‘Women Are Not Angelic’
June 4, 2010
HERE is a bold, countercultural piece written in 1946 by a leading American psychiatrist. He contends the push for female equality will be a disaster because women are emotionally stunted and tend to abuse power. “Woman’s nature,” he writes, “in combination with the diverse compulsions and taboos of civilization, gives rise to a strong craving for mistreatment.” His words are prophetic.
Dr. Ralph S. Banay, a Columbia University professor whose essay appears in The Milwaukee Journal, says “the fair sex is emotionally childish, inclines toward crime, cruelty and deceit, and doesn’t really want equality with men,” but power over them. He writes:
“Woman’s emotional aspect simply has not gone along with the rest of her entity. Woman has become a big and powerful factor in business, the professions, the arts and community life, but emotionally she has hardly moved at all; emotionally she is still back where she was when her stone age counterpart was an object of the chase to be captured and subdued.”
He advises every woman to place these words in a prominent place: Women are not angelic.
It’s interesting that Banay was a psychiatrist. He would be horrified by psychologists today who push the idea that women are indeed angelic and that masculinity is a disorder.
— Comments —
Fitzgerald writes:
HERE is a bold, countercultural piece written in 1946 by a leading American psychiatrist. He contends the push for female equality will be a disaster because women are emotionally stunted and tend to abuse power. ”Woman’s nature,” he writes, “in combination with the diverse compulsions and taboos of civilization, gives rise to a strong craving for mistreatment.” His words are prophetic.
YES!!!! The basic core tenant of GAME practitioners is to exploit this to use women for sexual satisfaction!
Kristor writes:
When I read Laura’s statement that “[Banay] would be horrified by psychologists today who push the idea that women are indeed angelic and that masculinity is a disorder,” it prompted the realization that, at its apotheosis, liberalism must define normalcy as a disorder. Soon, e.g., we will see heterosexuality condemned as “narrow-minded,” and bi-sexuality promoted as healthy and good, the new normal.
The sidebar quotation of an essay by Margaret Mead was just perfect:
By ignoring the fact that women bear children and by feeding the newborn out of bottles we make it possible for social patterning to transcend biological limitations.
By ignoring reality we can transcend it. Is this a perfect summation of the pride of Babel, or what?
Randy B. writes:
I remember years ago hearing how much worse women’s restroom chatter is than men’s. From my perspective, this is not difficult to imagine because I don’t talk to guys in the restroom, I am there for other functions. I have no first-hand audible proof of degraded female speech, which probably has to do with the total number of times I have been in a woman’s restroom. But taking others at their word, (young?) women are exceedingly foul, and this goes back to the 80s. It strains congruity to imagine the decay in the subsequent two and one half decades since that time. The first time I heard about how foul Sharon Stone and Meg Ryan were on movie sets, I was so set back I wrote it off, then I heard recordings of their public speaking propensities. So on hearsay and these two examples alone, I would have to agree: women are not angelic.
