So What Do Men Want In A Woman? A loaded question with implications for unveiling the secrecy behind gang stalking and electronic targeted assaults
What, in this conflict-ridden arena of current heterosexual relations, does a man want from a woman?
According to male psychologists from Connell Cowan and Melvyn Kinder in their book “Smart Women, Foolish Choices,” men are attracted to “a magical mixture of unadulterated power and tenderness — in equal measure — without giving up female tenderness and concern with relationships.” However, Cowan and Kinder also say, whatever else men say they desire most in women, most men want to control the timing and frequency of lovemaking. Men do not want a sexually aggressive woman but “a woman who will be exquisitely responsive and passionate.”
But is this supposed to be a warning or confession? And what exactly is “unadulterated power?” And how does this “unadulterated power” fit into her control over her own timing and frequency of lovemaking? Women who have worked hard for their education and careers are not necessarily more attractive or desirable nor valued higher by men. Once more, unadulterated power does not in fact attract, for such “unadulterated power” would have to include, the straight-out exercise of power in the public sphere that is oftentimes the reward of career success. Would it not?
So, what do men want in a woman? Some sort of “power,” but not of the ordinary sort. So, what is this “power” men want in women? Her power of female tenderness in sexual healing and the compassionate sexual response doesn’t actually have to include the act of sexual intercourse.
CONTROLLING THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION: Marxist’s theory applied to the psychology of love relationships
There is one area of convergence in the topic of “the love crisis” and many agree it is men’s lack in supplying their women with “positive stroking.” Provisions of emotional sustenance that are not supplied in equal measures and it is this imbalance that presents a constant source of female frustration. Men’s appropriation of women’s emotional labor is species-specific exploitation in human relations that is interrelated in important respects to the exploitation of workers under capitalism. Sex affective production parallels commodity production in the wage sector. Economic domination of women by men in a household can be illustrated by the capitalist ownership of the means of production in Marxist theory, and this relationship of unequal sex-affective production in domestic service places women on a tilted stage of power. A woman couldn’t work as hard as a man in a career and maintain a family to the best of her abilities without outsourcing some domestic duties. Thus, women who do work hard at their education and careers, sacrifice a part of their presence in family life by outsourcing domestic duties to independent contractors in the best interest of their family. This rarely happens in middle and lower-middle-class households. And, “just as control of the means of production by capitalists allows them to appropriate “surplus value” from workers, e.g., the difference between the total value of the workers’ output and that fraction of value produced, that workers get in return, allows for men’s privileged position in the sphere of sex-affective production the ability to appropriate “surplus nurturance” from women.”
However, this social construct places a particular amount of strain on the middle to lower-middle-class women who have no choice but to work hard and maintain their homes often sacrificing their presence in the home to provide much needed additional income without outsourcing some of their domestic duties. This in turn may allow for the development of narcissistic offspring who place further demands on their women because of the neglect they suffered early on. Oftentimes, the by-product of poverty and low-income is alienation and isolation, and we witness the alienation and isolation of the working-class we see occurring in society today.
One of the most important features of successful relationships is one’s ability to know how to nurture oneself which helps off-set the pressure required from one’s female partner. Although, some men might seek outside sources to compensate for their narcissistic fulfillments when needs are not met based on their individual lack of know-how.
Since women’s primary role is in the role of caregiver and nurturer, it is this much sought after and highly desired sex gender ideal that men find suitable in compensation for their deficiencies. Girls have to learn to navigate their lost phallus and they do this by finding satisfaction in the satisfaction of others, and they learn to place their needs second when conflict arises. Men, on the other hand, learn the alignment of phallic power with other males, are nurtured by their fathers’ power, and learn to demand nurturance from women just like their fathers. In middle to lower class relationships, a key requirement for a woman seeking a man might be in selecting a man who knows how to nurture themselves a bit and not be so demanding. Women, like production workers, are caught within a particular division of labor which requires they produce more of a “commodity” or “service” — in this case, nurturance — which they don’t receive in equal measure in return. In a lot of ways, these middle to lower-middle-class women find themselves pulling double duty in that they hold lower-paying jobs, trapped by a lack of education and career. So providing the commodity of nurturing places a strain on these women and nurturance and compassionate responsiveness might be something these women may never be equally compensated for.
In this light, there is a clear allegation of harm for women. These places the allegation of harm in the area of “exploitation.” Could this be excused as “harmless parasitism?” In the analysis, we observe the taking advantage of one person by another in a relationship in which A profits substantially with substantial damage to B’s best interests. It is important to understand that for the Marxist, capitalist exploitation involves more than the unequal transfer of value from worker to capitalist. Oftentimes we give more to others than they give us in return — perhaps because we have more to give — without feeling ourselves aggrieved or naming ourselves exploited. Indeed, to require an exchange of equivalents in all our dealings with other people reducers the richness and variety of human relationship to the aridity of mere contract. (*)
But so it is charged, the appropriation of surplus value under capitalism involves an unequal exchange that is not at all benign. The systematic disempowerment of one group by another is the power that is placed within “the means of production” appropriating the surplus value which is at the heart of worker’s alienation and where alienation means the loss of control both of the product of labor and of the productive process itself; the loss of autonomy in production brings with it a diminution in the worker’s powers, for example, the atrophy of the human capacity that attends a lifetime of repetitive work and uncreative work performance. The appropriation of surplus-value forms the basis, as well, of the social-political, and cultural preeminence of the appropriating classes. We see this happening in the phenomenon of Targeted Individuals who find they have suffered through electronic targeted assaults and gang stalking. I can attest to the clandestine use of wireless, remote electro-convulsive shock therapy that assaults me at night while I sleep and at certain periods during the day creating “drone-like attentiveness.”
Thus, we can compare the unequal exchange in men’s appropriation of female tenderness and caregiving nurturance and his exploitation of those resources with electronic targeted assaults that creates a similar unequal exchange in communication and to which A profits substantially with substantial damage to B’s best interests, and to which this unequal exchange in communication creates B’s disempowerment and diminution.
We could further support this hypothesis providing the philosophical ideology under Marxism as to how capitalists stake claim to worker’s resources and where the workers are exploited by receiving less of the same kind of compensation; Value. If the value of the worker’s wage can be calculated in the same terms as the value of the worker’s product, the difference between the two can be quantified and the exploitative character of the relationships just displayed for all to see. Now in order for “surplus nurturance” to be parallel to “surplus value,” the intimate exchanges of men and women will have to be shown not only to involve an imbalance in the provision of one kind of thing — here nurturance — but not to involve an exchange of equivalents of any sort. And using this determination we can say with certainty, this is exactly the goal of electronic targeted assaults and gang stalking. Since the emotional contributions of men and women regarding intimacy may differ between the parties, and in some relationships especially abusive relationships this will be the case, we can accurately say there is a lack of consideration between the target and the person carrying out the electronic targeted assaults and gang stalking. However, looked at on a larger canvas, balance between men and women are achieved as when one can show that a man proves his love for his wife by bringing home the bacon, and she proves her love to him by securing for him a certain quality of nurturance, compassionate responsiveness, and concern. In this scenario, both strike an equivalent exchange. However, with regard to electronically targeted assault and gang stalking, the nurturance and caregiving by the female are obliterated through the infliction of trauma emanating from conscious, narcissistic, abusive psychic states.
Furthermore, if women’s provision of emotional care to men can be shown to be embedded within a larger exchange of equivalents, it would become clear that women aren’t harmed by providing such care, but actually benefit from their husband’s wealth and resources. But there are men who take more than they give in return, and it is here where systematic abuse, especially within political ideologies threaten certain types of workers situated in lower-class divisions. In the phenomenon of the electronic targeted individual and gang stalking, there is a transfer of power that genuinely disempowers a certain class or group of people. The question is, “Who are the owners with the “means of production” (electronic targeting equipment) in which it allows one to carry out an unequivalent exchange in communication, carefully concealing their identity thus usurping the Value of the target?”(**)
(*) This is the cognitive psychic state produced by abuse wherein the void or absence of compassion and emotional connection, interpersonal communication becomes rather mechanical. In this state, a highly narcissistic need persists that demands the ego to be constantly fed with money or services. It is in this cognitive psychic state of human relationships that intimacy is reduced to an “aridity of mere contract” and is often observed in person’s suffering narcissistic personality disorder and it can also be a side-effect to long-term abuse. It may be money, it may be sex, it may be material objects, but demands for “objects” only feed an empty void in which the feeling of being satiated and satisfied is never reached because its condition lies outside of what means to be truly human.
(**) This essay was written following a memory I had recalling my brother’s discovery of a poem, “My Mind To Me A Kingdom Is” in which he said it was possible for your mind to be “taken away,” and this is true because abuse seeks to do just that which is to quash autonomy and obliterate identity. When gang stalking and electronic targeted assaults strip you of your mind and free will, you lose control over your Kingdom. When access to the “inner sanctum” has been denied, Heaven becomes out of reach and the arbitrary control over the Kingdom and, thereby, access to its “inner sanctum” allows for the control or the denial of resources and rights of the Kingdom.
My Mind to Me a Kingdom Is by Sir Edward Dyer (d. 1607)
MY mind to me a kingdom is;
Such present joys therein I find,
That it excels all other bliss
That earth affords or grows by kind:
Though much I want that most would have, 5
Yet still my mind forbids to crave.
No princely pomp, no wealthy store,
No force to win the victory,
No wily wit to salve a sore,
No shape to feed a loving eye; 10
To none of these I yield as thrall;
For why? my mind doth serve for all.
I see how plenty surfeits oft,
And hasty climbers soon do fall;
I see that those which are aloft 15
Mishap doth threaten most of all:
They get with toil, they keep with fear:
Such cares my mind could never bear.
Content I live, this is my stay;
I seek no more than may suffice; 20
I press to bear no haughty sway;
Look, what I lack my mind supplies.
Lo, thus I triumph like a king,
Content with that my mind doth bring.
Some have too much, yet still do crave; 25
I little have, and seek no more.
They are but poor, though much they have,
And I am rich with little store;
They poor, I rich; they beg, I give;
They lack, I leave; they pine, I live. 30
I laugh not at another’s loss,
I grudge not at another’s gain;
No worldly waves my mind can toss;
My state at one doth still remain:
I fear no foe, I fawn no friend; 35
I loathe not life, nor dread my end.
Some weigh their pleasure by their lust,
Their wisdom by their rage of will;
Their treasure is their only trust,
A cloakèd craft their store of skill; 40
But all the pleasure that I find
Is to maintain a quiet mind.
My wealth is health and perfect ease,
My conscience clear my chief defence;
I neither seek by bribes to please, 45
Nor by deceit to breed offence:
Thus do I live; thus will I die;
Would all did so as well as I!
SOURCE: English Poetry I: From Chaucer to Gray. The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.