I am a woman born 1949 and my quest is to find a mindmate
to grow old together as a mutually devoted couple
in a relationship based upon the
egalitarian rational commitment paradigm
bonded by intrinsic commitment
as each other's safe haven and secure basis.

The purpose of this blog is to enable the right man
to recognize us as reciprocal mindmates and
to encourage him to contact me:

The entries directly concerning,
who could be my mindmate,
are mainly at the beginning.
If this is your predominant interest,
I suggest to read this blog in the same order
as it was written, following the numbers.

I am German, therefore my English is sometimes faulty.

Maybe you have stumbled upon this blog not as a potential match.
Please wait a short moment before zapping.

Do you know anybody, who could be my mindmate?
Your neighbour, brother, uncle, cousin, colleague, friend?
If so, please tell him to look at this blog.
While you have no reason to do this for me,
a stranger, maybe you can make someone happy, for whom you care.

Do you have your own webpage or blog,
which someone like my mindmate to be found probably reads?
If so, please mention my quest and add a link to this blog.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

225. Domination, Nature or Nurture?

Domination, Nature or Nurture?

I ended entry 223 with the slogan:  Domination is Abomination.   When I wrote this, I made it up myself.   But in the time of the web, originality is rare.   If something is plausible, it usually has already occurred to someone else's mind.    When I googled the slogan, I found out, that it is already the title of a book, which I will read first before recommending it.   

Male domination seems to be a virulent expression of the hierarchy instinct.    Not only have men evolved enough physical strength to be able to force domination upon women, but so many men seem to take the privilege to be able to dominate for granted.   I am afraid that there could be a complementary submission instinct in some women, who accept subjugation, subordination, obedience and docility to the male domination as the unavoidable condition to be able to breed as driven by their procreation instinct.  

In entry 214 I quoted from Wyman's lecture the direct acquiescence of women with being beaten when failing obedience to their husbands.    It is hard to explain.   Can they really be so brainwashed to not only be docile, but consider this as correct?  

Here is an example.   When I used to come home on a bus I frequently saw there a woman with a boy of about 8 or 9.    Obviously, his mother was picking him up from school every day.   Not only this, but every single time, when I saw them, she was carrying the boy's school bag.   As far as I could judge, he seemed to be a healthy normal child, able to do both, carry his school bag and taking the bus by himself.   Of course the outward impression could have been misleading, maybe he went to some school for kids with special needs and needed to be accompanied.
The woman spoke German like an educated person and with no accent.   From her looks, she could have been German.    But she was dressed in the typical attire of older immigrant muslim women, a long spacious coat and that kind of a headscarf, that envelops the entire head except the face.  
So maybe the boy could have been a normal child, were it not for a mother preventing him to be influenced by the free life of German kids, and carrying his bag as a servant to a child, just because the child is male and she is female, educating him from early on to consider every woman as an inferior servant, even the own mother.

My best explanation for this observation is to assume this woman to be one of those converts, who to me are absolutely incomprehensible.    Some of them are university educated people, and once in a while one can read about them in the newspaper.  They are active in religious organisations.   There have been court cases, when converted women insisted to wear the headscarf as a teacher.   

There are not so many in Germany, but convertion to islam seems to be a common phenomenon in other countries:
"In the US it is estimated that approximately 30,000 convert annually. There are about 2.4 million Muslims in Britain and studies suggest there are between 10,000 and 14,000 white converts among them. It is estimated that 75 per cent are female."
And the author asks the same question as I am:
"why do women in the West, having grown up with the benefits that four decades of feminism have brought, choose a lifestyle and religion which brings them such a subjugated existence? "

When a man converts to islam, it is sadly comprehensible, because this religion gives him more permission and justification to dominate than he can get by any other method.   I once read some parts of the Koran, and I nearly puked of outrage.   Women are not only generally disrespected and depreciated, but polygyny and beating are allowed.    I cannot understand, why on earth a western woman would convert to such a religion.  

Brainwashing at a young age, by the pressure of social norms and by role models can certainly modify instinctive inclinations and urges.    This way it could be explained, that an egalitarian woman without any hierarchy instinct would have the resignation to endure slight domination without being harmed.   It could also explain, how a man without any hierarchy instinct automatically tends to do slightly dominating things without even being aware of this, being consciously an egalitarian in his value system.  
But when a person, who has grown up into equality both by education and by having a good career, chooses to enter a life situation of subjugation and docility, then the most plausible explanation would be the awakening of a strong instinctive urge, that had been dormant.   This indicates, that the effects of the hierarchy instinct can be strong enough to partially deactivate the brain even of highly qualified women.  

If the same hierarchy instinct, which causes many men to attempt to dominate, also causes many women to accept being dominated, then maybe the outrage of many women in the west is not so much against the principle of establishing hierarchies of domination, but only against the more drastic expressions like battering.    Maybe the instinct to raise children has the side-effect of the willing submission to some domination by the man, who provides for those children.   

People look at the world from their own perspective and get a more or less distorted impression about the bell curve and the own position in it, and I am not free from this myself.    With the absence of the procreation instinct, it is beyond my imagination, how a woman can love a screaming bundle in stinking napkins so much, that she willingly enslaves herself to serve that bundle's every need for many years.    This is, why I just cannot imagine to ever accept subjugation, which for them at least sometimes is an unavoidable sacrifice for the benefit of that bundle.   

Maybe only a minority of women like me perceive the usurpation of dominance by men as an insolence and presumption and feel harmed in their dignity and humiliated and abased?   
Maybe most women do not mind non-violent, subtle, low-level domination and are not emotionally affected by it, because this is the complementary effect of the hierarchy instinct upon women?   
Maybe it is my projection, that the world is mainly filled with men attempting to dominate egalitarian women?   
Maybe the world is filled with a few egalitarian people, who have the genetic privilege of being spared the hierarchy instinct, and a lot of men and women, who both are afflicted in a complementary way with the hierarchy instinct?  
Maybe the real conflict is between the amount of domination exercised and accepted, when men want to dominate drastically, while women only submit to subtle low-level domination?

I have no answer to these maybe questions, but I know that I am looking for an egalitarian mindmate, who consciously does neither attempt to dominate nor does he perceive domination as beneficial for him.