"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.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT = PMDD = BIG PHARMA DOLLARS.

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.

Why Does Katherine Spillar, Editor of Ms. Magazine, Support NOW and Their Bid To Censor "Sexist" Speech?

Page 19, Ms. Magazine, Summer 2008: MAD AT MEDIA SEXISM? WE ARE TOO! JOIN NOW'S CAMPAIGN FOR FEMINIST MEDIA.

Once again, Katherine Spillar, editor of Ms., approved a full page ad that attempts to foment a movement against free speech. How? By using that vast and never-satiated feminist reservoir of bitterness and hatred towards men (and female stooges of the Patriarchy) and focusing it on those who make "sexist" remarks in the television news media. And who are we talking about? Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, and Maureen Dowd???

As our eyes glance over this full page ad from NOW, we see a shot of Keith Olbermann with a cartoon balloon coming out of his mouth, and inside the words: KATIE COURIC IS THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD. Um, ok. So this is an example of the pernicious influence of sexist male media? It's laughable! What in hell is Katherine Spillar of Ms. Magazine thinking??? Also, did Olbermann actually say this, or is NOW lying?

Okay, so Olbermann doesn't like somebody who happens to be female. Fair enough. I guess he has that right, yes? So according to NOW and Ms. Magazine he should therefore be censored? ... And by who? The American government? The FCC? What exactly do Katherine Spillar and NOW want? New federal laws that will slap fines or jail time on any male or female media personality who dares criticize or express displeasure with any female human being for any reason?

BTW, is the truth, sexist?

And sure, it's fine if Olbermann slams George Bush, Jr., no problem. But if he doesn't like Katie and says so, he should be jailed, fined, or at least fired from his job? Let's read on: NO MORE SEXIST INSULTS, SLURS AND ATTACKS, NO MORE RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA AND OTHER "ISMS" THAT PROMOTE INEQUALITY. Wow! I have to refer to my piece on Jeremy Waldron and his need to censor speech for similar reasons.

And who makes the rules? Who? ... Very scary.


Why can't supreme hypocrites like Katherine Spillar and her stooges of the Ms. Magazine Matriarchy do something useful for a change, like maybe supporting the boycott of products that advertise on Black Entertainment Television (the most sexist channel this side of the galaxy) or any of the many horrible programs and reality shows that encourage young women and girls to emulate shallow and foolish behavior? (Wouldn't that be more productive than bashing Keith Olbermann?) Why? Because they won't risk making powerful enemies of big corporate advertisers and major media execs, and they especially don't want to attract negative attention by potentially harming popular TV shows watched by millions of young women.

Their consultants won't let them.

It's simply best to stick to the same old formula, i.e., continue to foment causes that efficiently tap the black well of feminist hatred. After all, it's the safest way to assure donations and grants, no?

SOME VINTAGE KEITH OLBERMANN

____________

When Will She Stop Throwing Knives at Me, or IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE A GENDER ISSUE, OR A HUMAN ISSUE? McNeely, Cook, and Torres Speak Out.

This issue is almost old to valid observers of domestic violence, but to everyone else (except for second wave feminists who make their living bashing half the human race), the truth contained in this study by McNeely, Cook, and Torres comes as a shocker.

As the study puts it, "These findings were, and are, stunning to casual observers of the domestic violence phenomenon. This is because people have difficulty with the notion of women inflicting injuries on men because men, on average, are larger, stronger, and more adept at fighting. But the average man's size and strength are neutralized by guns and knives, boiling water, fireplace pokers, bricks, and baseball bats. Many fail to realize that domestic assaults do not involve pugilistic fair play, or to consider that attacks occur when males are asleep, or incapacitated by alcohol, age, or infirmities."

If you want a true picture of domestic violence, you should have the courage to review these studies and their methodology.

However, if you firmly buy into the notion that men alone are responsible for the vast majority of domestic violence, then skip this study and go pick up the latest issue of Ms. magazine.

Hillary vs. the Patriarchy. Remembering Erica Jong and Her Idol-Worship of Hillary in The Washington Post

The anti-democratic feminist viewpoint of Hillary-can-do-no-wrong-and-if-she-appears-to-do-so-it's-only-a-lie-of-the-patriarchy, was perhaps best represented by author Erica Jong back in Feb. who told us she can doubtless trust Hillary no matter what contrary information comes her way. Anyone who criticizes Hillary MUST be lying!

Fair and balanced as Fox News, eh?

It's amazing how the left continues to ape the right in its zeal to censor and avoid. AND THAT IS WHY I CANNOT STOP TALKING ABOUT DEMS AND HILLARY!

Anyway, to somone like Erica Jong, Hillary is nothing less than a mythical Wonder Woman--using her bracelets to deflect bullets fired by the imaginary snipers of Bosnia and her political "magic lasso" to hypnotize Americans into forgetting she voted with the big corporate bankers to saddle Americans with 30% credit card rates (among other things)! Her love of Hillary gives her enough radar to locate and denounce all lurking, omnipresent extremist misogynists, i.e., all those men and their female stooges who do not idol-worship her like Erica does. But Ms. Jong, like the other Hillary supporters who refuse to see Hillary for what she has become, who refuse for example to even denounce her Bosnia lie and chalk it up with a casual shrug and a What do you expect?, are all doing their part to bring about the ruination of their country in the same way Bush supporters did in the early years. As evidence mounted that Bush was a sociopathic moron, they just shrugged.

By excusing the lies, the Hillary apologists in effect become willing co-conspirators, corrupt campaign aides in the field. Hillary was supposed to be different, better, not a Dem version of George Bush!

Why is it so difficult for "feminist democrats" and "progressive men" to see that?

T K Kenyon - Sexist or Martyr? Look to The Novel "Rabid!"

T K Kenyon, a "writer" with a penchant for sexist raving, represents all I abhor about second wave feminism. Matter of fact, her intolerance, lies of omission, and judgment tainted by lack of sense and extreme narcissism, remind me of a contemporary media darling on a spectrum somewhere between Ann Coulter and Nancy Grace. Recently, in a blog post, I took her to task for bashing men who didn't agree with her opinion that Doris Lessing should have won the Nobel. She responded in her typical fashion by avoiding the major points, martyring herself (because she thrives on victimhood), and then reaffirming the male conspiracy in NYC to hold down women in the publishing world. She is obviously looking for a commentator spot on CNN, but she isn't going to get it.

But is there a deeper pathology behind all this?

Is T K Kenyon's hatred of men really covering for something more severe than a need to escape responsibility and scapegoat half the human race? I recommend a first chapter dose of her strident, stomach-heaving, all-men-must-die novel, RABID, for an answer. Please, read it! Here is an appetizer:

A caged ape rattled her ribs and her stomach snapped like an angry bull shark surging through chum ... the bastard, the goddamn cheating bastard.

If I were T K Kenyon's hub I would not only cheat on her but run screaming to the nearest bar! RABID is indeed a scary work of fiction, extreme and disturbing on a level hard to explain.

You must experience it, then go have a drink!

TK Kenyon's Misandry, Carol Lloyd Of Salon Attacks Doris Lessing

Now that we're on the subject of Doris Lessing and misandry (see posts below), a good example of exactly the type of sexist feminists Lessing refers to have recently published their thoughts on Internet. One is a writer named TK Kenyon, the other a writer for Salon, Carol Lloyd. Both appear to be practicing overt sexism and misandry without a moment's hesitation--the former because she labels anyone of male gender a misogynist who doesn't like Doris Lessing's writing, and the latter by implying that Lessing's viewpoint on contemporary feminism can't be taken seriously because she fails to specifically address favorite feminist issues. After all, how dare Lessing challenge the viewpoint that all men are anything less than snails and puppy dog tails?

In a recent blog post on the subject of Lessing, TK Kenyon refers to all men (no distinctions made--cause we know all men are alike, right?) who don't like Lessing's writing or feel Lessing should not have won the Nobel Prize as: 1) Male chauvinist idiots; 2) Sci-fi hating snobs; 3) Devious misogynists; 4) Self-appointed literati; and of course, 5) Sexists.

The true sexist deceit being practiced here by TK Kenyon is obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than 20. NEWSFLASH: there are also lots of women who don't like Doris Lessing's sci-fi-ish work (see one of them at Powell's Books). Kenyon dishonestly pretends, for the sake of a rousing male bash, that only men are capable of disliking Lessing's work, but as a feminist sexist, her viewpoint is predictably absurd. Next, she jumps from this unsupportable conclusion to suggest a conspiracy of "male chauvinist idiots" who are attacking Lessing simply because they don't want to see a woman win a Nobel. Is this intelligent? Every time a writer wins a Pulitzer or a Nobel loads of critics come shrieking out of the woods to bitch about it. So what? But no amount of context or inherent foolishness of viewpoint will stop a TK Kenyon-like feminist from seeking publicity or pretending to take the moral high ground before her peers and admirers (just ask Nancy Grace).

Nevertheless, the first bit of comedy derives from Kenyon's comparison of Lessing to Vonnegut and how they both suffered similar "unfair" criticism regarding their sci-fi. Well, ummmm, there you go. Vonnegut suffered the same fate, according to Kenyon--and his critics, by definition, were not woman haters. Doesn't Kenyon contradict her premise somewhat when she uses this example? Yes? No?

Now, on to Carol Lloyd of Salon. In reference to the Guardian article on Doris Lessing, Carol savagely rakes Lessing over the coals for her viewpoints expressed in the Guardian:

On which imaginary planet is she residing? And what about domestic violence, rape and the scores of countries in which women are quite literally second-class citizens? As evidence of this ubiquitous male-bashing, Lessing recounts being in an elementary-school classroom in which a teacher was telling her 9- and 10-year-old students that wars are a result of men's innate violence. Yeah that's pretty stupid stuff, but ... can we really extrapolate on the failings of feminism from the silly comments of an elementary-school teacher?

Ok, well, the fact that Lessing did not specifically address domestic violence, for example, does not negate her viewpoint as expressed in the article. Carol Lloyd, rather than acknowledge the sexism inherent in second wave feminism, bashes Lessing for not seeing all men in the same light that she sees them--as abusers and woman beaters. Lloyd's dishonesty resides in the fact that she herself fails to acknowledge well-known facts regarding domestic violence, namely, that more mothers are guilty of child abuse and neglect fatalities in the home than fathers. According to the biggest child violence study in America conducted by HHS, women acting alone as child abusers comprise a far larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 40 percent vs. 18 percent. Yes, that is correct. Hate to bring the wall down on you, Carol, but talk about power relationships? Why don't you complain about Lessing not addressing this fact also? Maybe because it makes women look bad and not men? But it makes no more sense to suggest that women as a whole are child killers than it does to suggest that men are woman beaters. Lessing was right to draw attention to the extremism of second wave feminism.

The second comical thing is the fact that Carol Lloyd, herself a sexist feminist, should fairly classify as a misogynist (as defined by Kenyon) simply because she finds serious fault with the writing of Doris Lessing. So as I noted previously, there are plenty of women who don't like Doris Lessing's writing. Other human beings who are not MEN don't like Lessing. Yes! I know them. And obviously, they're not misogynists!!!

Let's stop all this female redneck man-bashing. I agree with Doris. It's getting dumber and dumber and making everyone look like asses. Also, to TK and Carol, people should feel free to express opinions without being insulted. Debate is fine, but bashing is not.

Another Doris Lessing - This One Decries Feminist Sexism

Praise be! I just stumbled into an article posted by the Guardian which appears to confirm that not only does Doris Lessing object to second wave feminism, but STRONGLY objects. Fair is fair, so I must quote this article below:

The novelist Doris Lessing yesterday claimed that men were the new silent victims in the sex war, "continually demeaned and insulted" by women without a whimper of protest ... Lessing, who became a feminist icon with the books The Grass is Singing and The Golden Notebook, said a "lazy and insidious" culture had taken hold within feminism that revelled in flailing men.

And further:

"I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed," the 81-year-old Persian-born writer said yesterday ... "We have many wonderful, clever, powerful women everywhere, but what is happening to men? Why did this have to be at the cost of men?"

And further:

"I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men ... You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives." Lessing said the teacher tried to "catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish". She added: "This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing."

And further:

"It has become a kind of religion that you can't criticise because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not. It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests ... Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did."

I can't help but wonder if Doris Lessing really wrote that foreword that I mention below? ... Very suspicious.

Et Tu Doris? Truth or Sexism?

I have not read this book, but according to a review at Powell's Books, Doris Lessing states in her foreword that men:

... lack the solidity of women, who seem to have been endowed with a natural harmony with the ways of the world....Men in comparison are unstable, and erratic. Is Nature trying something out?

This sounds right out of the mouth of Maureen Dowd and extremist feminists who proclaim it's nature's intent that men should become extinct. Well, wait a minute! Here is a statement by none other than Doris Lessing which is so general that it effectively negates itself, i.e., she would be more accurate if she had said "Men are accountants" or "Men are firefighters," but even these statements are markedly false as stated because of the implication made that most, if not all men, are accountants or firefighters. Thus, Men are no more "unstable, and erratic" than they are heroic and honest. I have to argue on this basis alone, the Lessing statement qualifies as absurdly sexist.

After I read it, I immediately flashed to past memories of a favorite woman boss of mine who was a Devil Prada monster of the worst kind, and to the vision of a mother violently abusing her child outside my office while simultaneously browbeating her husband into total submission. If you are out there, Doris, I highly recommend a reality check in the form of Phyllis Chessler's Woman's Inhumanity to Woman. As Library Journal notes:

Second Wave feminists have for 30-plus years operated under the assumption that sisterhood is powerful. Indeed, women acting in concert have forced society to redefine gender, domestic relations, and the workplace. Still, despite huge gains in public visibility, female ascendance has been hampered by a rarely acknowledged reality: women often betray, hurt, and humiliate one another. Mothers stymie daughters, biological sisters compete, girlfriends gossip maliciously, and women bosses exert arbitrary and capricious authority.

Next, a dose of In The Company of Women for dessert.

NOTE: Evil and assholish-ness are NOT gender specific! And I refuse to join the band of Second Wave feminists who pretend this is true. I know it's a method of bonding for some. If you can sit around and blame the husbands and male bosses and boyfriends and fathers for all your problems, then you have something in common, yes? It reminds me of Neocon rednecks hoisting a beer and blaming all America's problems on Democrats.

I can't do that. I blame everyone for my problems. No one is singled out.