Women Don't Lie About Sexual Violence - Chapter 2043

Tila Tequila is allergic to alcohol.

According to Tequila's Twittering...

“I am allergic to alcohol. It has been publicly known for years. That is how I got the name Tila “Tequila” cuz the irony. I can’t drink.”

This will come as quite a surprise to many of her fans, who see her portrayed on television as a champagne-swilling "hottie" whose natural domain is the bar.

It also comes as quite a surprise to those who maintain that, on September 5-6, Tila Tequila was drinking at a San Diego night club, Stingaree, until closing time, about 2 a.m. It particularly comes as a surprise to the deputies who determined that she had been drinking. Deputies, you say? Yes, but I am getting head of myself....

Back to the story, of which, we all know there are always two sides - the lie and the truth. Let's cover the lie first: Tequila maintains that, in addition to being allergic to alcohol, she was assaulted, choked, and falsely imprisoned by Shawne Merriman on September 6. She called paramedics, deputies were summoned, and neither apparently found any injuries, but they took her to the hospital (you know how neurotic little women like to be fussed over!). Deputies also allowed her to sign a citizens' arrest against Merriman (a common ploy when law enforcement officials refuse to arrest because of obviously trumped-up charges), and Merriman was taken into custody charged with two felonies: assault and false imprisonment.

Now, Shawne Merriman plays outside linebacker for the San Diego Chargers and is nearly 6'5, 270 pounds. One scouting report calls him "a physical freak with an undeniable mean streak." Tequila, on the other hand, claims to be 4'11 and 93 pounds. Choking and assaulting with no injuries? Come again?



Oddly (?), several witnesses who were present at the scene seem to find inconsistencies with the story, as well. Or at least inconsistencies with Tequila's story. Merriman's attorney, Todd Mancuso, maintains...

"There were numerous eyewitnesses that will support [Merriman's] version of the events that transpired at his home."

Hmmmmm. A woman lies about matters tangential to the alleged assault but which provide context to it ("I don't drink."), numerous witnesses, from a bar owner to the nightclub employees, to eyewitnesses at the scene of the alleged violence. Law enforcement officials find no evidence of any injury. Law enforcement refuses to make the arrest on their own authority, and forces the complainant to take out a citizen's arrest. Everyone involved admits that the complainant appears to have been drinking quite heavily.

So of course, Merriman was arrested.

Now, the truth. Tequila's story was so tortured and twisted that it actually hurt to write it. The next story is clean and straightforward.

The truth is that Tequila was drinking heavily enough to be "visibly intoxicated" at a birthday party at which she was also seen giving lap dances all night to one Shawne Merriman. Upon the untimely (for Tequila) arrival of closing time, Tequila, Merriman, an assortment of friends, and at least two women sufficiently foxy to attract Merriman's attention made their way back to Merriman's home.

As these things are prone to go when you are young, good looking, tall, muscular, famous, and made of money (as is Merriman - well, I can't vouch for good-looking, but my wife said, "mmmmhhhmmmmmmmm!"), Merriman ended up in his bedroom <*coughcough*>, errrrrrrrr, in his bed <*coughcough*>, well, in a rather compromising position with the two foxy ladies previously asserted to have attracted his attention.

Tequila, as girlfriends are prone to do in such delicate situations (especially when drunk), wandered into Merriman's bedroom. Always jovial, and apparently unacquainted with the old saying about three being a crowd, invited Tequila to, uhhhhhhh, join him and his two, uhhhhhh, friends.

For some reason unknown to anyone other than her, Tequila took offense at this proposed arrangement. So she responded in the only way a self-respecting woman could respond: she stripped off all her clothes, threatened to have sex with the entourage, and threatened to drive home, both drunk and sans clothing (because the shoulder harness on a seat belt doesn't chafe as badly when you only weigh 93 pounds).

Merriman, forsaking his other two, uhhh, friends, then attempted to persuade Tequila that A) everything was going to be alright, B) it is against the law to drive while drunk, and C) walking and driving around in public without clothing is likely not the best life decision that a 93-pound sexpot can make. Even Britney Spears at least wears boots, for cryin' out loud.

What happened next can best be summarized thusly: drama, drama. Then, the inevitable happened! That Merriman became violent? Alas, no. The inevitability of male violence is a feminist myth, of course. But what is TRULY inevitable is that when a neurotic drama queen of any age (and any weight), whether famous or not, gets into a verbal tiff with her boyfriend/husband/father/lover/boss and can't seem to make him acquiesce, the false allegations begin to fly! 'Tis the feminist way, of course.

So 911 is called, deputies and paramedics summoned, you know the drill.

Tequila alleges violence. Merriman denies. The assembled crowd quietly grumble, "That ain't what WE saw." The medics say "She doesn't appear to be injured." The deputies say, "You don't appear to be injured. Are you sure you aren't drunk?" Tequila says, "Just because my name is Tequila everybody always thinks I am drunk! Don't you KNOW I am allergic to alcohol? You guys are such HATERS! Don't be a HATER!" The Deputies say, "We aren't going to arrest him." Tequila says, "I am only a little woman! Didn't you guys get the memo from the Domestic Violence Unit? You are supposed to always believe the victim!" The Deputies say, "Ma'am, we really don't want to arrest anyone till you are sober again." Tequila says, "I am allergic to alcohol! I want him arrested!" The Deputies say, "Well, we can let you fill out the papers for a citizens arrest...?" Tequila replies, "I'm not good at spelling since I majored in Women's Studies. Could you guys help me fill it out? Or are you gonna keep being HATERS?"

The most cogent observation offered (thus far) on the Tequila-Merriman series of events? From the bar owner, of course...

"It sounds like [Tila Tequila] is allergic to the truth."

Unfortunately, when a culture makes the decision to not only foster, but to encourage and protect false allegations, many will develop such allergies.

Thankfully, we have feminist dogma to help us interpret these events, which otherwise would be rather confusing. For feminists assure us, of course, that women never lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse.

Unfortunately, it appears that feminists may have their work cut out in convincing some of the folks who witnessed these events that feminist dogma is true. For it seems that those who actually were present and witnessed these events chalk it all up to a fit of jealousy on Tequila's part...

"Sources close to the story told Vara that Tequila -- also known as Tila Nguyen -- was unhappy that she was not the only woman getting attention from Merriman, and jealousy played a role in the early morning altercation."

Feminism + Psychology = Hate

I recently demonstrated that Feminism is, all by itself, a mental disorder. In continuing to read on this subject, I have run across an article by yet another mental health professional on the general topic - though this article has a slightly different emphasis: his assertion is that the very field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, and counseling is imbued with a severe sexism - born of adherence to radical feminism - that is destructive to its clientele.

Paul Elam, in an article titled The Psychology of Hate, writes (in part):

Years back, in another life, I used to teach at seminars and conferences that provided continuing education units for professional re-certification.

In one particular module, I used a portable grease board in a room in front of my waiting audience. Without introducing myself or saying anything else, I used a grease pen to write the words “Men are…” at the top of the board, and then silently invited the audience to finish the sentence.

Almost invariably, “pigs” or “dogs” was the first offering, accompanied by a room full of good-natured chuckles. I would nod my head and write it down on the board and return to the audience, still silent, for more.

“Controlling,” says one. “Afraid of commitment,” says another. “Aggressive.” “Macho“ “Afraid of intimacy.” “Violent.” “Sexist,” and “Power hungry.” More of the pejoratives, and almost only pejoratives, would come from the audience till the board was full.

I then flipped the board to the other side.

“Women are…” was the cue, and the answers were even more rapid fire than they were with men.

“Strong.” “Capable” “Empowered” “Sensitive.” “Nurturing,” and the like would fly from the audience to the grease board like a barrage of arrows, till that side too was full.

“What do you imagine,” I would ask, taking a strategic pause for a sip of water, “that these answers tell us about the real nature of sexism in the way we view men and women?”

Asking them a question with actual spoken words must have thrown them for a loop, because the stock response to that question was almost invariably a room full of nonplussed, cognitively dissonant faces. And that confusion usually gave way to irritation, clearly at me, though every answer on both sides of that board had come from them.

And by the way, the participants in the crowd? They weren’t accountants or nurses or teachers or financial advisors.

They were mental health professionals.

Counselors, psychotherapists, social workers and the lot. The very people we love to imagine possess the objectivity to rise above the mindset of bigotry and sexism. And the people, despite our want of faith in their work, least likely to actually do it.

I wanted a little more pressure so I asked more questions. “How could this affect our therapeutic alliance with clients?- Could it make our relationships with females enabling?- Punitive with men?” And always, the final question I asked was “Do we carry sexism, against men, unconscious or conscious, into our work with each and every client?”

With that question the anger usually intensified.

In one talk, a female participant, a social worker, jumped out of her chair and threw her papers everywhere. “You’re the sexist!” she hissed at me, and stormed out of the room. She later wrote letters of complaint both about my topic and the fact I would not sign off on her attendance.

Welcome to the wacky world of mental health....

This article really needs no comment by me. Click the link above to read the entirety of the article (it will be the best 20 minutes you spend this week).

Funny Friday: Defining Feminism

Feminism (n. FEHM -uh - NIH- zum) - 1) That untenable ideology which holds that feminists are women. 2) The glorification, normalization, and institutionalization of every neurosis and paranoia to which the feminist mind is susceptible. 3) The propagation of gender bigotry directed at men.

Women Don't Lie About Rape Chapter 1736 - Rick Pitino

Karen Sypher - the face of evil; feminist icon

The sickness that is the Jezebel psyche - that malpsychia that feminism attempts to not only teach but to normalize - that mercenary, immoral, slandering, indeed, Satanic mindset that seeks to transform female seduction into hard, cold, CA$H - has perhaps never been quite so plainly displayed as in the case of one Karen Sypher.

Feminists, of course, assure us that women don't lie about rape! Oh, no! Why, the social stigma and the shame and the psychological trauma and [insert breathless, depression-inciting mishap of your choice here] simply PRECLUDE as a matter of course the idea that women would EVER lie about rape.

Well, yeah, OK, the Feminist assures us when we mention "Duke Lacrosse," sure women lie about rape, but only at the same rate that all other crimes are lied about. I mean, there are gonna be false reports, after all. Just like property crimes. Yeah, that's it - property crimes. So if people lie about getting their tires stolen or getting scammed by telemarketers at a rate of 2%-4%, then that is about right for rape as well! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Of course, there are reasons why false reports of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse MIGHT be much higher, the enlightened citizen replies to the feminist. First of all, for property crimes there is usually some evidence of a crime - it isn't he said/she said. In other words, one would be loathe to report the theft of one's tires with four new Goodyears on one's SUV. And one would certainly produce an empty passbook savings account for cops when one complains of a sociopathic telemarketer, no? But what is the evidence of rape, domestic violence (and note here that "domestic violence" is not to be equated with "assault" or "battery"), sexual harassment, or abuse? Merely the claim that someone has committed it.

Secondly, in all claims that I might make as an alleged crime victim, the person accused enters the courtroom with the presumption of innocence. This is normally not the case in cases involving allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, or abuse. Rather, in any of these instances in which a woman accuses a man in the modern Western legal system, there is a presumption of guilt on the part of the accused - the trial is not to determine whether he is guilty, it is rather to determine whether he is innocent. What else do you think that femtards mean when they say, "Always believe the victim?" [Susan Murphy-Milano states it well in her book, reviewed here, when she says: "be supportive.... Believe her. Don't say 'That's impossible' or 'I find what you are telling me hard to believe.'"]

And happily, for the pond slime that comprise the feminist movement, it seems that many police have internalized this concept. The charging officer in another false rape case responded to questions of whether he believed the false accuser in spite of her incredible, inconsistent, unsubstantiated, and outright mutually exclusive claims (during the 15 months it took the false accuser and the charging officer to work up the allegations!) with,

"It's incumbent upon us to believe what the complainant tells us.... It's a matter of support. They're vulnerable."

But those who deal with rape cases - lawyers and judges - in fact estimate that anywhere from 40% to 60% of rape claims are false.

It is a good thing that feminists happened along to "educate" us on the extreme unlikelihood of women lying about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, or abuse. I mean, in all honesty, they do have a point: What possible motivation could a woman have? Money? Revenge? Power? Getting herself out of trouble? Surely no woman is so morally fallen as to use seduction and slander in an attempt to ruin the lives of the perfectly innocent merely to grab at such mundane, temporal wares?

Enter Karen Sypher, the wife of the Louisville Cardinals' basketball team's equipment manager Tim Sypher. A 49-year old stunner, Sypher seduced the college basketball team's coach, Rick Pitino - former coach of the New York Knicks and college basketball legend, having coached both the Kentucky Wildcats and now, their in-state rivals, the Louisville Cardinals.

Well, these things happen. Let's not be too judgmental.

Act 2 of this drama, however, starts to get gnarly - and not in the "valley girl" sense of the term. Sypher contacts Pitino claiming to be pregnant - and he fronts $3,000 for an abortion.



That figure struck me. After making a few calls around, I discovered that the most expensive pricetag for an abortion procedure I could come up with was about $700. Odd....

Later, Karen's jealous hubby Tim approaches Pitino. You can almost anticipate what happens next, right? Louisville headlines screech: "JEALOUS HUBBY MURDERS CARDINALS COACH! COPS SAY, 'WE DON'T BLAME HIM!'"

But, no. See, Tim wasn't jealous of his wife's, uhhhhhh, charms. Rather, he seems to have been jealous of Pitino's money. Tim Sypher, the equipment manager of the Louisville Cardinals, approaches his world-famous boss with a list of demands. [On this point, I should mention both that the police have not charged Tim Sypher yet, and that he seems to be in the process of de-Karen Syphering himself. There may be more to this aspect of the story than immediately meets the eye.]

Oddly, none of the demands were "Keep your hands off my wife, you oaf!" Rather, the demands were for free college tuition for the Sypher's four kids, $3,000 a month in recurring payments, and money to pay off the couple's mortgage. All told, the value of the demands could have exceeded $10 million, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors, you say? Yes, I said prosecutors. Because Pitino ratted the Syphers out, and in May, 2009, Karen Sypher was indicted for attempting to blackmail Pitino for in excess of $10 million.

So two months later, guess what happened? Sypher decides that she has been raped. Twice. Once in a restaurant with a witness nearby willing to testify that there was consensual sex (Did I mention that she FORGOT to mention this witness to the cops when she filed the charges?) and once on an evening when Pitino was actually in California.

Police say that, as of this moment, they will decline to file charges.

On the odd timing of Sypher's rape claims, USAToday reports:

"The more information I gather, the worse it looks for you," [Investigating Sgt. Andy] Abbott told Sypher during a July 13 phone interview, according to a transcript of the call.

Commonwealth's Attorney David Stengel announced in July, after reviewing a videotape of the interviews, that he wouldn't prosecute the case because Sypher's claims were void of credibility and lacked any supporting evidence.

During one interview, Abbott asked Sypher why she didn't report the alleged crimes when they allegedly occurred, and why she waited until after she was charged with extortion to finally report them.

Transcripts of the interviews show she offered varying responses to the first question, saying first that she wanted to forget about what happened, then that Pitino threatened her, and finally that "they kept throwing me crumbs to keep me happy." But she couldn't say what those were.

Abbott asked Sypher in the interview why she was coming forward now, only after she was charged.

"Because … where we are, it seems like retaliation," Abbott said.

"I know it does," Sypher responded.

So there you have it - everything that sensible people (i.e., non-feminists) have been saying about the flood of false rape allegations enabled and encouraged by feminism for 30 years. Women DO lie about rape. They do it for many reasons, including money, power, and vengeance, or to get themselves out of a hole (to name only the few reasons illustrated in this ONE story). And normally, the so-called criminal justice system enables them in doing it.

But if you are as famous and as beloved as Rick Pitino, with all of his millions, and happen to have been a continent away on the night you were accused of raping someone, sometimes you can escape having false charges taken seriously (though not always - see Tucker Carlson's story).

That's not much encouragement for the poor divorced plumber who sleeps at home, alone (and therefore without an alibi), and barely leaves his hometown, though. So I wonder if the fact that Pitino was not charged represents progress - or is it just an aberration?

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 and Socialism

Kathleen Parker simultaneously answers the question as to why feminism's pink is so red and does a fine job of confronting the elephant in the room....

When you start talking about family values as a defense against totalitarianism, you risk being dismissed as reactionary.... As it happens, the brand of feminism that insisted equality could be achieved only by women evacuating the home and outsourcing child care found common cause with Communist ideology. Breaking up the family was not incidental but central to [Communism's] ideology and was one of the main ideas upon which Lenin insisted most strongly. Karl Marx and Frederich Engels were unsubtle, if also incoherent, when they wrote, "Abolition of the family!" as a central plank in the Communist Manifesto.

Between weak families, absent fathers, a culture that sexualizes the innocent, and government bureaucracies that are designed to grow themselves, one doesn't have to be paranoid to envision a time when freedom as we have known it will be compromised beyond recognition....

As long as [men] are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by the family courts, as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honor, and as long as [children] are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.

More on Women in Combat

Kathleen Parker, syndicated columnist, mother, stepmother, H. L. Mencken Award winner, realist, and genuine woman, writes in her book Save The Males:

What has been presented as a matter of women's rights... distorts the purpose of the military. What we are sacrificing in the push to satisfy [feminist] goals of absolute equality is the reality of what it takes to prevail against real enemies in war and to save real lives. We have allowed ourselves to enter a pretend world where what is false is true - and we have turned a blind eye to the consequences in the name of equality.

The fundamental falsehood that increasingly drives military policy and begs urgent correction is that women and men are interchangeable and equally qualified in all areas of military service. We know this isn't true as a matter of observation and common sense, but it has become easier to pretend otherwise - or simply to avert our gaze from the hippopotamus in the powder room. To suggest that women don't belong in combat these days is to risk being labeled a misogynist throwback and invite assault from the PC police. But there are objective reasons to keep women off the front lines and the sexes apart in basic training and other areas. The first reason is physical, and the rest have to do with male traits and behavioral differences that are rooted in our genetic makeup....

Through some slight of mind, women dying [in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are not in combat positions, but are in danger due to the lack of clear boundaries between combatants and non-combatants in these anti-terror wars,] has been construed as evidence of women's qualifications for combat. The thinking seems to be that if they're already in combat situations - [i.e.,] if they are already dying and being wounded - any argument against their being included in ground troops is so much rhetoric. By that logic, children may as well be allowed to play in the streets, since so many of them are getting hit by cars anyway....

...[P]utting women in and near combat requires a denial of sex differences that could put both men and women at greater risk. Women are at greater risk because they have diminished capacity for survival, and men because having to fight alongside fellow comrades who aren't equal to the task increases the likelihood that they themselves will be killed. To insist that men pretend women are their equals, meanwhile, only engenders disrespect and resentment.

See my article on why women should not be in combat positions for objective arguments on the issue, which are far less philosophically cogent than Parker's statement here.

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