The patriarchy insists that women should be thoroughly passive, and that it must somehow play witchdoctor, inspecting the entrails of female behaviour, in order to discover their mysterious meanings.
This insistence on women’s passivity by the patriarchy is necessary in order for women to play the role they are required to, under the patriarchy. That is, they are to be mirrors of men’s souls, nothing more and nothing less. So a male looking into a woman is supposed to be able to read his own sex drive, in terms of good or evil, and to make sense of it that way, in relation to other men.
If what he sees in the mirror makes him angry about himself, he may beat or kill the woman, but if what he sees of himself pleases him, he will try to couple with her in a more peaceful manner.
In any case, he is a narcissist who uses women as a means to an end.
My view here is based on thinking about people like Freud, and how they reflect upon masculinity and femininity. The puzzle is why so great an intellect as that of Freud’s was unable to figure out “what women want”. My conclusion is that patriarchy has fixed it so that women’s voices are silenced. But why? What did patriarchy want, when it fixed things this way, for surely it must have had some reason, some incentive? My sense of things is that patriarchy wanted a mirror for the male “soul” as it were (like Narcissus) — but more specifically in order for masculinity and the male as such to discern the meaning of his sex drive. And, looking at it closely, this was really Freud’s intention all along — to discern the meaning of the male sex drive, to focus on it, and understand its message for patriarchal culture.
But, as I have said, in order for the male sex drive to be able to read “objectively”, it needs to be in isolation from all other sex drives. The female drive has to be rendered a still lake. And so it was rendered so by patriarchy throughout the ages. And this is precisely why it became technically impossible — by virtue of patriarchy’s own logic and the way it had structured reality — to find out anything about the female sex drive.
In other words, patriarchy is institutionalised male narcissism which obliterates the Other.
UPDATE: Interestingly, THEO DORPAT seems to concur that Freud was culpable in attempting to override some of his clients’ self-expression, in order to impose his own rigid views. See:
http://www.amazon.com/Gaslighting-Interrogation-Methods-Psychotherapy-Analysis/dp/1568218281
Exploring Black Sunlight, psychology, politics and history and how these intertwine 
I do think your assessment is correct on an abstract level and seriously enjoy hearing your opinions and brilliant analyis whenever you feel like sharing in general, but yet not sure that particular reason still stands at a more practical level. Unless I am misunderstanding…
I can imagine a cave man beating his weaker property into compliance, and then needing a justification afterwards so he claims she's inferior. Fast forward a while and this pattern is entrenched due to dudely popular opinion and general success with the ladies, but he's dead inside as you say and now what does he do? Because he is well and truly stuck. So he blames every cause of his own aganst onto women while simultaneously expecting her to fix him, and the cycle becomes even more entrenched not less.
Which is not actually contradicting anything you've said, perhaps. Yet I suspect that his need or reason for projection doesn't occur until after he starts whomping on his propery. You seem to imply that the need for projection comes before anything else, unless I screw up understanding somewhere.
Anyway, love you, you're awesome.
It's not immediately easy to understand because it concerns societal changes, rather than individual thinking processes.
I think it originally comes from the male dis-ownership of his sex drive. The tradition of patriarchy associates the sex drive with Nature,with reproduction and irrationality. The urge on the part of patriarchal men is to see themselves as transcending Nature, so as to enter its opposite arena — that of Civilization.
So the patriarch originally wanted to disown his sex drive in order to be “civilized” — which implied a certain degree of separation from the realm of Nature, being the realm of women.
But, this kind of existence that denies the sex drive is deeply unsatisfying on a subjective level. So the patriarch must think again. (This describes a broad historical movement, as part of patriarchal history.)
This time, he comes to the conclusion that he can maintain his claim to objectivity whilst also having a sex drive (i.e. permitting himself a degree of the previously verboten subjectivity). This represents a later historical movement within patriarchy. At this stage, the patriarch tries to claim back some of his lost subjectivity and to “understand” himself. (Logically, one does not understand oneself if one remains purely objective, since to be purely objective is to have no self of the sort that would concern one.)
So the patriarch, who has been taught the historical lesson of objectivity, sets forth to find a mirror that would reflect him back to himself. (He cannot simply immerse himself in pleasure/subjectivity, for that would be to undo the former lesson of objectivity.)
He seeks out women, not to engage with them on the same (now pejoratively considered) “subjective” level, but to get some feedback about his own subjectivity without losing the prior claims to the status of having an objective sort of identity.
But for women to fulfill the role of giving him subjective knowledge about himself, they cannot have a different kind of subjective knowledge of their own. That would spoil the “objective” nature of the experiment. For the criterion of objectivity to be fulfilled, “woman” has to be totally passive.
Only then can the male learn about his sex drive through her, and obtain the prize of maintaining objectivity, but through subjective means.
I follow, but doesn't this mean then that it's the patriarchal sex drive that is highlighted, and that the “male” one (if there is ONE such thing) is also unknowable?
Yes — that is precisely my point, that it is the patriarchal sex drive that is highlighted, at least by modern males, whereas the ancient males were trying to get rid of it, at least vis-a-vis women. Pederasty was still okay in the ancient world.
And doesn't the contemporary male artist not claim to know himself via his experiences with women? I highlight here the term, “experiences”. I do not mean at all “via women” per se.
He certainly manages to form a dialectic with the outside world, which is the presupposition for any sort of self-knowledge. The fact that this knowledge is actually very subjective, and does not actually achieve the objective status that the patriarch would attribute to it is, nonetheless, telling.