Crystal Gail Mangum - Feminist Icon

Finally, Crystal Gail Mangum has been called to account for her crimes!

You will, of course, remember Ms. Crystal Gail Mangum. She is the slanderous harpy (i.e., feminist) and "exotic dancer" (i.e., hooker) who lodged false allegations against the Duke University Lacrosse team in 2006 - apparently because she felt slighted when she was not tipped what she thought she deserved for dancing at one of their parties.

As per usual, when North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper intervened and administratively dropped the charges against the lacrosse players, the decision was made in the local district attorney's office to not prosecute Mangum for her crimes of abuse of process, filing a false police report, obstruction of justice, or even perjury.

The stated excuse for not filing such criminal charges against her was that she was too mentally unstable to be legally responsible for her crimes (but then, aren't all feminists similarly mentally unstable?). However, let's never forget that it is the official legal dogma of the feminist movement that slanderous women who file false allegations against innocent men (and there are many - up to or exceeding 60% of the aggregate allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and child abuse or molestation are false allegations) should never be prosecuted, inasmuch as such prosecutions of slandering hussies will deter "real victims" from filing their complaints. Oddly, feminists have never argued that those who file false insurance claims should not be prosecuted lest such prosecutions deter those with real insurance claims from filing....

But one district attorney in a false allegations case, in explaining why he would not file charges against the perjurious feminist who slandered an innocent man, demonstrated the depths to which femtard mythology has penetrated into the black heart of the legal system....

"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them."

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in fact, codifies this feminist desire to encourage false allegations by encouraging states to adopt no-prosecution policies against any women who file charges of "domestic violence" against a male - even if such charges are determined to be false.

The end result of this turn of events is that feminists strive for a cultural milieu in which women are encouraged to file false charges against innocent men by removing all costs to themselves for doing so. It is the decriminalization of the crime of perjury - if one is a woman, of course.

Now of course, morally, matters are much stickier. For in fact, we have all known that Crystal Gail Mangum was a criminal nearly from day one. That the state refuses to prosecute her based on its political corruption by feminist dogma does not mean that she is not a criminal - for certainly she is a criminal, regardless of whether she has been prosecuted. And she is rightly viewed with contempt across the board in this country today.

But nevertheless, the whole Duke Lacrosse situation remains an interesting illustration of what passes for "justice" in the twisted feminist mind. Emotionally unstable and mentally shortchanged women are encouraged to approach life from a perspective of vigorous anger and self-absorption, never considering the lives of so much as their own children, and certainly giving less than a care about any man or even society itself. When such women act out... errrrrrr... lash out... uhhhhhh... "empower themselves," the innocents whom they are in the process of destroying are expected to simply accept their punishment (in the criminal realm, or settle, at a cost of thousands or millions of dollars in the civil). Meanwhile, the costs to those individuals is astronomical (as the Duke Lacrosse players and their families had to expend millions of dollars to defend themselves against the slander of Mangum and District Attorney, Mike Nifong), the costs to society are unexpected and far-reaching (as the Duke Lacrosse team lost an entire season of play, Mike Nifong lost his job and wound up in jail, Duke University settled out of court for willingly participating in the slander against the lacrosse players, several players did not graduate from Duke, the lacrosse coach lost his job, and the entire Durham community was divided along political lines) over what was, remember, merely a woman acting out because she had been brought up with a sense of feminist entitlement in a feminist culture which teaches women that if they do not get what they want they are justified, nay, even required, to be assertive and stand up for your rights and not be any man's doormat and lash out in some way at whatever displeases them.

Feminism is, of course, a mental disorder. It is a form of neurosis, in which its adherents are taught to ignore reality, replacing it with a dream world designed in their own heads. Further, it is a form of sociopathy, in which social conventions and the rights of others are submerged into an extreme narcissism and self-absorption that produces a bent toward aggression and crime. Whether those crimes be the filing of false allegations, other forms of perjury, or the slaughter of unborn innocents on a scale that dwarfs the Holocaust, feminists are simply and inarguably criminals - though mostly unprosecuted, as was Mangum.

Feminists often tell us that "sexual predators" (i.e., those whose lives have been unjustly stained by the feminist false allegations industry's slanders) should be stopped on the first sign of deviance, so that far greater crimes in the future may be avoided.

Would that feminists were equally as concerned about the criminal potential of their own adherents, whose crimes are not imagined. Mangum's criminal record, for instance, is interesting. She was arrested for driving while impaired in 2000, and surrendered (or had revoked) her license in lieu of prosecution. But in 2002, Mangum was charged with grand larceny, driving while impaired, speeding to elude arrest, and assault on a government official when she stole a taxi belonging to a man to whom she was giving a lap dance, initiated a high-speed chase with police, and attempted to run over a policeman who approached the taxi on foot. She pled guilty to misdemeanor charges and spent three weekends in jail.

Then, of course, came the moment(s) of truth. On February 17, 2010, Mangum's daughter called Durham County's 911 and reported, "My mom's gonna die if you don't hurry."

Upon arrival, the police found Mangum in a violent, chaotic meltdown. She was, of course, merely "being assertive" in feminist style. Police report that they observed her "kicking, scratching, and throwing objects" and that they heard her threaten to kill her boyfriend (!!!???), one Milton Walker, when she screamed "I'm gonna stab you, motherf****r!" Yes. In front of police. Think maybe Missy has come to believe that there are no consequences for her wrongdoing...?

Upon further inspection of the home, police discovered that she had deposited her boyfriend's clothing in the home's bathtub and set them on fire.

Did I mention that Mangum's three children - aged 10, 9, and 3 - were present in the home?

I am pleased to report that Mangum has finally been charged with a crime -a whole slew of 'em, in fact! From attempted murder, to simple assault, arson, child endangerment, communicating threats, identity theft, damage to property, and resisting arrest, she has finally had the state endorse the proposition that all of us knew to be true from early in 2006 - that Crystal Gail Mangum is a sociopathic criminal who ought to have been locked up long ago.

Yet, something bothers me about all this....

I have previously pointed out that Mike Nifong is a feminist icon. It really doesn't make sense that he has been disbarred, charged and convicted with crimes, and locked up in jail - all he did was exactly what feminists have demanded that all law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts do: believe all allegations made by women against men regardless of the evidence.

In the same way, I can't really see charging Mangum with any crimes since all she is doing is exhibiting the strong, independent, assertive (some would say narcissistic and sociopathic) personality type that is encouraged in women by our feminist culture.

For instance, feminists encourage the filing of false allegations against men, and even admit that they are not really concerned that such false allegations take place! One Catherine Comins of Vassar College remarked in Time magazine....

Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."

Undoubtedly this is true. Primarily, I would think they gain a realistic perspective on feminism.

If false allegations are merely a public service done by women toward men, why then, who is more of a feminist iconoclast than our beloved Crystal Gail Mangum?

Feminists additionally assure women that, when they feel that their rights are trampled on, or when their feelings are not taken into account by the male authorities in their lives (be that daddy, hubby, lover, or employer), they are justified in manufacturing criminal or civil charges, in the form of a false rape claim, a claim of domestic violence, or a manufactured civil claim of sexual harassment.

Undoubtedly, Mangum merely looked at the economic hardship of her country (for she is undoubtedly a patriot), and decided to handle her problems without further burdening a family court system that is already overburdened with the false allegations of thousands of other women! Criminal? Hardly. Mangum is merely a feminist who respects Hayek!

Feminist culture teaches women that their happiness, self-fulfillment, self-esteem, and self-absorption is the primary issue in all of reality. It justifies the destruction of innocent men, the devastation wreaked upon the institution of marriage, justifies the groaning weight of the welfare state, and even serves as a ready reason for the slaughter of the unborn in the womb. Children are merely appendages that can be disposed of at will when the interests of the mother are at stake.

It is puzzling, then, why Mangum could be charged with child abuse. After all, had the fires that she set inside the house actually gotten out of hand and her children had perished, undoubtedly she would not have thought of it as murder, but rather as a 40th-trimester abortion (at least for her ten year old, feel free to do your own math on the other two kids!).

I could go on, but I think the point I am making is rather much clear. Crystal Gail Mangum may or may not be a criminal, but in a feminist culture in which her behaviors are merely the logical extension of femtard agitation it is worth considering: Is it true that Crystal Gail Mangum is a feminist icon, having mastered the behaviors and attitudes encouraged by feminism, and if so, is it also true that feminism is merely the politicization of a criminal sociopathy?

Women Don't Lie About Rape, Chapter 6321 - Even Nutty Chicks Can't Lie!

Dating back to the time of Joseph in the book of Genesis (cf. Genesis 39:), mankind has recognized that women file false charges of a sexual sort as a means of exacting vengeance on men. More recently it has become widely recognized that such charges are filed as a means of getting one's way (i.e., custody battles) or eliciting sympathy.

And when women who are reckoned to be sane by our culture are prone to falsely accuse merely out of a desire for vengeance or control, how much greater is the propensity for false allegations when a woman has a diagnosable mental disorder? It should also not be overlooked that one of the primary correlatives of false allegations is what is nominally called "mental illness", but what really isn't illness at all, but what many professionals consider to be "character malformation."

"The growing prominence of character disorders... may be seen as a natural and inevitable response to - or an expression of - our contemporary culture. As Christopher J. Lasch notes in The Culture of Narcissism:

'Every society reproduces its culture - its norms, its underlying assumptions, its modes of organizing experience - in the individual, in the form of personality. As Durkheim said, personality is the individual socialized.'

{Kreisman continues} American culture has lost contact with the past and remains unconnected to the future" (p. 62).

{And}

"Over the past two decades, therapeutic settings have seen a basic change in psychopathology from symptom neuroses to character disorders" (p. 66).

From I Hate You - Don't Leave Me: Understanding the Borderline Personality by Jerold J. Kreisman, M.D., and Hal Straus

Kreisman continues that certain personality disorders are reckoned to be the nearly exclusive domain of women - by a factor of two to one or more - and that one of the reasons for this is the inability of women to reconcile the expectations of the nouveau-feminist culture with their innate sense of what they really want and what they really are, based on their prior role models and personal capabilities and desires (p. 67-75).

Enter John Fund, an intrepid reporter of the old school (meaning that he reports facts rather than the neurotic perceptions and preferences of a libtard establishment and is therefore labeled "conservative" and "reactionary")....

John Fund, an innocent man who was raped by feminism.

John Fund was a contributing writer to U.S. News & World Report who worked his way up to a job as a contributing editor at the Wall Street Journal. He was a man odious to liberals for his writing (such as the notorious "Arkansas Project," which formed the backbone of what Hillary Clinton believed to be a "vast, right-wing conspiracy") during the various Clinton scandals, which of course means he told it like it was rather than giving Billy Bob Clinton and the Arkansas Mafia the pass that, say, CNN and the New York Times was pleased to give him.

Fund met a woman named Morgan Anne Pillsbury who was aged 29 (though her passport says that she is named Carolyn Anne Pillsbury and is 36, but then again she was born as Carolyn Barteaux) and began a relationship with her. By his accounts, it wasn't all that serious precisely because she was a smidgen unstable. By her accounts, they were planning to be married.

Further, by her accounts, one night Fund simply walked out on the marriage plans and then beat her up. She was raped. He dated her mother and impregnated both her and her mother. Worse than all that, Fund was revealed to be a terrible housekeeper {shudder!}.

Fund was arrested - all the while maintaining his innocence. Police were unresponsive to his protestations because, of course, rape is such an intimate violation that women never lie about it. Of course, they learned this during the Anita Hill slander-fest, in which one feminist after another mechanically mouthed that "it is the seriousness of the allegation, not the nature of the evidence, that matters," giving birth to the New Era of Feminist Inspired False Allegations. The media, though there were indications from the very beginning that the story didn't quite jibe, didn't really care about innocence or guilt - the liberal media rejoiced that Fund was finally getting what he deserved for his participation in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."


Eric Alterman, a liberal journalist, wrote,

"...the smearing of Fund raises questions that define us morally and politically. It did not take a lot of investigation on my part to conclude that Pillsbury was not the kind of source one could legitimately use to hang a man in public. Why were so many so eager to use her that way? No principle was at stake. It was all about payback."

Fund retained counsel and began to spend thousands of dollars to prepare for his defense. He was, however, unable to keep his arrest out of the media, and he eventually lost his prestigious job at the Wall Street Journal and was demoted to writing for opinionjournal.com.

Then documents began to drip out from Ms. Barteaux/Pillsbury. An affidavit. A letter to the Wall Street Journal. Various public statements. The rape didn't occur, but the beating did. Well, maybe the beating didn't. Actually, none of it did. Well, it did, but Fund made me write that it didn't with the threat of imminent force. Did I mention that I was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder?

She admits that one of the distinguishing features of Borderline Personality Disorder is the inability to distinguish fantasy from fiction - in either the perception thereof or the telling thereof. How many lies have you told in your life, Ms. Barteaux/Pillsbury? "Too many to name."

Fund, of course, is widely recognized today to be the innocent victim of a slanderous, vengeful, and unstable woman's flights of fantasy. The problem was, it was apparent from the beginning. Did the police care? No. Did the District Attorney care? No. Did the media care? No. In fact, the media kind of approved - Fund bested our boy (Clinton), and now he is getting his from this crazy woman.

Fund, though innocent, has never regained his position at the Wall Street Journal.

John Fund is an innocent victim of a feminist culture which encourages the use of slander as a weapon in the culture war. John Fund, and millions like him, is an innocent victim further of a feminist-designed culture in which women are encouraged to use false allegations as a way of settling accounts. Feminists have brainwashed law enforcement into believing that all allegations of sexual misconduct are valid by their mere utterance - arrests MUST be made, and no-drop prosecutions follow, no matter how flimsy the evidence. Yet it is now known with certainty that the rate of false reporting for feminist-favored crimes such as rape occurs at a rate anywere from seven to twelve times that of false reporting for other crimes! (The Washington Post estimated that the rate of false reporting for rape exceeds 30 per cent, but other estimates exceed 60 per cent.)

See how feminism works: It produces a culture which encourages maladaptive thinking and behavior patterns in women (Sometime when you have a moment, try to reconcile the twin feminist assertions that "Women can do anything that men can do!" and "We need to lower standards so that more women can be admitted to law school/serve as policemen and firemen/become generals and admirals like men are already doing!" and see if YOU don't blow a mental gasket.). It persuades law enforcement and media that failure to treat the consequent neuroses as reality is a sign of incipient "sexism" and is evidence of the existence of a "patriarchy." It removes procedural hurdles to keep neurotic women from assaulting the innocent (The standard of evidence for the filing of a Domestic Violence Protective Order in most states is "the subjective fear of the complainant," and police are allowed, nay, encouraged to use the complaint itself - filed under this wholly subjective standard and irrespective of any evidence -as a basis for the filing of charges!). And then it denies that when you make it easier to lie about something that people have a tendency to lie about anyway, you will get more lies (Did you know that, under Bill Clinton's modifications to the Violence Against Women Act, women cannot be charged with perjury based on the filing of a Domestic Violence Protective Order complaint? Has anyone heard about the Durham D.A.'s plans to prosecute Crystal Gail Mangum yet?).

The truth of the John Fund story is this: at least one rape did, in fact, occur. John Fund was willfully, coldly, and intentionally raped by a neurotic woman, the legal system, and the media. And whether we are talking about his professional life or his personal life, he will likely never recover. And John Fund's story is a valuable morality play in that it demonstrates how thoroughly the system itself has been corrupted by feminism: now the innocent are willingly sacrificed to the feminist goddesses because evidence simply doesn't matter in a world dominated by a false ideology.

The entire culture has been corrupted by feminism: and the police, the legal system, the population at large, and even the media are willing to substitute feminist neuroses for the perceptions of their own eyes. So corrupt has the system become that even after a man's name is cleared of all wrongdoing, he can expect to pay the price for being falsely accused for the remainder of his life.

John Fund, as of this writing, is still a columnist for Opinionjournal.com. He has never regained his original position with the Wall Street Journal.


________________________

See this for a summary of John Fund's story by the liberal writer, Eric Alterman:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030602/alterman

Feminism is a Mental Disorder

One of the most outrageous results of postmodern thinking is that, in an environment in which there are ultimately no standards of right and wrong, dysfunction ultimately defines normalcy. Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than in the widespread adoption of the mental disorder known as feminism.

Yes, I meant that. Feminism is not a "political movement," nor is it a "philosophical orientation," nor is it a "struggle for equality." Feminism is a mental disorder. Or perhaps it is a black hole into which all mental disorders feed....

It is undeniable that feminism actually shares many of the characteristics of numerous mental disorders. It features departure from reality and delusions ("Women can do whatever men can do, so go ahead and lower admissions standards to law school, medical school, and the military so that we can get busy doing it!"; "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day of the year for women") which are diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia. It has the "pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent" that is a diagnostic criteria of Paranoid Personality Disorder ("Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself.... The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man... but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home." Gloria Steinem). And of course, central to feminism is the self-loathing and penis envy of Gender Identity Disorders (The DSM-IV says, "Adults with Gender Identity Disorder are preoccupied with their wish to live as a member of the other sex. This preoccupation may be manifested as an intense desire to adopt the social role of the other sex... "[emphasis added].).

But several writers have gone beyond the rather obvious observation that feminists seem to display symptoms of a mental disorder to assert that feminism itself is a mental disorder all its own.

Carey Roberts, in a June 7, 2006 article on ifeminists.com titled "Is Feminism a Mental Disorder?", argues that feminism is a "seething cauldron of delusion, phobia, and paranoia." Feminism, to Roberts, has "morphed... into [a] high-octane mass hysteria" as demonstrated by the delusional "domestic violence" hysteria, or, as Roberts renames it: FIPH - feminism induced phobic hysteria.

As has been repeatedly chronicled in the hallowed pages of Objectify Chicks!, "domestic violence" is somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek concept even under the best of circumstances, inasmuch as the demented hysterics of feminist hate-mongering seems incapable of distinguishing between actual physical violence and a woman merely not getting her way: both of these, in feminist dogma, are equally "domestic violence." When a woman says "no" to a man, she is "independent" and "strong" and is "standing up for her rights." Whereas when a man says "no" to a woman he is an "abuser" who is guilty of "domestic violence." Insert eye-rolling icon here....

But even so, Roberts captures the delusional flights of fancy prominent in feminist emoting on "domestic violence," the primary issue, Roberts asserts, that is capable of propelling "luna-chicks into a wailing convulsion of breast-beating and hair-pulling."

Roberts notes that a recent scholarly article locates severe partner violence with the female partner at a rate more than twice that with the male partner (4.6% to 2.1%). Of course, this flies in the face of the common feminist hack that goes: "Though women also engage in physical violence, severe violence is the sole domain of the much stronger and much more evil male partner!" Insert heavy breathing soundtrack here....

And while "domestic violence" is painted in the media (and in the X-rated masochistic dreams of feminists) as the exclusive domain of the male, the fact is that when men are involved in anything that appears to be actual "violence," they are generally responding to an attack by a woman. When only ONE party was involved in an act of violence, Roberts states (referring to the research of one Murray Straus), female-only violence is TWICE as common as male-only violence. And this statistic holds true for 32 nations around the world. Insert wide-eyed look of surprise icon here....

So the entire "domestic violence" hysteria, no matter from which angle it is viewed, simply points to a departure from reality that is so severe that, if it is an unwilling departure, is indicative of a severe psychosis. But if "domestic violence" hysteria is a willing departure from reality, it points to a dishonesty and manipulation of the ignorant masses so extreme as to place feminism as a movement in the same propaganda stream as that indwelt by Goebbels himself.

Dale O'Leary, author of The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality, has written an article titled "Radical Feminism as a Psychological Disorder." O'Leary states that the feminism typified by an orientation that is "anti-life, anti-family, deconstructionist, [and] neo-Marxist" is composed of those who "are seriously psychologically troubled."

O'Leary's thesis as to the origins of this type of feminism is that, because both sexes (as children) need to develop a healthy relationship with both male and female parents in order to have a wholly integrated personality, that the absence of such healthy relationships - especially when such an absence stretches two generations back (i.e., to domineering, critical, and abusive women as both mother and grandmother, with the corresponding lack of a firm, devoted, and lovingly authoritative father and grandfather) - produce daughters who are paranoid about men who exist in their proper roles (i.e., as the ultimate authority in both the family and society) and who have maladaptive behavior and thought patterns that ultimately result in chaotic relationships with men which are controlled by the woman's anger rather than the male's stability and love.



O'Leary seems to genuinely believe the old saw that behind every great man stands a good woman, as she locates the lack of male virtue in the corresponding lack of strong wives "who [ought to be] able to motivate him and draw out his potential virtue." And she notes that character malformations of anger and resentment in women result in a mother's betrayal of her daughter when she "transfers her [own] anger [against] her husband and communicates it to her daughter [by teaching] her daughters that ordinary male behavior is abuse...."

Feminism enters into the already-damaged psyches of these women warped by anger, resentment, and emotional instability and persuades them to exchange their strategy of low-level chaos (passive/aggressive behavior against men) for high-level chaos (actually aggressive behavior - and this could be in the form of physical violence, false allegations, adultery, etc.). This is the feminist's baptism, as feminism christens this escalation as the moment in which a woman has her "consciousness raised."

This is, of course, a strategy for not only an escalation of the female-caused tension between the sexes, but is an assurance that the feminist will never be healed of the warped thinking and maladaptive behavior patterns which mold her twisted psyche. For if the original fractured psyche was caused by an incomplete bonding with and respect for male authority, then the escalation and encouragement of constant, active hostility toward the male will not only prevent the healing of the original character malformation, but will continue the moral and psychological twisting of the character into even greater perversions. Prescribing rebellion against "the Patriarchy" as a cure for feminist neurosis is akin to prescribing whiskey in increasing volume as a cure for the alcoholic.

O'Leary then concludes, feminists "will pull down every societal support for families, for motherhood, and for love, in order to create an impossible dream of a gender-neutral world. The only answer is forgiveness. I have seen it over and over again, if a woman caught up in Radical Feminist ideology, a woman spouting Radical Feminist nonsense, can be shown how to forgive, and is willing to forgive, the disorder is healed."

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., in his article "Why Radical Feminists Concern Us" begins by noting the schizophrenic nature of feminism - it is, at its root, a departure from reality. He states, "Feminist theory is an unstable dialectic. Truth, justice, logic, history, scientific evidence, repeatable results, reproducible research, observations of natural phenomenon, all these are simply words to radical feminists. Words that they believe are designed to cover up a monstrous oppression of women under the masks of religion, marriage, and motherhood that cloak the patriarchal family." Psychologists call this need to have reality match your preconceived notions regardless of the evidence "fantasy thinking." More down-to-earth folk call it "building castles in the air."

Therefore, says, Corry, "The only acceptable theories are those that give power to women." Of course, the question remains - once women are "empowered," what will they do with all that power? On my morning walks with my Chow, she occasionally takes off after a passing car, barking with incredible ferocity. I sometimes mildly rebuke her with the question, "What are you gonna do if you catch that car?" Feminists are left in the same predicament - because since feminism is an ideology capable only of deconstruction, chaos, and destruction, then it follows that feminists with the kind of "empowerment" encouraged by their ideology are capable only of tearing down - not rescuing, building up, or making whole.

And here is where the slope gets exceedingly slippery. If the world's problem is "patriarchy," what are the two most obvious instances of the exercise of male authority? Why, the family and society, of course. What, then, must be destroyed?

Corry quotes the aforementioned Dale O'Leary: Feminists "became convinced that the previous Marxist revolutions had failed because they had failed to target the family." And Corry himself states, "Make no mistake, we are engaged in an epic battle between two incompatible idologies with fundamentally different views of the rights of the individual and the power of the state, with the future of civilization at stake." Emphasis added. So feminism is not about equality - it is rather about warfare; a continuing, bitter battle to the death in which the enemy is the family and society. Only when the family is completely destroyed, and society with it, will feminism have accomplished its goals.

And of course, a cursory consultation of the DSM-IV-TR, the diagnostic manual of professional psychology and psychiatry, reveals in the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder such character traits as "a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others... [including] failure to conform to social norms..., deceitfulness..., irritability and aggressiveness..., reckless disregard for the safety of self and others, consistent irresponsibility... [this trait I consider to be the "holy grail" of feminism - the goal toward which feminism as a political philosophy is intended to move all women who imbibe of its teachings], [and] lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another."

Further, "These individuals may blame their victims for being foolish, helpless, or deserving their fate; they may minimize the harmful consequences of their actions; or they may simply indicate complete indifference.... Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal.... These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships. They may have a history of many sexual partners and may never have sustained a monogamous relationship. They may be irresponsible as parents...."

Could a more cogent evaluation of feminism have been written if feminism were the conscious object of that evaluation? Does not feminism justify its mistreatment of men with a hearty "they deserve it" for the perceived slights of 200 years ago? Is anything more callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others than the woman who will carve a living child out of her womb or slanderously have a spouse imprisoned for mere convenience's sake? Is more arrogance possible than that contained in the glib assertion, "Women can do whatever men can do! - while simultaneously having standards lowered across the board so that women can qualify? Is anything on earth more exploitative of sexual relationships than the woman who uses the family law system to marry and then divorce - divorcing both herself from a man and a man from his wealth? And many sexual partners - is any comment needed?

And don't even get me started on Gender Identity Disorder, "A strong and persistent cross-gender identification... strong and persistent preferences for cross-sex roles... intense desires to participate in stereotpyical pasttimes of the other sex... preoccupation with getting rid of prmary and secondary sex characteristics leading to impairment in social and other important areas of function..." etc. etc.

Feminism is incapable of building. It is incapable of making a positive contribution to society because it is, at its root, anti-social. This is a significant principle from many different perspectives. From the political perspective, rest assured that there will never come a day when feminism will actually achieve its goals and will turn to build a better world from the strong foundation of its positive accomplishments. Feminism is ideologically unstable, emotionally erratic, and morally perverted. It is motivated by hate, bitterness, and anger - and as such, when its final "patriarchal" target is subdued it will have nothing to do but turn on itself. Hatred victorious, after all, is not hatred quelled. The same hate that might be successful (if it were ever to be so) in defeating the mythical patriarchy would not be quelled from further expression, but rather stirred to greater vehemence.

From an emotional perspective, feminists must allow themselves a willing suspension of logic and must willfully divorce themselves from truth in order to believe in feminism. This willful indulgence in fantasy thinking, paranoia, and schizophrenic replacement of reality with nonreality can only afflict the mental health of those who indulge in it, and can only undermine the stability of a society which tolerates such indulgences. Further, feminism, because it prescribes more of the disease (hate, anger, and bitterness) as a cure for the disease itself (resentment against men), will only result in a further twisting of the moral fabric of both individuals and societies which adopt its dogmas.

Feminism, though it is so common in our Western culture as to be as unnoticed as the furniture in one's own living room, is a mental disorder more deviant, more widespread, more unquestioned, and more dangerous than any ideology in all of human history. Feminism offers slander as justice, anger as wholeness, irrationality as common sense, logical incoherence as reason, the destruction of children and husbands as life, and slavery to the government as freedom. Feminism has proffered emotionalism as a principle of law, and the sacrifice of children and family as a necessity for personal fulfillment in the female. It is the very definition of personal and societal unhealth. To that extent, it may be the chosen vehicles of "progressives" to remold society, but one can honestly question as to whether its "progress" is of the nature of a psychological "regress"....

Without a doubt, feminism is a mental disorder all its own.

Feminism: A Philosophy of the Mindless

"There is an ideological commitment to the notion that any differences occurring between males and females represent a failure of society to create equal and perfect opportunities for everyone so that the sexes will end up the same. This is a mindless concept."

Lionel Tiger, Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology, Rutgers University

Women Are Far Crazier Than Men!

Check out a document on the World Health Organization's website called "Gender and Mental Health" (http://www.who.int/gender/other_health/en/genderMH.pdf). You have to really scour this document to come up with anything that is a) reasonable and b) understandable - after all, it is authored by UN-type international bureaucrats and therefore they can't really say anything that is politically incorrect (like for instance, "women are crazier than men"), but once you wade through the attempts to normalize mental health between the sexes by counting things (such as criminal acts) that do not directly relate to mental health as if they are in fact, directly related to mental health - here is what you come up with.

1) The primary purpose of the document is to argue that, internationally, more money needs to be spent by non-governmental organizations to improve the availability of mental health treatments for women.

It is difficult to justify this as anything other than raw sexism unless it is in fact true that women NEED mental health treatment more than men. In other words, ask yourself, why exactly do we need international initiatives that specifically target women for mental health treatment if it is men who are the more emotionally imbalanced "species" (as the OP phrased it) to begin with?

2) There is a diagram at the end of the document that shows a study of the use of psychotropic drugs as a ratio. Where men and women consume psychotropic drugs at exactly the same rate, there would be a reading of "1" on the diagram. Where men consume more psychotropic drugs than women, there would be a reading of less than "1" on the diagram.

Across sixteen countries, EVERY reading is greater than "1" - indicating that in every country surveyed, women consume psychotropic drugs more than men. And in many countries, women consume psychotropic drugs FAR more than men. In Brazil, France, and Spain, women are under drug treatment for psychiatric reasons at a rate of around THREE TIMES that of men. In the US, Canada, and the UK, the ratio is around twice as high for women.

It is interesting that the argument cannot be made that this situation prevails only in Western countries (perhaps for some perceived slight such as patriarchy, capitalism, or what have you). One arguably second-world country (Brazil) and one arguably third-world country (Nigeria) were included in the study and showed the same imbalance. Further, in arguably the most liberal nation represented in the study, France, the imbalance was highest, approaching four times more consumption by women as men.

I am often asked whether the increase in the number of broken families is the fault of one sex or the other. It is hardly a coincidence that the sex most likely to need psychiatric medication is also responsible for initiating 67% of all divorces in the United States. Of course, a culture in which feminism leavens all thought and convinces women that they really can do anything men can do is also to blame, as such philosophical nonsense sets women up for lives of failure and frustration - compounding the apparently innate emotional brittleness.

Crazy Feminazi

The rock band KISS was criticized when they made their first live album for tweaking the missed notes, garbled lyrics, and crowd noises to make their album sound better than it really did in concert.

I found a couple of videos of a typical, hormonal, hate-filled feminazi rambling on about something or other - I'm sure it makes sense in the fevered imagination of the feminist. But I was having trouble figuring out which one was NOT doctored. I think I have it now, though.

This is the ORIGINAL, before translation....




And here is that speech in TRANSLATION....