our sins.

It seems to me by far the most hopeful symptom of emotional evolution within the period of recorded human history, however, that women are beginning to develop both the power and willingness to support themselves. When this power is developed to three or four times its present capacity, some women, at least, will have acquired the second essential attribute of active love leadership, namely, appetitive self reliance....But woman must be taught to use her love power exclusively for the benefit of humanity and not for her own destructive, appetitive gratifications, as so many women are doing, under the present appetitive regime."

All told, there is a lot of truth in Marston's raw observations, his unique definitions that defy literary conventions, and his insight into human nature, however, his conclusions while scientifically plausible are in contradiction to the thesis he puts forward in chapter 2, namely that "vitalistic" sources have the final effect:

"If a balance is to be struck, then, upon the basis of empirical observation, between vitalistic and mechanistic types of causation, we should be obliged to concede to the vitalistic causes the final balance of power."

Marston sees that "Vitalism seems to associate itself very intimately with religion." and even uses “God made man in His own image”, as an example of this. What throws off his final conclusion though is his lack of understanding that God is the source of man, and man is the source of woman.

The take away I would present of all of this for those who would practice a biblical family lifestyle is this: that God is the source of all and the highest cause. That God created man in his image, and that woman was taken from man and for man, that for unity and order to coexist in a marriage, women must submit to their men, and men must love their women That we are dead in our sins and must be reborn as sons of God in order to be love leaders, and that man's purpose as a love leader is to point back up to his source – this is ultimately the purpose of patriarchy, to orient everyone upwards through their genealogy to the original Father and Creator of all. As the ancient hymn says:

"Of the Father’s love begotten,
Ere the worlds began to be,
He is Alpha and Omega,
He the source, the ending He,
Of the things that are and have been,
And that future years shall see,
Evermore and evermore."
 
Marston wasn’t in anyway a “feminist “. Feminism claims to believe in the basic equality and interchangeability of the men and women. Marston believed that men and women were intrinsicly different and that men had ruled, and rightly so, because they’re innate nature was more suited to the world that had existed. He believed that the world had fundamentally changed though and that men’s nature was now a liability in the age of nuclear weapons and that women’s innate nature was better suited for rule in the new world. This overlaps with feminism, although they wouldn’t admit it, but controverts a fundamental law of feminism that there is no such thing as a innate nature to the sexes and that men were never right to rule over women..
 

Attachments

  • upload_2020-4-10_18-42-36.jpeg
    upload_2020-4-10_18-42-36.jpeg
    25.8 KB · Views: 10
  • upload_2020-4-10_18-42-36.png
    upload_2020-4-10_18-42-36.png
    136 KB · Views: 6
That whole thing reads like a psychobabble gobbledygook version of servant leadership.

tps26 said:
, his unique definitions that defy literary conventions
Click to expand...

They are unique definitions, which is another way of saying he has redefined words to mean what he wants them to mean rather than what they are. This is necessary because, as presented, he has a hopelessly idealistic view of things out of joint with reality.

The Revolting Man said:
Marston wasn’t in anyway a “feminist “. Feminism claims to believe in the basic equality and interchangeability of the men and women. Marston believed that men and women were intrinsicly different and that men had ruled, and rightly so, because they’re innate nature was more suited to the world that had existed. He believed that the world had fundamentally changed though and that men’s nature was now a liability in the age of nuclear weapons and that women’s innate nature was better suited for rule in the new world. This overlaps with feminism, although they wouldn’t admit it, but controverts a fundamental law of feminism that there is no such thing as a innate nature to the sexes and that men were never right to rule over women..
Click to expand...

There is a split in feminism between those who think they are interchangeable and changeable and those who think they are different and unchangeable.

Maston's view, as outlined above, is still basically a feminist viewpoint though. It views men as the problem and women as more virtuous.

I think he'd fit right in with the modern left. He's essentially defined the carnal nature as 'normal' and right and would fit right in with the Love Wins crowd. I see shades of polyamory thinking all throughout that review.
 
rockfox said:
That whole thing reads like a psychobabble gobbledygook version of servant leadership.



They are unique definitions, which is another way of saying he has redefined words to mean what he wants them to mean rather than what they are. This is necessary because, as presented, he has a hopelessly idealistic view of things out of joint with reality.



There is a split in feminism between those who think they are interchangeable and changeable and those who think they are different and unchangeable.

Maston's view, as outlined above, is still basically a feminist viewpoint though. It views men as the problem and women as more virtuous.

I think he'd fit right in with the modern left. He's essentially defined the carnal nature as 'normal' and right and would fit right in with the Love Wins crowd. I see shades of polyamory thinking all throughout that review.
Click to expand...
I would counter that Marston was actually patriarchal, he just believed the patriarchy had outlived its usefulness. It’s hard to say where he would have fallen on today’s ideological scale. He was certainly willing to buck the mainstream. He was certainly willing to risk his position. It’s entirely possible he was just a proto- third wave feminist. I tend to think he was more likely to end up an Ayn Rand style small “l” libertarian. Although his drive to reconcile the reality of patriarchy with what he perceived to be the emerging realities of the post modern world may have been an indication of a willingness to bend.
 
The application is the sticky point, but I think that Marston does stumble upon basic human nature. Men are often struck in a dominance struggle. Just look on these threads, and most social settings.

What we patriarchal men see or expect as submission is really just well presented compliance. We see the proof in the pudding when a man suggests bringing home another wife.

The God to man relationship is a good indicator of that submission as commented on by @tps26. "We love Him, because he first loved us." "Greater love hath no man than this...that a man lay down his life for his friend."

It's what made all of Jesus' disciples ready and willing to be martyred for him. It wasn't dominance, it was inducement. Inducement from a position of "I'm willing to give my all for you, even if you don't reciprocate. I do it because I want to, not because you are making me." Our Lord said He laid down his life willingly.

That type of relationship speaks volumes to both men and women. It's what makes great military leaders, I'm told.
 
In addition, numerous anonymous polls have been taken in the workplace over the years. I'm not sure if it's still true in this "Me Too" generation of younger women, but it's been noted that the majority of women would rather have a male boss than a female. I think that catty rivalry and faux friendships wth women are probably part of it, but Marstons ideas about the female sex being more inclined to submission by inducement, and the male inclination to dominate or inducement plays out in it. There could also be a psychosexual element too that plays a part. Haven't thought about it.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I would counter that Marston was actually patriarchal, he just believed the patriarchy had outlived its usefulness. It’s hard to say where he would have fallen on today’s ideological scale. He was certainly willing to buck the mainstream. He was certainly willing to risk his position. It’s entirely possible he was just a proto- third wave feminist. I tend to think he was more likely to end up an Ayn Rand style small “l” libertarian. Although his drive to reconcile the reality of patriarchy with what he perceived to be the emerging realities of the post modern world may have been an indication of a willingness to bend.
Click to expand...

I got it, besides the strong servant leadership parallels, from this..."He believed that the world had fundamentally changed though and that men’s nature was now a liability in the age of nuclear weapons and that women’s innate nature was better suited for rule in the new world. "

That's a feminist view point (myth) which comes from the conception that women as more spiritual, more pure, and men more violent. I.e. mens propensity to violence is too risky in an age of nuclear weapons. That idea turned out to be very wrong. Nuclear weapons led men to stand down from World Wars (a symptom of male virtue: they avoided war when the cost to others became too great). On the other hand historically women leaders are more likely to get their countries into war than male ones.

Men and women are both capable of great evil, including murder, they just have different means and methods. If you properly take into account abortion, women are vastly more disposed to murder than men in America today. We just look the other way and pretend it's not happening when the perps are our cute little 'innocent' daughters and blame the doctors instead. Sort of like blaming assassins for murder for hire and refusing to prosecute those that hire them.
 
rockfox said:
I got it, besides the strong servant leadership parallels, from this..."He believed that the world had fundamentally changed though and that men’s nature was now a liability in the age of nuclear weapons and that women’s innate nature was better suited for rule in the new world. "

That's a feminist view point (myth) which comes from the conception that women as more spiritual, more pure, and men more violent. I.e. mens propensity to violence is too risky in an age of nuclear weapons. That idea turned out to be very wrong. Nuclear weapons led men to stand down from World Wars (a symptom of male virtue: they avoided war when the cost to others became too great). On the other hand historically women leaders are more likely to get their countries into war than male ones.

Men and women are both capable of great evil, including murder, they just have different means and methods. If you properly take into account abortion, women are vastly more disposed to murder than men in America today. We just look the other way and pretend it's not happening when the perps are our cute little 'innocent' daughters and blame the doctors instead. Sort of like blaming assassins for murder for hire and refusing to prosecute those that hire them.
Click to expand...
That is feminism’s dirty little secret but it is not explicitly admitted and both modern feminists and Marston would see themselves as different.
 
The Revolting Man said:
That is feminism’s dirty little secret but it is not explicitly admitted and both modern feminists and Marston would see themselves as different.
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure which part of that you're talking about. The whole thing? Not given to evil? Such is the nature of men, it seems mostly that only the Christians are able to come to grips with the carnal nature of man.
 
rockfox said:
Not exactly sure which part of that you're talking about. The whole thing? Not given to evil? Such is the nature of men, it seems mostly that only the Christians are able to come to grips with the carnal nature of man.
Click to expand...
Feminists would not admit in their white papers that men and women aren’t equal and interchangeable in their roles. Feminism and the charge for redress of past wrongs to women fall apart of women were simply experiencing the Darwinian results of their environment. Gender theory, the idea that gender is a social construct that is imprinted in children is central to third wave feminism. Gender theory can not exist is Marston’s world where men and women have innate natures. This one fact alone separates irrevocably from third wave feminism. Feminists excoriate the patriarchy as an eternal evil. Marston sees the patriarchy as a necessary good, much the same way that Marxists see capitalism as a necessary good on the way to socialism.
You can not reconcile Marston with third wave feminism.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Feminists would not admit in their white papers that men and women aren’t equal and interchangeable in their roles. Feminism and the charge for redress of past wrongs to women fall apart of women were simply experiencing the Darwinian results of their environment. Gender theory, the idea that gender is a social construct that is imprinted in children is central to third wave feminism. Gender theory can not exist is Marston’s world where men and women have innate natures. This one fact alone separates irrevocably from third wave feminism. Feminists excoriate the patriarchy as an eternal evil. Marston sees the patriarchy as a necessary good, much the same way that Marxists see capitalism as a necessary good on the way to socialism.
You can not reconcile Marston with third wave feminism.
Click to expand...
Especially since modern gender theory rejects the notion of the benefits of traditionally masculine traits. It promotes a "gender neutral" society that actually looks very feminine.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Feminists would not admit in their white papers that men and women aren’t equal and interchangeable in their roles. Feminism and the charge for redress of past wrongs to women fall apart of women were simply experiencing the Darwinian results of their environment. Gender theory, the idea that gender is a social construct that is imprinted in children is central to third wave feminism. Gender theory can not exist is Marston’s world where men and women have innate natures. This one fact alone separates irrevocably from third wave feminism. Feminists excoriate the patriarchy as an eternal evil. Marston sees the patriarchy as a necessary good, much the same way that Marxists see capitalism as a necessary good on the way to socialism.
You can not reconcile Marston with third wave feminism.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. Could be. To me Marston's argument looks like rhetorical flourish. "Sure men's badness used to be needed but the world has changed now and women should lead." Nothing more than a nod to those who would object that we need men to protect us from other bad men. At heart though his attitude towards men is the same as feminists; that there is something fundamentally wrong with men. Were he living now, I expect he'd drop that bit of rhetoric. His whole argument reads like servant leadership, something pushed by so-called Christians who likewise present a posture of being anti-feminist while in truth believing in their core attitudes and working to subject men.
 
From what I know of that university, it is mostly conservative, but I also think it's enrollment is something like 65:35 female to male enrollment (could be even wider) like most other Christian institutions. I'll check stats later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top