female psychopath

Rule of Law? IV: Gender Bending and the True Enemy

images

© infrakshun

Feminism – at least as we know it today – and its various complex sub-categories of benign and malign forces had its beginnings way back in the 19th century. The religious influences upon men and women had defined those roles for millennia; the assumed inferiority to man and her qualities of “temptress” alongside “feminine wisdom” was the backdrop to the burning of witches in the Middle Ages to the witch-hunts of the 17th century and the stultifying sexual repression of Victorian England.

In the United States, the roles of men and women were already defined before the Founding Fathers arrived and changed Native American lives forever. Long before the UK suffragettes began rebelling against these enforced roles, it was taken for granted that women existed as mothers and wives, a presumption that was both divinely ordained and thus a natural duty. The developing democracy rested on man as the giver or provider and women as the enabler or nurturer. Women were more or less property of the husband with the belief in the sacred mother-child bond and the woman’s natural instinct for child rearing. The physical prowess of the male (imagined or otherwise) determined that the “hunter-gatherer” would do just that.

The inability of the woman to provide for herself was also directly related to the male holding the reins of financial power which precluded any property rights or ability to earn for women. That being so, in early England and America up to the mid-1800s, fathers had sole rights to custody, because custody was closely tied to inheritance and property law.[1]  Several early feminist activists of the day, most notably English-born Caroline Norton fought to have these ruling turned in favour of women after being deprived of her own children in the aftermath of divorce. [2] That changed when the legal principle of the Tender Years Doctrine automatically gave rights to mothers based on what was seen as developmentally sensitive years of 13 and under.

Custody rights were shaped by these gender precepts: the love and emotional support of the mother and the more distant, intellectual, financial provision of the father. These gender roles were sacrosanct in society and in law. Upon the arrival of the Industrial Revolution, the nuclear family was in the process of disintegrating due in part, to fathers having to go further afield to locate work opportunities. The British Empire was the hub of this economic and capitalist revolution which would have serious repercussions for family and community.

Although initially new wealth was created for Western European peasantry due to outsourcing by emerging companies, this soon changed. The majority of middle and working class women worked from home. The American economy for example, relied a great deal on home businesses such as woodwork and textiles. With centralisation came disenfranchisement and disconnection from communities built on these crafts and skills intimately connected with an understanding of the land. Factories replaced a network of cottages industries largely dominated by women and their highly skilled handcrafts. The home traditionally carried by women was replaced with mass production. Women’s domestic duties rapidly disappeared so that rearing children for the majority became their only destiny. Single mothers and young women often had to move into boarding houses close to factories with the consequent lack of sanitation and poorly paid wages that accompanied such a move.

In summary, the gender roles became increasingly defined by economic constraints where the male breadwinners were the benefactors of monetary power. This meant that fathers’ capacity to nurture their children from the masculine polarity was further reduced at the same time the mothers’ foundation for community and cottage industry income was removed.

When set against custody decisions the differences became stark. Since women’s only validation for their existence was now from the maternal role it was seen as horribly cruel to deny the mother what was after all seen as a biological and thus a fundamental right due to this new social prison. The father however, was forced to provide economically for his children without ever having rights to see them. Emotional bonds of mother and child were reinforced while the father’s presence became a purely financial consideration.

Through no fault of his own and from the causes of macro-social forces rather than intrinsic gender pre-dispositions, fathers’ rights in custody battles became increasingly fractured due to the obvious fact that women were indeed spending much more time with their children and thus having the advantage when questioned by the judge regarding “quality time”. By the late 20th century very few fathers now retained children in custody trials. [3]

The idea that the mothers had an unassailable right to child custody was now firmly entrenched in the legal system. But what made this doubly unfair that with the onset of the World War and its closure, women had rightly become wage earners in their own right therefore taking on the male role as provider and nurturer. [4]  Prevailing views cemented these stereotypes by presuming that unless women were financially destitute and compelled to work it was unnatural and morally wrong, whereas if the man’s career ambitions evolved to the total exclusion of the family unit, functioning as a hotel to be fed and watered, this was somehow understandable and correct, despite the fact that many men so desperately wanted a relationship with the children. At this stage, socio-cultural dictates in general were making it difficult for men to be emotionally in touch with their feelings at all, let alone to express a natural desire that true shared parenting was perhaps healthy and vitally important.

By the 1950s the legal maxim in custody battles was “the best interests of the child” which in practice seldom worked out that way. This did not alter the mythology of women as automatically the best bet for custody regardless of the evidence or circumstances. For decades an almost subconscious aversion to awarding rights to the father developed in the minds of many judges as a matter of principle. Furthermore, large economic shifts in the 1960s, ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s and throughout the chaos of the 2000’s have clearly placed men in general at a disadvantage regarding accessibility rights during and after divorce proceedings.

Large scale fragmentation of the family unit has unequivocally taken place due to the many factors already discussed in this series so far, most obviously due to globalisation as a euphemism of international corporatism and its doctrine of ever greater centralised consumption devoid of social and ecological values. As a consequence, the resulting economic disparity between men and women – while taking account of the many exceptions to the rule – has placed the onus on men to uphold an impossible and singular financial standard usually on a single income and in a highly volatile and shifting global economic market place. Technology and automation is overseeing the demise of traditional work connected to the land. The 9-5 working day with the feminist agenda for gender equality will offer needed rights to mothers but also exacerbate another problem.

A painful and recurring irony has arrived that indicates the divide and rule scenario in operation so favoured of think tanks, the Empire’s intellectual vanguard of change. The dichotomy of men and women’s rights is increasingly reversed in the affluent Western world. Where financial solvency was praised as vital for the support of the family it is now seen as an impediment to proper family cohesion and parenting. Another bizarre twist has taken place. While many women have played the game of “success” under the push for illusory equal rights and juggled the family life with a corporate career; headed companies and donned the mask of the capitalist entrepreneur or boss,  in many cases women are repeating the exact same reasons that men lost their custody battles: by being distant from the family and not participating in “quality parenting.” Now that women have got what men had in the corporate world they too are being penalised for precisely the same reasons. [5]

While some men stay at home and care for the children the gender stereotypes remain. Men are not “house-husbands” they are shirking their manly responsibilities or just “unemployed”. Yet women who work still retain both roles and then complain when it becomes too demanding. The net result is a constant dichotomy that flips between genders creating and perpetuating multiple levels of tension.

In custody cases successful career women have to justify their work role by not assuming the traditional role of mother love. Whereas men the “hunter-gatherers” are forced to justify why they cannot support their family financially and are thereby somehow deficient of masculine genes. This is not a gender issue and never has been. What this represents – as in so many of the issues we have addressed so far – is an issue of reductive economics and the international financial architecture that has been built on exploitation of such depth and profundity that it is little wonder that it has ultimately defined who we are. Behind this wholly exploitative framework is the psychopathic mind that delights in such obfuscation and confusion. These anti-human ways of being allow it to be hidden from scrutiny. It is a shocking indictment of our society that the key benefactor of this descent will continue to be the wealthy Elite.

It is obvious that such a state of affairs does not just happen but results from an integration of Christian ethics with the organisation of Roman legal systems which were progressively adapted into our Western institutions. The human cruelties, indifferences and inconsistencies were also incorporated and laid the groundwork from one Pathocratic Empire to another. Łobaczewski talked about this “Western civilization” and how its degeneration was due to a “serious deficiency” in recognising the signs of decay which inevitably led to evil consequences. This was  due to the simplistic appraisal of human psychology upon which the societal structures of law, justice and philosophy were based. The insufficient resistance to evil was easily taken advantage of due to the “enormous gap between formal or legal thought and psychological reality.” [6] And so it is. We are still sourcing our knowledge and understanding from a juvenile dictionary and total lack of comprehension which has locked in economics, law, justice and just about every other domain in society. Is it any wonder that we are experiencing serious cognitive dissonance concerning the nature and direction our societies are taking?

It is the knowledge that we have an inherited the workings of societies “insufficiently resistant to evil” that can inform our future thoughts and actions on this issue. It will require that we become cognizant of how ponerogenesis plays out in our own lives and how we can best avoid its traps. Learning to see how we can understand this process will mean whether or not we become the scapegoats of this degeneration or the pioneers of its eventual dissolution.

Is gender equality a possibility? It depends on society’s current enforced assumptions about our roles. Equal opportunities cannot be approached when the very fundamentals of our socio-economic systems are skewed. Equal opportunities to be treated civilly and with respect cover both genders. Unfortunately, much as feminists would rail at the statement: men and women ARE fundamentally different – physiologically, neurologically and how we process reality – as a thousand studies have underscored time and again. So, while our conception of gender roles have indeed been enforced and expected, there are natural even timeless differences of masculine and feminine which only truly work when they meet in the middle to create that third force. It is the integration of the dualities while retaining differences which alter reality for the better rather than seeking to displace, out-do or gain ascendency over the other, or even worse to claim “rights” as though women in the Western world are somehow separate from the inculcated pathology of which we are ALL apart.

The inherent assumptions of those in positions of power which mean that women are seen as objects and where they are not deemed worthy of attaining the CEO position does happen. Similarly, men can be ridiculed for being stay-at-home dads or a job as a nurse. The problem is, within these positions are also wider implications denoting much more than mere ignorance or bigotry. It may be that the kind of roles that moderate feminists wish to see cannot be observed in the type of social reality we have right now, for the reasons so far given in this series.

Does that mean we don’t press for change? Or course not, but until we see that such urging of women’s rights without due awareness of ponerology which has our Western societies comprehensively in its palm means that much of the core reasons for seeking gender equality will be as authentic as Live Aid.  This is a problem not of female rights against male rights. It is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue against the PSYCHOPATH. All else derives from this. One talks of gender equality immediately assuming that men are not expressing the exact same victimhood. And this where so often white, middle-class, Western female entitlement arrives in much the same way as Jewish ethnocentrism and the reflex assumption from African-Americans that slavery by white traders of the past still demand recompense.

Until we embrace the fact that we are ALL victims of a centuries old evil that resides both in concrete reality and the metaphysics of myths and imagination within our own hearts we will never be free. We must take a grand, bird’s eye view of humanity which has in the modern era all the tools necessary to forge a new awareness of the multitude of horrors we have collectively suffered over lifetimes. That means truly joining together against a common foe and defending ourselves against it. Not by wasting energy on gender issues and spectres of the past. The only thing that will change these issues is SEEING who is stirring the pot of constant division and conflict. That does not mean doing nothing but it does imply that we choose our battle very, VERY wisely.


Notes
[1] Women and the Law of Property in Early America by Marylynn Salmon, Published by UNC Press Books, 1989 | ISBN 0807842443, 9780807842447.
[2] Family Life in the Nineteenth Century, 1789–1913: The History of the European family. Volume 2. By David I. Kertzer, Yale University Press, 2002.
[3] Wrightsman’s Psychology and the Legal System  By Edith Greene, Kirk Heilbrun, Cengage Learning, 2010. 049581301X, 9780495813019.
[4] ‘The Mother-Love Myth: The Effect of the Provider-Nurturer Dichotomy in Custody Cases’ by Kalie Caetano The Macalester Review: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 2.
[5] More Fathers Are Getting Custody in Divorce’By Lisa Belkin, New York Times, November 17, 2009.
[6] op. cit. Lobaczewski; (p. 48)

The Rule of Law? III: Forensics and Impression Management

“Our educated guess is that many practitioners in the field of law and psychology have faced a situation … where they have experienced difficulties in identifying the “true nature” of the psychopathic interviewee, until the situation has proceeded to the point where they’ve been fooled or some ways misled.”

– Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm, Psychopathy and Law, a Practioner’s Guide


The British justice system is still at odds with reality where fathers’ rights in custody battles are considered an irrelevance. The opinions of children in this matter are ignored as is basic psychology that a child grows and develops best when he or she has both parents present in their lives and access to respective family relatives. Although surprising to some, family law courts in the United Kingdom and in a significant number of cases in the United States, heavily favour the rights of the mother.

Many pressure groups on behalf of fathers’ rights as well as social justice organisations campaigned for a change in the law that would view the rights of both parents as a prerequisite for a just and equitable resolution in custody cases, while also addressing the “shocking delays” in custody battles in general. In the United Kingdom, several years ago the government family justice report chaired by David Norgrove made a review of these claims. Certain aspects of the family courts were marginally improved, cutting down the time where decisions must be taken to no more than six months rather than years, though this has been a sporadic rather than a consistent success.  Moreover, the issue of equal parenting rights – with special focus on fathers’ rights – was deemed unworkable. A spokesman for the Norgrove report said: “While is it usually in the child’s interest to have contact with both parents, seeking to enshrine that right in law would lead to greater conflict and confusion.” David Norgrove stated that: “Fundamentally, this is not about the rights of parents, it’s about the welfare of children and we should be focused entirely on that.” [1]

i-love-you-lets-fight© Infrakshun

Many campaigners believe that the issue of children being granted accessibility of both parents was crucial factor in addressing the welfare of the child and were at a loss to see how such a conclusion could have been reached. With one in three children in the UK without a father it does tend to stretch credibility that these decisions would help to alleviate such a sad statistic. The Centre for Social Justice a UK charity and campaigning organisation on issues of poverty, crime and family law stated in their 2009 family law review, Every Family Matters that “…legislation should acknowledge that children are most likely to benefit from the substantial involvement of both parents in their lives.” [2]

Ken Sanderson, of the campaign group Families Need Fathers, said: “The core failing of the current family justice system is that the rights of children to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents, as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are not adequately supported or enforced. By choosing not to address this issue, any other proposals… will be merely superficial adjustments to a fundamentally broken system.” [3] And these superficial adjustments are a common theme through the legal and justice systems in both the UK and the United States. Tinkering around the edges allows just enough leeway to placate media and pressure groups for a short time whilst altering very little.

Fathers 4 Justice Campaign Director Nadine O’Connor was even more scathing of the report and revealed the corrupt background of the legal system as a whole. In a detailed response to Norgrove she outlined some of the reasons for what campaigners believed were unreasonable and unjust conclusions arrived at by report members and suggested an agenda on behalf of those taking part. A long list of grievances were listed including the belief that the:

  • The report’s primary function was to look at procedure, not principle;
  • The review panel was not impartial – it excluded parents and users of the system;
  • The rejection of a 10,000 parent testimony
  • The highlighting of the support given by the report of “secret courts”
  • The rejection of “transparency and public accountability;”
  • The rejection of a parents right in law to see their children;”
  • Claims of gender bias despite 93 percent of residencies being awarded to mothers;
  • The rejection of the principle of equality and shared parenting, stating it was ‘not in the bests interests of the child.’ [4]

O’Connor also drew the intention of the media and public to the fact that the report acknowledged that “no records have been kept on the outcomes for children,” and logically asked the question: “How can the Family Justice Review panel know what is in the ‘best interests of a child’ without empirical evidence?” [5]  Further attention was given to failure of the report to address: “… the number of warring parents going to court and the impact government cuts to legal aid will have in the increase in the number of unrepresented parents going to court; condemnation of the court system itself “…which is run by an ‘unelected, unaccountable and unsackable judiciary operating in complete secrecy;’ the inappropriate nature of courts originally intended for criminals rather than dealing with family cases. [6] The review also concluded that it was still necessary for “…grandparents… to go to court to demand access to their grandchildren when it is denied” which many believe dismisses the value of family and community. Which also means a division opens up between the rich and poor once again, and where only the wealthy can find justice to pursue their familial rights. [7]

The above report represents a classic example of the kinds of stone-walling within government and the judicial system which campaigners face year in and year out, not least the thousands of parents and their children who get caught in this iniquitous system.

According to Saga an insurance and investment company for senior citizens: “…the [court] process is extremely difficult and many grandparents simply can’t face a court fight that they feel may be unfairly stacked against them. They had hoped that the law would recognise the importance of their rights properly.” [8] Saga Director-General Dr Ros Altmann opines: “The relationship between a grandchild and a grandparent can be an extremely special one, and can provide consistency for a child when the family unit breaks down. “This Review rightly points out that decisions should be made in the best interests of the child, however to give one adult ‘rights’ to access that can be withdrawn by the courts, whilst all others have to fight for any right to maintain a relationship with their child or grandchild is surely wrong.” [9]

In the United States, the story is the same though with a greater State by State and case by case variation. This is illustrated with the following examples. Firstly, according to Anne P. Mitchell, fathers’ rights attorney and Founder of Dads’ Rights:

Men absolutely, and often, get the short end of the stick financially in divorce. There is a big myth out there that men make out like bandits in divorce, and women get left in poverty. This is completely untrue. Ironically, it is this myth that causes women to resist fathers having more parenting time, as the less time the child is with Dad, the more money Mom gets. So fathers get the shaft twice: their time with their children is limited, and they get to pay for being pushed out of their children’s lives.” [10]

Judge Michele Lowrance, child of divorce, divorced mother and author agrees that unfair treatment of men is borne out by the statistics:

For example, 85 percent of non-custodial or non-primary residential parents are men who typically see their children only two out of 14 days. In addition, 40 percent of America’s children will spend at least part of their childhood without their fathers living together with them. This translates to over 21 million children. There is definitely cultural paranoia about each side having an advantage. Women think men have the advantage because, for example, it is hard to support the average family on a small percentage of the non-custodial parent’s income. If Dad earns $2,500 net and there is one child, in many jurisdictions Mom would only get $500 for support. Understandably that feels unfair to her, as clearly she might need more to support a child. [11]

While on the other hand, Scott Hampton director of Ending Violence:

When I was presenting a workshop at a national judges’ conference I asked those judges whether there was bias in family courts during divorce. Their answer: Yes, but usually it’s against women, not men. Their reasoning makes perfect sense. Society expects mothers, not fathers, to be the natural nurturers. So, if Mom falls just a bit short of the ideal parent, we unconsciously penalize her. In contrast, if Dad changes a couple of poopy diapers, we unconsciously give him extra credit. So if that’s true, then why do mothers more often have custody? The judges explained that it’s not the court’s bias against fathers. It’s men’s bias against fatherhood and dads who run away from their responsibility. Those are the ones who are skewing the numbers. It’s the men who fight paternity or who are abusive who are making responsible fathers and husbands look bad. The fact of the matter is, when men actually want and ask for custody, they are much more successful than some would have us believe. [12]

Father’s running away from their responsibilities, uncaring of their children, mothers taking advantage of a biased system and financially milking their ex-husbands remorselessly; false accusations of child abuse alongside authentic cases that somehow pass through judicial loopholes and the many corrupt judges open to those with the right money.

The system is broken and quite obviously ponerised.

There are many other similar cases where the male-dominated courts and judicial system do not necessarily override the apparent bias against fathers. Nevertheless, while negative attributions are fielded on both sides of the fence the statistics paint a very bleak picture for the father in the majority of cases. Despite psychopathic predominance in the male (at least so far, data is still being collected) the female pathological narcissist and psychopath also exist. As awareness of the bias against diagnosing women with psychopathy becomes more widely known, statistic are likely to reveal even more of a prevalence that is not necessarily seated in criminal activity but within domestic and public institutional settings.

Disturbing statistics that seldom get any airplay in the media denote an inversion of the female attributes that collectively express a highly significant reaction to the mass pathology inflicted on Western societies. As to how custody battles are reflected in statistical analyses these figures are from the late 80s’ and early 90s’:

  • 79.6 % of custodial mothers receive a support award
  • 29.9 % of custodial fathers receive a support award
  • 46.9 % of non-custodial mothers totally default on support
  • 26.9 % of non-custodial fathers totally default on support
  • 20.0 % of non-custodial mothers pay support at some level
  • 61.0  % of non-custodial fathers pay support at some level
  • 66.2 % of single custodial mothers work less than full-time
  • 10.2  %  of single custodial fathers work less than full-time  [13]

By 2007, five of every six custodial parents are mothers, yet the number of custodial mothers in poverty is 27.7 percent in contrast to the percentage of custodial fathers in poverty at 11.1 percent [14]  With one in four divorced Americans yet to receive child support or alimony and of those who are supposed to receive spousal support, 49 percent are not receiving any of it, fighting to get it, or have completely given up, what does this say about the system of allocating benefits to each parent and the ability of fathers to find work over mothers? What of the prevalence of mental illness and undiagnosed pathology hidden from view? [15]

In custody and criminal trials prosecutors will have no compunction in using gender myths as a strategy to win their cases or “… packaging the myth for persuasive purposes” depending on which position they are advocating. [16]

5960558-lg© infrakshun

Impression Management

It might be an idea to revisit the Female Psychopath in a court setting.

The female psychopath’s own formula of “impression management” is especially effective yet we have no way of knowing how many take advantage of the criminal justice system except through reading between the lines of statistics. Is it simply self-presentation or cunning manipulation of the jury and all participants, from detectives to judges? Impression management is a crucial tool of the psychopath yet relatively unexplored in forensic psychology. If the overriding need to control and win is a primary driver of psychopathic behaviour this suggests a huge psychological loop-hole that takes advantage of the idealised image of feminine passivity which is then ruthlessly exploited.

Criminal trial attorney Frank S. Perri and clinical psychologist Terrance G. Lichtenwald see law enforcement and the criminal justice system facing a serious challenge in their ability to correctly perceive, diagnose and bring to justice female psychopaths. For instance: “Diane Downs, the woman who killed her two children by shooting them, came to her jury trial pregnant, projecting the image that a mother could not commit such an act. [Serial killers] Golay and Utterschmidt projected a disposition of two elderly, grandmotherly-like women, and Karla Homolka projected the image that she was under the control over her husband when she helped kill three young women.”  [1]

Other examples of possible misdiagnosis and leniency include one Marie Noe, who in 1999: “… admitted to killing her eight children [and] received probation. It had been suggested that her 72-year-old appearance, mannerisms and her gender affected the decision and because society is reluctant to believe that women kill serially, law and prosecutions lacked the motivation to investigate and vigorously prosecute these women.” Another female serialist received only 10 years in prison after admitting to killing her five children, but the jury felt sorry for her because she had lost all the children in her life.”  [2]

The courts, forensics and law enforcement are areas more likely to encounter male and female psychopaths than any other profession. The absence of courses in psychopathy awareness is still not forthcoming where it is needed most and where: “…the study of violent offenders is lumped together under the same umbrella that somehow criminals are from the same mold.” The authors therefore pose the following questions:

Does this individual understand that parents who kill may not be mentally ill but possess psychopathy traits that, in fact, make them more prone to planning their child’s death? Does this person have training on how to spot psychopathic traits or are does he harbor the view that a mother is incapable of intentionally killing her child because of her gender? If the parent did plan the murder, could this professional participate in the evaluation of such a case without resorting to myths to resolve the “shock” he or she experiences? […]

It can be particularly unnerving for professionals to realize that a female is capable of brutal violence, especially homicide, and project normalcy to those she encounters. Unfortunately, many in the law enforcement and behavioral field resort to the myth in order to resolve an uncomfortable inconsistency between what they observe and what they want to believe. […]

Professionals’ beliefs about female aggression influence their approach to inquiry, interviews, investigation, and their reactions to female disclosures about their criminal acts have an enormous impact on who is labeled a victim or an offender… [3]

Given the custodial, socio-economic statistics and those for female psychopathic traits that point to high incidence of biological mothers as perpetrators of some forms of child abuse and child deaths, a massive overhaul of gender stereotyping and target training for police and the law courts, social services and child care is long overdue. The authors recommend several changes that must take place if professionals – investigators or examiners – are to meet the challenge of psychopathy:

  • Self awareness of one’s own gender bias
  • Management of cognitive dissonance in the face of incongruous evidence: “female as care taker and female as abuser, female as peace maker and female as perpetrator.”
  • During evaluation, confidence borne from a strong data set ready to test for different gender myths regardless of the individual being evaluated.
  • Awareness that the examinee “has much to gain and little to lose by manipulating.
  • The evaluation of the deception but also the quality of the deception i.e. “How did the examinee respond when the deception was exposed?”
  • Awareness that the examinee may be wearing a “mask of sanity” thus he must be ready to examine his emotions for countertransference “…such as the feeling of disappointment that the individual is not what she first seemed.”
  • A willingness to excuse oneself from the case if these criteria cannot be met.  [4]

Finally, the authors conclude that: “Violence, especially murder, is a human issue and not a gender-specific phenomenon.” a conclusion that must extend across all societal domains when evaluating anti-social personality disorders such as psychopathy and narcissism whether in relationships, business, organisations or social movements.

The above examples are admittedly from criminal psychopaths. Garden variety psychopaths happily go about their business deep inside society assisting in the sometimes subtle and slow ponerogenesis of normal human behaviour.  Therefore, since we already have a problem that is highly advanced in Western societies in particular, then it does not necessarily mean employing specific models to be absorbed into already ponerised arms of the Establishment. It may be a bit late for current Western societies to incorporate large-scale change without systematic radical upheavals. What it does mean is offering the opportunity for all of us to be super-aware of the depth and nature of psychopathy so that we may give inoculate ourselves and our love ones from its destructive effects. Only then will we begin to loosen the grip of  the global predators in our midst.

 


Notes

[1] Nation of broken families: One in three children lives with a single-parent or with step mum or dad’ The Daily Mail, By Steve Doughty, 25 June 2010.
[2] ‘Norgrove Report fails children by not giving fathers access rights, says Centre for Social Justice’ Press Release, November 3, Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) http://www.centreforsocialjustice.co.uk
[3] ‘Dads should NOT be given right to equal access to children, says review’ The Daily Mirror, November 3, 2011.
[4] Fathers 4 Justice http://www.fathers4justice.co.uk
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Channel 4 News, F4J Respond to Norgrove Report, November 2011 | ‘Family justice review criticises ‘shocking delays’’ BBC News, November 3, 2011.
[8] ‘Norgrove review fails to grasp the nettle for grandparents’ By Dr Ros Altmann , Saga http://www.saga.co.uk  4 November 2011.
[9] Ibid.
[10] ‘Do Divorced Dads Get a Raw Deal?’ By Tom Matlack, Mens’ Health, March 12th, 2011.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] 1988 Census ‘Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series P-60, No. 173 p. 6-7. and U.S. General Accounting Office Report’ GAO/HRD-92-39FS January, 1992.
[14] U.S. Census Bureau, Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2005, released August 2007 | Ibid.
[15] http://www.Divorce360.com, Child Support Poll Results, conducted by GFK Roper Public Affairs and Media, 2007 | Ibid.
[16]] op. cit. Perri & Lichtenwald (p.63)
[17] Ibid. (p.64)
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20  Ibid.

Feminism or Infiltration? III: Libido of the Ugly

1973951Feminism, if not infiltrated has without doubt become infected by the same strains of pathology as any other ideology or belief that has the seeds of truth within it and thus a threat to the Pathocracy. Nowhere is this more evident than in its response to the many dissenters of the new feminism that was riding the wave of acceptance in the early seventies.

One antidote which provided plenty of vitriolic critique came from Argentine-German Esther Vilar whose book: The Manipulated Man made plenty of fresh-faced feminists even more apoplectic with rage and shock. Rather than white, middle-class women being the object of oppression and exploitation Vilar claims that the reverse is true – it is women who employ a sophisticated mixture of emotional manipulation, blackmail and psycho-strategy to gain the upper hand in a relationship of which most men are not aware. Some of the strategies she believes women use include luring men with sex and specific seduction strategies; using praise to control men administered at optimal moments for maximum effect and the use of love and romance to mask real intentions.

Though it might seem obvious now, it was heretical stuff and mightily controversial at the time. As regards men in contemporary society, Vilar listed some of the disadvantages she saw for men compared to women:

  • Men are conscripted; women are not.
  • Men are sent to fight in wars; women are not.
  • Men retire later than women (even though, due to their lower life-expectancy, they should have the right to retire earlier).
  • Men have almost no influence over their reproduction (for males, there is neither a pill nor abortion — they can only get the children women want them to have).
  • Men support women; women never, or only temporarily, support men.
  • Men work all their lives; women work only temporarily or not at all.
  • Even though men work all their lives, and women work only temporarily or not at all, on average, men are poorer than women.
  • Men only “borrow” their children; women can keep them (as men work all their lives and women do not, men are automatically robbed of their children in cases of separation — with the reasoning that they have to work). [1]

Vilar’s book certainly caused a veritable storm of indignant protest in its day, mostly from feminists. Admittedly, even by today’s standards decrying all women as essentially “bitches” and “stupid” is as extreme as generalising that all men are chauvinist thugs. This serves only to polarise gender issues rather than offer progressive understanding. It is an extreme book by anyone’s standards, not least the reaction it caused including death threats and the most abject vitriol that understandably took Vilar by surprise. However, not only did the book provide a counterpoint to the unassailable feminist movement as a whole, it also acted as a mirror for narcissistic feminists and their unfortunate trajectory.  It certainly got people talking and allowing more moderate versions of Vilar’s critique to emerge.

Regardless of the psychological reasons for writing such a work, in her 1998 preface to the new edition she stated:

As absurd as it may sound, today’s men need feminism much more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their instincts. Therefore the most aggressive Women’s Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else. Without arrogant accusations, the macho man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press stylise men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this ‘men’s society’, men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently.

So I hadn’t imagined broadly enough the isolation I would find myself in after writing this book. Nor had I envisaged the consequences which it would have for subsequent writing and even for my private life — violent threats have not ceased to this date. A woman who defended the arch-enemy — who didn’t equate domestic life with solitary confinement and who described the company of young children as a pleasure, not a burden — necessarily had to become a ‘misogynist’, even a ‘reactionary’ and ‘fascist’ in the eyes of the public.[2] [Emphasis mine]

Though conveniently brushing aside her tendency to reduce issues down to simplistic, hackneyed white-washing she nevertheless raises important points in the above. Is a woman allowed to be all the things that feminism seems to squash? Or have we indeed arrived at a strange point where much of feminism in the modern Western world is unyielding to the point that it has indeed become another belief without the ability to evolve? It certainly seems that way.

Though economic shifts have played an enormous part in twisting the gender roles, of far more importance is the effects of an anti-human world on our core selves. In post-modern societies of cynical materialism and fake spirituality everything is filtered through this narcissistic façade where the perfection of the body is sought for and according to the whims of advertising, fashion and the stale clichés of male and female stereotypes. The effects of this on women are processed differently.

Studies show that emotional intelligence or a social cognition is higher in women with logical/mathematical intelligence and IQ tests persistently higher for men. [3] Does that mean women are more stupid? Absolutely not. Knee-jerk reactions from academics and media commentators feed into preconceived definitions of what it means to be male and female, each grinding their respective axes on the wet-stones of their own visions of emancipation.

In the same way, recent studies have confirmed the obvious assertions (obvious accept to the financiers of this research) that when either sex shows more flesh they are considered less intelligent. Once again, for both sexes it is the body and the mind as separate entities just like the functioning of male and female that promotes erroneous conclusions:

The new research suggests we see others as having two aspects of the mind – called agency and experience. Agency is the capacity to act, plan and exert self-control, while experience is the capacity to feel pain, pleasure and emotions. Interestingly, the amount of skin shown can determine if we see another as one of ‘experience’ or ‘agency’. During the study, men and women who focused on the body regarded that person as ‘experience’ with little capacity to plan and act. Professor Gray suggested this was because people automatically think of minds and bodies as separate things, even opposites. The capacity to act is more often tied to the ‘mind’ while experience is linked to the body.”[4]

Could it have anything to do with the strictly rationalist and reductionist brand of science still holding sway in the halls of academia? [5]

The above findings says much about our conditioned learning that sees mind and body as separate rather than a holistic system. This also explains why both sexes are trapped in their respective mirrors.  If showing more skin immediately equates women with the “experiencer” label and man with “agency” this not only confirms how disconnected we have become from our natural bodily state but a culture that glorifies commodity and quantity over quality and substance. It is little wonder that women will be placed in the “bimbo” with “little capacity to plan and act” while feeling “pain pleasure and emotions,” and thus “sexually available”. Conversely, men will automatically confirm the sporty, alpha male as well as being sexually available rather than the sensitive, “touchy-feely” type.

With the onset of largely iconic gay influences which have helped to encourage the uniform brand of gym-bodies in the last several years, this describes the upward curve of narcissism and vanity rather than health and fitness based on useful service to others. More gender clichés are served up for consumption from a technophilic society keen to keep it that way.

If women are suffering inside from a battery of historical and feminist led modern influences then men’s role as an emotionless robot with pectorals bigger than his porn-rag fantasy and the excess feminisation that produces the little boy syndrome unable to do anything but watch TV and play video games is directly related. But both sexes have been responsible for its continued fixation as they try on new ways of viewing their relative positions without awareness of natural predispositions.

For instance, women’s beauty is both a complex mix of power and pariah. Naomi Wolf illustrates on the one hand, the relentless push to find love and appreciation from readily available masks which women have donned as much for competition with other females as the goal of material acquisition which drives some men’s ambition. She explains:

Whatever is deeply, essentially female — the life in a woman’s expression, the feel of her flesh, the shape of her breasts, the transformations after childbirth of her skin–is being reclassified as ugly, and ugliness as disease. […]  At least a third of a woman’s life is marked with aging; about a third of her body is made of fat. Both symbols are being transformed into operable condition–so that women will only feel healthy if we are two thirds of the women we could be. How can an ‘ideal’ be about women if it is defined as how much of a female sexual characteristic does not exist on the woman’s body, and how much of a female life does not show on her face?” [6]

When men respond to the facade it often acts as a mirror of his narrowing values and lack of authenticity. Or in the words of H.L. Mencken, he has been directed to worship “the libido for the ugly” and take this as reality. Wolf comments: “What becomes of a man who acquires a beautiful woman, with her “beauty” his sole target? He sabotages himself. He has gained no friend, no ally, no mutual trust: She knows quite well why she has been chosen. He has succeeded in buying something: the esteem of other men who find such an acquisition impressive.”

Despite Wolf’s assertions in her writings that this is all about men oppressing women the truth is somewhat more complex which should become evident as we continue. And let’s not pretend that women do not do exactly the same by setting the “trap” for such mutually satisfactory contracts while claiming innocence. Nonetheless, it is little wonder that women are still seen as sexual objects when relationships at both ends of the spectrum are determined by sex as “fast food” trail-blazed by the mainstreaming of pornography and online dating.

Again, do women really want to be “equal” when that equality is dysfunctional at the outset?

Wolf reverses the male objectification:

Women could probably be trained quite easily to see men first as sexual things. If girls never experienced sexual violence; if a girl’s only window on male sexuality were a stream of easily available, well-lit, cheap images of boys slightly older than herself, in their late teens, smiling encouragingly and revealing cuddly erect penises the color of roses or mocha, she might well look at, masturbate to, and, as an adult, “need” beauty pornography based on the bodies of men. And if those initiating penises were represented to the girl as pneumatically erectible, swerving neither left nor right, tasting of cinnamon or forest berries, innocent of random hairs, and ever ready; if they were presented alongside their measurements, length, and circumference to the quarter inch; if they seemed to be available to her with no troublesome personality attached; if her sweet pleasure seemed to be the only reason for them to exist–then a real young man would probably approach the young woman’s bed with, to say the least, a failing heart.” [7]

And such a “training” for the young woman has already been taking place for many years. “Failing hearts” are occurring in both men and women though expressed differently.  Sure, the above sexual objectification occurs on a daily basis. But  let’s not forget the same toxic effects from the narcissistic arsenal of damaged women who objectify men through manipulation and dangerous emotional games which have nothing to do with appearance but everything to do with a deeper imperative, whether it be the biological urge for birthing or the need to have emotional control., the effects of which can be highly toxic in both marriage and partnership. But because the “fairer sex” are historically “oppressed” then it cannot be possible that covert forms of female induced oppression against the male exist…

What remains true is that our identity – whether we are gay, lesbian, straight, bi or transgender – is under attack from social engineering where movements become progressively hollowed out by pathological individuals who corrupt the purity of intent and replace it with a counterfeit version – a form of psycho-subversion, if you will.  It is truly a “group-think” which derives its energy from an Orwellian “double think” where paramoralisms and paralogic reign supreme.  (You’ll see why if you keep up to date with future series).

Feminism isn’t the only one.

MAN-AND-WOMAN_2-1024x656

TAMARA KVESITADZE: opening ceremony of statue |‘Man and Woman’ on October 30th, 2010 in Batumi, Georgia (Effigies)


Women in the West have finally clawed back many of their rights to find that they are ironically mirroring the male who was already a victim of an economic and social contract drawn up by those who cannot be considered in anyway “normal”.  When you fight for the right not to be objectified, to have a place in politics or to be treated as an intellectual equal – this is right and proper. But such a wish has gone much further so that the same quality of injustices are visited upon the male the recognition of which is largely swept away by a form of narcissism masked by largely white, Western feminism.  Whether in the family courts or the toxic effects of feminist belief within relationships, this is not going anywhere good for either sex.

We are spiritually and psychologically compromised in ways we are only just beginning to fathom. And feminists are in danger of fighting for the right to be exploited at a higher rung of the ladder that actually leads nowhere.

Whatever has been “deeply, essentially female” and male is in danger of being comprehensively discarded by the feminism of the 21st century.  A new way to perceive ourselves and the material world is desperately needed.  It is not the lack of material power, freedom in the work place or the red herring of gender equality but the toxic effects of a body-centrism that claims both male and female – the objectifying of the female form and women’s embrace of such a caricature and the disempowerment of both gender roles. This may be one reason that women’s narcissism is through the roof whilst the recognition of the female paedophile, child abuser, pathological narcissist and psychopath are only just managing to break through the cultural bias so that deep research can take place.

A recent report distinct for its large demographic analysis confirmed the emergence of women “reclaiming their power”  both in the market place and in relationships. The objective of the project was to: “… find out how close, intimate relationships vary over a lifetime.” The results of the study which were published by Professor Robin Dunbar of Oxford University, UK in the Journal of Scientific Reports came from the analysis of the texts of mobile phone calls of three million people incorporating the age and sex of callers providing a very “big picture” of people’s lives.  It gave overwhelming evidence that “romantic relationships are driven by women” based on “pair-bonding” proving that this is much more important to women than men. From the data as a whole, researchers determine that: “…a woman’s social world is intensely focussed on one individual and will shift as a result of reproductive interests from being the mate to children and grandchildren.” [8] 

The project also wanted to “…find out how the gender preference of best friends, as defined by the frequency of the calling, changed over the course of a lifetime and differed between men and women.” Professor Dunbar’s team reported that: “… women start to switch the preference of their best friend from about the mid-30s, and by the age of 45 a woman of a generation younger becomes the ‘new best friend.’ Men tended to choose a woman (a girlfriend or wife) as a best friend much later in life and for a shorter time.

“Women, however, choose a man of a similar age to be their best friend from the age of 20. He remains for about 15 years, after which time he’s replaced by a daughter.” At the beginning of a relationship women call their spouse more than any other person, but as their daughters become old enough to have children, the focus is transferred and they become the centre of the woman’s life.  In the words of Professor Dunbar: “…at root the important relationships are those between women and not those between men.” [9]

Let’s re-visit Esther Vilar’s somewhat wild musings on this issue back in 1971:

… only women exist in a woman’s world. The women she meets at church, at parent-teacher meetings, or in the supermarket; the women with whom she chats over the garden fence; the women at parties or window-shopping in the more fashionable streets; those she apparently never seems to notice – these women are the measure of her success or failure. Women’s standards correspond to those in other women’s heads, not to those in the heads of men; it is their judgment that really counts, not that of men. A simple word of praise from another woman – and all those clumsy, inadequate male compliments fall by the wayside, for they are just praises out of the mouths of amateurs. Men really have no idea in what kind of world women live in; their hymns of praise miss all the vital points. [10]

This extract at least, is not quite as extreme when there is some statistical and socio-biological data to back it up.  Professor Dunbar believes this proves that we are returning to a more matriarchal based society. However, if under psychopathological dominance it is unlikely to resemble the kind of “equality” that human society yearns for.

With this in mind, could the real shift that ripped the sexual and emotional inheritance from our daily lives have buried a truth that there was something sacred and mutually empowering in the sexual act and by extension, the relationships between men and women – and other sexual orientations?

Eisler and many others believe so:

The search for this lost wisdom by mystics – and by women and men throughout the ages – is the search for reconnection with our partnership roots. It is the search for a way of relating that is the antithesis of the dominator mode, where in both reality and myth polarization and strife, conflict and separation, winning and losing, dominating and subduing, dismembering and disembodying, conquering and controlling, in short, force, fear, and violent disconnection, are the central themes. And its very essence, as mystical writings have so often brought out, is the search for a means of healing what was so brutally rent asunder with the shift to a dominator world: the fundamental erotic, and with this also spiritual, connection between women and men. [11]

Perhaps the only thing that will change the fortunes of both sexes is the recognition that male and female understanding lies beyond the terminal dance within the society’s economic, corporate and political framework. The success of one gender over another in order to retain the same consequences of mass pathology perpetrated by high level psychopaths and stepped down to endemic narcissism, must be seen for what it is if we are to free ourselves from a perception that men and women are constantly equated with inferiority or superiority – my rights as opposed to your rights. Perhaps we need to obtain a big picture view of the forces that shape us, otherwise, all the wonderful creative ideas that lie within so many great minds will prove to be still-born, yet again. That necessarily means an equally radical shift in perception that saw the division between the sexes all those years ago, so that a bridge may once again be formed.

The devaluation of women is a disaster for men. The devaluation of men is a disaster for women. Our misplaced anger and its projection into the external world are too easily channelled into causes and beliefs that temporarily mollify but ultimately benefit no one. The psychological knowledge of the psychopathic trickster that exists to create division between the two must form part of our collective education for young and old. Until we begin to see the culprit is the institutional and ceremonial psychopath – the embodiment of natural evil – that loves to create ideologies to divide and rule, then the true roles of men and women – heterosexual and homosexual – will continue to be obscured and pathologised.

In the next post we’ll have a look at some of the causes and effects of our present confusions in order to observe what we may call the “Sex Establishment” and how it not only benefits from such gender divisions, but has grown to distort and subvert the very concept of sex and sexuality.

 


Notes

[1] The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar Published by Abelard-Schuman 1972 | ISBN-10: 0200718754
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Men cleverer than women’ claim BBC News, August 25, 2005.
[4] ‘Cover up to look smart: Men and women who bare more flesh are regarded as less intelligent, study finds’ By Lauren Paxman, The Daily Mail, Femail, 11 November, 2011.
[5] For more on this do read The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake.
[6] p.232; The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women by Naomi Wolf. Published by Harper Perennial, 1992 Reprint: 2002 | ISBN-10: 0060512180.
[7] Ibid (p.154)
[8] ‘Phone data shows romance ‘driven by women’ BBC News, April 2012.
[9] Ibid.
[10] op. cit. Vilar.
[11]
Eisler, Riane; Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body, Published by Harper Collins, 2012.

The Female Psychopath II

“She will choose you, charm you with her words, and control you with this presence. She will delight you with her wit and her plans. She will show you a good time, but you will always get the bill. She will smile and deceive you, and she will scare you with her eyes. And when she is through with you, and she will be through with you, she will desert you and take with her your innocence and your pride. You will be left much sadder but not a lot wiser, and for a long time you will wonder what you did wrong.”

– From an essay signed, “A psychopath in prison,” Particular Characteristics of Female Sociopaths Vs Males


Of course, many of the severest forms of abuse do not mean that the woman is a psychopath. There are many forms of pathology. The most likely culprit in our 21st Century culture at this time is narcissism of varying degrees which includes compensatory narcissism (hypersensitive, fragile, vulnerable, “poor me”) and more overt narcissism (forms of grandiosity, brashness and obnoxious behaviour). Both require the projection of a false self onto the world at large to reinforce and maintain the illusion. Nothing exists outside that mirror of themselves as they would like to be. If you get sucked into that mirror and create a crack in its shine – watch out.

At the extreme end of the scale, even children can be abused, neglected and intentionally harmed to service that image. In fact, pathological narcissism is probably another variant of psychopathy, especially which it  involves the physical and sexual abuse and even murder of children to sustain their own delusions. Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP) is an example, where a parent, guardian or caregiver “deliberately exaggerates, fabricates, and/or induces physical, psychological, behavioral, and/or mental health problems in those who are in their care.” [1]  It is clear to me that what we have here is not a new disease but a collection of pathological disorders which amount to a feminine form of psychopathy.

Perri and Lichtenwald highlight the fact that in the context of female psychopathy and the law courts, syndromes are open to abuse to an extreme degree. This is particularly true for psychological syndromes like MSBP which ensure the diagnosis of criminal conduct is invariably obscure. Moreover, many people with MSBP are in complete control and are not suffering from psychosis. They are often able to plan meticulously and with premeditation. However, the detection of MSBP psychopaths is fraught with difficulty in that “… the deaths can be staged, victims might be too young or too old to not rule out a medical explanation, there are no outward signs of foul play, no marks, no weapons, no struggle, natural death is plausible, and no outward signs of caretaker stress…”It is a perfect combination for psychopaths who are more than capable of coping with stressful situations without showing any signs of emotion, because there are not any emotions to deal with in the first place. When a suspect is abnormally calm and stress-free this should be a sign in itself that something is wrong.  After all: “The mother of a dead child gets a lot of attention from the ambulance crew, the emergency-room folk, the doctors, the nurses, the social workers, and then she gets attention from family, friends, neighbors, the funeral home, and clergy. Then when the excitement dies down, she starts the process all over again.” [2]

Women who kill friends, family members and anyone with whom they have created a close personal relationship are usually and fittingly referred to as “Black Widows”. One example of an alleged sufferer of MSBP was Mary Beth Tinning currently serving a 20-year sentence. After experiencing the natural death of her first-born she quickly realised that there was lots of attention to be had and it wasn’t long before she had murdered all eight of them. [3]

Dr. Geoffrey McKee, forensic psychologist and clinical professor at the University of South Carolina, School of Medicine analysed and evaluated hundreds of murder defendants. McKee published his findings in his book Why Mothers Kill (2006). Whether psychotic, depressed, abusive, neglectful or psychopathic, mothers kill their children due to multiple behavioural reasons. For those women who exhibit MSBP, Dr. McKee found a consistent presence of narcissistic and psychopathic traits. He stated: “few of us can imagine someone who could deliberately and repeatedly injure a child and then deceptively thwart the well-intentioned efforts of medical personnel to successfully treat the highly vulnerable victim.” [4]

As we shall see, there is disturbing statistical evidence that hundreds of infants and young children have been killed by their mothers, with new born babies abandoned, neglected and abused. Though many women convicted for such crimes will show signs of mental illness some may well be psychopaths or have psychopathic traits.

© infrakshun

Given that psychopaths have an inability to bond emotionally with others it makes sense that abandonment or neglect of biological children may be indicative of narcissistic or psychopathic women. Dr. Geoffrey McKee explains how these tragedies evolve:

In a deceitful way, the mother destroys the child that supports the myth of motherhood in order to satiate her narcissism. During the pregnancy, the mother is the center of attention and the need for narcissistic attention is fed; but once the child is born the attention shifts to the well-being of the child, and the perceived benefits of motherhood, the attention, are replaced by the realities of parenthood. Thus the mother attempts to project the myth of the nurturing and care-giving female by placing herself in the role of the heroic mother who saves her child. Placing herself in the role of the mother-hero garners the narcissistic approbation she craves by usurping the myth to her benefit at the expense of the child who was simply a means to an end. For these women, children, like a commodity, are objects to be used for self-gratification. The value of the child is dependent on what they get out of them; if they are more valuable alive, then they are kept alive, but if they happen to die, they can always have another without remorse. It was never about upholding the myth of motherhood; the myth was a guise for their narcissism because these mothers never formed any real attachments/bonding to their children in the first place, symptomatic of psychopathy. [5]

Another example was given by the authors from the November 1997 edition of the Journal of Pediatrics, where doctors had published the results of a “terrifying experiment” conducted in UK hospitals. The covert videotaping of 39 parents was undertaken, most of whom were mothers and who had been under suspicion by medical personnel of “bringing their young children to the brink of death.” The results were horrifying:

In 30 of the 39 cases, the parents were  observed intentionally suffocating their children; in two they were seen attempting to poison a child; in a third, the mother under surveillance deliberately broke her 3-month-old daughter’s arm. Many of the parents seemed as methodical and as brazen, as scoured of fear or conscience, as any serial killer. ‘Abuse was inflicted without provocation and with premeditation, and in some instances, involved elaborate and plausible lies to explain consequences’…. For example, one mother claimed that she had suffocated her son because of stress related to his crying and continually waking her from sleep. However, if this excuse wasn’t bad enough, under surveillance, the mother was seen, with premeditated planning, to suffocate her infant when he was deeply asleep. The majority of other cases showed attempted suffocation when the child was asleep or lying passively on the bed.

The disturbing feature was that these were women (and a few men) who masqueraded as good parents, the sort who rushed their children to the emergency room when they had trouble breathing and stood by them with fortitude and devotion while the doctors puzzled out what was wrong. They were conning; they could give the appearance of the concerned mom the minute a doctor or nurse walked in the room, enjoy the social prestige of a mysterious disease, the proximity to powerful medical professionals, they liked the attention and the drama—the wail of the sirens, the adrenalin rush of the emergency room … With further investigation, it turned out that the 39 patients under surveillance, ages 1 month to nearly 3 years old, had 41 siblings, and that 12 of those siblings had died suddenly and unexpectedly. [6]

Regardless of MSBP and other syndromes, this has been a constant and telling statistical fact in the majority of analyses in stark contrast to the percentage of male perpetrators of abuse.  61 percent of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers while 25 percent of all child abuse is committed by natural fathers. [7] The expression, type and variability of traits involved may differ considerably. These statistics from 2003 research data of the US Department of Health and Services, Administration for Children and Families division stands up to considerable scrutiny.

Where mothers only were responsible for deaths of their children the figure is at 30.5 percent. Stats have fluctuated until 2007 where “… 56.5 percent of the perpetrators were women, 42.4 percent were men, the latter showing an even more dramatic increase. Despite similar variations of marginal increases and decreases the same female dominance in the perpetrator relationship to abuse and related financial and custodial data, while child victims of parental status of perpetrator once again has mothers at the highest at 40.8 percent. (An illustration of these trends is shown from a two 2003 DHHS reports in graph form below).

In January 2005 the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCANDS) and the DHHS provided findings on Male Perpetrators of Child Treatment and found that: “Of all reported cases in the State data set, slightly less than one-half of all perpetrators were male. Of these, about one-half (51 percent) were biological fathers, an additional one-fifth occupied some other parental role (adoptive fathers, stepfathers, mothers’ boyfriends), and about one-quarter were in non-parental relationships (including relatives, foster parents, day care providers, or friends) to their victims. In comparison, among female perpetrators, 86 percent were biological mothers.[8]

Most child sexual abuse is committed by men but abuse in general committed against boys and to lesser extent girls, is carried out by mothers. Which begs the question why there is a category and document for “Male perpetrators of Child maltreatment” but not a “Female Perpetrators of Child maltreatment”?

 DHHS1DHHS report 2003, Fatalities by Perpetrator

DHHS 2DHHS report 2003 Victims by Parental Status of Perpetrator


In a study as far back as 1997, 103 female jail inmates were evaluated using precise scores from an extensive semi-structured interview for the assessment of personality disorders. A substantially different “factor structure” for women was found than had been previously found for male psychopaths. The report concluded that: “For women, interpersonal traits were notable for lack of empathy or guilt, interpersonal deception, proneness to boredom, and sensation seeking. Antisocial factors of strongest link were early behavioral problems, promiscuity, and adult antisocial behavior. Female offenders manifested substantial loadings on two items not found in male populations: promiscuous sexual behavior and lack of realistic long-term goals.” [9]

Yet, it is also true that female offenders do have “gender specific adversities” which include higher rates of sexual abuse in childhood as well as a higher incidence of sexual assault than male offenders [10] This may account for the higher rates of sexual promiscuity linked to socio-economic status parallel to a “man’s world” mentality that will inform the sub-culture in which they often live. The study also found in their sample which was small, that there was definite connection with psychopathy and Histrionic Personality Disorder though they did not elaborate as to whether that was indicative of psychopathy or merely psychopathic tendencies. Interestingly, they found that the “patterns of results strongly supported the relationship between psychopathy and aggression.” [11]

Though not necessarily related to psychopathy or narcissism, a 2010 study from United States Harvard Medical School poked a large hole in the assumptions that women are less violent than men. Their findings showed that:  “When the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70 percent of the time. Men were more likely to be injured in reciprocally violent relationships (25 percent) than were women when the violence was one-sided (20 percent). That means both men and women agreed that men were not more responsible than women for intimate partner violence. The findings cannot be explained by men being ashamed to admit hitting women, because women agreed with men on this point.” [12]

Joan Arehart-Treichel of the American Psychiatric Association backed the Harvard Medical School study after publishing her own study which confirmed the results.  In her paper she wrote: “When it comes to non-reciprocal violence between intimate partners, women are more often the perpetrators.” [13]  If this is yet another statistic brushed under the carpet one wonders how many others there are and how they may relate to the female psychopaths which may be riding high on the cover that a lack of awareness provides. The statistics so far, may be the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

One reason why psychopathic behaviour from women may be misunderstood and misdiagnosed is due in part to the fact that abusive behaviour by female offenders in general continues to be unreported. Darlene Barriere, a Canadian violence and abuse prevention educator offers the background to why such states of affairs exist:

  • Children are reluctant to report the person they depend on.
  • Inappropriate sexual behaviour is often masked in bathing, dressing or comforting the victim.
  • When boys are the targets of female offenders, they are less likely to disclose.
  • There is denial of the existence of sexuality in females.
  • Females who sexually abuse undermines feelings about how women should relate to children.
  • People find it difficult to understand how women could sexually abuse.
  • Children and adolescents who disclose sexual abuse by female offenders are often told they are fantasizing.
  • When the victim is a male adolescent, often times the sexual abuse goes unreported because of the perception that sex with an older female is a ‘rite of passage’ ”. [14]

As with most abuse consensual or otherwise, this may be highly damaging to the young child or adolescent at sensitive stages in his emotional, mental and sexual development. Barriere also lists several psychological effects such acts of abuse can lead to which include: self-blame; low self-esteem; problems in sexual functioning; avoidance of sex; sexual compulsivity; substance abuse and crime.

While it can be argued that because women traditionally spend far more time at home with children then fathers and male partners, the percentage of abuse will logically be higher and that women generally get paid less than their male counterparts (which is hotly disputed in the US and Europe) there is little credible critique of the statistics themselves.  It is also true that poverty, absence of community and the extended family including a lack of support from the male and the consequent broken homes that result, play a huge part in the final data. However, the consistent pattern overall is that fathers are given little incentive or practical support to be at home even if they wanted to. They are doomed to fulfill a role that is the summation of economically and culturally determined pathways within a very limited spectrum of choices. The devaluation and confusion of gender roles is an inevitable consequence of a vicious circle of competition and unyielding state bureaucracy underpinned by a daily erosion of community values. This inevitably sees a desperate inversion of female traits leading to the abuse of the “wired in” nurturing role of motherhood and abandonment of the spouse, a profound loss of male identity and emasculation on the side of the father. [15]

With compelling statistics linking fatherless homes with high incidence rates of suicide, behavioural problems, rape, absentism at school, time in juvenile detention centres and prison, the role of the father must be seen as equally vital in parenting as the role of the mother. [16] If these statistics are in any way accurate and in combination with the inflicted pathologies we are now witnessing in the West, the involvement of the father, the extended family and the role of women in society in general must be more important that we have ever realised. Stand this against the presence of the female psychopath and we may see that psychopathy could operate as an ironic ratio of gender equality, where male psychopathy gravitates towards hierarchical dominator positions (government, business, institutions) whereas the female psychopath – while undoubtedly drawn to the same positions of power – may be expressed in less obvious ways. They might be found in what was once the traditional setting: in the home and community, masked by myths and the lack of statistical data that goes with it. Rather than forming the bedrock of stability, they seed themselves in the home and community settings in order to create situations that foster the exact opposite. Meanwhile, sandwiched between the two are normal people desperately trying to make sense of their lives.

The tide is beginning to turn in favour of applying the same principles to the investigation of male psychopathy. However, there are some distinct differences between the two genders in how this pathology is expressed. And it is here that many of the problems have traditionally been found.

Let’s also not forget that the existence of female paedophiles and abusers of every kind is as much a reality as the male version but has traditionally slipped under the radar for the very reasons stated previously: it is not culturally excepted that such thing is possible. In other words, its another taboo from which the female psychopath/narcissist takes full advantage. Indeed, from 2009 statistics, UK police say that were over 64,000 child sex offenders and the numbers are rising. Psychologist Dr. Joe Sullivan who lectures worldwide on the prevalence of female abusers in our society, determines the percentage of female is highly variable – between 5% – 20% due precisely to the cultural and cognitive bias. [17] Donald Findlater, director of research and development at Lucy Faithfull Foundation (LFF) a child protection charity said: “… results indicated that up to 20% of a conservative estimate of 320,000 suspected UK paedophiles were women.” He said further that: “The problem is far bigger than conviction rates and, if you look at survivor studies, you end up with a very different story about the scale of the problem of female sexual abuse.” [18]

See also: Sex, Lies and Society II: Paedophilia and Crowd Control III: Mixed Messages (2)

 


Notes

[1] MBP Definitions,Maltreatment Behaviors, and Comments by Louisa Lasher | http://www.mbpexpert.com/
[2] op. cit. Perri & Lichtenwald; (p.61)
[3] ‘Marybeth Tinning again denied parole: Now 68, child killer next eligible in January 2013’. The Daily Gazette. Schenectady, NY. February 8, 2011.
[4] op. cit. Perri & Lichtenwald (p.61)
[5] Quoted by Perri & Lichtenwald from WhyMothers Who Kill: A Forensic Psychologist’s Casebook by Dr. Geoffrey R. McKee, Oxford University Press, 2006.
[6] Op.cit; Perri & Lichtenwald (p.61)
[7] 2003 DHHS report on Nationwide Child Abuse.
[8] Male Perpetrators of ChA ild Maltreatment Findings from NCANDS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation January 2005.
[9] ‘Female Psychopathy: Equal but Distinct’ The Forensic Echo, Vol. 2, No. 2,  31 Dec 1997.
[10] Female Offenders: Critical Perspectives and Effective Interventions.By Ruth T. Zaplin. Published by Joan & Barlett Publishers, 2008.
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘Domestic violence: Not Always One Sided’ Pri-Med Patient Education Center, http://www.patient-deu.org, Harvard Medical School. (The entire Harvard Medical School study can be found  in the May 2007 edition of the American Journal of Public Health.  Volume 9, 5th Edition, pages 941-947.)
[13] CDC study by Joan Arehart-Treichel, in the publication of the American Psychiatric Association, Psychiatric News, August 3, 2007 Volume 42 Number 15 Page 31 : ‘Men Shouldn’t Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner.’
[14] By Darlene Barriere | http://www.child-abuse-effects.com
[15] ‘Modern men feel emasculated, study claims’ By Sarah Womack, The Telegraph March 26 2008.
[16] 63 percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes – U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census; 85 percent of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes; – Center for Disease Control; 80percent of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes – Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26; 71percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes; – National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools; 70 percent of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes  – U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report Sept., 1988; 85 percent of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home; – Fulton County Georgia jail populations & Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992.
[16]’Up to 64,000 women in UK ‘are child-sex offenders”By Mark Townsend and Rajeev Syal, The Guardian, 4 October 2009.
[17] ‘Female paedophiles more prevalent than conviction rates suggest, leading forensic psychologist says’ ABC News Australia,
By David Lewis, 28 Apr 2015.

The Female Psychopath I

 By M.K. Styllinski

“After my involvement with the psychopath I got the strange feeling that he really didn’t have a gender. When I learned that psychopaths have no identity – they only create one as needed – it started to make perfect sense. If they have no identity it only seems logical that they have no identity either doesn’t it?”

– A.B. Admin, psychopaths and love.com


Many people might think that the existence of female psychopaths is negligible, if they exist at all. Television, plays, movies and pulp fiction have all portrayed the female psychopath alongside her male counterpart drawn from myths, folklore and fables since time immemorial. The femme fatale and scheming devil-woman have all gone through the mill of the artist’s imagination feeding off the potent archetype of the feminine vampire.

Admittedly, the influence of male prejudice and patriarchal residues still echo through literature and cultural mores of the day, but taking into account such bias, we seem averse to the idea that female psychopathy could be a significant reality. A serious lack of data and knowledge regarding the dynamics of the female psychopath has stemmed from our preconceived ideas about gender roles largely sourced from ideas of Mother Nature and nurturing; that women are passive, weak and non-violent. A male can be evaluated and found to be psychopathic, whereas a female can take advantage of these cultural stereotypes, often playing on the dominance of male bias in law enforcement and related institutions thereby escaping true diagnosis, usually in favour of histrionic or Narcissistic Personality Disorder. (NPD) [1]

Marlene DietrichHollywood Femme Fatale Marlene Dietrich

Since the female psychopath has both a mask of sanity and the imbedded cultural bias  she has a double advantage which allows her to escape detection. Robert Hare asks us not to be deceived as the: “… variety and severity of criminal acts performed by these women, as well as their capacity for cold-blooded violence, are similar to those committed by their male counterparts.” [2]

The pathological narcissist, the Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD) and the female psychopath all conform to the archetype of the feminine vampire. Of course, this energy sucker is neither male nor female in reality but the methods of energy extraction are different for each. The female vampire goes for the pity hook of a damsel in distress while the male stimulates the “mother instinct” in the guise of the “little boy lost” playing on the passivity, sensitivity and vulnerability so enamoured of gender stereotypes. This has particular relevance in that so many ordinary people exhibit these traits to a greater or lesser degree and as a general symptom of a society saturated in narcissistic values.

Jungian psychologist Barbara Hort described the feminine vampire archetype as “… the Spider – the incarnation of the Terrible Mother as a devouring weaver of fate and bringer of inevitable death.” No mincing of words there. If pathological narcissism is just one variant of psychopathy then this describes the “dance” that is created between vampire and victim: a fly becomes more and more trapped as it struggles, the spider closing in to extract the nourishment she craves for her continued existence. The image of the Great Spider on her web becomes “…symbolically synonymous with another ancient image of the negative Feminine, one that is found at the center of many web-like labyrinths. The image is that of the Gorgon Medusa…” [3]

Medusa

Medusa by Arnold Böcklin, circa 1878 (wikpedia)

Hort elaborates on this ancient process:

It may seem incomprehensible that a powerful person could be victimized by a psychic vampire who seems to be completely disempowered. Yet there are few lures more potent for a powerful champion than rescuing a grateful waif in distress. How exciting it is to save someone from the jaws of tragedy, particularly if the recipient is adoring and appreciative! You, the noble champion, journey alone down the desolate nighttime road, when there appears by the wayside a sweet little mist who is weeping in loneliness and alluring despair. Ah, you think, here is a perfect chance for me to put my sword to its proper use! Here is someone to save! And how charmingly pathetic she is! Perhaps there will be some love for me at the end of the heroic rescue! […]

… our gullibility is no mystery. When we embark on the path of the Champion, when we don the armor of empowerment, we expect our vampires also to be draped in the cloak of power. We never suspect that a vampire might veil itself in the guise of weakness and vulnerability. What’s more, when the Champion Archetype is active in our psyche, we strive to serve those less fortunate than ourselves, so when we come upon the sweet mist by the side of the road, is it any wonder that we bleed on its behalf? What a cruel ruse this is, for in fact the mist is a vampire who will feed on us by exploiting the very nobility of which our Championhood is based. […]

“In the beginning, the man was happy to rescue the pathetic damsel, who, coincidentally, had just one or two more little traumas that she hoped he would be kind enough to rectify. Thus began a long series of heoric rescues, each one of which was appreciated by the woman only long enough to resuscitate her hero before she needed his next valorous deed. [4]

Though common to any sexual preference, the primary emotional hook in the ensnarement of the male is pity, coupled with sexual seduction. Nigerian writer Ben Okri’s debut novel: Astonishing the Gods paints a vivid picture of a spiritual quest and the meeting of a strange woman, a siren or a long lost lover: “She lay down beside him and her lust spread a curious darkness over the bed. He seemed to be afloat in her desire. He seemed to levitate in her passion. He surrendered his senses to her power. Gently, she made him lie down. Then she whispered these words into his ear: ‘I am the mystery that will unlock your life.’” [5]

Ulysses_and_the_Sirens_by_H.J._Draper

Odysseus and the Sirens by Herbert James Draper, c. 1909 (wikipedia)

It is the sense of hidden depths and mystery that the feminine vampire cultivates in order to draw men into her web, taking great lengths to disguise the emptiness within. The more pernicious the disorder the more external energy is needed to fill the void which is why engaging with the vampire can leave you stripped of your soul:

“… the creature that best embodies the inner nature of the feminine vampire is the needle-fanged, cold-blooded, venom- spewing serpent. …The Medusan vampire slithers up in silent hunger behind her unwary prey, freezing her target with her stare (pitifulness and wiles of the damsel in distress), and then sinks her fangs into the petrified victim, spitting out the venom of her embittered rage, and then leaves the lifeless body behind as she gathers her sinuous coils of deceptive lethargy and sniffs the air for the scent of hot blood, waiting for the next victim who will prolong her life… The Medusan vampire relies on snakelike subtlety to capture her prey.

“The true hero MUST be able to sense the Medusan viper who lurks under the veil of imploring vulnerability… note the term ‘sense’ rather than ‘see.’ The myth tells us that it is extremely dangerous to look directly on the truth of this entity, for the vision will immobilize and destroy us.” [6]

And no doubt many men have been turned to stone by looking directly into the heart of the female narcissist and psychopath. When socio-cultural norms actually reinforce the illusion that such pathology has the air of seductive mystery and enticing sensuality then this can only the increase the number of victims. With the underlying basis of vampirism informing societies’ foundations to an increasing degree, how does the female psychopath take advantage of such an unequal playing field – even between the male of her psychopathic species?

1ef3f2b04e8a3ad7a14d493fa79b1ee2Freud’s psychoanalysis will occasionally pop up throughout this series as one of the causes of our large-scale problems rather than its antidote. In terms of female psychopathy he has a peculiar part to play in its genesis. Freud’s views increased the perception that aggression was mostly male and instinctual where women provided a calming effect on men’s unbridled sexual drives and the rage that lay just beneath the surface of even the mildest of choir boys. [7]

Women who allowed their anger to fly free were considered to harbour too much masculine energy, which perpetuated the belief that aggressiveness in women was abnormal. Buttressed by the simplistic views of Darwin’s theories of evolution as well as the flowering of eugenics in America and England, this contributed to the patriarchal structure of the twentieth century and to the present mess of gender roles. This also allowed the diagnosis of psychopathy to stay hidden, while at the same time shaping the “normal” society of men and women. It is little wonder that such myths about the “passivity” of women persists where expressions of radical feminism only serve to increase the promotion of extreme and unrealistic aims, the latter of which we will presently explore.

Women have traditionally been seen capable of only reactive, non-pre-mediated violence which is counter to all the studies so far on a range of anti-social personality disorders. Dr. Robert Hare shows that there are many cases of female psychopaths doing all the same things of which male psychopaths are capable though the processes and strategies involved may differ. A tiger may wait patiently in a tree before it pounces on the gazelle, or a lion may stalk its prey in the tall grass over many kilometres. Different species, yet both predators and part of the same genus, utilising different strategies that lead to the same result: Lunch. Or to put it another way, the only difference in female psychopaths is that “…they may be less prone than males to use overt, direct physical aggression to attain their needs.” [8]

doris-day2_1976055c

The innocent, girl-next-door and the pity-me, victimised, submissive female persona are among the arsenal of psychological ploys employed by the female psychopath.

Criminal trial attorney Frank S. Perri, JD, MBA, CPA; and clinical psychologist Terrance G. Lichtenwald, PhD are also convinced that the study of the female psychopath has been greatly lacking thanks to gender stereo-typing and the subsequent lack of awareness in law enforcement, the justice system and forensic science. They consider female psychopathy to have only really taken off in the last fifteen years therefore knowledge as to whether differences in female and male psychopathy: “…reflect actual gender-based differences or are the result of potential biases in sampling, diagnostic criteria, and/or assessment instruments” is difficult to ascertain at this stage.” [9]

Perri and Lichtenwald state that there are two kinds of female psychopaths. The first is characterised by “… interpersonal deception, sensation seeking, proneness to boredom, and a lack of empathy. The second category shows “… early behavioral problems, promiscuous sexual behavior, and adult, nonviolent antisocial behaviour.” Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD) (inappropriate sexual seductiveness and exaggerated or shallow emotions) has the strongest relationship to psychopathy in female samples whereas Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is more likely to be found in male psychopaths than female psychopaths:

Female psychopaths were comparable to psychopathic males in terms of irresponsible lifestyles …. Female psychopaths typically have higher unemployment rates, relationship instability, and dependency on social assistance programs, while male psychopaths tend to have higher rates of unlawful behavior and violent crimes …Analysis of adolescent populations found gender differences in psychopathy related to violence. Specifically, nonviolent antisocial behavior appeared to be key to understanding psychopathy in females, whereas violent antisocial behavior was more important in males …Sexual conduct has emerged in several studies differentiating between male and female psychopathy; specifically, female psychopaths appear to engage in more promiscuous sexual behaviour than males … These findings are likely due to gender specific socialization in which assumption of strong, dominant roles is expected and accepted more so for men than it is for women. [10] [Emphasis mine]

Certain distinct preferences in the male and female psychopath and the methods they use to achieve their aims have become apparent. The use of “impression management” seems to be much more of a concern for the female psychopath which means portraying themselves in the best possible light is paramount.  It is here that the gender myths might play a vital role in adding an extra camouflage to the diagnosis of female psychopathy in both the caring professions and in custody cases. Proto-typical findings on male psychopaths as overt aggression, cruelty to animals and bullying and threats were nothing like as common for female psychopaths. Covert tactics and more subtle approaches seem to be favoured by psychopathic females such as complex strategies of emotional manipulation, flirtation and sexual seduction to achieve similar results. [11]

Female serialists kill for money, excitement, and power. They gravitate towards occupations that conform to the traditional female roles, occupations like nursing and babysitting, but also the non-conventional such as stripping and prostitution. They are generally older than their male counterparts and play on being the last person one would think to be responsible for the most heinous crimes, hence, the targeting of small children and the elderly who serve as suitably vulnerable and defenceless victims. Poisoning or suffocation is the preferred means of murder with a meticulous attention to leaving the crime scene free of material evidence.

Conversely, male psychopaths are more likely to kill for sexual gratification and power over others and favour more overt means such as bludgeoning, stabbing and strangling. They are less than careful in the aftermath of their murders. [12]

Yet of the 20,000 or more murders every year in the United States alone there are no exact figures of how many of those were committed by serial killers. Dr. Schurman-Kauflin, an expert on serial killers and founder of the Violent Crimes Institute explains that this is due to the difficulty in determining “…the number of killer who are active at any one time…” and because “…there is no clear definition of the term. There are almost as many definitions of serial killers as there are researchers.”

hi-homolka-852

Karla Leanne Homolka after sentencing. Source: Canada Live

Homolka was a convicted Canadian serial killer who helped her husband Paul Bernado rape and murder at least three women. More specifically: the 1991 and 1992 rape-murders of two Ontario teenage girls, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, as well as the rape and death of her sister Tammy. However, she cut a deal with prosecutors and served just 12 years in prison for manslaughter after a plea-bargain.  Today, she lives in Guadeloupe with her three children. One wonders how much Perri and Lichtenwald’s conclusions could be applied to this case and many others.


What is more disturbing is that while it is still generally accepted that the number of murders by women is small, there are no reliable national or international data sets to analyse how common (or not) the incidence of female serial killers. Murders perpetrated by women and female serial killing are also on the increase the fact of which has been ignored by the media and encouraged by gender myths in the public: “…Of a total of about 400 serial killers identified between 1800 and 1995 in the United States, nearly 16 percent—a total of about 62 killers—collectively killed between 400 and 600 victims … More than a third of the female serial killers made their appearance since 1970, and the numbers keep increasing …” [13]

Perri and Lichtenwald believe the above figures are conservative due to the prevalence of female serialists carrying out their kills:

… at home or at work in the capacity of caretakers such as nurses, babysitters, etc. where a child’s mysterious death could be explained away as a medical anomaly or to old age. Attacks occur in accepted social and professional relationships, while the means to kill are often surreptitious like poison, drug overdose, or sudden suffocation; the murder in essence becomes hidden because of the belief that someone who established a bonding relationship with the child would not kill (such as a nurturing nurse, mother, caretaker, etc.) Many female serialists tend to use poison and trap their victims on territory that is familiar to them and is shared with the victim … Female serial killers tend to have longer killing careers than men, presumably because their crimes are more carefully planned, methodical, precise and “hidden” on the whole … As for other serial crimes committed by women, some aid their boyfriends and husbands in abducting, torturing, and killing women; such was the kind of assistance Karla Homolka gave her husband, Paul Bernardo, when they killed Karla’s sister and two other school girls. [14]

The absence of emotion tends to help psychopathic women in the law courts despite the high degree of instrumental homicide as oppose to reactive homicide they perpetrate. One of the myths of the feminine mind is that women react to events and thus commit crimes of passion, desperation or survival under accumulated trauma or other forms of duress. The idea is that they have been provoked or driven to carry out certain crimes that were the result of a temporary loss of sanity or the onset of psychosis rather than any premeditated or “instrumental” planning. The latter would suggest someone in control of the mental faculties which is not the province of the mentally ill. Yet, this is precisely the hallmark of the psychopath. “The absence of emotion actually assists them in planning the kill and not killing reactively because a time requirement to predation is not necessarily present.” [15] The authors list several examples of psychopathic caregivers’ crimes, female predators who “…located [in their] well-spring of power in maternity.” [16]

Award-winning journalist Patricia Pearson argues that generally women are more than capable of matching men’s propensity for violence. It is because of our denial of women’s innate capacity for aggression that she thinks “…women got away with their crimes for years..” and “…because so few of us are willing to acknowledge that women are as capable of cool and calculating brutality as men are, again relying on the myth that females are incapable of such monstrosities.” [17]

In the words of American serial killer Carol M. Bundy, a former nurse and a divorced mother of two: “Remember, I look innocent. Impression is worth as much as facts.”

This is where impression management in family courts is so useful to the pathological narcissist and female psychopath.[18]

 


Notes

[1] Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths go to Work by Dr. Robert D. Hare, Ph.D., and Paul Babiak, Ph.D. Published by Harper Collins, 1st edition, 2007 | ISBN-10: 0061147893. p.40.
[2] op. cit.Hare (p.102)
[3] p.136; Unholy Hungers: Encountering the Psychic Vampire in Ourselves & Others by Barbara E. Hort, Published by Shambahla first edition. 1996 | ISBN-10: 1570621810.
[4] Ibid. (p.132)
[5] Astonishing the Gods By Ben Okri. Published by Phoenix Paperbacks, 1999 | ISBN-10: 0753808641.
[6] op. cit. Hort (p.146)
[7] Behind the mask: destruction and creativity in women’s aggression By Dana Crowely-Jack, Published by Harvard University Press, 2001 | ISBN-10: 0674005376.
[8] The Last Frontier: Myths & The Female Psychopathic Killer by Frank S. Perri and Terrance G. Lichtenwald, The Forensic Examiner, Summer 2010.
[9] Ibid. (p.58)
[10] Ibid
[11] Ibid.
[12] p. 10-11; The New Predator: Profiles Of Female Serial Killers by Deborah Schurman-Kauflin. Published by Algora Publishing, 2000 | ISBN-10: 1892941589.
[13] op.cit;  Perri & Lichtenwald; (p.63)
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid. (p.60)
[16] p.96; When she was bad: how and why women get away with murder by Patricia Pearson. Published by Penguin Books, 1998 | ISBN 0140243887.
[17] op. cit. Perri & Lichtenwald (p.61)
[18] Ibid (Perri & Lichtenwald (p.63)