The Pendulum of the Female Body: A Behavioral Analysis

A mantel clock (pendule) is a classic, often richly decorated chamber clock with a pendulum movement, designed to be placed on a mantelpiece, sideboard, or table. The name is derived from the French word for ‘pendulum’ (pendule), and it refers to the pendulum itself, which accurately regulates time. The clock utilizes a pendulum that swings back and forth at a fixed time interval to drive the movement—a principle based on the pendulum clock invented by Christiaan Huygens in 1656. The casing of a mantel clock is often a showpiece in itself, traditionally crafted from materials such as marble, bronze, brass, porcelain, or precious woods.

When drawing a comparison between the mechanical laws of this antique clock and the socio-emotional and behavioral forces surrounding the female body (The Pendulum of the Female Body), several profound paradoxes are exposed. The human observer who desires an object inherently exhibits a behavioral tendency to bend that desired object to their will. Thus, an individual can be compared to this beautiful clock: a showpiece put on display, operating under a strict schedule devised by an external “owner” and executed mechanically by a swinging pendulum.

Throughout history and into the present day, the individual is forced to move back and forth between rigid external systems. The female body was historically treated as the property of religious dogma, and subsequently, it has been claimed as the “possession” of feminist and liberal ideologies. The pendulum swings strictly between these ideological extremes. On one side of the arc, the message dictates that “the body belongs to God,” demanding modesty, vroom adherence, and submission to patriarchal institutions. On the other side of the arc, the message claims that “your body belongs to you alone, but you must immediately sign up for the prescribed tenets of feminism and modern liberalism.” The individual swings between these extremes, continuously forced to react to external pressures, while the overarching housing remains completely fixed in place. The movement is not a linear journey toward radical, self-determined progress; it is a repetitive, mechanical cadence within a pre-engineered box, functioning primarily to entertain the external “owners” of the debate.

Viewed strictly from the perspectives of behavioral science, sociology, and system theory, this constant swinging reveals how deeply external control structures impact human psychology. First, treating an individual as a “showpiece” highlights a fundamental process of objectification and ownership. While the object possesses an intrinsic value, that value is continuously determined, curated, and exhibited by an outside force.

When an external social system drapes itself protectively or correctively over a person—even with the best of intentions—it frequently triggers the psychological phenomenon known as learned helplessness (aangeleerde hulpeloosheid). If the rules of engagement, expectations, and frameworks are constantly dictated from the outside, the individual learns that their own intrinsic motivation and actions have no bearing on the ultimate outcome. The behavioral result is passivity, apathy, chronic suspicion, and depression. The joy of genuine autonomy disappears because the internal locus of control is entirely overridden.

This friction exposes a fundamental behavioral riddle: the conflict between individual autonomy (“master of one’s own body”) and social interdependence. Human beings are biologically and socially wired to live in connection with an environment. The absolute liberal concept of individual freedom often crashes into the reality of shared social structures. How “master of one’s own body” is supposed to relate to a wider environment remains an unsolved mystery. When the underlying systemic message reads, “You are entirely free and responsible for your own happiness, but you must function perfectly within our prescribed norms,” intense cognitive dissonance occurs. This conflict breeds deep argwaan (suspicion) regarding the true intentions of this systemic “freedom.”

Furthermore, the reality that “the fruit does not spontaneously hang from the tree” highlights that reproduction, sexuality, and the human body are never purely isolated biological functions; they possess a value shared with a third party, deeply embedded in a complex matrix of evolutionary, social, and relational interests. However, the moment this shared value mutates into an external claim—where the surrounding environment dictates exactly what the value of that body or fruit should be—the dynamic shifts drastically from mutual cooperation to rigid regulation. The human psyche responds poorly to constant external regulation; it activates chronic stress responses instead of fostering well-being or genuine happiness.

Ultimately, it is highly understandable how a society strives to break free from the yoke of an oppressive ideology. Yet, the supreme irony of political psychology and sociology is that the liberators almost systematically deploy the exact same structures and instruments of power against which they originally rebelled. In behavioral science, this is recognized as isomorphism—the tendency of opposing systems to adopt the same form.

When a movement dismantles an oppressive framework, a structural vacuum is created. Because human psychology and social systems deeply abhor a vacuum, the new leaders instinctively grasp for the tools they know best: the regulatory instruments of the old oppressor. The underlying behavioral mechanisms used to enforce conformity—such as social exclusion, moral superiority, dogmatic language, and the disciplining of dissidents—remain entirely universal. The content of the ideology changes, shifting from religious piety to hyper-individualism, but the psychological blueprint remains identical. To protect the newly won “freedom,” the liberators begin to dwingend (forcibly) regulate it, rationalizing their coercive methods because their intentions are deemed “good.” They fail to see that they have looked into the mirror and assumed the exact guise of the force they just expelled.

In the end, the individual looks at the new liberators and intuitively senses that while the rhetoric has changed, the chains have merely been painted a different color. The pendulum swings forcefully to the opposite side, but the grand mechanical clockwork driving the swing has not shifted an inch.