Female psychopaths

Sweet ladies, don’t you think?  Especially the one on our left [Karla Homolka].

As you may already have gathered, I have issues with these three pieces below, less so with the youtube one.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/insight-is-2020/201508/your-field-guide-the-female-psychopath

http://theconversation.com/women-can-be-psychopaths-too-in-ways-more-subtle-but-just-as-dangerous-84200

Consider these:

Is it possible that women can get away with certain crimes more than men because society is less likely to expect certain antisocial or violent behaviors among them?

And:

[Y]oung women who later develop the disorder show a more relational form of aggression characterized by jealousy, self-harm, manipulation, and verbal aggression.

And:

Female psychopaths operate in more nuanced, less overtly physically aggressive ways, though they can ultimately lead to equally destructive outcomes.

And:

The female psychopaths I have assessed are every bit as dangerous as their male peers.

I would say far more so because you can see the male psycho coming – just look at the jihadis – but the female is far more subtle, she can embark on long campaigns against the object of her ire – it’s the sign of a weak person and now we’re getting pussified males increasingly doing this as well.

In fact, I’d say that the word psychopath for the female is a bit misleading – all women to a certain extent are insane, all men to an extent are uncaring and thoughtless about others.

Are they all psychos? At what point does one diagnosis psychopathy? At the point of an act of violence? For example nurses poisoning those in their care?

I’d say there is so much low-level psychopathy in women – that relation who was always such a bitch to you, the manipulating of power figures to hurt the other etc. etc.

These include lack of empathy, guilt or remorse, and being manipulative and deceitful.

Show me a non-deceitful woman who never manipulates? Every time she makes herself up and dresses a certain way, it is to achieve an effect, to play down weaknesses, to boost assets.

The male – look at road rage, which used to be the preserve of the male, look at the Billionaire Boy’s Club type mind, the Nick Leeson mind, look at the entire hidden govt establishment and its sickness of the pizzagate type.

I’d say that in a male, a certain psychopathy is a positive boon – look at Generals Kelly and Mad Dog Matis again – it certainly gets results and keeps the ship tightly run.  Look at the Donald himself. It’s his very psychopathy I like, because it keeps everyone on his toes.

I certainly have elements of it, not a doubt and it’s kept me bully-free during my lifetime. In a female though – not good, because it is combined with other female traits and the mix is toxic, even lethal.  Any woman worth her salt knows how to tame the beast and use him for her own ends and that of her family.

I’m suggesting that this is all pretty normal behaviour or if not normal, then pretty standard behaviour and nothing to get over-anxious about.

I know a lady who likes curmudgeons because underneath that exterior, they’re going to treat her well.  I don’t know one wild man who does not treat ladies well face to face.  You can call them sexist bstds, I call them soaked in chivalry.

The tests of psychopathy, IMHO

1. If they just don’t care for other humans in any way, full stop, period.

Careful here – I know a guy who seems one of these but truth is he does these little things for others all the time which wreck his reputation as Chief Psychopath.

And when this is a woman, then there is a huge amount of misery ahead for some poor sod[s], like slow, low-level torture. In fact, these are monsters. There are many in the “caring” professions.

2. They wish harm to others, rather than for others’ stupidity to be stopped.

Careful here again – wishing Gina Miller to fall off the cliff, if that’s psychopathy, then so was PG Wodehouse in hoping AA Milne would break his neck. Also schadenfreude – who hasn’t felt it?

No, I’m referring here to actually harming others, either physically or psychologically and I don’t mean snowflakes being offended, although many of those are psychos in many ways, especially for reason one above.

3.  They feel they’ve been wronged and are excessive in their revenge.

I’m thinking of Clyde Barrow here who certainly had a rough time early but to go as far as he did and to drag Bonny with him – that’s a sign of a psycho.  They often cry about how hard done by they are.

Go back to the example of the girl who killed her rabbit because it was annoying her.  Excessive.  There was a cartoon about the jihadi murdering dozens and then saying, “Now look what you’ve made me do!”

4.  They derive pleasure from cruelty and sick things.

This can be sexual, non-sexual. Anyone who adores films like Saw and other horrors has psycho tendencies, not a doubt of it.  Ditto those who like pulling the wings off butterflies.  Sicko pleasures are a major indicator.  Those who get off on slow motion violence.

I detest it although I’d certainly blow someone away who genuinely looked like physically harming me and mine, not the slightest compunction – but that’s real life, not film. I don’t know a good man or woman who would not do that to protect family and self.

Who liked 50 Shades?  Psycho!

Some others

11 comments for “Female psychopaths

  1. September 19, 2018 at 08:26

    They can ‘flip’ in an instant.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEQUXg7RAUM

    • September 19, 2018 at 10:57

      What a cultured way to put it.

      • September 19, 2018 at 14:42

        🙂

  2. Ubermouth
    September 19, 2018 at 16:10

    All women are a bit insane? Isn’t that as bad as the ideology all men are rapists?Or,how about this one-all men are a bit of an arsehole!
    And female psychopaths are more dangerous than their male counterparts? I think Hare would disagree with you on that given the majority of sexual,sadistic,serial killers are male.

    Bashing women here has reached toxic levels,hence the sharp decline in female commentary.

    • September 19, 2018 at 17:15

      “”….majority of sexual,sadistic,serial killers are male””

      Those that are caught and known, perhaps.

      “”Bashing women here has reached toxic levels””

      I am sorry to hear that. Mind you there is barely a male who has not been smacked, hit, or had something thrown or wielded at him, left standing. It is the stuff of mirth and film entertainment.

    • ScotchedEarth
      September 19, 2018 at 20:59

      Female violence is often disguised, men being persuaded to perform the physical act of violence for them.
      E.g. The 2012 murder of Luke Harwood, 18: he was brutally beaten to death (not tabloid spiel—one killer gloated that ‘he stamped on Luke’s head 20 times until it popped. He said it went like a marshmallow and brains spurted everywhere and that he had pumpkin on his jeans.’); this occurred because a women falsely accused Luke of raping her to her sister; her sister passed this on to three male friends who then beat him to death, egged on by her. Granted, one of them, described as a ‘psychopath’ was likely looking for an excuse to murder—but poor Luke would not have been the target but for the two women.
      E.g. Pamela Smart née Wojas, then 22, who persuaded her 15 year old lover to murder her husband in 1990. E.g. Laurie Kellog, then 26, who persuaded her 18 year old lover to murder her husband in 1991. E.g. Sharee Miller who persuaded her ex-cop lover to murder her husband in 1999. Etc.

      This isn’t misogyny, Ubermouth—very SJWish to reach for that accusation. It more likely stems from blokes getting hacked off with being perpetually depicted as the Eternal Bad Guy. As the noted Karen Straughan once wrote on a yt comment:

      Traditionalism makes sense in that it says, “We demand more of men than women, so therefore we give men more authority.” Feminism says, “We demand more of men than women, so therefore we blame men for everything.”

      Traditionalism is honest in that it says, “We insist that men be the protectors and providers of women because women need that.” Feminism says, “We insist that men be the protectors and providers of women because men for the last 10,000 years oppressed and subjugated women for their own benefit because they’re sociopathic monsters, and now it’s payback time. Also, because treating women equally has resulted in some very unequal treatment of women, because reasons.”

      Traditionalism is consistent in that it says, “We demand that women be treated more gently than men because they’re less capable of dealing with adversity.” Feminism says, “Women are every bit as capable of dealing with adversity as men, but they have more adversity to deal with because men are horrible violent rapey bastards. Also, have you heard of HeforShe? It’s a revolutionary new thing that looks exactly like traditional masculinity, except that the men are default villains instead of default heroes.”

      Feminism has adopted and exploited all the most anti-male aspects of traditionalism, and has discarded all the pro-male aspects of it (and by pro-male, I don’t even mean that men are treated well—just that there is some reward for the sacrifice, even if it’s inadequate). Traditionalism said, “Hey men, you’re not all bad. If you do X, Y and Z, you’ll be a good man.” Feminism says, “Hey men, you’re pigs. Oh, and just go ahead and become male feminists because that’s the only way we’ll like you, except we won’t even then, so sit down and shut the f*** up you entitled b*****ds, how dare you expect one damn thing from the women you’ve devoted your lives to? A*sholes.”

      As Karen wrote, we’re expected to ‘man up’ as we’ve always done but we’re no longer getting any quid pro quo. So, some blokes tired of this are pointing out that, at best, women have just as much potential to be selfish, scummy and plain evil as men; and—arguably—they have possibly a greater tendency.

      (If unfamiliar with Karen’s work, I strongly recommend her videos on YT, particularly her early ones and later talks she has given; also her occasional blog, and her comments and replies on social media (she’s quite active on the dreaded reddit) are worth ferreting out.)

      • September 19, 2018 at 23:21

        Don’t forget Clara Schwartz too. She got them to do her killing of her father for her.

        The left have psychological problems, they need therapy. In typical fashion, one of them just came in and tried to lay it on Somber and me but actually, she’s the one with issues.

        No, I didn’t post it. For what purpose? We’re the ones outraged, not them.

  3. Ubermouth
    September 19, 2018 at 16:15

    Perhaps a name change is in order….nourishing misogyny maybe? You could have a secret handshake and a mascot,Ted Bundy, perhaps?
    *Expect email from me.

  4. September 19, 2018 at 17:09

    To the easily offended, I’m reminded of this quote: “If what I’m talking about doesn’t describe you, then I’m not talking about you.”

  5. Toodles McGhee
    September 19, 2018 at 18:58

    LS, that is a great quote.

    Cudddles Mc Ghee, my very own sweetheart, who I have had fooled for a long time with a bit of make-up, a back rub and every once in a while a knock your socks off really good meal, once told me, ‘ Toodles dear, it may be a shock to you and it certainly was to me when I found out, but the whole world does not revolve around you.’

    Now, I thought about that a bit. I was almost miffed. I thought about his statement even further, considering what that really meant to me. [There I went again, thinking how things revolved around me…habit.] Do you know, I found that bit of info was a big relief? It really took a load off of me.

    I told good ole Cuds that I appreciated the fact of life he shared with his lol ole Toods. I also told him to go rub his own back.

  6. September 19, 2018 at 20:04

    Well well well, thought that might bring Uber out, lol.

    And yes, m’lud, it was a great quote.

Comments are closed.