From The Seduction Theory Controversy To Justice and Harmony In The Workplace, The Family, The Courts...

This essay is among the most painful I have ever written. I loathe going here. I loathe inept and/or narcissistic, corrupt politicians for bringing me to this point where I feel I have to write such an essay. I wish I could be just like Freud -- and just bury this whole inter-connected issue for the rest of my career as a hobby writer and philosopher.

What 'hobby writer' would ever want to go where I am about to go now. Much of this essay here is about the 'war of the sexes' and what man in his right mind would want to go here when, in my personal life, I have the best mother in the world, the best girlfriend in the world, and a whole host of good to very good women friends who are so important in my life that the last thing in the world I would want to do is to 'tarnish' any of my relationships with these women.

And yet I feel I have to write this essay. I would be philosophically and ethically irresponsible not to. I would be like Freud -- or maybe like Freud -- who according to Dr. Jeffrey Masson 'lost moral courage' when he was confronted with 'male professional, political, and potentially economic resistance' regarding his publishing and publicizing the issue of childhood sexual abuse in his very controversial little essay of 1896 called 'The Aetiology of Hysteria'.

So I am stuck -- or have been stuck for a long time -- and today I feel I have to write and not look back, not take my fingers off the keyboard, until I am finished.

And then, maybe, I can rest and perhaps leave this subject matter forever, believing at least that I have been honest with myself and my readers -- and said my piece.

Where it goes -- it may be nowhere -- or it may be everywhere. Once one of my essays is on the internet, I lose control over where it goes, who takes it, what they do with it, whether they idolize it or desecrate it, how they feel about it, whether they like my writing or not... in short my essay plunges into the dark or light abyss of other people's good or bad agendas, their interpretations of my writing, their judgments of my writing, their judgment of my person as a whole...

'Hell is paved with both good and bad intentions.

I hope my readers can see that my intentions are good here -- my wishes for men and women to live harmoniously and peacefully with each other are secondary to no other wishes. But it seems to me that I have to do some 'Nietzschean hammer bashing' to get to where perhaps we all need to go. In order to maybe one day get to that more harmonious, peaceful place for all men and women and children.


At least that is my sole intent here. I wish no one -- no man or woman -- any bad will (except for maybe my ex-boss who I am still fuming at and ethically outraged by).

Anyway, I am sure this is 'rhetorical overkill' but here goes.

Most people don't fully understand just how big an epistemological and ethical can of worms that Freud's infamous 'Seduction Theory' (meaning essentially his 'Childhood Sexual Assault Theory') was to the Psychiatry Society back when he introduced it by reading his provocative new essay called 'The Aetiology of Hysteria' on April 21st, 1896 for the first time (and then basically 'reversed field' and turned his logic 180 degrees in the opposite direction, abandoning this theory in the process, within a year or two afterwards).

Self-assertion was followed quickly (or slowly) by self-negation. Did the young professional Freud cower and submit to the intimidating power and coercion of the medical community at this time? Or did he have legitimate reasons for 'undoing' and 'wholly re-working' a theory that seemed to be 'just too politically and legally hot' for the medical community in the context of a predominantly Victorian culture and 'patriarchal system' of politics and law at this time?

Were there simply not enough 'active feminists' around at this time to support and encourage Freud -- and to confront these Psychiatrists with power who may have been just a little too 'narcissistically biased' in their epistemological and ethical stance against Freud's very unpopular new theory? Obviously, there were no women in the room, let alone any strong enough to stand up and support Freud's theoretical position on this most 'unpopular topic'.

Rightly or wrongly, Freud reversed his theoretical position shortly afterwards, introducing the ideas of 'Childhood Sexuality', 'The Oedipal Complex', and the idea of 'Screen Memories' -- memories hiding, disguising, but still alluding to other memories that are of more 'profound etiological significance' but not necessarily in any 'reality and experience-bound sense' other than to mask the fact that a 'so-called traumatic, childhood seduction and/or sexual assault memory' has been 'subjectively created' by the usually female client to hide her underlying sexual impulses, fantasies, and amorous feelings predominantly directed towards her father either as a child and/or as a developing teenager as her 'sexual hormones' started to kick in.

Looked at it this way, some 113 years later, it almost seems like Freud had indeed engineered a rather 'massive cover-up' of the underlying phenomenon of 'fathers, uncles, brothers, and other males sexually assaulting female children'.

Nobody today, I am sure, familiar with this type of all too common crime against female children, would probably doubt the reality that these types of assaults did indeed happen, that some (if not all) of them were horrific in the extent of the attack, and that a certain breed of men -- because of the patriarchal, biased politics and laws back in this time -- got away with this type of crime far, far too often. Women and children simply didn't have the type of political and legal protection that they do now.

Anyways, it didn't seem to be a topic that Freud particularly wanted to deal with -- it was too 'politically hot' shall we say, and perhaps as Masson has suggested, Freud rightly feared for his career amongst medical and Psychiatric superiors and peers who had the choice of referring patients to him or not. Does this make Freud, to put it crudely, a 'moral coward'?

I don't think so. I think that we need to appreciate the full extent of the political context, and the narcissistic power and biases 'enjoyed' by men back at this time. The laws were in their favor. And events such as these -- sexual transgressions and crimes -- were probably not even likely to hit the courts, let alone put guilty men in prison. Furthermore, it is quite possible that some of these 'guilty men' existed even in the political powers of the medical community at this time -- and did not want this whole issue to become 'community and political news'. Using the economic and professional leverage that they had, it is quite possible that they intimidated Freud and in effect 'silenced his new Seduction (meaning again, essentially Childhood Sexual Assault) Theory.

Before we all point the proverbial finger at Freud -- like Masson did in the early 1980s -- we have to ask ourselves whether we would have behaved any differently under the same kind of political and economic pressures that Freud might have met head on, both during and after this April 21st, 1896 Psychiatric conference where the chair of the meeting, Baron Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902), the distinguished professor and head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Vienna, told Freud -- 'It sounds like a scientific fairy tale!' (Masson, The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of The Seduction Theory, p. 9).

Would any of us be willing to quite potentially jeopardize our fresh, new careers in order to epistemologically and ethically go against a much more professionally, economically, and politically powerful group of men who held our career potential in their individual and collective mindsets? 88 years later, Masson would do it -- and even though the women's movement and feminist groups had gained much more public exposure and power by then, it still cost Masson his career in Psychoanalysis. (He is doing fine right now in the field of animal psychology, and more particularly the area of 'emotions' in animals.) It perhaps shouldn't have cost Masson his career in Psychoanalysis -- after all, he was only exercising his right to free speech. But regardless where you are or were on the Psychoanalystic 'power hierarchy' (and Masson was right up close to the top with Anna Freud and Kurt Eissler), how many Psychoanalysts are going to get away with saying that Freud essentially 'lost moral courage' and that he basically 'manipulated Psychoanalytic theory, changing it around 180 degrees, just to 'cover up' and get away from this 'very messy political problem of childhood sexual abuse'? And still expect to hold his or her title as 'the man in charge of The Freud Archives'. It is not likely going to happen.

How many of us go into work each day and editorially stifle our particular opinions about the the workplace, the goings on, and the values, of the Corporation or Institution we belong to, even though our negative opinions of what we are seeing, experiencing, and judging in our Corporate environment, may be extremely strong? Most of us, unless we are extremely strong-minded and/or have a lot of power in the organization, are going to keep our mouths shut about our opinions in order to 'appease' or 'not rattle any swords' or 'stir up any negative Corporate animosity against us' -- in order to keep our jobs, and our careers.

What if Corporate Policies -- or the 'hidden agendas' under the Corporate Policies -- are 'narcissistically pathological' in favor of the Corporation and the leader(s) of the Corporation? What if workers, contractors, and/or customers are in effect being 'economically gouged' out of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of dollars.

In America, we have seen it with AIG. In Canada, we have seen it with the leader of eHealth who was giving out contracts to 'preferred Corporations' without the proper 'free market, democratic negotiation process', and who was running up huge personal expense accounts. We have seen it with the leaders of OLG -- Ontario Lottary and Gaming Corporation -- again with huge personal expense accounts in a time of recession where thousands and thousands of workers have either lost their jobs, or are just trying to do anything and everything they can to hang onto them.

Back in America, we have seen it with huge 'corporate payouts' to the banks and mortgage companies, and to the executive leaders of these banks and mortgage companies who were at least partly and significantly responsible for 'the collapse of Wall Street'. Where is the Corporate Responsiblity? Where is the Corporate Accountability? Where is the Corporate Justice? Is there any? Is it any wonder that the citizens of America are fuming about all this tax payer money that is being spent, not only under Bush's eye, but also under Obama's eye, much of it going to the very people who caused this whole financial and economic meltdown in the first place?

Back here in Ontario, I lost a $60,000 dispatcher's job because I was trying to help out and protect a dwindling Corporate fleet of taxi drivers in York Region just north of Toronto because these drivers were losing their best fares -- Airport runs and the like -- to a fleet of Toronto Limousine drivers, owned by the same company. The same company that these poor taxi drivers were paying their Corporate dispatch fees to (to the tune of some $500 for each driver, each month) was also essentially 'robbing' these same drivers of their best fares!

The drivers have no union to protect them. If you figure in the hours that they work, they probably make about $5 per hour. If that. Some drivers talked to me about having gone home with nothing -- absolutely zilch -- after a 12 hour shift of working. Meanwhile, their government licencing fees keep going up and each year to the tune of over $200 for a combination of licencing fees, medical fees, police screening reports, and driver's abstract -- all to make about $5 an hour. And this is assuming you can get through the 'commercial insurance' screening process where if you don't have any commercial insurance on your resume, you may not be able to get commercial insurance at all, or if you do, you may have to pay an additional premium of $100 a month -- on top of the $400 a month that either you or your employer is already paying.

I could go on and on about this type of thing. But I'm getting at least partly off topic because there is one further area of 'domestic and sexual justice' that I would still like to tackle.

Suffice is to say, in the context of the 'Narcissistic Corporate and Capitalism issues' mentioned briefly above, that I am very much looking forward to Michael Moore's brave new film: 'Capitalism: A Love Story'. A brief synopsis of the film is included below:

......................................................................

Capitalism: A Love Story examines the disastrous impact of corporate dominance on the everyday lives of Americans (and by default, the rest of the world). But this time the culprit is much bigger than General Motors, and the crime scene far wider than Flint, Michigan. From Middle America, to the halls of power in Washington, to the global financial epicenter in Manhattan, Michael Moore will once again take filmgoers into uncharted territory. With both humor and outrage, Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" explores a taboo question: What is the price that America pays for its love of capitalism? Years ago, that love seemed so innocent. Today, however, the American dream is looking more like a nightmare as families pay the price with their jobs, their homes and their savings. Moore takes us into the homes of ordinary people whose lives have been turned upside down; and he goes looking for explanations in Washington, DC and elsewhere. What he finds are the all-too-familiar symptoms of a love affair gone astray: lies, abuse, betrayal... and 14,000 jobs being lost every day. "Capitalism: A Love Story" is both a culmination of Moore's previous works and a look into what a more hopeful future could look like. It is Michael Moore's ultimate quest to answer the question he's posed throughout his illustrious filmmaking career: Who are we and why do we behave the way that we do?


.........................................................................


Suffice is to say that what we might call 'Ethical Capitalism' -- to the extent that it exists and/or ever existed -- is being more or less completely suffocated and/or drowned out of the picture by 'Narcissistically Corrupt Capitalism'.

Let us go back to the Seduction Theory.

The lid to the can of worms called childhood sexual abuse was essentially put back in the can by Freud and put back into the storage closet, not to be talked about, or theorized about, much more in Freud's long, controversial career -- and that was essentially the last we heard, except for little bits and pieces about childhood sexual assault for almost a hundred years.

Enter Dr. Jeffrey Masson.

Dr. Jeffrey Masson, in 1984, 1992, published an equally controversial book called 'The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of The Seduction Theory' in which Masson took Freud to task for what he did. He asserted -- and this did not go down very well at all with the whole International Psychoanalytic Community -- that Freud essentially 'lost moral courage', cowered in front of the power of the medical community at the time, and their potential to essentially 'ruin his career' before it really even got started. No patients, no career. Money or ethics? This -- in the eyes of Masson -- was Freud's essential moral/narcissistic dilemma a the time. And Freud found a 'creative way' to get around the problem of 'child sexual abuse' by essentially saying that it was created in the mind of the female child/teenager to mask an underlying sexual-romantic desire for her father. Read today, this sounds rather flimsy and far-stretched. Did Freud distort and manipulate the truth just to appease the righteous temper and power of the collective medical community at the time?

None of us will ever know for sure. But looking back at it now, it certainly does not look like Freud's finest moment.

But let us take this still very much alive controversy and move it in a different direction.

Let us now talk about the possibity of a dialectical bridge beween Freud before and after his short little essay, 'Screen Memories' (1899), the major turning point between his 'pre-psychoanalytic traumatic and seduction theories' and his soon-to-be 'Psychoanalysis-proper' as trumpeted by the publication of his famous book, 'The Interpretation of Dreams' (1900). If it was the issue of 'sexuality' that became one of the main dividing points between Freud and Jung, then it is to the issue of sexuality -- and the polarity between 'sexual traumacy' and 'sexual narcissism' -- that we must return.

Much has been made of this controversial theoretical and clinical turning-point in the evolution of Psychoanalysis: many -- particularly feminists knowledgeable with what went down here -- would say that Freud basically abandoned women -- abandoned alleged female victims of childhood sexual assault -- and turned Psychoanalysis into a much more 'chauvanist men's club' that suppressed and distorted all evidence of childhood sexual assaults under the guise of 'childhood and adolescent sexual fantasy' -- most particulary, relative to a girl's love for her father.

I remember running into this issue for the first time when I picked up Masson's controversial book in the mid to late 1980s, 'The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory' (1984, 1985, 1992).

Now here is the point I wish to make. As much as I loved reading 'Final Analysis' and 'The Assault on Truth' and Janet Malcolm's 'In The Freud Archives'(1983,84), and I probably side closer to Masson's last published points of view, and Freud's pre-1897 point of view rather than Freud's evolving post-1897 point of view: still, most memories -- plain and simple -- from an 'objective, epistemological' point of view, cannot be fully or often even partly trusted.

Let us just look at the anectdotal evidence we have here. It has been at least 15 years since I last theoretically invested any time and energy into this remarkable controversy, so excuse me if my own memory is a little rusty here: I said that I picked up Masson's book, 'The Assault on Truth' in the mid to late 1980s. Wrong! I just fished the book out of my personal library here, dusted off the cobwebs, and found out that the last publication date on the book was 1992. That means that I obviously bought the book sometime in or after 1992 but I 'remembered' it to be in the mid to late 1980s. So much for my memory.

I read all three of those books that I just cited above but do I remember which book I read when, and in which order, and how far apart the readings were? I am obviously more than a little suspicious of my own memory at this point. Logically speaking, I would imagine I read 'Assault' first, then 'Final Analysis', then Malcolm's 'In the Freud Archives'. But don't quote me on that -- and I certainly would not want to put my hand on a bible in a court of law because if I did, I would probably have to say simply, 'I don't know'.

Do I at least partly make my point? A therapist has no right to totally or even necessarily partly trust' the 'objective epistemological correctness' of any memory that a client cites to him or her for the simple reason that it is a 'memory' and memories can easily fail, distort, embellish, discard...in short, they are very narcissistically biased'.

To trust a memory in a court of law -- without substantiating empirical evidence and other credible witness reports is downright ludicrous -- putting a man (i.e., it is usually but not always a man who is being accused when it comes to issues of 'past childhood sexual assaults') in jail on the basis of the unsubstantiated memories and testimony of an alleged victim is hugely dangerous and I would even say ethically and legally reprehensible unless these memories and testimony are otherwise substantiated.

And as far as 'narcissistic bias', let us not forget that you have lawyers who are functioning like 'pre-Socratic Sophist mercenaries' who are paid handsomely to deliver fancy rhetoric and persuasive logic that is designed to narcissistically serve their clients goals and wishes regardless of how close or how far their clients' goals and wishes are connected to any form of 'objective, epistemological truth'.

We have come full circle and the epistemological and legal dangers that Freud ran into in the mid to late 1890s when he started to have second thoughts, and then abandon, his infamous Seduction Theory, are as real and dangerous today as they were back then. 'Subjective clinical-therapy memories' have no business being called 'epistemological truths' -- regardless of how 'epistemologically real' they may seem. The same point needs to be made with a hundred times more force when we start to talk about an alleged 'unconscious' and/or 'reconstructed' memory. None of these memories should have any legal force in a court of law unless they can be 'empirically substantiated beyond any reasonable doubt' by other much more credible and stronger forms of evidence. And this does not mean a woman's 'psychological/emotional/physical symptoms' or a psychologist's so-called professional testimony.

Psychologists and psychiatrists can be hugely narcissistically biased simply by the orientation of their training. Who's giving the testimony -- an orthodox, Oedipal Complex believing, Psychoanalyst? Or a 21st century feminist psychologist who may have been sexually assaulted herself and who may be projecting her own situation onto her client (in Psychoanalysis this is called 'counter-transference') and 'subconsciously looking' for evidence of a sexual assault in her client in practically every symptom that she portrays, and in every memory, conscious or unconscious, legitimately told to her or 'interpretively reconstructed' by the therapist. This presents a huge 'epistemological and ethical danger' not only to psychotherapy in general -- regardless of psychological orientation, orthodox Psychoanalytic or the opposite -- but even more so once this whole psychological and epistemological charade moves into a court of law.

Do I believe that guilty men should be held accountable for their 'sexual assaults'? Of course, I do -- if they can be legitimately proven in a court of law -- and allowing for the fact that there is a very big difference between 'inappropriately making a pass at a woman' and 'rape'. They should not be treated the same -- and even as I speak there are many men terrified of making a pass at a woman, even having sex with a woman for the first time without the petrifiying thought that she could ruin his life just by 'turning on him' the next morning.

The laws for 'sexual assault' and nowadays 'domestic assault' are getting broader and broader, with less and less 'empirical evidence' needed to get a legal conviction.

In effect, this means that we are now getting more and more of the opposite kind of problem than we used to have. Now, instead of far too many men get away with serious sexual crimes that they should have been convicted of with significant sentences, now we are convicting men and throwing men into jail left, right, and centre, on the basis of laws that are narcissistically biased in favor of women and on the basis of 'narcissistically biased evidence' that would never have been considered 'empirical evidence' back before our domestic and sexual assault laws started to change.

In effect, the Seduction Theory rules again in North American law -- whether we are talking about recent adult or childhood memories -- with or without any kind of 'legitimate supporting empirical and/or witness evidence'. North American domestic law used to be narcissistically biased in favor of men. Now it is narcissisically biased in favor of women.

As if women are incapable of lying, manipulating evidence, embellishing and distorting facts, creating false testimony, making themselves out to be 'angels' and 'victims', noncapable of violence themselves of course, non-capable of 'instigating trouble', or 'retaliating to rejection' or 'seducing men in their own right'...all of these potential complications to the 'epistemological truth' in both a psychotherapist's office and even more so in a court of law go out the window in today's North American world of 'feminine -- and feminist -- overprotection'.

So how in the name of God or Zeus or Apollo could Freud give any pretense to 'finding epistemological memory truth' in his clinical office in 1895 when in 2007 we are no further ahead -- epistemologically poisoned equally from both sides by an overbelief in both Freud and/or the opposite pro-feminist, anti-Freud point of view on 'memories' and 'unsubtantiated narcissistcally biased, one-sided testimony'. 'Memories' and 'unsubstantiated, narcissistically biased, one-sided testimony' need to be thrown out of all courts of law until this whole 'epistemological and ethical mess' is put back into proper balanced perspective. Right now our domestic courts are making a mockery of the name 'justice'. Both Freud's Seduction Theory and his Childhood Sexuality and Oedipal Complex theories were one-sidedly biased but today in our domestic courts of law we are all seeing the evidence of his 'Seduction Theory Gone Mad'...

What is it -- I am only guessing because I don't believe that anyone has done the math, let alone released to the public, but let me take a speculative guess based on conversations with people who have come out of Lindsay, Ontario jail, that something like 70 to 90 per cent of all men in jail now (or at least the local, municipal and provincial ones) are there on 'domestic crimes'.

Where are all the women filling up the women's jails? I don't see the same problem in the women's jails these days. What does that mean? Women don't know how to throw a punch? Push a man? Grab a man by the ear? Throw a piece of furniture at a man? Seduce a man -- or consent to being seduced by a man -- and then 'flip' the next day when she has sobred up or things didn't turn out exactly the way she wanted them to?

The epistemological, ethical, and legal problem that we are facing today -- as originally uncovered at least partly by Freud in the 1890s -- is at least partly this: Is it better to 'have not enough men in jail who have committed sexual and/or domestic assault'? Or is it better to 'throw too many men in jail who are not guilty of the crimes they allegedly committed and/or are being punished for crimes that their accusers were at least equally guilty of -- and who are getting off scott free with no tarnishment of their legal reputations.'

Why should a democratic law that is supposed to be equal to all citizens, male and female, black and white, have an overt and/or covert standard of legal-moral-ethical conduct that is obviously much higher for men when it comes to transgressions committed by a man against a woman, than it is when it comes to transgressions committed by a woman against a man. And that is amongst those transgressions committed by women that even make it to a court of law. Most such transgressions are never reported just like many transgressions by men against women are never reported.

However, in this case, it would because most men would be too embarrassed or too protective of their woman to put in such a report, and even if it was reported, most men would not believe that such a report would be taken seriously by police unless the report is potentially too serious to ignore. Like, for example, 'my woman is wielding a butcher knife around the apartment. I don't know if she is planning to use it on either me or her, but I would guess that her first shot may be at me! Her second shot may be at herself.


And why are men being evicted from their domestic homes at a rate that is probably astoundingly higher -- probably in the 90 to 95 percent range -- than women? I don't think that there are any numbers available to document such statistics or if they are, I don't think anyone in the government or in the police force would want them published. We need some courageous journalist to implement the 'freedom of information act' in this regard, assuming it applies here. Because otherwise, we will never see such statistics in print. Because they will show blatant 'sexual profiling' by the police and the politicians (and indirectly the feminist lobbyist groups) who rule over them.

It is okay to evict men from their domestic homes for alleged 'domestic assaults' but it is not okay to evict women? Why? Because evicting women from their homes for the few 'domestic assault charges that they do get charged with' (the tip of the iceberg in my opinion) would not be 'politically correct'? And/or police and politicians do not want to face the potential wrath and intimidation power of all Women's Groups and Organizations who might finally begin to understand vicariously what it is like to be evicted from own home when you have never in your life had an assault charge against you.

What I am talking about here is not 'egalitarian law between the sexes'; what I am talking about is an overt and/or covert policy of 'zero domestic and sexual agression tolerance against men' that is being applied by police here in Ontario and Canada for sure, probably America too, in a manner that wreaks and stinks of 'reverse sexual discrimination and profiling', not its 'professed egalitarian standard'.

I am certainly not trying to tar all women with the same 'narcissistically biased and prejudiced brush' here because I know personally that there are many, many very good and caring women out there who absolutely want to see 'fair, egalitarian legal and political treatment between the sexes'. Such ladies I have the greatest respect for -- who know how far their civil rights should extend, and not beyond.

But the problem is that 'power corrupts' and power can turn the most caring and ethical of people -- male or female -- into something narcissistically far less.

I have seen the most ethically minded of politicians -- before they get or got into power -- ethically collapse after they get/got into power, again male or female.

Money and power and emotional stress -- all can and do corrupt both men and women. Loving women -- and men -- can turn into 'narcissistic pillagers' in the heat of a divorce case. I emphasize women first here because usually it has been the man who has ended up giving up more personal money and property to the woman -- even money and property that he came into the marriage with long before he met and married his wife. But now because of women's rising incomes, personal money and property, we are also starting to see how women feel when the shoe is on the opposite foot -- when it is the man threatening to take a woman's house that she owned before she met the man, and/or to take half of all of the woman's money -- again money that she had before she even met the money. In a real 'democratically fair situation' both women's and men's property and money that they own(ed) before they get or got married should be protected by a domestic court of laws. Individual asset sheets should be filled out before a marriage is legalized. Then we would have no need for such things a 'prenuptial agreement' (some of which aren't even honored anyway) and there would be no rising 'marriage paranoia' about what happens and who gets whose money and property if things don't work out. 'Serial marriages and divorces' are becoming more and more common and I have a friend who has lost four small fortunes -- more than half a million dollars on four separate occasions to four different ex-wives and/or common law spouses including his first and favorite house which he owned before he even met his first wife. Tell me how any of you ladies would have felt if that had been your personally owned house that you lost in a supposed 'egalitarian, democratic court of law'?

An egalitarian-democratic -- and ethically capitalist -- court of law should honor individual spouse's money and property rights before they enter into marriage -- and should not allow 'marriage' to become an institution for 'profit pillagers' and 'gold-diggers'. Otherwise, the inevitable is going to happen: people -- both men and women who get burned more than once or twice and/or even know from both the current state of the law and from the experiences of others -- are going to start to develop 'marriage and common-law paranoia' and no one with more money and property than the other spouse is going to want to get married unless their eyes are so filled with 'romantic stardust' that they cannot bring into their state of awareness 'Economics 101'.

This is what I found from an informal pole of one woman who had recently separated and entered an 'upscale dating service' looking for a new match. The women who had paid quite a bit of money to get into this 'match up service' had all done very well economically from their past 'divorces'. The men had all done economically bad and now were being forced by the courts not only to give up half of their money and property regardless of whether it was obtained before the marriage or not. Plus they were being saddled with huge family support bills, sometimes alimony payments, often university tuitions -- and some of these men were 'renting townhouse rooms' off of me while their ex-spouses had full ownership of the family home.

With these types of huge 'economic saddlebags, leg irons, anchors...' attached to these men by the courts that had hit them mercilously, how many single, divorced, independently wealthy women would want anything to do with such men? Their debts from previous marriages were far too grievous for such men to even properly support themselves let alone a new girlfriend and/or prospective wife (or even to pay his half) -- the vision of one of these men 'bicycling off to work' while he was sending thousands of dollars to his ex-wife and son, the money of which was used by the wife to pay for a trip for her and her son to the Carribean just after they got the money.
Even when the son was staying here with us at the townhouse for the summer, he was still sending her 'the monthly support payment' even though he was spending hundreds of dollars on his son here at the same time. Before he arrived here, when he was unemployed for several months, he still had to 'catch up on those months that he got behind'. I just shook my head at this whole ordeal. The other friend with the four divorce cases behind him, says that, now that he has lost most of his life fortune, the last part of it going to help a sister who needed a costly operation in The States, the next time he gets married it will be to a woman who has money -- or not at all.

Back to women who need to be protected as best as possible against the sometimes brutal effects of male domestic violence.

Yes, women need to be protected from domestic violence in the home.

But so too, do men. And men, in this regard, are the marginalized sex -- discriminated against by politicians, judges, police, and narcissistic feminist lobbyist groups who don't know -- or care to know -- the difference between 'egalitarian fairness' and 'a narcissistic grab all you can get in the name of protecting women from men in the home'.

Again, what about the law protecting men from violent women -- or from women who learn how to overzealously work and manipulate the political and legal system in order to maximize their 'domestic power and narcissistic gain'.

Political and legal power corrupts all people, as otherwise good people -- male and female -- quickly learn how to 'manipulate the system to their narcissistic favor'.

Now it is time for politicians, judges, and lawyers to go back to the drawing board and start again. Because the present system isn't working -- directly for men, and indirectly for women. Men and women still need each other -- as the domestic and sexual courts are exasperating the 'wars between the sexes' and making relatively innocuous to bad situations much, much worse.

There are lots of people I blame for this current travesty of domestic and sexual justice. Sexual justice -- if I have enough nerve and courage -- I will write about elsewhere and at a later date. I am focusing on domestic (in)justice right now.

I blame hundreds of feminist political lobbyst groups who have 'crossed the line' from 'egalitarian treatment between the sexes' to 'preferential treatment for women, discriminatory treatment against men' -- and politically and legally -- 'getting from the government all they can get'.

I blame men for not becoming more politically and legally organized, and for not doing enough to stand up for their own civil -- domestic and sexual -- rights. It is a decidedly one-sided political and legal battle when women have literally hundreds if not thousands of political lobbyst grops lobbying Ottawa each and every day -- similarly probably, in Washington -- whereas men have precious few. That's like an individual lobbyst and/or protester having any chance against a huge Corporate lobbyist group.

I blame politicians for not having enough moral fortitude and backbone to stand up against this huge onslaught of decidedly one-sided feminist lobbyst groups. Nor to have the ethical common sense to get every lobbyst group -- Corporate Lobbyst Groups and Civil Rights Lobbyst Groups and all Special Interest Lobbyst Groups 'out of the cloak of darkness', from behind 'hidden walls' -- and push them all into one great big democratic forum where there ideas and issues can be dealt with fairly and squarely in front of the civil public, in front of millions of people, on television cameras, in front of newspaper journalists -- so all of these issues and interests can be talked about, discussed, and debated freely rather than one day waking up, and finding out that some Special Interest Lobbyst Group has pushed through a 'Special Law' or a 'Special New Bill of Rights' where all of a sudden one particular group of citizens is being 'preferentially treated' -- either over or under the table -- and another particular group of citizens has become discriminated against, marginalized, and just lost some of their 'precious civil rights' and may end up in jail to prove it!

Freud lived in a time of 'Patriarchal Politics and Law'.

We now live in a time of 'Matriarchal Domestic and Sexual Laws' that are blatantly discriminatory against men.

Women cannot lose their tempers? Women cannot utter a death threat? Threaten you with a weapon? Go 'postal' on you? Chase you from room to room in your house, giving you not an inch to breathe in your own home? Drunk or sobre? Push you or pull you? Intimidate you? Manipulate you? Manipulate politicians? Manipulate police? Manipulate judges? Stereotype themselves as 'victims' when they are just as much the 'victimizer'? Lose control of themselves in a 'fit of jealousy', a 'narcissistic rage', 'go toe to toe with you about a 'caller who hung up the phone without answering it', who she imagines was or is your 'new girlfriend' -- 'finally, in a barage of anger, pushes just the right button in you in order to finally make you snap, lose your own cool, lose your own temper, your own control -- trying to at least push her out of your own private bedroom, you push her -- and now she has you just where she wants you -- says she's calling the police, the police come, they ask what happened, who pushed who first, and you already know the bottom line of what is going to happen -- maybe not as much then as now -- you are going to get handcuffed, evicted from your mutual home, forced to pay for a lawyer to defend yourself, the odds are all stacked against you like a 'rigged Casino', forced to spend a year or two in court, in fear of actually receiving a jail sentence -- and then finally 'cutting a deal' with the prosecution where you are told to see a doctor to see if you 'need an anger management course' where everyone who is around you and who knows you, knows that your temper is only likely to show itself in very extreme, provocative situations while the woman who once told you that 'she would cut you upo into pieces in your bed if you ever left her' walks away from the court with a smirk on her face, angelically stereotyped by society as 'another female domestic victim of male violence'. Just another 'domestic violence stastic' that women's groups can use to press for more and more 'domestic protectionism, preferentialism, and special rights'.

And this is what we call 'egalitarian domestic justice'.

Society sees what it wants to see.

And right now society -- and particularly women's groups -- does/do not want to 'see the role that women play in their contribution to domestic violence'.

Domestic violence is generally a dialectically shared encounter and/or relationship pattern of being both the victim and the victimizer in the process, both men and women doing their own share, and needing to be mutually accountable for, any escalation of a domestic conflict to the point where the conflict gets out of control and police have to be called. And 'phoning the police' should not be used as a 'manipulative power ploy and/or tool' to be able to say, in effect, 'Gotcha!'

We need to re-think the laws of 'domestic justice' because right now these laws are pathologically one-sided against men.

In Freud's time, childhood sexual abuse may have been out of control without anyone doing anything about it.

Today, childhood sexual abuse -- and domestic spousal abuse -- is still a big problem.

However, in the case of domestic spousal abuse, we need to stop thinking in terms of the paradigm of 'either/or, guilty or not guilty' domestic justice.

Instead, we need to develop the idea and the practical application of 'dialectical-democratic, mutually accountable' justice.

And the goal here, should not be to put more and more people into jail -- especially people who have never been there before.

Rather, the goal should be to keep more and more people out of jail, especially the ones who shouldn't be there.

In this regard, we need to teach more and more the priniples of 'mutual escalation' that can take a couple from the starting-point of a domestic conflict (especially those based on jealousy, possessiveness, real and/or imagined cases of betrayal, rejection, abandonment...), perhaps even encourage -- or mandate by the courts -- that couples who want to stay together should or must attend mutual 'anger management courses' in which they both learn -- together -- how to 'de-escalate domestic conflict, anger, rage, and violence' before it gets to the 'point of no return'.


Discrimination is discrimination -- it doesn't matter whether it is against men or women, blacks, browns, or whites. It is still discrimination. And it comes in all forms, shapes, and sizes -- and from all places, overt and covert. It is perhaps worst when it comes -- cloaked as egalitarian justice -- from our own government, politicians, judges, and police.

Therapeutically speaking, neither Freud's abandoned Traumacy and Seduction Theory and/or his later Fantasy and Oedipal Theories should be either 'discriminated against' and/or 'preferentialized for'.

Individual context and case situation should be the main, driving and determining factor. That and perhaps a better, more dialectically--integrative theory that properly accomodates both theories as much as they both are capable of 'mirroring reality'.

Likewise with our domestic and sexual laws.

Neither sex should be discriminated against. Neither sex should be preferentialized for.

Individual context should determine how each invidivual case is handled. Throw out this written or unwritten rule of 'zero domestic or sexual tolerance against men'.

That -- whether any politician or government official will own up to it or not -- is blatantly disriminatory and sexist against men.

In an effort to protect women from the worst of our 'male domestic, serial violence offenders', the police -- with the politicians and women's groups riding their collective backs -- have reached in and grabbed even those men, husbands, and boyfriends who should -- but don't -- have very legitimate cases of 'self-defense'.

So from a psychotherapeutic and clinical point of view, the problem then becomes this: where do we find a 'workable bridge' between Freud's 'Traumacy-Seduction Theory' and his later 'Childhood Sexuality and Oedipal Complex' theories. Or put another way -- between 'Traumacy Theory' and 'Narcissistic (Compensation) Theory'.

And from a political-legal point of view, the analgous domestic and sexual problem of 'fair vs. unfair treatment between the sexes' becomes 'how do we create a more dialectically integrative and less hostile set of laws that support and encourage both men and women to more harmoniously live together and to better solve and resolve their mutual domestic conflicts without violence rather then to first batter each other in the home, and then batter each other in the court room.

Everybody loses -- and probably most notably -- the children who are left to try to grapple with, and understand all this when they could be learning through better, not worse, role models and through better, not worse, examples of conflict resolution. Conflict resolution for the children becomes: mommy and daddy are having a fight, it is getting out of control, something happens, mommy phones the police, the police come, daddy is led away in handcuffs, and dadd doesn't live here any more.

Come on. In 2009, we can't do any better than this?

We have enough broken families in our midst that we don't need the government adding to them -- not to mention helping more and more domestic lawyers get rich at the expense of more and more families that, now broken and separated, have to eat all of these legal bills -- most of which generally fall on the man -- after the domestic holaucaust is over.

When will this government holaucaust end?

What I am ultimately pointing my finger at here is a concept that Erich Fromm introduced to me in the early 1970s. (See Erich Fromm, The Sane Society).

Fromm called the concept 'the pathology of normalcy'.

Back then I understood the concept 'academically'. But I was still young and idealistic. Today, some 35 years later, I know exactly what Fromm was talking about -- experientially.

Back then, when Fromm wrote 'The Sane Society', he was writing about the dangers of 'Narcissistic Capitalism' although he may or may not have used the term 'narcissistic' in this context.

I would speculate that today things are probably about 10 times worse as we see the increasing influence of corporate monopolies, globalization, exporting of North American jobs to others countries, higher and higher corporate salaries, bigger and bigger, sweeter and sweeter, corporate 'goodbye deals', increasing corporate power in the context of a larger and larger unemployed workforce, increasing 'executive expense accounts', again even in a recession, corrupt, disciminative, undemocratic lobbying...need I go on?

And laws that mask themselves as 'egalitarian and democratic' -- when they quite blatantly are not.


-- dgb, originally written March 3rd, 2007, updated and modified, Mon. January 19th, 2009, Mar. 23rd-24th, 2009, and September 10th-11th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain.


..................................................................................



Psychology and Law: A Critical Introduction
Author(s): Andreas Kapardis
ISBN10: 052182530X
ISBN13: 9780521825306
Format: Hardcover
Pub. Date: 3/3/2003
Publisher(s): Cambridge University Press

New Price $99.45
List Price $102.00
eVIP Price $94.48
Quantity

New Copy: This item is temporarily unavailable from the publisher, but is expected in soon. Place your order now and we will ship it as soon as it arrives.

Used Price N/A
List Price $102.00
eVIP Price N/A


Marketplace Price $9.98
List Price $102.00

Take 90 Days to Pay on $250 or more
with Quick, Easy, Secure
Subject to credit approval.


This book provides a comprehensive, up-to-date discussion of contemporary debates at the interface between psychology and criminal law. The topics surveyed include critiques of eyewitness testimony; the jury; sentencing as a human process; the psychologist as expert witness; persuasion in the courtroom; detecting deception; and psychology and the police. Kapardis draws on sources from Europe, North America and Australia to offer an expert investigation of the subjectivity and human fallibility inherent in our system of justice. He also provides suggestions for minimizing undesirable influences on crucial judicial decision-making. First Edition Hb (1997): 0-521-55321-0 First Edition Pb (1997): 0-521-55738-0


This book is the authoritative work for students and professionals in psychology and law.