Thursday, June 14, 2012

Feminism as a wrapper for psychopathy


Make the personal political. That's a term I searched on Google as I began to write this – and I did that search to get an idea of how much currency it still has, whether it is still a significant part of modern feminist rhetoric.

I thought it would have been buried, obsolete, no longer in use, and out of fashion. I though, surely, they cant still have left that out in the open for me to come shine a bright light on.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. That one's not a feminist motto, its a quote from the science fiction author Robert Heinlein, but it applies as well now as it did in the 1960's

And sure enough, my search for “Make the personal political” turned up dozens of feminist web sites. So what does this mean. Well, Erin Pizzey, when she was interviewed said:  "what it really means is, you take your personal damage , and one of the things that was very obvious in those early days of the women's movement – how many of the radical women leaders of the movement themselves, had really disturbed backgrounds, and were very very violent. And you make that political. So if my dad's a shit, all men are shits. If you say that, you can do almost anything you like"[1].


I didn't rely on just what Erin Pizzey said tho, the highest ranked search result from google turned up this:

“In feminist terms, the ‘personal is political’ refers to the theory that personal problems are political problems, which basically means that many of the personal problems women experience in their lives are not their fault, but are the result of systematic oppression” [2]

Skipping forward to the opening of the next paragraph:


"The theory that women are not to blame for their bad situations is crucial here [...] Understanding that our oppressive situations were not our own fault — were not, in the parlance of the time, “all in our head” — gave us a lot more courage as well as a more solid, real foundation on which to fight for liberation."


That's pretty clear, it means that whatever a feminist does is not her fault, it's your fault, and mine. Her problems, they're not her fault, nope, they're yours and mine. The consequences of a feminist's actions, including violence or the proxy initiation of violence – nope, she's not responsible. It's your fault and mine, once more.

This is the logical framework of a psychopath. The idea behind “the personal is political” is a framework of exemption from personal accountability for sociopaths and psychopaths, whether they are directly violent or otherwise.

What is there that cannot be excused by such a rationale?

I will suggest that if a large enough fraction of the public can be convinced to buy into this idea, then literally anything can be both excused and rationalized as a correct cause of action. This explains, for example, why the radical-hub blog entry which called for a long term program of eugenics to eliminate males from the human race – has resulted in no serious repercussions for that author, or for her publisher.

This explains why a recently well know radical feminist on youtube whose videos advocate universal worldwide castration of men, and murder of those who refuse – she has weathered no serious repercussions for advocating the forced mutilation of half the world's population.

She's also advocated the murder - ( and I note, she uses the word murder, I'm not paraphrasing from any euphemism on her part ) she advocates the murder of all physically handicapped people, and She advocates the extermination of all men and boys.

And what negative consequences have this murder advocacy brought her? None that I know of.
Her personal damage – and I don't know how any sane person can see her without seeing problems, but her issues are not her fault, and not her responsibility. And her psychopathic enthusiasm for mass murder and universal mutilation – well, we'll just pet her on the head and say “there there” because the personal is political.

Feminist organizations claim it is nothing more than the “radical notion that women are people”. Setting aside the absurd idea women being people was ever a radical notion, maybe what's meant can be gleaned by applying the principal of:

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

The latin dictum commonly referenced in law, which translates to:

"The express mention of one thing excludes all others"

The radical notion that only women are people comes closer to explaining the rhetoric and the accumulated results of a half century of feminist activism.

It explains why there is minimal to no significant opposition from liberal feminism when it comes to public rhetoric from the radical end of the camp on matters of mass murder of men. Those same liberal feminists who are energetic in their opposition to radical feminisms positions on legalized prostitution or the prohibition on porn. Talk about exterminating men though, all I hear is crickets.

If men are not humans, at least, if they're not thought of as humans, it's merely an academic concern when discussion turns to killing them all. A 4000 word diatribe calling for a long term program of eugenics used the phrase if we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy.

Chloe Angyal, writing for the Age.com.au in australia published an article on June 9 with the title
Thank feminism for an ever-improving line of fathers”[4]   This is the language of a livestock breeder.

And feminism – pretty clearly, is not a synonym for psychopathy or sociopathy. Those two psychological conditions are recognized as pathologies and individuals exhibiting the behavior we'd characterize by such terms treated with revulsion. Feminism is not the same thing. To start with, it has a large and ever growing body of literature defending it, and entire departments of most universities dedicated to acculturating thousands of men and women to a belief system which in it's effects, looks like sociopathy, or psychopathy.

However, as much as we are now, and continuing to become a more and more deeply feminist acculturated society, It is not correct to say women are all simply psychopaths, or emotionally arrested toddlers. At least, they are neither of those things, until through indoctrination, upbringing and reinforcement – we make them into such creatures, and we make men into something like this too. This is why the distinction between “applied sexually selective psychopathy” (feminism)  and women. One of those two things is a group of people, and the other is an ideology. But, its an ideology the purpose of which seems to be to excuse and to advocate mass murder, the suppression of human rights of non conformists, and to excuse criminal, and violent criminal behaviour by true believers, and to increase the social damage, the anger, and pain in society to an asymptotical point.

And that's why no matter how many times it is screamed, or typed at me, and at others who opposite the dysfunctional, violent and psychopathic ideology we all know by the name feminism, I refuse to do what they keep telling me to to do, which is to indulge in the hatred of women, or gay men, or lesbians, or ethnic minorities, or anyone else based on a facet of their identities. And to listeners who might wonder – the nearly continuous torrent of accusation – the one which goes
you just hate women, you just hate women, you're a misogynist, your just hate women.

I used to think that was projection – you know, projection onto me of the reality that feminists actually hate women, which is why they keep trying to ban them from doing stuff.

Now I have a new hypothesis – the chorus shouting "you just hate women, you're a misogynist, you just hate women, they're trying their best  to convince .

Maybe, if they shout loud enough, and long enough – maybe we'll break down, and do as we're told, which is to hate women, because that would fit in perfectly with their narrative, and it would excuse and justify the ongoing marginalization of men in society.

I've always been bad at doing what I'm told. So I doubt it.



[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhliqceyoL8
[2] http://mindthegapuk.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/the-personal-is-political/
[3] http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/thank-feminism-for-an-everimproving-line-of-fathers-20120608-201dd.html




The article above is the text of a monologue presented on AVfM radio on Thursday 14 June. In the radio show announcement, which included the title: "is feminism just psychopathy dressed up fancy"

Dr. Eff, a contributor on the AVfM web site, and host of the Dr Eff show on AVfM radio - posted the following observation in the thread of the radio show announcement.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, defines psychopathy as indicated by three or more of the following:

1/ Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;

2/ deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;

3/ Impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;

4/ Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;

5/ Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;

6/ consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;

7/ Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

4 comments:

  1. Here are a couple of resources for looking at feminism as a manifestation of personality disorder. Borderline and histrionic pds both feature playing the victim and persecution complex and many other similarities, I'm not sure that psychopathy features that type of coercion. I think its well worth looking into, also I remember someone saying a while back that they were attacked on Pharyngula and checked some of the blogs of the users that were attacking them, and many were cutters, had anger issues and BPD.

    Gender narcissism - http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/schoenwolf.html

    Bullying - http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/attent.htm

    ReplyDelete
  2. When someone demands your silence by with a "jump when I say jump" barking at you, the best thing is to turn the other cheek? No, I don't think so.

    It seems you have attracted the truly and quite solidly put out YT scribblers who shame and demand your compliance at the same time.

    "You are homophobic! Now.... take down your endorsement of another YT blogger who is a homophobe."

    Mr JTO, the scurrilous brush of neanderthal hooting seems to have left a tarry stripe on your good name, and you had best change your shirt and shoo it away. You don't want to be one of those poofter haters now do you ?

    Stalin had a blimp and so did Hitler and "bigger is better" was the ideal with a posting of the party message. Shame really, how the electric poster that dunked their brush in the bitumen pot and had you in their sights can only tap away on a 5 x 13 inch plastic keyboard.

    How they must dream of having standing at the ready a great big dirigible in a hanger just waiting for a team of artisans to write their tantrum in big paint on it's side:

    "JTO hates Gays."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's a post I just made to a friend on a list serv where X has been engaging in vilifying a radio personality, let's call him G, because G has an unfortunate habit of "interviewing" prospective female employees in his underwear:

    I don’t think what X is doing—launching screed after screed against G, an individual rather than institution---is “fighting racism and sexism,” as you call it. Do you? Really?
    This sort of vilification of individuals—Roman Polanski, Dominique Straus-Kahn, Woody Allen, even Julian Assange—is however all too common among “radical feminists” such as Katha Pollitt and Sherry Wolf, these days. It falls quite easily into the narrow minded, conservative agenda of the Bourgeois State to target such individuals. I believe such “feminism” would better be termed “psychopathic.” “If everybody hates X, because we’ve ‘discovered,’that his discourse or behavior is racist and sexist. we’ll have a better world.” Or, rather “A better world is possible—if we could just all agree to hate, jail or exterminate X, Y, and Z.”

    No, we won’t. This is not about G’s sexual problems or imagined racism, which I don’t think he has, and which I can’t really detect, to any remarkable degree. This is about our desire to control other’s behavior to avoid our own feelings of vulnerability, shame, pain, rage, etc. It’s about scapegoating and hating individuals, refusing to see them as fallible yet valuable human beings, artists, actors, even political opponents like banker-Social Democrat Straus-Kahn.

    We must not confuse this psychopathology, this so-called “feminism,” with Leftism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John, I'd like to see a similar article about racialism as a wrapper for psychopathy. Racialism: the racism of the superoppressed, the similar idea that people of color can do no wrong, and whites can be nothing BUT racist. It's a good way for unscrupulous hucksters like Bernard White, former program manager of WBAI, to "play the race card" and gain unfair advantage for him and his cronies, including almost wrecking the station by pilfering, and then saying "anybody white who criticizes Bernard hates blacks; anybody black who "plays too much white music" like Robert Knight is "self-hating." I'd be glad to work on this with you.

    ReplyDelete