Of course some don't, and others who do may also know why; but by and large, as best I can tell, typical female repressions blindly reflect in resentment of men in general and those they love in particular, such as, lovers and husbands.

Sometimes unrecognized resentment flares into overt anger, but more often it hovers just below the surface of awareness, showing up or slipping out in bitching, criticism (often justified), cold shoulders, and, of course, "Not tonight, Henry's," as well as opinions that "men are assholes," "no damn good," and/or "only interested in one thing."

If my observations are correct, what might be the possible causes of this unfortunate road block on the way to relational intimacy? My speculations include these:

1. Repression of two major natural facts, two genetic truths: 1) Female superiority, and 2) Servant status of males.

The first fact is, obviously, also repressed in society and cloaked by overt male dominance in religion, business, and politics for several thousand years now. Public awareness, especially in ego-identified males, includes a reversal of these biological facts, and is, unfortunately, all too often, accepted by females also.

Fact two is the genetic truth that maleness has evolved over eons of life history primarily for providing sperm to fertilize female ova–ever since sex was "invented" to replace cloning as a means of species replication some 600 million (?) years ago.

I speculate that as Homo sapiens expanded past pair bonding (small pre-families) into clans, male "servicing females" for pregnancy also expanded to providing other services as well, e.g., food, especially wild game, and protection from the elements, animals, and other marauding males.

As clans evolved into tribes, communities, and societies, the content of male services also expanded into realms of business and politics, outgrowths of hunting and protecting, but still basically aimed at serving primal female needs, especially as related to shared instincts for replication.

Male religions evolved, I also speculate, from various forms of male-only Kiva clubs as men sought to free themselves from servant roles by establishing gender support and left brain justification expanded into overt dominance in business and politics, supported by irrational religions.

Once females lost conscious awareness of 1) their creaturely superiority, falling, in varying degrees, for male illusions of fact reversal, as testified to in religions and acted out in society, namely, being the secondary, weaker sex, created only as "help metes" for males, and 2) that genetically speaking, males "should be" serving them rather than vice versa, the psychic stage was set for the post-natural drama regularly re-created today with extended relational conflicts, including female resentment, now commonly unconscious.

Analysis: Females, deeply aware of their religiously and socially denied superiority, while typically existing in contrary contexts in religion, business, politics and often in marriage as well, are understandably resentful of this unnatural situation, especially of missing opportunities for exercising and openly experiencing their oft-demeaned capacities.

These social injustices are further compounded by the second unnatural fact, namely, men, both in society as well as home, acting–ever since Eden–like "the little woman" exists to serve us, rather than vice versa as evolution indicates.

Summary: Barring repression of biological facts, females would naturally know and utilize their inherent creature advantages in wisely expressing themselves–living well in the world-as-we-find-it, including awareness of present day social and family relationships.

Also aware, except for repression, of the natural servant role of males, now cloaked by social reversals and ego-identified males, females would artfully use their inherited roles, along with greater capacities, for effecting their biological as well as personal agendas aimed at replication and self satisfactions.

But all this is ideal, and, as noted, might be operational, were-it-not for typical female repressions which understandably often reflect in resentment of men in present day contrary circumstances.

2. A second possible source of female resentment of males lies in sexual repression.

Unfortunately for females, current social conditions, along with biological facts, favor male consciousness about sex, along with socially tolerated affirmation, while supporting female repression.

Although biological needs for female intercourse are relatively small in comparison with male drives for maximum self-replication, female capacities for sexual pleasures are, I think, vastly greater than those of "wham-bam, thank-you-ma'am," males.

It is in this later regard where female resentments may understandably be based. Evolved capable of huge amounts of sex-related satisfactions, including expansive sensual delights along with multiple orgasm possibilities, yet existing with un-faced socially supported suppressions, and often living with sex-demanding males, female sexual repressions are easily predictable.

Following such understandable repressions, females may exist on top of vastm, unexplored-but-naturally-possible sexual satisfactions, that is, capacities for delightful passions left largely untapped in current circumstances. Unlike males who are naturally driven, as it were, to seek sex in service of self-replication, female urges for pregnancy are minuscule in comparison; but perhaps to balance biological books, potential female pleasures related to sexuality itself are, I reluctantly observe, vastly greater than male instincts for fucking only.

It is in these latter regards, I think, where female resentments may be based. Given the noted biological and social situations, female sexual repressions become highly predictable. Lessor needs for pregnancy-inducing sperm are easily met with hardly any sexual consciousness required–indeed, overly so, most of the time.

But in regard to pleasure possibilities the situation is largely reversed. Whereas sperm needs are easy to satisfy, a "good man" with proverbial "slow hands" may indeed be, as voiced in song, "hard to find."

Point: In the presence of understandable female repressions of inherited sexual capacities, with reproductive needs easily satisfied but passion possibilities largely untapped, wives may become dependent on husbandly initiatives, as well as techniques, for whatever limited sexual pleasures they experience.

Consequently, I speculate, the stage is set for predictable resentments toward often inefficient, inadequate, overly-demanding or unduly-assertive males, so often focused on our own orgasms alone.

When sexually repressed females–in consciousness only, not in natural pleasure capacities, become dependent of males for "flying them to the moon," and their men don't (or no longer do), deep resentments become highly predictable. This relational challenge becomes even greater after child-rearing responsibilities diminish and female sexuality is yet in its prime.

3. Possession ambivalence is another possible source of female resentment commonly directed toward men. Ideally, a queen-like female both needs and desires a king-like male–that is, one who is independently capable of "servicing" all her external needs, namely, for strong sperm and effective, extended security (food, shelter, resources, and protection, etc.).

But in quest of finding and keeping such an effective "servant" who is both strong and continually available, females must also be blindly driven to possess any male they select for these essential services–that is, to, as it were, "own him" for their exclusive use.

Here, however, is where the psychic "rub" may come in: Independence and possession are, in psychic fact, mutually exclusive. To be truly independent (and hence capable of needed services) a man cannot be spiritually ("emotionally") possessed.

Or, conversely, "ownership," by definition, undermines actual independence. A man can either be independent or possessed; but not both. In colloquial language, if a woman "has her man," he is no longer truly an independent person. Or, in terms of degrees (as real processes always occur), to the extent that a man is had by a woman, to that same degree he ceases to be a "real man."

I suspect that deep, unconscious male knowledge of this spiritual dilemma may be one source of typical male resistance against "bonds of matrimony"–that is, "getting married" and, as bride grooms may remind a reluctant groom before the commitment ceremony, "Don't forget, you're giving up your independence."

But the female side of this familiar dilemma may be even more hidden and dangerous in the long run, namely, in being caught between inherent needs for a strong "king" who is independently capable of "servicing the queen" with best available sperm as well as best odds of long range security, and equally strong urges to possess such a powerful male for her exclusive use.

But, unfortunately for both men and women, the more completely a man is possessed by a woman–thereby increasing her odds of extended "services," the less capable he becomes as an independent male with king-like powers for supplying these needs, especially on sexual and spiritual levels (in bed and in the business world).

I suspect that this psychic dilemma must inevitably be resurrected in the unconscious mind of every successful bride. On the surface (at the altar) she "gets her man," along with female accolades, social approval, and a legal contract for perpetual, exclusive rights. But beneath all that is visible and operative in society, the above noted psychic fact is also set in motion.

Before marriage he may be strong and independent, apparently capable–else she would not have selected him, of meeting her immediate and long range needs; but as the cords of marital possession become evident, even on the long anticipated honeymoon, the costs of diminished-if-not yet fully gone independence begin to be paid.

The adoring "prince," due to become a powerful "king," who courted the lovely "princess (queen-in-waiting)" may rapidly be turned into an obedient servant, consciously intent on pleasing his bride, but at the same time unconsciously leaving "kingliness" in favor of becoming a "good husband"–that is, a "pussy-whipped" wimp disguised as a strong, independent husband.

To the degree that a woman succeeds in an understandable attempt to "get her man," that is, to possess an otherwise independent male for her exclusive service, I conclude that hidden (if not conscious) resentment cannot but be lurking in the marital wings, predictably to appear in time, if not on the honeymoon.


In the presence of possible female repressions–consciousness of superiority, male servant-hood, passion possibilities, possession ambivalence, and any resulting male resentments, these practical results may follow:

Unrecognized and counter-productive spiritual abuse of males–as in, over-kill in unwise activation of superior capacities.

Unreasonable shifts in desired services. After real female needs for "servicing" by males are met, namely, for a few sperm and much security, and yet a woman feels unfulfilled due to unexpressed capacities in the outside world, plus un-embraced passions in bed, a woman's focus of attention, rooted in un-faced resentments, may be shifted to less essential arenas, such as, house cleaning and other forms of servitude reflective of primal roles now gone awry.

Psychically, repressed awareness and attention to real male services may be projected onto ("shifted to") unrealistic obedience more related to overt female dominance than to legitimate service.

In practice these shifts may reflect in bitching, complaining, male "put downs ('you never help me with the house,' etc.)," emotional and/or sexual withdrawals, if not overt hostility.

Evidences: The harder a man tries to live up to such displaced female desires, the "behinder" he may predictably get, because underlying agendas of female fulfillment remain untouched by even a man's best efforts and greatest acquiescence.

Unfortunately, escalating male obedience to conscious and stated female desires may be taken as weakness rather than strength she unconsciously believes will "make her happy."

Unrealistic Father Images are another possible source of later male resentment. Often a girl's image of her father, acquired in childhood, is unrealistic in one of two major ways: 1) Exaggeratedly positive, or 2) Distortedly negative.

In the first instance, an early father figure is adored and seen as almost god-like, that is, without faults and capable of making a daughter abundantly happy, far larger in her idolized eyes than her more present and involved mother.

Two additional factors may influence such an unrealistic perspective of the first man in her life. First, his relative absence in comparison to her mother, often associated with treats and special favors when he does appear; and secondly his masculine attributes which instinctively invite her emerging, pubescent sexuality into partial awareness. Incest taboos which are stronger with mothers and sons are often more lax with fathers and daughters, even while pragmatically cloaked as "innocent affection."

In contrasting, but often more unrealistic father images, especially when a mother is the dominant parent, a girl may identify with her mother and share her mother's resentment toward an apparently weak, inadequate, or less supportive father. She may, for instance, perhaps reflecting her mother's negative feelings or hidden resentment, come to look down on her father, seeing him as "irresponsible and no good."

In either case, whether a father is seen as a "Sugar Daddy" who treats his "Little Princess" as though she is perfect and can do no wrong, or a "no good asshole" who doesn't take good care of her mother or herself, the stage is set for future unrealistic expectations and/or judgments of later men in her life.

Male images formed in early childhood may be projected, even unconsciously, onto men who enter a girl's life after she leaves her first home. These early-formed images, whether unrealistically positive or negative, may become like rose-colored glasses blocking clear vision of any later male to enter her life.

If her deeply ingrained male image is unrealistically positive, as acquired with a "Sugar Daddy" who did indeed make her world happier in childhood, she may later look favorably on all men, unconsciously elevating, even idolizing them as she did her father. Resurrecting childhood patterns of behavior, she may consequently cater to male whims and constantly try to please, like a "good little girl" adoring her long gone father, now unconsciously "seen in," for instance, a chosen boy friend or husband.

Although such catering behavior can be highly pleasing to such a lucky man, it may come with a dangerous hidden agenda, namely, a deep, un-faced expectation that this new man can also "take care of her," and "make her happy" as she remembered her father from childhood. Her always-striving-to-please attitude and behavior may be like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode later when her obsequious mode of acting fails to meet her hidden expectations.

If, on the other hand, a girl's early ingrained male image is negative, as formed with a weak, absent, irresponsible, or even abusive father figure, these too may be unconsciously projected onto later men in her life. Often, in trying to survive and enhance minimal advantages with such a father, a girl may learn to cloak her deep contempt and hidden resentment with a stance of phoney admiration in which she blindly tries to "be totally good," even to appear and act perfect with men.

With her father, such a perfectionistic stance may have served in two ways; first, to hopefully gain small favors from the only man in her life, "if only she can somehow please him." Or, on the other hand, if she "is perfect," perhaps she can at least not evoke his ill will and/or overt wrath. This stance becomes more predictable, and understandable, when another sibling seems to be more favored in their father's eyes. Suppressed jealousy may further feed and support seemingly unsuccessful efforts to secure his favors for herself.

In either case, or for whatever other causes, whether a father figure is viewed as unrealistically positive or negative, a girl is likely to project these same images onto later men in her life, including resurrected patterns of behavior first learned in early days of childhood.

Relevant here as possible sources of later male resentment are these:

– In both cases, with either unrealistically positive or negative male images, a woman may unconsciously carry exaggerated illusions of male capacity for "making her happy," that is, for bringing personal fulfillment to her life as a separate person.

The oft-ignored fact that, as my own father used to say, "Every tub's gotta set on its own bottom," which I interpret to mean: we are all individual, separate persons, inherently responsible for our own well being, including happiness in life, may be easily ignored (if indeed it is ever recognized) and cloaked with either type of female projection.

With a "good daddy" a girl may come to deeply believe that another "good man" can make her equally happy with relatively little self responsibility–that is, "just by being herself" as seemed to be so in childhood. When this "love me for what I am" attitude and stance is enhanced by small efforts to "be a good girl" with, for instance, a husband, then the stage is set for grand disappointments when the noted fact of individual responsibility inevitably appears later in life.

When, for example, the hidden illusion that marriage (to a "good man") will make me happy is finally shattered on rocks of human reality, then resentment (or worse) is highly predictable.

Or, with a "bad daddy," especially when perfectionism was chosen as a means of coping in early childhood, cloaked with a thin veneer of outward obsequiousness, the stage is even more predictably set for shattering disillusionment later in life. Early efforts to be "a perfect wife," make a "perfect home," become a "perfect mother," etc., all with the unconscious belief that somehow such perfectionism will eventually cause her husband to become the "good man" her father never was, will predictably prove not to work in time.

The problem is often escalated by the fact that a girl with an absent or "bad daddy" may have learned her mother's role of coping with him, that is, being the responsible member in the family setting. In later coping with her "new father," she may unwittingly devote herself to "mothering" him, as it appeared her own mother was to her father.

Although a husband may briefly thrive with the services of a mothering wife, eventually both will predictably become disillusioned with this unworkable form of marriage (mother/son versus wife/husband). He will often turn outside the marriage in quest of a woman who relates to him more like a man than a son.

Meanwhile, she, deeply realizing that mothering is not working, but now entrenched in this role, may escalate her perfectionism, trying harder at first, to be a better mother to him (e.g., housekeeper, cook, obsequious pleaser, etc.), while retreating even further from greater challenges of being a woman with him.

If he, for any reason, remains outwardly "faithful to her," fulfilling his "duties as a husband" rather than divorcing or having serial affairs with other females, her deep resentments may escalate. First, because her "best efforts" at mothering are not working, and secondly because her deeper illusions of finding a "better daddy" to "make her happy," since her first father failed, are even more unsuccessful.

The harsh fact of self-responsibility for self-fulfillment, so easily avoided in dreams of a magical marriage and motherhood, may finally crash on the unsympathetic rocks of institutional failure.

Before the proverbial axe falls in such all-too-common marriages, there may be extended periods of unconscious resentment, expressed in endless wifely nagging, criticism, put downs, plus various forms of emotional abuse and spirit-distance. If some functional resolution, such as, accepted failure and live-together-divorce, is not found, otherwise long repressed personal pathology is apt to erupt in the context of such a disappointing marriage.