feminism

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)

Advertisements

Crowd Control III: Mixed Messages (2)

“The witch-hunt narrative is a really popular story that goes like this: Lots of people were falsely convicted of child sexual abuse in the 1980s and early 1990s. And they were all victims of a witch-hunt. It just doesn’t happen to line up with the facts when you actually look at the cases themselves in detail. But it’s a really popular narrative — I think it’s absolutely fair to say that’s the conventional wisdom. It’s what most people now think is the uncontested truth, and those cases had no basis in fact. And what 15 years of painstaking trial court research (says) is that that’s not a very fair description of those cases, and in fact many of those cases had substantial evidence of abuse. The witch-hunt narrative is that these were all gross injustices to the defendant. In fact, what it looks like in retrospect is the injustices were much more often to children.”

– Ross E. Cheit, The Witch-Hunt Narrative: Politics, Psychology, and the Sexual Abuse of Children


The already seriously flawed European Justice system was brought into sharp relief with the case of Myriam Delay (now Badaoui) in France, where although abuse did take place, an extended ring of paedophilia was said to have been absent. “The trial had shattered the lives of 18 people accused in the case, with one committing suicide and others losing custody of their children, while sending France into a paroxysm of soul-searching.” [1]

The Outreau abuse trial started in 2000 and lasted until December of 2005 where over 66 adults were accused of raping, sexually abusing and prostituting 45 children between January 1999 and February 2002. By July 2005 videotaped testimony of the children provided “horrific details of abuse” which took place on a poverty stricken council estate “in a chronically deprived community.” [2]

One of the country’s biggest criminal trials, and the largest paedophile trial held in France, the Deputy public prosecutor Herve Lollic told the AFP news agency: “We are certain of not having identified all the victims and it is probable that we have not identified all the aggressors,” which doesn’t inspire the greatest confidence that justice would be done.  Charges were brought against an intra-familial paedophile ring in a poor area of a town in Western France. ‘These were people in difficulty, excluded from normal society, who found each other. And for them, everything was sexualised,’ said one local news journalist.  Another expert at the trial mentioned that ‘these were people who were unable to manage their sexual impulses. And nobody told them these things shouldn’t be done …’ [3]

Many of the accused were said to have been innocent of the crimes, with just four of the 17 men and women originally charged found guilty. What was deemed as evidence was later said to be no more than the imaginings of Myriam Delay  and the wild inventions of other children. As well as crucial evidence that was never heard in court which would have exonerated many of the accused, most of the 13 suspects who continued to plead their innocence were placed in detention in 2001. In the beginning of 2006 President Jacque Chirac called the case of the Outreau 13 “… an unprecedented judicial disaster…” [4]

France has been repeatedly criticised by the European Court of Human Rights and campaign groups for its pre-trial detention that can last up to five years. Many lost their jobs and saw their children taken into care. The case has revealed serious flaws in France’s judicial system, which should never have allowed most of the cases to come to court. This can only benefit those who commit the crimes and serves to feed the idea that much of the organised paedophilia and sexual abuse are children’s fantasies.  It underlines just how difficult it is to obtain prosecutions of high level networks if isolated groupings within society are loaded with incompetence and purposeful obstructions. It remains worrying however, that Miriam Delay on 10th day of her trial, suddenly admitted to fabricating much of the story concerning tales of gang rapes and a child prostitution ring based in her home. After a trial that shattered lives of 18 people accused in case, with one committing suicide and others losing custody of their children it begs the question was it all lies? The answer is no. There were cases of abuse. Delay’s retraction appeared to prove that no “commercial” bartering of “services” was organised.

outreau “The innocent and politicians first!”

After so many cases of abuse coming to light in the last 20 years it could be argued that social workers were trying to cultivate due caution coupled with suitable vigilance. 21 of the 23 families in the case had been monitored by French social workers after the first report in 1999, but the investigation only began in earnest in 2002 which seems more than a little apathetic in light of the severity of the abuse.

The Deputy public prosecutor said “… I fear that these things do not just happen in Angers…” With such painfully slow realisations forming at this late stage it is no wonder that intra-familial abuse and other forms of exploitation continue to rise in society. Where cases of intra-generational abuse occur, how does one penetrate the wall of secrecy set up as a natural course by the victims and perpetrators alike? When these walls are finally broken down, the methods adopted often lead to fatal flaws that see the wrong persons accused and caught up in the ensuing and very slippery shadows, which then causes suspicion and accusations to all, regardless of tangible evidence.

From the UK to the US and things are no better. Children are suffering unnecessarily as victims only to become further victims of court ineptitude and cultural and personal bias resulting in families being broken up and effectively destroyed. Meanwhile, the real abusers continue to get away quite literally, with murder.

From a series of life history interviews conducted by Sara Scott Ph.D from the Department of Sociology and Social Work at the University Liverpool, UK, the stories from one particular family detail a history of “violence, cruelty and sexual abuse.” One interviewee responded to a question about her uncle and abuse:

… once I was at boarding school he used to have to pick up us up from the airport and stay overnight and going back to school and things like that; he used to abuse then a fair bit…. My uncle in many ways was like my dad. He’d come across as a very nice bloke, good laugh and a joke. They managed to do what my parents had done, build up and image of everything’s fine, nothing’s wrong… ‘We’re the perfect family.’  My uncle has a daughter and four grandchildren – at least one I know that’s been abused.  I’m almost certain he’s abused his own daughter, he abused my sister, he abused my dad… very much into abusing people.

He abused you dad when he was young?

Yeah, from what I can gather from what my sister’s told me from when he was fairly young until his teens. Quite badly abused my dad, because of the 18 years [between them]. [5]

Scott goes onto emphasize the “ordinary” and “routine” nature of such abuse which existed in these families. Abuse began when the children were infants where it was so much part of their formative years that it became normalized:

[Kate]: Yeah, I can remember what I call normal abuse … which basically didn’t have any cult meaning, it was just my father. That was pretty much a regular occurrence as much as eating my meals actually. I can’t really distinguish particularly … It would happen at home or used to take me for walks in the park … anywhere really … I don’t think it really bothered him at all. […]

[Sinead:] As soon as I saw my mum each day I would get bath. And my mum used to pay particular attention to my private parts. She would wash me quite roughly and insert her fingers inside me. Sometimes my dad would help and he would help, and he would do the same thing. That must of gone on since I was born really. I do remember my dad would quite often insert things inside me, his hand was a favourite. It got to be normal, I just used to relax, it didn’t hurt so much. It was so ordinary, I didn’t think: ‘O, my God, what are they doing?’ That went on till I went to school. [6]

It seems to be true with many cases of intra-familial abuse that emotional cruelty and degradation also featured to a greater or lesser degree. In the case of the above middle class English family such instances included: “….pissing on me when I was in bath and putting my head down the toilet and putting faeces in my mouth. Nice, you know, nice things like that … I hate him.” [7]  Far from being merely a product of a dysfunctional family, incest is carried out most often by parents committing rape upon their own child which tends to cut through the psychoanalysis double-speak of “parents loving too much” [8] or the “failure of family obligations.”

***

If we look to the internet there are ample opportunities for those to find others who are attempting to make incest acceptable along with paedophilia. As with most forms of deviancy of the kind that includes bestiality, sadomasochism and fetishes of all types the internet provides a homogenous and anonymous entry into all manner of fantasy that is attempting to slip from pathology to normalcy.

There are even chat-rooms and websites that are de facto support groups for people engaged in incest. Ideas that advocate a better understanding of consensual sex between “kin”, blur the line yet again between the complexities of father-daughter relationships for example, where perhaps the only way to find a proper relationship is to give in to the adult’s manipulations, sex being the only way to gain “love” and attention. However, our concern here is for the child for whom the idea of consent, when confronted by the father or mother in such cases is a cruel abstraction devoid of any meaning. It can only be a form of parental rape at this stage and must be prosecuted as such.

In the UK, the old offence of incest was replaced with a more modern law that prohibits sexual relations between children under 18 and their blood relations, adoptive parents and siblings, step-parents, foster carers and those in a position of responsibility in the family. The “position of responsibility” covers people such as a friend of the child’s mother, a relative by marriage, such as an uncle, or another adult that lives in the same household. Whereas in New York, US, the penalty for those who molest an unrelated child differs greatly for those who molest children to whom they are related.

One may ask, which is worse: a stranger who rapes a child or the child’s own father committing the crime?

20051128© infrakshunghg

Not so, overseas. Sex with a child under the age of 11 is a Class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison. If, however, the sexually abused child is closely related to the perpetrator, state law ensures significantly more lenient treatment, to the extent that the prosecutor may choose to charge the same acts as incest. The problem being this is not listed as a sex offence, but as an “offense affecting the marital relationship,” It is therefore a Class E felony, whereby even a convicted offender may be granted probation. [9]

Can you imagine how useful a political tool this has become for the high-flying family man with a supercharged career and a penchant for abusing his children as he climbs the ladder to the top? Find the right lawyer, pay the money and rely on incest loopholes to finish the job. Such inconsistencies are not so surprising when we look at some of the definitions of sexual practices in law. In the State of North Carolina orgies are defined as “7 people in a closed room with their feet off of the ground.” Necrophilia (sex with corpses) was not illegal in Iowa until the late 1980s. It is surely little wonder that child abuse and the courts are in such chaos.  Similar eccentric laws exist in many Southern States.  Regardless of the precise statistics of each category there is a high probability that the prevalence of familial abuse and sexual abuse in general is not decreasing, though more overt and unplanned violent crime may well be on the decrease.

If we return to the US, in 1970 the results of one study recorded 86,324 persons arrested for sexual offences. In 1986, 168,579 persons were arrested for sexual offences which are almost double the number. The United States Department of Justice recorded in 1981 and 1989 respectively, that from 1970 to 1979 the rate of increase for sexual offences, other than forcible rape and prostitution was 5 percent. From 1979 to 1988 the rate of increase for these offences was 44.5 percent. [10] Therefore, we can make the tentative observation that the single largest group in our prison population may be those convicted of sexual offences, second only to drug offences. This maybe as much to do with sex-paranoia as puritanical authoritarianism where both are doing battle and squeezing any semblance of objectivity.

It is also worth noting that the high rate of physical and sexual abuse (including rape and violence within the family) will induce post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children in particular, especially where genital pain is involved. This becomes understandable when we realise that an estimated 61 percent of violent sex offenders in State prisons have a prior conviction history and a further estimate of 1 in 4 imprisoned rape and sexual assault offenders with dominant past histories of violent crime, with 1 in 7 having been previously convicted of a violent sex crime. [11]

With child abusers who have been known to re-offend as late as 20 years following release into the community, this is not a problem that will disappear with sporadic under-funded, community-based supervision and management. This is a problem that goes very deep indeed into all aspects of social systems: economics, politics, and education.


“Society does not believe that women really do sexually abuse children … There’s almost a perception that boys should be happy or grateful, or certainly not experiencing sexual contact with females as abusive.” – Dr Joe Sullivan  [12]


As mentioned previously in discussions of The Female Psychopath female sexual abuse is another taboo the recognition of which still lags behind of male abuse both in reporting and investigations. Women in society are seen as the carers, nurturers and protectors. To accept that some women also abuse, whether sexually or physically is unconsciously resisted which has led to a paucity of research and data, though this is slowly changing. As always, this too creates tensions between child advocates, agencies and feminist groups who fear that it will feed into the already difficult plight of women in society generally, not least the arena of abuse.

There is one theory that suggests that women frequently abuse children physically rather than sexually. This is the most readily available individual, or individuals to whom the abuser can claim to exert control and retain that power normally denied to them, especially within a fragmented and disintegrating home environment where pathologies tend to manifest. [12]  Examples of female sexual abuse fall into distinct categories including: teachers who are involved with adolescent and/or pre-pubescent boys or consider themselves “in love” and/or want to teach them about sex; [13] women who are coerced into offending and who are initially abuse dependent i.e. allows another male to initiate the action but can end up abusing on their own; [14] and abusers who have been sexually abused themselves from a very young age and go on to inflict the same abuse towards their own children. This may not be necessarily aggressive, threatening abuse, rather “a cry for emotional intimacy.” [15]

Pathological narcissism and psychopathy may also play its part where cases are just too extreme to be classed as anything else. The case where a mother feared she would “lose her boyfriend while she recuperated from surgery arranged for her 15-year-old daughter to have sex with him,” is but one example. [16]

Though the above suggests there are important differences between male and female abuse, this type of offending, despite the cultural stereotyping of young boys “enjoying it and wanting it” can be just as detrimental, creating concerns regarding masculinity, deep-seated anger, betrayal, helplessness, negative attitudes towards relationships with the opposite sex and continuing occurrences of self-blame and guilt. In other words, female sexual abuse, like male abuse, has long term psychological effects that can ruin lives.

Social service and mental health professionals are unused to the idea that females can and do abuse children making the detection and of such crimes even more difficult. This means that children remain vulnerable to continuing and undetected abuse of this kind. There are estimates that 5 percent of girls and up to 20 percent of boys that have been abused are perpetrated by women, though the small amount of data available is less than definitive. [17]

With inter-generational physical and sexual abuse being unreported yet prevalent, anti-sexuality set against sexualisation form dominant forms of “edutainment” with a vacuum of appropriate role models and a widening of the gap between the rich and poor. However, with power comes impunity and while society at large battles with its demons, locked into a cycle of self-abuse, we begin to get an idea that all is not well with the authorities and established institutions in the Western world that purport to guide, instruct and look after its populace. Children are not only becoming victims within the family but are also manifesting narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies which have been inflicted upon them.

There can be no greater barometer than by looking at the plight of children under globalisation. There is thus something very wrong indeed in our institutions and social systems if the very core of the family is exhibiting symptoms of emotional decay and psychological disorders to the extent that parents, siblings resort to the abuse, torture and murder. This is further exacerbated by a climate of fear placing pressure on parents who are made to feel hypersensitive and over protective of their own children. Like certain representatives of the climate change industry, the child abuse industry often has some fat pay cheques to offer their employees.

The traditional roles of the father, mother and the family unit in general are deteriorating in the UK and the US.  Similarly, children are desperately in need of enduring role models that nurture and nourish their growth rather than creating unnecessary tensions which are pulling the child’s psyche apart. To say that children globally are receiving mixed messages would be an enormous understatement.

The spectre of the lone paedophile / child molester is given endless mileage and moral panics are whipped up to protect the organised networks of abuse. These are sometimes mirrored in the family and communities at large. The ability to tackle these issues remains diffused at best, due to the active or passive acquiescence of law enforcement and authorities already tied to what is institutional abuse in secret. This situation can only worsen if the core reasons for its presence continue to be brushed under the proverbial carpet. And these reasons are to be found in our present systems which define the very societies themselves. The Rule of Law only goes so far in protecting the innocent, but ensures immunity to those with money, prestige and power on a scale that is unacceptable for so-called democratic nations. Perhaps it has always been so, but the structures upon which our present laws were founded seemed to have all but crumbled away when the courts and custody battles are placed under the microscope.

 


Notes

[1] ‘French paedophile ring case turns into judicial fiasco’ The Guardian, December 2, 2005.
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Outrage over innocent 13 jailed in sex abuse scandal’ The Times, January 20, 2006.
[4]  ‘Child abuse gang horrifies France’ By Sarah Shenker, BBC News, July 27, 2005.
[5] p.66; The Politics and Experience of Ritual Abuse: Beyond Disbelief By Sara Scott, 2001, published by Open University Press. | ISBN 0-335-20419-8.
[6] op. cit. Scott (p.67)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Systemic treatment of incest: A therapeutic handbook.T.S Trepper and M. J Barrett, New York: Brunner/Mazel. (1989).
[9] The Incest Loophole’ By Andrew Vachss, The New York Times Op-Ed, November 20, 2005.
[10] U. S. Department of Justice (1981). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics-1981. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D. C. /U. S. Department of Justice (1989). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics-1989. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D. C.
[11] US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1997.
[12] ‘Female paedophiles more prevalent than conviction rates suggest, leading forensic psychologist says’ By David Lewis
28 Apr 2015. ABC News Australia.
[13] ‘Unspeakable Acts’, Trouble and Strife 2 I(Summer), I3 p. I5 by L. Kelly. 1991.
[14] Bridget Mary Nolan, a former Australian teacher was convicted in December 2005 of having sexual intercourse with an underage student at her school. She was sentenced on March 1, 2006 to two years and four months but which led to a suspended sentence after Nolan entered a $1,000, three-year good behaviour bond. The sentencing judge justified his decision not to hand down a jail sentence due to her showing “genuine remorse.” The Australian, January 2006, p. 5./ The Australian. 2 March 2006, p. 3.
[15] A woman told investigators that she was “…coaxed into raping her 6-year-old son when her husband threatened to leave will spend the next 16 years in prison….The woman’s 30-year-old husband was sentenced …to two concurrent life.” published in The Akron Beacon-Journal, October 5, 2002.
[16] ‘Breaking the last taboo: child sexual abuse by female perpetrators’ By Renee Koonin, Australian Social Work journal, Volume 30, No 2. May 1995.
[17]  ‘Police: Teen given to older man for sex.’ Associated Press, August 10, 2006.
[18] A paper: Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, ‘Women as Perpetrators,’ by D. Finkelhor, and D. Russell New York: Free Press. (1984).

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.

Feminisim or Infiltration? II: “… Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle,”

“Although feminism speaks the language of liberation, self-fulfillment, options, and the removal of barriers, these phrases invariably mean their opposites and disguise an agenda at variance with the ideals of a free society.”

Michael Levin, Professor of Philosophy, City of New York University


In the context of an Official Culture steeped in narcissism, feminism has not been excluded from its influence.

The originators of radical feminism were largely lesbian, seeking active polarisation of men and women rather than integration of values and common ground. Radical feminists believe that men are not relevant to a new society, women being the superior sex, amounting to a form of matriarchal fascism. Some believe that radical feminism and its subtle undercurrent in standard feminism is in fact an outlet and cover for misandry and not created as a natural response to the oppression women have suffered historically. Many of those who call themselves “Third Wave” feminists think of the concept of men’s rights as a personal slight against centuries of feminine oppression:

How could that possibly be credible since we have suffered so much and suffer still ?

How could the feminist movement possibly be making matters worse?

And this is to misunderstand the nature of our social systems which have engineered men and women to be products of its most toxic effects, spiritually and psychologically. Ponerological influences will distort and subvert the purest of movements until we recognise what is really going on. Unfortunately psycho-spiritual corruption of this kind leaves no movement or belief untouched.

The history of subverting positive movements for change is a tried and tested one from intelligence agencies, the 20th Century version of which started back in the 1950s with the rise of political dissidents, most notably within ethnic minority, peace, and civil liberty movements. There is also substantial evidence that such operations are now firmly entrenched within the New Age or human potential movement; within ecology and green politics as well as anti-globalisation activism. This has been especially effective in the U.S. Far from closing down in the 1970s these covert operations have continued apace, and have been taken to new levels of obfuscation and deception in line with the public’s growing awareness and Information Age. But each movement is different. Whereas in some cases it is tasked with creating lies and disinformation and to funnel awareness into intellectual and spiritual cul-de-sacs, in others, it is to stimulate conditions by which certain movements will implode from within taking the positive aspects of the seed idea with it. In the case of feminism and the gay pride movement it has been to promote radicalism and thus subvert the underlying message and thus increase the divide and therefore the emotional and instinctive capital available for the Establishment.

bicycle

The hugely influential feminist writer and activist Gloria Steinham responsible for planting the misanthropic seed embodied in the maxim: “women need men like a fish needs a bicycle,” was, in all probability a paid CIA asset throughout the 1960s and 70s tasked with routing student communists and then promoting radical feminism.[1] The founder of Ms. Magazine an influential feminist rag, Steinham managed to have this funded by indirectly through the CIA and the Rockefeller foundation, the latter of which seems to crop up whenever a branch of social engineering needs some financial support. This makes the assumption that modern US feminism was also a grassroots, natural reaction to men’s oppression rather insubstantial.

What we are seeing in both the US and UK is a strange reversal of gender roles. This does not mean that men are becoming nannies and women racing drivers, rather the emotional fabric of the sexes is undergoing a loss of identity where biological roles that go very deep are being discarded for the wrong reasons. If a woman wants to stay at home and take on the role of housewife – a desperately important role and job in the family unit – she is made to feel as though she is acquiescing to male domination. Yet, this is increasingly not an option anyway. Most women have no choice but to enter the corporate world due to the nature of our increasingly fragile economies. Naomi Wolf stated: “For almost 40 years, that era’s Western feminist critique of rigid sex-role stereotyping has prevailed. In many ways, it has eroded or even eliminated the kind of arbitrary constraints that turned peaceable boys into aggressive men and stuck ambitious girls in low-paying jobs.” [2] While wanting more equality in the workplace, the right to have children while discarding the very real differences between men and women it seems to suggest that a serious revision is in order as to what kind of feminism operates in our Western societies and whether we need that “-ism” at all.

A recent UK study found that “… over 60 percent of young men aged between 18 and 29 are competent ironers, with only 10 percent able to maintain a car and almost half can’t even change a tyre. Three quarters regularly don an apron in the kitchen and almost 80 percent take on housework. Young men are so in touch with their emotions [that] a whopping 85 percent are comfortable crying in front of others.” [3] Most importantly however: “…They are also more obsessed with themselves than any other generation, with two thirds of them striving to attain a perfectly toned body.” This is far from satisfactory for “…women aged 18 to 29 [who] complained that men are not masculine enough with 60 percent saying they’d prefer a man to take control in their relationship.” [4] While over in Canada a pattern that is also being reflected in Europe shows: “…that women have outpaced men in education and earnings growth: 22 per cent of husbands have wives whose income now exceeds theirs, compared to 4 per cent in 1970. The rise in women’s earnings corresponds with an upsurge in their education.” The women were quickly dubbed “alpha wives.” [5]

Addressing the male/female socio-economic divide is obviously a positive aspiration. But has being a “liberated woman” actually reduced the choices rather than increased them? Does being free to have as much sex as you want as often as you want liberate? It would be churlish in the extreme to disregard the chains on women’s sexuality and basic freedoms for millennia. We only have to look at the global sex trade, female circumcision and the drug-addled Nigerian prostitutes on my street corner to see that women and the sexual objectification that still surrounds the female is as prevalent as ever. However, in the Western, feminist, middle-class context we are looking at here, something else has happened as a reaction to that sexploitation.

Strategy consultant Susan Walsh made the point succinctly from her blog Hooking up smart: “Apparently in the femosphere, having a lot of casual sex is a way of communicating that you are confident, and sexy, and have no needs – or at least, not any that might be fulfilled by a male. I believe there are less risky ways of getting that message across.” And ultimately more rewarding and fulfilling – which applies to both men and women.

Walsh shares with us the fact that American men, in selecting among 67 desirable traits, ranked sexual faithfulness and loyalty #1. If women are playing out the feminism dream of being independent, non-dependent, strong and free-spirited which is believed to be equated with the male cliché of “sowing his oats” and “hooking up” as a normal strategy then, as Walsh mentions, this is a very poor strategy, for women who seek a long-term relationship, or life partner. And if the bonding chemical exists in much higher quantities in women than men, and women’s brains are also hard-wired to nurture then this is surely setting up some body-mind dissonance at a subconscious level. Usually these denials come home to roost.

Walsh quotes from The Evolution of Desire (Buss, 1994) to back up her claims:

Studies demonstrate that women’s preferences for short-term mates include availability as a marriage partner. They strongly resemble their preferences for a husband: kind, romantic, understanding, exciting, stable, healthy, humorous, and generous with resources. In other words, women have high standards for both short-term and long-term relationships, or at least that’s how we’ve evolved thus far.

Conversely, men select for very different traits when seeking short-term sexual partners. Compared with their long-term preferences, men don’t want casual partners who are prudish, conservative or have a low sex drive. In contrast to standards for committed relationships, for short-term sex they want: sexual experience, including promiscuity, and a high sex drive.” [6]

This means that men have had both sides of their bread buttered in that they have been praised and lauded when notching up conquests from college to office exploits while women have traditionally been seen as “sluts” or femme fatales when doing the same. And now, thanks to pathological influences from on high, these ratios have become more extreme.

But if men’s natural preference is for women who are faithful and loyal – and women should expect the same from men – then it behooves feminists to understand that doing what men do under largely misguided values is not necessarily true freedom or biologically healthy, given what we know about gender differences. Nor will it increase the likelihood of a stable male-female relationship in the future. Promiscuity is unfortunately a male throwback that is stacked against the female doing the same. Men cannot give birth, after all.  Biological differences are inescapable even at a more subtle level. Walsh observes for the male:

“A woman’s sexual history serves as a proxy, or indicator of future behavior. It is not perfect, but men can and do make use of this information when selecting partners. This does not mean that a promiscuous woman cannot find a mate, but it does mean that the pool of men from which she may select has shrunk dramatically. A woman may say, ‘I would never want a guy who felt that way,’ and that’s perfectly legitimate. Still, it’s important that she understand the effectiveness of various sexual strategies in mating so that she may make informed decisions.” [7]

At the beginning of the 21st Century has feminism misinformed and confused rather than offer true liberation where it counts? Does becoming more like the corporate alpha male augment and value the feminine principle of nurturing, cooperation and bonding? When much of our culture is a product of narcissism and psychopathy, it is highly doubtful. Once again, feminism is just as vulnerable to ponerological influences as any other “-ism.” Therefore, there’s a reason why some women no longer see feminism as positive as they can already see that is has been co-opted and  absorbed into the Divide and Rule dichotomy so favoured by the Establishment class.

Gustav_Klimt_kiss

“The Kiss” by Gustav Klimt (1907-1908) (wikipedia)

As journalist Lisa Guiliani passionately explains from a recent article on the same, not all women are feminists and that does not mean they are unthinking or uncaring but often have a more universalist view, where both sexes are seen as victims of the Establishment system:

The Feminist Movement only represents women who THINK LIKE THE Movement. It does NOT represent ALL women. Let’s see how many feminists support my right to express ideas that run counter to their group think. Because they sure as hell don’t represent women who think like me. I am no bible-thumping christian, and I am no deluded false political paradigm swigging ‘Democrat or Republican’. The Feminist Movement does NOT support or represent women who CHALLENGE its group think or its agenda. I am just a woman.

I do not hate men, in spite of and despite any of the bad experiences I’ve had with men or because of the bad men I’ve been involved with, or because of my bad choices and poor decisions overall. And I am a mother, who has seen the negative effects of joining the workforce in my own life – and the irreparable toll it took upon my family over the years. I see what a lot of these feminist ideas have wrought upon the world, and how they’ve flipped this country inside out and upside down.

I don’t think the trade-off was worth it. What have we really gained? More self-respect? More worthless money? A ‘right’ to a bogus vote? More meaningful relationships with the opposite sex? A surefire way to get rid of unwanted pregnancy even as we continue having more irresponsible sex? Wow. So many ‘choices’. How impressive.

Men are so leery of women now, it’s a wonder anyone tries to date us at all. But that’s okay, right? We don’t NEED to date men anymore. We can date each other. Terrific. And while that appeals to a lot of women these days, it does NOT appeal to me. So I’m left to navigate the screwed-up dating world, full of messed up, broken people who present themselves as shiny, happy, successful, shallow, perfect and plastic. [8]


“I consider myself 100 percent a feminist, at odds with the feminist establishment in America. For me the great mission of feminism is to seek the full political and legal equality of women with men. However, I disagree with many of my fellow feminists as an equal opportunity feminist, who believes that feminism should only be interested in equal rights before the law. I utterly oppose special protection for women where I think that a lot of the feminist establishment has drifted in the last 20 years.”

Camille Paglia, American academic and social critic


mother and child

Mother and Child bronze at http://www.e-hood-a-art.com

The sweeping changes that were brought about by the so-called Sexual Revolution fuelled by the counter culture trappings of psychedelia, LSD and the Kinsey Report suggest that the end result was not at all what the original proponents of free love and equality ever expected. Free love or self-indulgence? Sexual freedom or cheap sex?  This is not to say that every aspect of this revolution was bad – not by a long way – but it seems the pendulum has swung back towards its worst aspects and become stuck. This social force has engrained them into present day consciousness as the only way to be; where mutual love and respect of the sexes “… has given us the trashy ‘pornogrification’ of our society.” [9]

If women were “… conned into abandoning self-respect” then men were duped into thinking that such easily “accessible goods” were worth having. In the end, meaningless sex – like the mediocrity of Official Culture on which it derives its sustenance, morphs into a meaningless life. And that is coincidentally, the spiritual malaise most noticeable in 21st century Western society as journalist Bel Mooney eloquently laments:

Health Centre handed out the Pill like sweeties. So you wouldn’t get pregnant – good. But at the same time you had no reason to be careful – bad. Most of us embraced the hippie-esque idea that sexual freedom was a beautiful thing to be celebrated. ‘Seize the day,’ we shouted, and threw old notions like fidelity out of the window. But beneath all those naive and high-sounding ideals, the sexism of supposedly radical and free-thinking men on the left could be summed up with: ‘A woman’s place is underneath.’

As the writer and feminist pioneer Rosie Boycott has said: ‘What was insidious about the underground was that it pretended to be alternative. But it wasn’t providing an alternative for women. It was providing an alternative for men in that there were no problems about screwing around.’

The artist Nicola Lane, another young woman of the age, adds: ‘It was paradise for men – all these willing girls. But the problem with the willing girls was that a lot of the time they were willing not because they particularly fancied the people concerned but because they felt they ought to. There was a lot of misery.’ [10]

For Michael Gurian, the cultural dogma of media stereotypes, though irrefutable is not the main issue. He believes that: “… the foremothers of the ‘70s overemphasized power and go-it-alone independence at the expense of women’s deep need for emotional attachments, including the honorable pursuit of motherhood.” Though much of tradition was deeply flawed so too was feminism in Gurian’s view. He and his wife, family therapist Gail Reid-Gurian suggest a more “logical” and “compromising” approach called “womanism” which advocates “absorbing the best of the past” so that girls’ and women have equal opportunity rights “… but where their yearning for a ‘safe web of intimate relationships’ is recognised and valued.

This of course, extends both ways.

Womanism grew out of the response from black women to racial and gender oppression and has since been taken on by many women in general as an alternative to feminism. Yet, the key difference is what Gurian thinks is the “sacred” nature of motherhood and the symbiosis of male and female potential.

He states:

“… human females and males need to form intimate, long-lasting and symbiotic relationships in order to feel safe and personally fulfilled and in order to raise the next generation safely” […] “Women who never have children are still mothers,”… “They mother communities, other people’s children, the earth itself.” […] Mothering, with a capital M, is the primary goal of girls. I mean by that, mothering the world. My argument would be that females are wired to mother. Some may never have children, but they’re still wired to mother.” [11]

That conclusion would no doubt get many feminists foaming at the mouth at the sheer audacity of such a statement.

Gurian believes that for “the 10 to 20 percent of girls in crisis – especially girls who are abused, disturbed or systematically disrespected…” feminism presents a conceptual framework that can offer a way through. However, he goes on to state that:  “…it’s not the right model for the majority of girls who are doing well at any given moment.”

He also makes the interesting link between girls, family and by extension, the loss of community that now defines much of contemporary society. Gurian’s view places importance on the female’s drive for attachment that is higher than the male. Consequently, he envisages the provision of a “three-family system” which includes not just biological parents and siblings but a far wider range of an extended family such as mentors, single parents, day-care providers and individuals from church, the local neighbourhood and school.  But these ties must be based on “true bonding” something that could become a strength for women in the correct environment. Without these safeguards and in a society that flows in the opposite direction to true bonding, then that quality becomes inverted, expressing itself as dependency and manipulative strategies to obtain the male.

101_1219© infrakshun

As economic realities encroach further into fragmented communities that were once the norm in the pre-cartel-capitalist West, it may just provide the impetus for not only some collective soul-searching but for the natural tendency for human beings to work together and form stronger communities and where the roles of men and women can naturally honour their biological pre-dispositions without compromising their potential. In a more relaxed and attentive environment without strains of radicalism perhaps a return to what is truly important for individual and community survival may reduce the tendency of narcissistic self-preservation and self-promotion.

To that end, Michael Gurian and Gail Reid-Gurian present a summary of the feminist and new womanist principles:

Feminist position   

  • Our goal as a human race should be gender androgyny.
  • Girls suffer more than boys. Males are more privileged than females.
  • The non-working woman is not financially independent and thus is potentially a victim of men.
  • Masculinity is defective and dangerous. Females must react against it.
  • Marriage is an inherently flawed institution and secondary to the needs of women. Achieving female independence is the hardest work of our civilization.
  • Key words: power and empowerment.

Womanist position

  • Women and men by nature are not the same and do not function in the same way. Human life is passionate and progressive as much because of differences as similarities.
  • Women and men are fellow victims of a fear- and violence-based social system and have different but equally painful wounds.
  • The ideal situation for a woman is one in which she is valued equally for work within and outside of the home.
  • Masculinity is mysterious and we need to understand, clarify, accept and shape it meaningfully rather than fearfully.
  • Marriage is sacred and essential to human progress, especially when a couple is raising children. Achieving stable, healthy attachments is the hardest work of our civilization.
  • Key words: self-knowledge and service. [12]

Among many who provide alternatives to the current male dominated paradigm and the female emulation which is following closely behind, social and cultural historian Riane Eisler’s scholarly classic The Chalice and the Blade and her Cultural Transformation Theory is vital in this context. She proposes a “Dominator model” that includes both Patriarchal and Matriarchal cultures that dominated humanity based on the idea that one gender was inferior to the other. The second model is what Ms. Eisler calls the “Partnership Model,” which is based on the principle of “linking rather than ranking.” [13]

spring woman

“Spring Woman” | © infrakshun

She goes on to explain a social disruption of huge proportions that altered the Western Civilisation’s cultural evolution and natural pathways towards partnership. This was caused by invaders who “ushered in a very different form of social organization,” a warrior race who “worshipped the lethal power of the blade – the power to take rather than give life.” [14]

Perhaps this was essentially a huge rise in the incidence of psychopathy and the dominance and separation it has shaped ever since? She explains the ramifications of this shift:

If we stop and think about it, there are only two basic ways of structuring the relations between the female and male halves of humanity. All societies are patterned on either a dominator model – in which human hierarchies are ultimately backed up by force or the threat of force – or a partnership model, with variations in between.

If we look at the whole span of our cultural evolution from the perspective of cultural transformation theory, we see that the roots of our present global crises go back to the fundamental shift in our prehistory that brought enormous changes not only in social structure but also in technology. This was the shift in emphasis from technologies that sustain and enhance life to the technologies symbolized by the Blade: technologies designed to destroy and dominate. This has been the technological emphasis through most of recorded history. And it is this technological emphasis, rather than technology per se, that today threatens all life on our globe.” [15]

This is directly linked to the loss of biological, emotional and ultimately spiritual understanding in both sexes. Technology is still linked to this dominator / psychopathic model whether it is expressed through drone attacks, smart agri-business or transhumanist pop-culture. Moreover, the sexual and religious bias radiating across the last thousand years has perpetuated a desperate ignorance regarding the female and male dominance cycles that ebbed and flowed in ancient times. Largely male educators and scholars were raised from a background of stern Judeo-Christian bias which has overseen the history of education from elementary to University and beyond, where the source of all evil derives from the sin of Eve who was tempted by the Serpent leading humanity to fall from the Edenic State.

Is it any wonder that women were seen as inferior for so long, and that the emasculation of man is now reflecting that disorientation and loss of sexual and spiritual identity? In this context, feminism is as much a part of the dominator system as the overt patriarchy of the past.

 


Notes

[1] ‘Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem’By Nancy Borman, Village Voice 1979.
[2] op. cit. Wolf.
[3] ‘British men losing their masculinity’ Metro.co.uk 2010.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Are men being robbed of their masculinity?’ By Zosia Bielski, Globe and Mail Sep. 30, 2010.
[6] ‘The Essential Truth About Female Promiscuity’ by Susan Walsh November 8 2010. http://www.hookingupsmart.com. Walsh quotes from The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating by David M. Buss; 1994.
[7] Ibid.
[8] ‘Thoughts on the Feminist Movement – Why I Don’t Clap along’ by Lisa Guiliani, Sott.net, April 1, 2012
[9] ‘My generation created the sexual revolution – and it has been wrecking the lives of women ever since’ By Bel Mooney, The Daily Mail, 2 December 2009.
[10] Ibid.
[11] op. cit. Gurian.
[12] Ibid.
[13] The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future by Riane Eisler. Published by Mandala Books, 1996.p.xix
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.

Feminism or Infiltration? I

By M.K. Styllinski

“…after an injury, narcissists may self-medicate with drugs or alcohol or make a mad dash to find alternative sources of attention and admiration. But mostly, they become enraged that others don’t go along with their entitled demands. They strike out like a despot whose subjects threaten a revolution. They may be up-front with their rage or be more passive aggressive about it. In divorce, narcissists may fight to get things they may not even want just so their ex-partner can’t have it. This includes custody of the children.”

– Randi Kreger, quoted in Psychology Today


On a feminist blog called Feminspire we are treated to an image of a leather/PVC-clad woman brandishing a whip in true S & M style with “Misandrist Sex Tips” as a title for its latest post. It’s meant to be satire and presumably puts the male firmly in his place to get an idea what it must feel like for women. If you read the list it is neither funny or clever but merely adding to the noise and misandry it claims to be lampooning. Sadly, within feminism as a whole, it has become something quite apart from the original “women’s rights” it was meant to espouse.

From the standpoint of Official Culture and the psychopath, traditional feminine and masculine roles are polarities to play with, so it comes as no surprise that real creative freedom for the sexes has been comprehensively ponerised. The way that psychopathy has done this is to create “movements” that finally end up resembling everything other than the original idea which was offered as a sensible template. In the modern, urban world men and women are being expertly played off against each other based on a fabricated myth of a “battle of the sexes.”

Like so many labels and “-ism’s,” the Women’s Liberation Movement or “feminism” has many groupings under its auspices, meaning a variety of things for a variety of people. Understanding sex and gender issues, women’s rights in education, the workplace and politics are just some of the topics explored with a myriad of organisations and charities based around women’s emancipation. Feminist activism focuses on voting, contract law, property, equal pay for women, raising awareness of sexual exploitation (domestic violence, sexual abuse / harassment and assault) reproductive rights, gender neutrality in English, access to contraceptives; the right to an abortion and campaigns against forms of discrimination. The battle for basic equality in terms of human and civil rights in the developing world is much needed as religious fanaticism in the guise of female genital mutilation in Africa, the Hindu caste system in India and the dogmas of fundamentalist Islam are only a few examples where women are still firmly under the yoke of patriarchy. Female infanticide, honor killings and cases of rape can all be funnelled into feminist discourse.

However…If we are able to grasp the implications of ponerology we’ll discover that Matriarchy and feminism isn’t the answer either.

In the West, what has become a way in for a progressive loss of validity for the feminist movement is the issue of gender equality – at any cost – which has been an open door for  misguided, narcissistic, misanthropic and even psychopathic elements, corrupting the movement as a whole. When we understand the principle of psychopathic inculcation that exists in our culture where both women and men have been placed under its programming, we will see that to focus on one sex at the expense of the other is to play into the game of divide and rule.

index

To say that periods of cyclic oppression and subjugation of women has not taken place by men for thousands of years and still continues, would be a denial of reality. What is labelled “Feminism” in countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Africa and Asia and across the developing world is actually about basic human rights and has become a force for real change against male-dominated, socio-religious discrimination and abuse. In the West, there have been great strides to rid ourselves of our Victorian patriarchal echoes and move onto a more equal footing. Yet, there are still some myths floating about that suggest there is more to cries of gender discrimination against women than meets the eye. One example: it is said that many women still receive a salary far below that of their male colleagues simply because of their gender. Is that true? Perhaps, but not for the reasons feminists would have us believe. According to Payscale Human Capital: “men do earn more than women on average, but not that much more when they work the same job and they have similar experience and abilities.” Furthermore, it appears to be much more a case of a natural gravitation toward a job sector that naturally pays less based on economic factors rather than a consistent discrimination.

However, like the gay rights movement, feminism and radical expressions within the movement from a Western, white, middle-class perspective have gone in a very different direction, the culmination of which has seen women less happy and with more incidences of narcissism and other mental illnesses than ever before. [1]  Some groups within feminism have been accused of misandry, a strange inversion of emancipation using the very same tools of the original male dominator. There are even reports that some groupings within feminism have resorted to racketeering where women’s “rights” have been distorted into a tried and tested formula of ad homein attacks on any and all those with an opposing view. As one commentator described it: “The MO of these feminist organizations is to threaten with lawsuits and threaten with embarrassment. They don’t care about women, they care about their own power.” [2] 

With any individuals concerned with power as the primary addiction, it doesn’t matter if its politics or women’s studies, this intellectual acid will dissolve the camouflage of post modern platitudes revealing the actions behind the mask. When feminism and political correctness for instance, meet in the  bastions of the law courts it can be a highly toxic mixture with male chauvinism and feminism clashing blindly. Depending on who the judge happens to be it is effectively a lottery of lies and manipulation. You rarely see the median since Hegelian divisions are designed that way and quickly absorbed as cultural norms.  (For an instructive narrative on how bad it can get, try reading Michael McConaughey’s The Mirror).

The promotion of women’s interests above men’s and the belief that men are inherently irredeemable concerning the treatment of said women merely creates more mountains of separation and confusion which everyone has to climb. It also plays directly into the hands of ultra-conservative, authoritarian personalities for whom a legion of repressive tenets closely linked to religious fundamentalist doctrines are deemed the only answer. Aside from radical feminist extremism, it has to be said that many false assumptions underpin the standard feminist drive from which this radicalism hails, most notably the notion of gender equality, a misnomer since it can never be achieved.  The way men and women process stress, intellectualise, manage negative emotions, and how we react to danger show that we are very different, physically and neurophysiologically. [4] Which means the notion of absolute equality is a nonsense since the above factors will determine to a large degree what will work and what is appropriate in society and what isn’t. Sometimes, you can’t buck biology but you can adapt and compromise provided we accept our gender strengths and weaknesses.

Though he may have underestimated how bad the situation is, the author, therapist and father of two daughters Michael Gurian offers something constructive to the debate. He acknowledges that individual differences do indeed exist, yet this needn’t be problematic – it should be understood and celebrated. For instance, girls’ brains are coded to secrete more serotonin than boys’ brains, which means there is a greater amount of the chemical to equalize unregulated impulses. Gurian says this may be one reason why toddler girls are often calmer than toddler boys. He also mentions the vital chemical we looked at previously: oxytocin, that jewel in the crown of female neurochemistry responsible for bonding and “maternal instinct.” If female brains secrete more oxytocin, for instance when little girls play with dolls or when women hear a baby cry in a crowded cinema, then it shows that the effects will be heightened within intimate activities such a sex, where oxytocin’s bonding response will really kick in. For men there is almost zero secretion which goes some way to explaining why one-night stands are often a more difficult prospect for women. Not that this implies it’s a healthy option for men either. Males are much slower to respond physiologically than women but it does not mean that the ability to care about such things is absent.

Then we have the brain’s hippocampus, a centre responsible for memory storage. Studies have found that it is larger and works more efficiently in girls than in boys, which means when it comes to remembering large amounts of information which is inputted in reasonably quick succession girls seem to have a built-in edge. Gurian uncovered the latest findings in brain imaging which revealed a tendency for boys’ brains – especially during puberty – to focus on one task at a time while girls’ brains are able to process larger amounts leading to a greater success for intuitive decision-making. He mentions that the downside of this ability is that young, adolescent girls may develop a “malleable self” with a reliance on others when it comes to concrete decision-making. The cause of high levels of males to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) can also be seen in a new light when we realise that female brains have 15 percent more blood flow volume and larger distribution than male brains. This bestows a greater ability to both think things through, though also increasing the likelihood of indecision. [4]

There are many more differences which Gurian eloquently describes for our edification. Yet, these very differences, instead of producing friction can surely create a “third force” of context and the creativity which can follow when the harmonious joining of the two polarities takes place. That takes knowledge of our individual “issues” and a wider comprehension of the pathologies presently shrouding our world. As third wave feminist author and social activist Naomi Wolf mentions in quoting Helen Fisher’s findings in the Anatomy of Love: “… nature designed men and women to collaborate for survival. ‘Collaboration’ implies free will and choice; even primate males do not succeed by dominating or controlling females. In her analysis, it serves everyone for men and women to share their sometimes different but often complementary strengths – a conclusion that seems reassuring, not oppressive.” [5]

Indeed it is. We can also say that some women in modern, Western societies are already dominating and controlling men – they just do it in entirely different ways. The rise of narcissism seen most strongly in the female population suggests this is having major consequences across all societies and places a crucial part in Official Culture as a whole. If Western women really want to make their undoubted exploitation and oppression of the past stay in the past, then perhaps jettisoning the wish to “have it all” at the expense of men’s rights is also necessary. To increase choice and equality is possible but this does not mean we seek to do and be the same things in a society that are already straining under the weight of narcissism and worse. This appears to be happening in much the same way that some sectors of the Jewish community use the phrase of “anti-semitism” to blockade constructive criticism of the treatment of Palestinians. The culture of victimhood does not encourage new visions.

There are also rights for men that are being eroded in ways that are not acknowledged, especially in the family courts. Notions like gender equality are effective in creating endless circular conflicts that attract dysfunctional minds with axes to grind. Men and women TOGETHER must forge their way to better choices, true freedom and human equality on a vast range of issues. But these divides will worsen if we do not acknowledge and tackle the true enemy which is a war against normal people directed from those in positions of power who largely conform to categories of psychopathy. THAT is the real issue here and one which affects all of us regardless of our particular “-ism” onto we have latched.

What is more, it is precisely because there is always present the creative tendency to embrace the best of men and women without creating divisions that it may have been subverted by CoIntelpro * along with so many other movements in the 1960s and 70s.  As it stands,  modern, Western feminism does not serve women rights in the way that we think and is ironically in danger of replacing one exploitation with another.

Enter: radical feminism.


*  “COINTELPRO is an acronym for a series of FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO’s of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations. In the early 1950s, the Communist Party was illegal in the United States. The Senate and House of Representatives each set up investigating committees to prosecute communists and publicly expose them. (The House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, led by Senator Joseph McCarthy). When a series of Supreme Court rulings in 1956 and 1957 challenged these committees and questioned the constitutionality of Smith Act prosecutions and Subversive Activities Control Board hearings, the FBI’s response was COINTELPRO, a program designed to “neutralize” those who could no longer be prosecuted. Over the years, similar programs were created to neutralize civil rights, anti-war, and many other groups, many of which were said to be “communist front organizations.” As J. Edgar Hoover, longtime Director of the FBI put it.”  http://www.cointelpro.org. [What the public may not be aware of is these operations did not simply cease, but were utilised for all social domains. Of particular note is the New Age or Human Potential Movement, the foundations of which may have been purely a creation of intelligence agencies].

Notes

[1] ‘The narcissism of consumer society has left women unhappier than ever’ by Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian, July 26, 2009.
[2] ‘Author Accuses Women’s Groups of Racketeering’ Fox News, October 23, 2002.
[3] ‘Men Are From Mars: Neuroscientists Find That Men And Women Respond Differently To Stress’ Science Daily 2008.
[4] ‘Girl Wonders: Michael Gurian defines his post-feminist vision’ By Ceceilia Goodnow, Seattle Post Intelligencer, March 8, 2002. / The Wonder of Girls: Understanding the Hidden Nature of Our Daughters by Michael Gurian, Published by Simon & Schuster International; Reprint edition, 2003.|ISBN-10: 0743417038.
[5] ‘Feminism and the Male Brain’ By Naomi Wolf, May 29 2009. Project Syndicate, http://www.project-syndicate.org

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)