Tag Archives: abuse

Women Pressured Into Abortion – The Subject Feminists Avoid

We read so much these days about women’s rights and how abortion should always be portrayed by the media as the right choice in difficult circumstances. We read about how too much counselling before an abortion is an infringement on these rights, as it might get some to reconsider (as if this were a bad thing) or feel undue remorse afterwards.

However, there are sides to this subject feminists just won’t touch (just like, due to the marvel called intersectionality, they don’t go near the horrors suffered by women in Islamic theocracies). Besides ignoring the facts of the procedure (going as far as defending late term abortions), they also ignore an important part of the cause – which is external pressure.

There are shelters for women who are physically harmed by partners; there is protection from so many types of abuse except one – the psychological coercion of a woman to abort her baby, sometimes relentless, which often involves threats of divorce, homelessness, abandonment and the withdrawal of minimal support for her to have the child or even sustain herself. 

Pro-life activists are covering this intensely; the debate however does not reach the mainstream, as abortion is seen as a “woman’s right” almost exclusively (excluding the rights of the women being “terminated”, as abortion survivor Gianna Jessen points out).

Again, feminists tend to think this is the right choice in a seemingly impossible situation, such as the father not wanting the child, the economical situation being precarious, the mother being underage and unable to support the baby or herself.

But is it really the woman’s choice of what to do with her body when all the negative factors influencing her are external? When she feels she has to make this decision as she has no alternative, because there is no support available? 

Is the only road a woman felt like she could take at one given time the right one for her? How is this defined as her choice in the first place? Saying there was nothing else I could do at the time does not equal this is what I wanted – and yet, this sort of decision would be commended by feminists as mature and brave under the circumstances, without taking the woman’s suffering into account.

People pressuring a woman into an abortion is not an unavoidable fact of nature. It’s a matter of power imbalance, which feminists love to mention every time they feel hard done by when a man gets them to take on more “emotional labour” then they are getting. Power imbalance is mentioned so often – and yet there is no greater power imbalance than the ability to get someone to kill their own child under extreme threats.

I witnessed a similar situation which still makes me boil. It did not involve abortion but the forced giving of a newborn up for adoption. The mother was in the same hospital ward as me after giving birth. She told me, as well as hospital staff (and eventually the authorities, which did not lift a finger) that her hubby – a piece of scum beyond redemption – was forcing her to give the baby up, under threat of eviction and separation from the three children they already had together. He’d previously tried to psychologically force her to have an abortion but had not succeeded. She wanted to keep her baby girl and raise her, but was dependant in every way on the husband’s family, whose home she was living in; the scumbag’s family agreed with him that the child should just disappear. She faced having nowhere to live and no income. Besides that, she already had three kids at home and did not want to be forcibly separated from them as she was their primary carer. All I could do was try to put her in touch with charities and similar organisations; I’m not sure she ever contacted them. I also asked a relative of mine who was a lawyer for advice and he called the police; he said she was entitled to state protection. It went nowhere; it spun in a bureaucratic circle for the few days we were there. Unfortunately, I was in no position to help either as I did not have the living conditions or financial stability at the time (although looking back I feel like kicking myself for not trying to figure out a way; perhaps it wouldn’t have been absolutely impossible). In the meantime, hubby dearest kept phoning her to call her names (as she was lying on a hospital bed recovering from giving birth). At one point he even suggested she put something over the baby’s face and leave her somewhere. I felt like cracking that man’s skull with my bare hands. She kept on taking the calls for some reason and was distraught the whole time, trying to sort out accommodation and figure out a way to care for all her kids. The bastard swore he’d make her life hell; she couldn’t take her kids back from him as she had no income or housing. Even if someone had taken her in with the baby she wouldn’t have been financially stable enough for it to matter in court. Eventually she decided there was no other way than to give her baby girl up for adoption and go back to the bastard to raise her other kids in the only home she had. It took her days of constant crying, barely any sleep and being given no hope by those she appealed to. What would feminists say before that type of case? Many would say an abortion would have been better in the first place.

This was absolutely not her choice. It was a horrible experience to even watch, never mind live.

Nor is it the choice of so many women who decide to abort their babies because those around them threaten them constantly.

Helplessness is not empowerment. 

Instead of advocating for women’s right to abort their babies (which they’ve already got), why not also advocate for women’s right to keep their babies when facing this sort of trouble, which I’m sure is not uncommon?

What exactly is feminism’s stance regarding the situation in China, where forced abortions are carried out and newborns are drowned in buckets or dumped in fountains for being female? They say nothing as they want the word “abortion” to build this positive aura around it – which most people viscerally reject, even when meeting others halfway ideologically. I believe little concerns them if not directly relatable.

I can also share a different story – a story about real systemic oppression.

During the later part of the communist period, abortion was forbidden in my country. So was contraception; it was not available. The purpose was to produce as many people who would increase the workforce. Of course the absolute cretins did not ensure that those children could be provided for and looked after since both parents were forced to work and the country was in dire poverty for a long time. That’s how women turned to back alley abortions. Not because those abortions were their choice, but because the nature of the system made it so that they could not have a normal couple life (denying their husbands sex would have ended in being left eventually) or a normal family life (many children brought up in those times were raised by grandparents, part time or full time, myself included).

My brother’s bones lie somewhere in a communal skip outside Bucharest. So do those of most of my brothers and sisters, whom I don’t know the exact number of and will not ask again, not wanting to cause trauma. That’s what they used to do in those days – and still do in China now. Finding out shocked me but did not make me pro-life; that had been my conviction all along; it absolutely strengthened my conviction. Whereas I can understand the pressure of the times and the motivation of the women seeking these abortions (some to later regret it, especially when babies were delivered alive and still moving), I cannot understand those who “helped” them do this – who could have easily killed those women, under the guise of friendship or for some money. Some had no medical training whatsoever. My brother was killed with the “help” of a nursery teacher – who was also my Godmother. She Christened my sister, then killed and dumped my brother in the trash, then off she went back to church to Christen me a year later. It turns my stomach. I don’t ever want to see the woman again but if I did I might just spit in her face (for the first time to ever behave that way). Although if I asked for details she might just tell me how she did it in the most callous of ways.

Feminists would jump at this opportunity to shout that making abortion legal and accessible would have solved the problems of women who “clearly wanted abortions”. 

Except those women didn’t.

They were forced into poverty, forced into work instead of being home makers and forcibly denied contraception, though it was available at the time (at least condoms were being marketed in Europe but could not be sold here). Those women did not choose abortion because it was “right” or “something they wanted”. Some lived in perpetual hope they would never have to have another one again.

That is a true example of systemic oppression when it comes to reproductive rights. 

I also want to share an uplifting story of refusing abortion and sending children away despite very difficult circumstances. In my grandmother’s day abortion used to happen (feminists often dismiss today’s gruesome statistics by saying it has happened since times immemorial). She never had any (and told me for a fact, without me asking). She had nine children. Lost one to measles in infancy and one to a motorbike crash. She was widowed twice – once by war and again by a construction site accident. She was offered help by the state in terms of taking some of the children into state care and categorically refused. A few decades later, her children have kids and grandkids of their own, most having gone through higher education and established a career. All originating from sheer poverty and destitution. My sister and I were also raised by her while the system did not allow our parents to do so, and for some years after. If anyone asked me the childish question of who my hero was I’d say definitely my Gran. It seems natural instincts are so strong in some people that they fear nothing and stop at nothing for their families.

Spare the family anecdotes, some might say – the world is immense and diverse. And so it is.

What I know for a fact is that no woman ever plans to have an abortion at some point in her life. No woman grows up picturing abortion as a part of her future.

Circumstances cause this and some of these circumstances need addressing.

Feminists often speak of the emancipation of teens and the authority teenage women should have over their bodies – especially in terms of being able to access abortions. How aware are they that so many young women undergo abortions pressured by their families, in order not to lose face or not risk compromising their daughters’ academic future?

Many types of pressure are considered criminal and decisions made under duress are not always considered valid.

However, trying to corner a woman in this manner is merely frowned upon in some situations and even commended in others.

It should be criminal. Women who are financially or otherwise dependent on the person trying to coerce them into an abortion should be protected. It should be a basic human right. End of story. 

 

 

 

 

What Is NOT Gaslighting

By now, many people are familiar with this notion, especially if they have an interest in unhealthy interpersonal dynamics. A brief article explaining gaslighting can be found here. First of all, a few ideas are worth noting (though doing so might seem superfluous):

  • -It is inflicted on a victim by an abuser who believes to be superior;
  • -It is a consistent technique ( it’s used more than once);
  • -It is always deliberate (planned, organised in cold blood);
  • -It is meant to cause actual suffering (confusion, self doubt, low self confidence etc).

After encountering this term in a variety of inappropriate situations – its use being meant to accuse someone of foul intentions – there are some observations to make regarding what is – only in my view of course – not gaslighting.

  1. Someone trying to convince you of their opinion (yes, I know how stupid that sounds). A couple of times I’ve seen this artifice used on PF, along the lines of:

You want me to see this event your way, not mine, therefore you are trying to make me replace my version of reality with yours, therefore you are gaslighting me.

Which is of course an eerie, cult-like stretch, caused by a person automatically analysing the world through the lens of psychopathic behaviour – a lens most people do not use on a daily basis. One often has a different perspective and imparts it ingenuously, debating others; most people understand that; it’s only to the paranoid that a different opinion can seem a devious attempt to blur their sense of reality.

From everyone is entitled to an opinion it suddenly becomes  telling me that my view/ my perception is not accurate is abusive.  Which practically means they’re always right and contradicting them is a direct attack on their well-being.

2. Most fleeting conversations (online or not).

With an emphasis on ”fleeting”. Although presumably there are those who enjoy genuinely screwing with the minds of others for the fun of it (as opposed to simply trolling), jumping to bite the jugular of every recently met person for “gaslighting you” is not a healthy reaction.

Gaslighting is known to have a purpose; there is a clear intention behind it; it’s difficult to associate it with a few words exchanged by people who will most likely never meet again (unless criminal intention is present, as those involved in crime have to act fast). Otherwise, for a person to suspect this intensity or interest from a complete stranger, their ego must be quite inflated.

3. A poor way of making excuses.

Yes, someone might say, for lack of inspiration, “I didn’t say that”,”maybe you heard me wrong” or “that’s not what I meant”, while awkwardly avoiding eye contact. Some people are worse than others at apologising (that takes some balls) or even admitting guilt, or might try to cover for others, protect your feelings by not repeating an insult etc. When caught red handed, they might just say something stupid, such as this never happened. Which is not a laudable thing to do and obviously would trigger people who were actually gaslighted in the past.

Does that automatically make a person  a psychopath? Of course not. If it’s an isolated event, it means nothing at all. If it happens repeatedly, then it is a problem – however, if that’s the only thing to go on, I’d still reflect on it before jumping to conclusions.

4. People who lie compulsively out of anxiety.

The only instance in which I can find a valid excuse for repeated lying is when it comes from people who have developed this as a defence mechanism, after a long time (usually years) of suffering serious consequences whenever things went wrong, they made a mistake or they risked angering/ upsetting someone else. These people lie very naturally to pacify a situation, hiding negative aspects others would have liked to know about. The reaction they get when their lies are uncovered is worse than the one they would’ve received for simply making a mistake. But in a way I can sympathise with the chronic fear of attracting other people’s anger.

In a way it’s comparable to what children do. Since gaslighting is based on control and deviousness, not anxiety, it doesn’t apply here.

5. People who don’t pay attention.

Everyone’s met the type who is a bit self-absorbed and has rosy sunglasses on, meaning they minimise and brush off your sincere concerns as if they didn’t matter (and no, I’m not one for writing this post or any others which deal with these complicated issues).

I’m sure you just imagined it! I’m sure everything’s fine! Everything works out in the end! 

Of course they do it in order to keep things comfortable and keep talking about their own preoccupations, without bothering with yours. I’m not saying these people are worth maintaining a close relationship with or confiding in – obviously not – but that doesn’t mean their attitude is devious and seeks to undermine your confidence. It’s just complacent and ignorant. They also do that to protect their own view of the world, of a family, a community, an institution etc. Basically, it’s all about them, not about invalidating or worse, destroying you.

Most people are not out to abuse others – gaslighting is a cruel, premeditated and sustained  form of abuse, just like psychopathy is a chilling disorder, not to be pinned on every selfish asshole.

Later Edit

Nowadays, every other progressive has been harmed by a narcissist or psychopath, has been the victim of oppression and is suffering from PTSD, requiring trigger warnings whenever they are exposed to unfamiliar information. Next on the agenda, half of them will soon claim they are being  or have been gaslighted (probably more since the straws they cling to are so diverse).

Unfortunately, analyses such as this one are not unnecessary, since misinformation is already spilling out of the poisoned well of the victimhood culture, with feminism at the centre of it. This feminist website (which as a whole is possibly the richest source of unadulterated bullshit I’ve come across so far), seeks to take the false victim complex into the mainstream in every possible way.

This particular article, “10 Things I’ve Learned About Gaslighting As An Abuse Tactic”, is precisely the type of  generalisation I was referring to at the beginning of the blog post.

Far from wanting to invalidate the author’s experience, my honest opinion is that here, gaslighting is presented as a common method of overpowering someone using an emotional bond, by which a person gets another to see things their way, and undermines their confidence as a result, whether they intended to or not. There is nothing in the article to suggest maliciousness or duplicity from the supposed abuser.

Direct quotes are essential (the fair use notice is displayed on the homepage).

1. Gaslighting Doesn’t Have to Be Deliberate

(…)Unfortunately, the first definition I looked up was woefully inadequate. Gaslighting does not require deliberate plotting. Gaslighting only requires a belief that it is acceptable to overwrite another person’s reality.

The rest just happens organically when a person who holds that belief feels threatened. We learn how to control and manipulate each other very naturally.

First of all, the fundamental aspect of defining and identifying gaslighting is the clear intention of causing someone to lose their mental balance and self-confidence, manifesting systematically and in cold blood, inflicting as much harm as possible. It is the method through which pathological types gain control over others, with no remorse whatsoever, sometimes resulting in their victims committing suicide.

Muddying the waters to blur the logical differentiation of this technique from ordinary lying, spontaneous excuse making and even expressing a different perspective is very detrimental, as the real meaning of the word is lost, resulting in an excess of zeal and hysteria wherever this diluted information spreads.

Clear intention, calculation, persistence and cold blood are essential elements to identify in order to make an accurate assessment. Gaslighting must by definition be deliberate.

The author of this piece claims the generally used definition is inaccurate, instead of pondering her own decision to use this specific word. Which is what progressives often do – instead of finding their place in the world, they want to make the entire world adapt to them. With no disrespect to her experience, when a concept does not suit someone, what they do is let go of it and find anther one – or why not, invent it. What they don’t normally do is re-engineer that  concept to suit them specifically, claiming that everyone using it previously was going about it all wrong.

Another red flag is using a situation which is charged with emotions and subjectivity – an argument between romantic partners (which almost by default involves accusations), adding that the “gaslighting” was spontaneous and not deliberate; combined, these aspects become very suspicious. One should consider the following aspects:

  • Whether lies were definitely told, with the partner definitely being aware they were lying; the contentions made may very well be the partner’s honest opinion;
  • Whether the contentions were commonly made or just a one off;
  • Whether the partner simply had an emotional outburst, even if they went a bit overboard;
  • What their composure was and if they seemed to take pleasure in winding up their target (arrogance and delight usually become apparent in these situations).

Of course I’m no expert but this is all just common sense. The key issue is that this technique cannot be identified from an isolated incident or from the mere existence of two conflicting perspectives. Deceit (deliberate, repeated lying) and malicious intentions both have to be involved – lying once in order to cover something up does not count.

“Gaslighting only requires a belief that it is acceptable to overwrite another person’s reality”.  I’ve seen this happen with parents and children, indeed, yet the purpose was shitty excuse making (counting on children’s short memory and volatile perceptions to deny they had done something). Therefore this is an interesting nuance, though more of a cowardly thing to do and not intended to destroy a child’s self-confidence.

You can see it in the media constantly.

For instance, every time an obvious hate crime is portrayed as an isolated case of mental illness, this is gaslighting. The media is saying to you, What you know to be true is not true.

The media does gaslight people all the time, no doubt about it, on behalf of an establishment seeking to confuse them constantly, to the point that they no longer know what is going on around them. Alan Watt gives a good example with the contradictory conclusions of  studies, published from time to time, bamboozling those who read them. For instance, today coffee prolongs your life, tomorrow it gives you cancer, the day after tomorrow it is presented as a miraculous cure for some other disease.

However, the example the author chooses is not relevant, as it claims a presumed hate crime should cause a hysterical reaction and not be treated as an isolated incident. Why presumed? Well, when a person forming part of a minority of any kind is attacked (conservatives excluded), the media, followed by a choir of progressive activists, tends to simply assume that “hate” was involved, even before the actual motive is established. Violence can erupt in a multitude of situations and it is idiotic to simply assume, each and every single time.

But now if you abuse your partner, you’re usually considered to be a bad person. So what do you do, with all the beliefs that would lead you to violence, if violence is no longer an acceptable option?

You use manipulation, and you use gaslighting.

Here it is simply assumed that if these forms of abuse both involve control and a power imbalance, one is a suitable replacement for the other. However, causing someone to fear you is not the same as causing them to think they are insane. Moreover, while gaslighting is premeditated, violence is, more often than not, mindless and momentary. Also, violence is commonly used by the run-of-the-mill asshole, whereas gaslighting is a calculated and sophisticated technique employed by devious minds. Comparing the two implies gaslighting is very common and can be used by just anybody, which in turn implies that the world is full of heartless, devious people (basically psychos), fully capable of this level of evil. And since this is a feminist blog, guess which sex the psychos would predominantly belong to.

A gaslighter doesn’t simply need to be right. They also need for you to believe that they are right.

The whole point is getting their victim to believe a lie – it’s not that they think they are right to begin with; they know full well they are lying. This quote reinforces my initial suspicion that the author ignores this fact, which reduces the technique to someone convincing someone else of their perspective, which the other party (presumed victim) thinks is invalid or which later proves objectively invalid.

The description of the “three stages of gaslighting” is too long to paste here; you can find it by clicking the link above. Yet again, it describes a common argument in a romantic relationship, with no apparent, demonstrable conniving involved. The short version:

1.You argue for hours, without resolution. You argue over things that shouldn’t be up for debate  – your feelings, your opinions, your experience of the world.(…)2. Winning the argument now has one objective :  proving that you’re still good, kind, and worthwhile. (…) 3. You consider their point of view as normal. You start to lose your ability to make your own judgements. You become consumed with understanding them and seeing their perspective. You live with and obsess over every criticism, trying to solve it.

Just a few observations:

  • -One’s feelings and opinions are subjective; they are not absolutes and are always up for debate.
  • -Gaslighting deals with distorting one’s perception of reality, usually by reframing events or conversations, denying them or making them up, aiming to make the other  think they are confused or crazy. Feelings and opinions have nothing to do with this.
  • -The fact that someone eventually convinces their partner of their perspective does not mean that they are deliberately lying – or even mistaking, for that matter, and gives no indication of trying to drive the partner crazy.

By accusing someone of gaslighting you, you are basically accusing them of being a monster. Not every hurtful or difficult relationship involves that and not every insecure, hypersensitive,  overly loving or overly tolerant person drained by arguments is being subjected to an actual form of mind control.

Once again, this is the result of confusing feelings and opinions with actual reality, which opens the door for any argument to be seen as gaslighting, trivialising this notion.

Another article, this time written by a professional, gives three peculiar examples:

  • -A woman is left abruptly at the bus stop by her date (recently met), who prefers the metro and then calls later to justify his strange gesture.
  • -A woman complains to her boss about her assignments and is told she is stressed and sensitive; this keeps happening overtime.
  • -A woman develops anxiety over the fear that she doesn’t care enough about her husband, as he often criticises her for not paying attention to details (such as going to the right store at the right time to get him the right kind of salmon).

Call me crazy, no pun intended, but I do not see any deliberate attempts to make any of these women doubt their sanity. The first case involves a second date and an impatient and tactless prick; it is unclear what he thought he would achieve by dumping her at the bus stop. In the second scenario, the woman is aware of the injustice; she does work harder but nowhere does it say that she feels confused or crazy. And in the third one, she develops this unease because she lets him get away with being so demanding in the first place, taking his shallow reproaches to heart. However, nothing suggests he is being deceptive or that he wants to destroy her self-confidence; he is probably just exploitative and thinks he’ll gain some advantage out of making her feel guilty over trifles.

The list of signs is a long one, describing the targeted person’s feelings. Taken separately, none is a clear indication of being gaslighted, and adjoined, they paint a picture of an unhappy individual in an unhappy relationship, facing anxiety issues and low confidence, possibly depression. And yet there is no mention of actual inconsistencies in this person’s daily reality, of the facts which do not match between their memory and that of their abuser, of this person thinking they might have lost the plot or might be lied to on a constant basis. Someone going through a depression affecting their relationship might apply these filters and end up thinking they are the victim of a deliberate attack on their sanity.

Many comments I read agreed the examples were quite poor; however there were also others, such as this one:

“I recently found the term and its meaning. I was in a relationship (my ex husband) who was a classic gaslighter. I have been divorced from him for almost 20 years. However, a work situation, too bizarre to discuss here, has led to gaslighting on the job more than once, and by extension into the community thanks to ex colleagues. Your description, however, also describes my current relationship with certain family members. I have been feeling that things were not right in the home for some time, and I know this is also an extension of the workplace issue. Very nosy nervy backstabbers. What a great article.”

It becomes apparent that due to such vague criteria, some people end up believing they are being targeted in this manner by multiple individuals (much like others identify “narcs” at every street corner). On a large scale, this leads to a lot of misinformation being circulated.

“Amazing information! I’m clearly dealing with a psycho…”

How many times have you read that, or even written it, while participating in discussions on a popular abuse recovery forum? The most compelling evidence in one’s eyes (that the person they suspect to be disordered actually is that way) is the plethora of similar experiences posted by others.

As a first disclaimer, I am referring to those who are in doubt, usually when no deliberate, serious acts of cruelty have taken place. Many stumble upon unprofessional information which is very articulate and convincing, yet deep down, intuition tells them they are wrong or that they need to reevaluate matters. 

Also, I’m not trying to minimise anyone’s feelings or experience; however, I have serious doubts every case on these large recovery forums involves a genuine psychopath or narcissist. In a vulnerable state, with clever persuasion, mistakes are easily made.

As a second disclaimer, this is only my opinion.

The following issues to consider can be liberating for someone still pondering whether that label is accurate.

1.The fact that members were mistreated in similar ways is not proof they were all mistreated by psychopaths. This is especially valid when it comes to what is deemed emotional abuse.

Not all people who engage in aggressive or abusive behavior are disordered; there are dozens of variables in analysing why a person might have behaved in a certain way. Even though you find yourself repeatedly thinking “mine did that all the time”, keep in mind similarities can occur with normal people as well. Lying, making unflattering comments, using sarcasm, making excuses, being selfish, being arrogant are things most of us are guilty of at some point in life.

2. The way one feels about another person is not necessarily provoked by the latter.

I believe few people have strong telepathic abilities; most need straightforward communication to understand how one is feeling; even then they can remain disconnected, especially if they are emotionally unavailable for some reason. Reciprocity is an illusion in many cases, unless there is proper communication. The lack of it (two people relating to each other through endless assumptions and signal interpretation) weakens bonds; it pulls people apart. Those who are shy, oversensitive, have anxiety issues etc. find it hard to express their feelings; they can experience great frustration with others. Also, one can feel anxious around a person without that person causing their anxiety or even being aware of it.

3. Aggressive or abusive behaviour often has more to do with the person engaging in it than the person they target. As opposed to the message people get on PF for instance, that a psycho is bent on destroying them. 

I dare assume at some point in life we’ve all been shouted at by angry people just because we were there. Also, some feel too safe at times and take others for granted, as a teenager does when acting up, knowing they won’t lose their family over it. I am in no way justifying abuse – I am merely saying not every case is the same and not every person is the same; hence there are many possible explanations for aggressiveness (blatant or passive) . “This individual is bent on destroying you” is the exception, not the rule.

4. Psychopaths lack empathy and remorse. Calling them offensive or big-headed is the understatement of the century.

For a sample of excellent candidates for that “title”, read the comments under any Daily Mail article dealing with poverty or immigration. You’ll find chilling fantasies of opening fire on refugee boats or rounding up the poor to sterilise them. You’ll find acrimonious anti-immigration rhetoric under pictures of dead children, which fail to move any of these types. People often wonder how in the world mass killings such as the Holocaust, the extermination of a large part of Cambodia’s population or the massacre in Rwanda happened. Some people simply don’t see others as human. That murderous instinct hasn’t gone away and never will, I suppose, though we lie to ourselves we have evolved as a species.

There are also public figures with a considerable platform, such as university professors, who advocate monstrosities; what jumps to mind is referred to as  “after birth abortion”, or the possibility for parents to change their mind about wanting an already born child. Peter Singer argues that in case of disability, they should have up to thirty days to decide if they want to keep it, as people refer to children nowadays. If not, the it would be mercifully put to sleep, I suppose. Then there is Eric Pianka, who has another type of utopia in mind – the ideal world population, he says, would be a tenth of the actual one; it is therefore necessary to get rid of the other 90%. Not to mention an individual I won’t even name, who proposed during a widely followed TV debate that abortion should be mandatory for thirty years. And he wasn’t just saying that for shock value.

Then you have the SJW bloodhounds who ruin – not an overstatement – people for disagreeing with them on issues of faith or family values. Under the guise of promoting marriage equality, they target, trick and break those who won’t give up their traditionalist views, making examples out of them to frighten others. They put hard-working families out of business; they gladly take old people’s savings as compensation for having been offended. The greater the misery and suffering they cause, including to children or helpless elderly people, the greater their satisfaction.

You contemplate such individuals and suddenly, the guy who keeps forgetting your birthdays, changes his plans too much, avoids house chores or annoys you with his quirks seems less of a psychopath by the second.

 5. And then there is the world. An unstable, often depressing world where the future is shaky if not bleak; where values regarding human interaction have long been turned upside-down, to let confusion reign free. Here is a short list of contradictions between what we grow up to expect from people and the factors moulding us all nowadays:

We expect sensitivity in a desensitised world, where human suffering has become entertainment;

We expect not to be sexually objectified in a world where porn and objectification can be seen around every corner, hence kids grow up thinking it’s a normal part of life;

We expect stability, perseverance, work ethics in an economically unstable climate, where one’s efforts can be fruitless, causing a lack of motivation;

We expect commitment, faithfulness, when all around us marriages are breaking, people publicly debate the validity of monogamy and the family as a unit seems to be falling apart;

We want constant respect in an angry world, where people lose their temper with innocent strangers, where they lash out at each other for the smallest trifles; men and women want respect from each other while under peer pressure they ridicule the opposite sex for a few cheap laughs;

We expect others to know us and know what we are feeling when so many of us barely know ourselves; life is often so depressing  we turn to therapy and medication to be able to function;

We expect maturity when all around us adults behave like children or teenagers in older bodies, in a hedonistic culture of endless fun and games;

We expect love in romantic relationships, when fewer people have a clear idea of what that is anymore and where it’s supposed to lead, courtesy of our blessed culture of infinite possibilities, leaving many so confused they no longer know what they want.

These are only a few of the reasons why people should think twice about equating selfishness, occasional nastiness and frustrating behavioural patterns with psychopathy. People are complicated.