Male Training Through Emotional Abandonment & Inferiority Conditioning

by Featured Guest on January 28, 2012

By Joe Zamboni

Hundreds of years ago, in the United States of America, slave owners blocked and severely punished all efforts on the part of slaves to educate themselves. Slave owners knew that if slaves learned to read and write, then they would thereby gain the keys to their own emancipation. Men in the USA, the primary economic slaves and workhorses of modern society, now find themselves in a similar position vis-à-vis women (their slave owners once these men become married).

Slavery is of course much more sophisticated these days, and it relies primarily on boyhood conditioning, social pressure, plus psychological manipulation, and legal enforcement methods. This is contrasted with old-fashioned methods involving ropes, chains, manacles, and other forms of bondage, as well as beatings, and other physical enforcement methods. Many if not most modern American men have been systematically worked so hard, for such a long period of time, that they have virtually no personal time to investigate how it was that they came to be enslaved. They are often educated to become functional as men, more specifically to make money, and to adequately perform other designated roles, such as physically protect women. Unfortunately, for the most part, they do not learn about the relevant history, specifically the antecedent events and attitudes that led to their enslavement. Likewise, they are often so pressed by their manly duties, that they have no time for self-reflection. Even though it may at first seem diversionary from one’s life goals, is important that American take the time to fully appreciate the ways that society has trained and forced men to be both economic slaves and workhorses, as well as take the time to do their own personal psychological emancipation work.

Focusing the balance of this article only on the conditioning of males, consider the psychological disorder called “Self Sacrificing Personality Disorder.” This condition never made it into the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the compendium of psychological disorders used by insurance companies, psychologists, psychiatrists, and others in the mental health field). This diagnosis, which the author believes he has, was proposed by a bunch of male psychiatrists, including Richard Simons. The diagnosis applied to those people who “remain in relationships in which others exploit, abuse, or take advantage of him or her, despite opportunities to alter the situation.” To this author, that pretty much sounds like a slave who thinks he can’t do any better elsewhere, so he might as well remain in his slave owner’s house (the modern situation takes the form of marriage, and after that, divorce with alimony and child support). Or, using MGTOW vernacular, such a man would be a “mangina.”

It is no mistake that a number of women’s groups were outraged by the proposal to include such a diagnosis in the official part of the DSM. This diagnosis ended up being put in an appendix, and thus officially relegated to obscurity. Supposedly the objection that these women’s groups had was that this diagnosis was coming from a group of men. We all know that men are generally far more creative than women, but according to feminists, anything coming from a bunch of men is suspect and untrustworthy. To this author, this proposal could have only come from a group of men, because women have no idea of what it means to be forced to be an economic slave and workhorse in America today. Granted, modern American women can choose to play this role, but they can and often do soon thereafter opt out of it; they are not coerced to live it.

The fact that this diagnosis was never officially endorsed, due to political pressure from feminists, further underscores the pernicious and pervasive power of feminist groups, in this case their power to block some information that might lead to the emancipation of men from their cages [they also blocked information that might lead to the emancipation of some women, but since when did feminists care about individual women?]. Given the many ways that feminist groups attempt to stifle dissent and free thinking among males, it not surprising that the male psychiatrists who originated this diagnosis were accused of “gender bias,” and later humiliated by their own professional association. In fact, it is this author’s opinion that it was not “gender bias” but “gender insight.”

While many examples of feminist attempts to stifle the dissemination of information that might emancipate American men could be cited, I will mention only one here. In George Will’s column, in Newsweek’s 25 December 2000 issue, Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women’s Studies at Bowling Green State University is quoted as saying: “We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech!” This author is grateful for the Internet, and web sites such as this, that assist men in their efforts to adopt an alternative point of view, with which they can then emancipate themselves. Collectively we forward-thinking men can break the grip of the slave-masters.

Getting back to “Self Sacrificing Personality Disorder,” perhaps the feminist women had a point in that this diagnosis is not properly speaking a “personality disorder.” It would be more correct to say that it is a systemic cultural disorder — it is the “prevailing male reality.” In this author’s opinion, this condition is the natural result of emotional abandonment, repeated gender shaming, gender discrimination, unfair gender expectations, and the related cruel and insensitive conditioning experienced by males as they are “socialized” to become accepted in the USA. This diagnosis, termed “offensive and regressive” by feminist opponents, was supposedly viewed as a threat to women. While the author won’t go into the details of their arguments here, and the logic of their objections is as bizarre as many feminist objections are, this author believes that the real reason it was found to be so offensive was that it would put women at a disadvantage. Their role as slave owners, as the supposedly superior gender, would thereby officially be called into question. So again we see how truth is stifled in order to “protect women,” when really what is happening is that the institution of male slavery, and the status of men as workhorses, is being protected from challenge.

That feminists who are not psychiatrists should be able to have such a profound impact on a professional matter that should have been handled exclusively by a special committee of experts working for the professional association is disturbing enough. But this should be no surprise to men’s rights activists, because the misandry and influence of feminists has become entrenched in American culture, for instance in so-called “gender studies” in the curriculum at universities. Of course feminists pressure groups would not want an official declaration that this state of mind is pathological, for it would call into question the ways that males are indoctrinated, trained, and pressured to perform in this culture. This diagnosis, as the male group of psychiatrists stated when they advanced the proposal, is much more common in males than females. The gender imbalance, the feminists probably thought, would tip people off that there was “something rotten in Denmark.” It would lead to additional research, publications, speeches, and other visibility about the psychological control techniques used to coerce males into taking on the traditional male role.

The fact that the psychological literature has become twisted and distorted, due to many a feminist influence, points to the fact that many men are best advised to avoid psychologists and psychiatrists all together. The feminist influence is not only profoundly felt in the professional associations, it is entrenched in the universities that trained these people too. Men are better off managing their own emancipation. There is considerable information on the web describing the Self Defeating Personality Disorder and other DSM diagnoses, and this author recommends that you the reader review it. Do your own work, talk to men’s rights activists, discuss your situation with your male friends, attend men’s groups, go to men’s workshops, study the MGTOW lifestyle as discussed at, and participate with men’s rights organizations. Bring a suspicious attitude to any therapy provided by the establishment (clinics, hospitals, employer health plans, etc.), and note where, and whether, this officially provided therapy is tainted by the hate speech and slavery conditioning that feminism attempts to foist on males.

It is also important that you do your own research, and not take anybody’s word for it when they give you a diagnosis (including this author). Everyone is different, and everyone should have a chance to manage their own emancipation, recovery, and healing process. But American men are nonetheless invited to consider whether the following symptoms describe their relationship with women. According to the male psychiatrists who proposed the Self Defeating Personality Disorder, those who would get the label must have at least six of the following nine behavior patterns (taken from DSM-III-R, published in 1985 by the American Psychiatric Association, pp. 133-134; note that bracketed comments are from this author):

(1) Remains in relationships in which others exploit, abuse or take advantage him or her, despite opportunities to alter the situation [consider the way that so many men remain married to wives that use and exploit them for money],

(2) Believes that he or she almost always sacrifices own interests for those of others [consider how men are still supposed to act with chivalry, for instance paying for dates; and also consider how only men are subject to the military draft, and how the vast majority of war wounded and war deaths are men]

(3) Rejects help, gifts or favors so as not to be a burden on others [consider the conditioning that says men must be independent, must keep their feelings to themselves, must not receive help, etc.]

(4) Complains, directly or indirectly, about being unappreciated [consider how men are in fact unappreciated by women, and expected to give more than women do, for instance in the realm of financially supporting a wife and children]

(5) Responds to success or positive events by feeling undeserving or worrying excessively [male success is these days deemed to be an indication of gender discrimination, while male failure is deemed to be an indication of male inferiority; if an individual male broadcasts information about his success, he makes himself a target, not only of feminist critics, but also of gold diggers]

(6) Always pessimistic about the future and preoccupied with the worst aspects of the past and present [consider that men do not have the safety nets that women do, and here we are talking about domestic violence shelters, aid for the homeless, university scholarships for single parents, and many other institutionalized sources of aid that go predominantly if not exclusively to females]

(7) Thinks only about his or her worst features and ignores positive features [consider that males have been conditioned to be ashamed of their gender, and how they then competitively seek to show that they are “not like those other men,” in the process pathologically cater to female desires and opinions, thereby indirectly further enslaving themselves to women]

(8) Sabotages his or her own intended goals [consider how so many men give up their own life goals, and do what is expected of them, like getting married and having children when a girlfriend gets pregnant by “accident,” even though they did not really want to do these things]

(9) Repeatedly turns down opportunities for pleasure [consider that female pleasure is the goal that both males and females should be seeking, according to this culture, and this shows up in an emphasis on female day spas, female exercise classes, female jewelry, female fashion clothing, female TV programs, and so many other goods and services intended primarily if not exclusively for women; male pleasure is a distraction that keeps slaves and workhorses from doing what they should be doing, like making money for females, and like protecting females]

In summary, consider how large and powerful animals are controlled by humans. The elephant in India has a skinny man riding him, working him until death does them part. The elephant pulls logs, and does all sorts of heavy lifting, and for what? A little food the elephant could have obtained without help? Why would they do that? It’s conditioning; it’s training; it’s indoctrination. For a baby elephant, first it’s a heavy chain and a stout stake in the ground. After the elephant has tried and tried, but has repeatedly failed to escape, it’s spirit has been broken, and he gives in to his chained existence. Like a trained horse, the young elephant has been broken. Later in life, only a small chain with a small stake in the ground, that an adult elephant could easily uproot, is nonetheless sufficient to keep him in place. Men in America have been conditioned in a manner not too far different (in fact a number of women’s advice books discuss conditioning “your man” using dog training tactics). Their early years dominated by women in positions of authority (mothers, teachers, babysitters, etc.), young human American males are totally dependent on females, and as a result they become hooked on female approval and praise. That is the stake in the ground, later reinforced by sex, affection, and societal approval. But the difference between elephants and humans is the ability to self-reflect, and then potentially to change. Will American men live up to the name that scientists gave us (“homo sapiens” – wise and rational man)? It remains to be seen.

Joe Zamboni is not a psychiatrist or licensed mental health professional. Nothing in this article constitutes professional mental health advice. A special shout goes out to Mr. Zorro for his advice and encouragement.

{ 104 comments… read them below or add one }

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: