

Is Feminism a Mental Disorder?

Filed under: General — domviol @ 3:35 pm Sat 1st July 2006

Is Feminism a Mental Disorder?
by Carey Roberts

Peer into the dark heart of radical feminism, and you’ll get a glimpse of a seething caldron of delusion, phobia, and paranoia.

Visit the N.O.W. website and you’ll see dark warnings that “women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work.” Things are even worse at the National Abortion Rights League, which alerts us that President Bush “has waged a tireless war on women’s reproductive rights and personal privacy.”

But the greatest feminist boogeyman is domestic violence. No other issue so propels the luna-chicks into a wailing convulsion of breast-beating and hair-pulling.

As a service to my readers, I must state the following warning: DV HYSTERIA IS HIGHLY CONTAGIOUS. The only known way to prevent the spread of this condition is to inoculate yourself with the facts. So let’s see what the research has to say.

Read the article: Is Feminism a Mental Disorder?

11 Responses to “Is Feminism a Mental Disorder?”

  1. toni says:

    In what I recognise as an aside to your criticism of the emphasis on domestic violence, the attack on women’s reproductive rights in America is no boogeyman. With at least two states (and more pending) introducing legislation that bans abortion even in cases of rape and incest, it is clear that women’s rights are being eroded. Forcing women to bear the children of men who have sexually attacked them is a gross injustice. There are also numerous legal onslaughts by religious groups to erode the availability of contraception to people, through abstinence-only education to youths and through attempting to bring about legislation that allows doctors and chemists to refuse to prescribe contraception and the morning after pill based on personal beliefs (a number of chemists at Walmart, for instance, have refused to provide the morning after pill to customers). I gotta say, if you can’t do your job because of personal beliefs then you gotta choose a new occupation, not try and inflict your beliefs on others. So anyway, my point is that the feminist reaction to the attack on reproductive rights in America is a pretty worthy cause for feminists. These proponents of abstinence education and banning abortions have generally said nary a peep about banning condoms but have a lot to say about traditionally female forms of contraception like the pill. If the same changes were occurring in NZ, I too would be loudly protesting.

  2. Stephen says:

    Hard to believe according to my American colleagues.

    Which 2 states?
    And which Walmarts?

  3. toni says:

    From,1,7950508.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed (requires registration to view article so have copied most of it here)

    States set stage for bans on abortion
    7 including Illinois have `trigger laws’ if court acts

    By Judy Peres
    Tribune staff reporter
    Published June 12, 2006

    Anticipating a day when American women no longer have a federal constitutional right to abortion, a number of states are considering laws that would automatically outlaw the procedure if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself.

    Such “trigger laws” are designed to ban abortion as soon as the court overturns Roe vs. Wade or the Constitution is amended to give states a free hand to regulate abortion. Louisiana lawmakers passed such a bill in the last week, and other states recently considered them.

    Seven states, including Illinois, already have trigger laws on the books, although legal experts say it’s not clear the older ones would result in an immediate ban.

    The effort to pass trigger laws is part of a flurry of legislative activity against abortion that saw South Dakota enact a near-total ban in February. Eleven other states saw bills introduced in 2005-06 legislative sessions aimed at criminalizing abortion, according to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

    Some of these bills, such as the one enacted in South Dakota, would likely be declared unconstitutional because they conflict with Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy. Trigger laws like Louisiana’s skirt a head-on collision by saying the ban would take effect only after Roe is overturned.

    Although most legislatures adjourned without taking final action on the bills, abortion bans are pending in Ohio and Tennessee.

    Abortion-rights groups believe the legislative activity is a sign the other side is trying to exploit a perceived opportunity.

    “I think there’s a climate in this country–an anti-choice president, Congress and Supreme Court–that has emboldened anti-choice activists,” said Nancy Keenan, head of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “These activists want to overturn Roe vs. Wade. What’s happening in South Dakota and Louisiana shows that if they can’t get that delivered at the federal level, they are going to get it delivered at the state level.”

    Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life agrees.

    “Pro-life forces exist to change the law to protect human life state by state,” Forsythe said. “We exist to see that Roe is overturned and that the issue is returned to the people.”

    Abortion opponents are divided on the best way to reach that goal, however. Americans United for Life and other groups advocate a cautious approach of chipping away at abortion rights. Others champion a head-on assault, arguing that the Supreme Court could be one vote away from overturning Roe.

    South Dakota, which had enacted a trigger law in 2005, passed its 2006 abortion ban with the explicit intention of getting the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe.

    Re: Walmart I found an article at

    talking about the outcome of a lawsuit brought about by three women denied emergency contraception in Boston. Articles that cover the original lawsuit at yahoonews and other news sites seem to have expired (unable to access older articles) although there is a blog, among many, at:

    that has covered the issue and has the original links to such articles.

    Googling either topics brings up a wealth of hits – both new sites as well as blogs – and it’s scary stuff.

  4. julie says:


    I dreaded the day this shite would happen. By making females incubators we are going to see alot of trouble from a “duty of care law” where we will have to lock women up for not taking enough care for unborn children to underground abortion stations.
    So now we will have men complianing about being sperm donors and women complaining about being incubators.

    Next the machines will take over.

  5. Dave says:

    Is femminism a mental illness?
    Freud was the first to observe a connection with gender bias (processing information along the lines of gender rather than other variables) and homosexuality. This has since been confirmed by Sandra Bemm Ph.D.

    Dichotomous thinking ‘all men are rapists’ is one of the criteria for borderline personality disorder (BPD), the only gender-specific personality disorder with a 3:1 female/male ratio. Other diagnostic criteria include suicide threats, eating disorders, unstable mood, sarcasm, moving home frequently, promiscuity and reality distortions.

  6. PaulM says:

    Feminism may or may not be a mental illness but it has certainly become an excuse for women to behave badly and selfishly.
    Not so long ago, I used to be interested in women’s rights, would give money to the women’s refuge, vote in favour of equal rights issues, that kind of thing. These days I find the subject irritatingly tediious. I think this has happened since I unexpectedly discovered that thanks to the advances of feminism, my son and I have no rights to actually be a father and son. Sole parenting rights turn out to belong to his mother.
    From now on, all my protesting will be confined to that outrage, so excuse me for no longer being interested in ‘women’s rights’.

  7. toni says:

    Hi Paul and Dave,

    My point was not to force upon you the woes forcing women. I don’t think that’s appropriate since this sight is about men’s rights. What I was trying to point out was that neither is feminism a mental disorder. World-wide there are various inequalities that women face that are worthy of being challenged because they place unreasonable restrictions on women. Likewise, there are various issues facing men that need to be challenged because they negatively affect men, such as health screening programs and changing gender perceptions so that being a ‘stay at home dad’ or what ever other permutation of fatherhood that differs from ‘the breadwinner’ is a culturally accepted option for fathers (who desire such a role). I was merely trying to point out the middle ground. Cheers.

  8. Stephen says:

    The chief expounders of modern day feminism, especially it’s more extreme viewholders like Bella Abzug, Shulasmith Firestone and Germaine Grere, to mention but three, do indeed seem mentally deranged to me.
    Certainly anyone who seriously holds the view that all men are rapists/potential rapists (even figuratively let alone literally speaking) and that priveliged white women are oppressed by black underclass men seems 20 cents short of a dollar IMO.
    But then I suppose miriad womenfolk have for centuries and to this day to demonise and dehumanise men so they can let men die en masse to save themselves.
    It’s an old psychological trick really. Just like calling Vietnamese Gooks, or Blacks niggers -> alienate and dehumanise them by making them less than human in your own mind then you can treat them as disposable……

    Cannon fodder…………..
    Salary fodder…………
    Marriage fodder………..
    Divorce fodder………….
    Parent fodder………….
    Disposable success object.

  9. toni says:

    I think you have to be careful about lumping one movement as a group of people who all think the same thing. I read the whole ‘feminists think all men are rapists’ comment a lot on this site and that is an extreme opinion espoused by a few feminists about thirty years ago. The vast majority of feminists would find such an opinion vile because it’s blatantly sexist but, as in any movement, you have people who hold extreme views.

    Some people might be tempted to argue ‘well – the extreme position defines the movement’ but I think this is flawed. Other men’s groups around the world have some pretty extreme views. For example, the number of mens’ and fathers’ rights activists in the US defending Darren Mack’s actions in killing his wife and stabbing the judge presiding over his case as the actions of a man pushed to the limit. Mack is a murderer, plain and simple, and being pushed to the limit is no excuse. But the fact that some activists believe he was justified in his actions because they believe the family court was against him or that his wife deserved it doesn’t make ALL men’s right activists crazy.

  10. starr says:

    Hi Toni
    i cannot say at this stage whether the person was correct in his or her actions as i do not know the background in detail…however
    the question Toni becomes… why push a person DELIBERATELY AND CONSISTENTLY to such limits where he loses all control? the aim is to look at the cause and remove it… not let it be there to happen again.. don’t you think this would be a more practical approach?

  11. Stephen says:

    I agree. That’s why I gave the example of 3 leading feminists.

Leave a Reply



Skip to toolbar