"Pathologizing Your Period": Paula J. Caplan Argues in Ms. Magazine That Prementrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD) is a Lie of the Patriarchy

That sneaky, sexist patriarchy is at it again! Where do these guys live? Where do they meet and plan this stuff? Perhaps in a dark castle in the Alps? Whatever. In one of their biggest schemes ever, they're sexually abusing and harassing women in order to create false readings of PMDD and thereby sell lots of drugs women don't need.

Now, while I DO agree that the sociopath pharma culture does indeed load Americans with too many chemicals they don't really need (not just women!!!), I cannot agree that it is conspiring to create a worldwide myth of PMDD.

Who could believe such absurdity?

Answer: speaking with forked tongue and loaded with sexist insinuation, Paula J. Caplan, a clinical and research psychologist from Harvard and DuBois University, has written a tabloid article for Ms. Magazine entitled, "Pathologizing Your Period." While the article at first appears to be sane and thoughtful (especially noting that the DSM includes categories not based on solid science--so true!) it soon degenerates into the kind of counter-productive, anti-male sexism that skews and taints even the best of articles in Ms. Magazine.

Ms. Magazine can't let its readers forget even for a moment that for every female problem, there is a troll of the patriarchy lurking in the background as the cause. I've used the comparison many times, but Ms. always reminds me of Fox News running orange alerts all day across the bottom of the TV screen, frightening the dumb and gullible into believing there are terrorists behind every bush in every town in America.

Without a reference to a single study or statistic, Paula states emphatically:
The absence of science leaves a void into which every conceivable kind of bias has been found to flow—including sexism.
And so, Paula insinuates that the decision to identify symptoms of PMDD and place them in the DSM is a sexist plot. But of course, she can't prove it.

Furthermore, with our dear Paula J. Caplan, resident psychologist celebrity looking for attention, we see a form of Orwellian doublespeak coming into play. While Paula can't deny studies that have surveyed women countless times that prove they do report "feeling worse" before their periods (as she notes: "Do some women report feeling worse before their periods than at other times of the month? Certainly ...") she goes on later to say:
Hundreds of researchers have tried unsuccessfully to prove that women are more likely to have mood problems premenstrually than at other times.
Huh? ... But she is working on an answer. The "mood problems" are not caused by PMDD, but by MEN! Why didn't I think of that? As follows:
Premenstrual discomforts are also more often reported by women who were sexually abused as children, are struggling with abuse or harassment ...
Right, thank you Paula! That solves it all. But wait ... You are a scientist, so why don't you quote a viable study that supports this keen observation of yours? You have the opportunity, why not use it? Where is the proof that sexual harassment creates a false reading of PMDD?

But Paula J. Caplan doesn't need facts, or solid science to support her wild claims. Is she no different than the DSM that she condemns? Can we diagnose hypocrisy then? No? It must be evident beyond need of proof that PMDD appears to exist only in women who have been sexually abused or harassed by men. Follow the big money if you don't believe it.


The math is simple. And before I forget, one final quote from Paula:
Another study showed that men identified PMDD symptoms in themselves as commonly as women did.
I can't stop laughing! Paula has gone from disingenuous to tabloid mental, all in a few hundred words. Again, she fails to quote this pivotal study that proves men have PMDD symptoms even though they don't have periods. Were they also the victims of sexual harassment then? I mean, it follows, right? Joe Palooka Jones of Jonestown, Ohio is all grumpy-wumpy-slumpy because the 7-Eleven clerk told him she liked his buns.

I encourage any and all women who read this piece to write Paula J. Caplan directly and tell her what an ass she is and how lying about PMDD for the sake of an article in Ms. Magazine only punishes women who really do suffer from PMDD and who must deal with the problem realistically, and without being told they're dupes or dummies of the patriarchy.

Thank you for your support.


Rasmussen National Survey Proves Republicans Do Not See Rush Limbaugh as Their Leader

As a matter of fact, only two percent of Republican voters polled in a telephone survey see the obese shock-comic of conservatism, Rush Limbaugh, in the role of party leader. A whopping 68% say the party has no leader, while McCain and Steele get five percent each.

In all fairness, I must note that Rush Limbaugh was not at rock bottom. That spot was held by Sarah Palin, who received one percent.

More information on the results at POLITICO.COM.

Is it remotely possible that the electorate is not as dumb as we make it out to be? Or is this just a temporary semblance of sanity caused by the failing economy and the psychological effects of despair?

As With Exceptions for Powerful Lobbyists, Obama Retains the Infamous Power of Bush to Issue Signing Statements

Much like his Orwellian about-face on appointing influential lobbyists to carry on biz as usual in the White House and at the Pentagon, among other places, President Obama has opted to retain the hated Bush power of "signing statements" ... And what are those? Bush would often issue written direction to his appointees in federal agencies to ignore provisions in law passed by Congress, while citing the Constitution as a basis for doing so.

Though Obama signed a memorandum negating the old Bush signing statements by telling the agencies not to follow them without consulting DOJ in advance, he nevertheless failed to end the policy. Rather he reserved his "right" to issue signing statements should the need arise. As Andrew Cohen at CBS put it:
... the Obama White House sacrificed a measure of principle to achieve a form of pragmatism. In both cases, it reversed the practical import of Bush policy but kept for itself the option of reversing back yet again should circumstances require it.

But "pragmatism" that benefits who? I cannot use that as a basis for excusing Obama (like Cohen does), not when it comes as an excuse to potentially abuse power ... But will he? Time will answer.

For a comprehensive look at how and why signing statements become an abuse of presidential authority, please read the American Bar Association study that opposes Bush-like signing statements (very interesting and full of history!)

The New Dr. No - Eric Cantor of Virginia Opposed to Everything Obama Does

While I support Cantor's classic free market views that would deny select automakers access to tens of billions in taxpayer dollars for "bailout" purposes, I can't help but fault him for his transparent status climbing by taking a stand as Minority Whip in the House and automatically and publicly opposing everything Obama does. It's just too easy!

The Dems have acknowledged his contribution by programming him into their relentless and tireless robocallers that methodically target potential voters in states like California and Florida (where Republican seats are in danger) and say things like, "Why follow the party of no and it's leader, Eric Cantor?"

When can we centrists get our own robocallers? ... Stupid Question.

Last month, Keith Olbermann told his audience, "If House Whip Eric Cantor is the future of the Republican party, it is time to register as a Whig, or possibly a Bull Moose."

I love Keith, despite the fact that Ms. Magazine and Katherine Spillar targeted him a SEXIST who must be eliminated from the media.


From Associated Press, March 3: Obama Retains Earmarks Despite Campaign Pledge and Dangerous Budget Deficit

If not now, when?

6:18 PM EST

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted overwhelmingly to preserve thousands of earmarks in a $410 billion spending bill on Tuesday, brushing aside Sen. John McCain's claim that President Barack Obama and Congress are merely conducting business as usual in a time of economic hardship.

McCain's attempt to strip out an estimated 8,500 earmarks failed on a vote of 63-32. The Arizona senator's proposal also would have cut roughly $32 billion from the measure and kept spending at last year's levels in several federal agencies.

Last year's Republican presidential candidate said both he and Obama pledged during the campaign to "stop business as usual in Washington," and he quoted the president as having said he would go line by line to make sure money was spent wisely.

The White House has said that Obama intends to sign the legislation, casting it as leftover business from 2008. Spokesman Robert Gibbs pledged on Monday the White House will issue new guidelines covering earmarks for future bills.