Dads Against the Divorce Industry

DA*DI is devoted to reinstating the societal valuation of Marriage and the traditional, nuclear American Family, with particular emphasis on the essential role of FATHERS.

DA*DI offers contemporary reports and commentary on culture; its aberrations and its heroes.

The Face of America: Ruthless Narcissism?

Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
April 27, 2003

For three brief weeks this spring, the face of America changed. This fresh face was the selfless soldier, the patriot, the quiet hero, and so much more. He was our flesh; our sons, our brothers and our fathers seen with a new, once forgotten worth. He was Sgt. Troy Jenkins who threw himself on an explosive as it detonated, saving the lives of several other soldiers and a child, while sacrificing his own life. He is Corpsman 2nd Class David Ciomperlik, who has flown in a helicopter "in less than 20 feet visibility, with artillery shells and machine-gun fire headed straight at him as he evacuated injured Iraqi civilians and prisoners." And he and she were our injured, dead, and briefly imprisoned. This fresh face was that of empathy, patriotism and honor, and the unequivocal truth of absolute heroism.

As that brief episode ebbs, the news is refocusing its lens on the domestic scene. Radical feminism, as espoused by the NOW cohort, and radical sexualism, as espoused by the sodomy lobby, have merged and morphed into a post-Orwellian normalcy. This omnipresent, ruthless narcissism, both before and after the war to free Iraq has been the more familiar face of America. Hiding behind the stolen mask of victimhood, these predators unceasingly seek out new sources for their rage and new prey to perpetuate their celebration of Self. Only through their attempts to diminish the great, the clean, the innocent and the noble with innuendo and outright lies, have they erected great molehills from which to proclaim their victimhood.

NOW, the prima ballerina of victim narcissism, responded with alarm to the widely and wildly reported discovery of the dismembered body of Laci Peterson and her son Connor, followed by the announcement that Scott Peterson would be charged with two murders - mother and 'baby'. Their alarm was not that of empathy in response to the grotesque and barbarous enormity of this human tragedy. Rather it was one totally lacking in empathy; one of self-centered outrage at the potential diminution of their 'choice' entitlement racket. "If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said. In this transparent knee-jerk response, NOW's self-absorbed agenda and its attendant hypocrisy were irreducibly exposed. The news media was beside itself trying to juggle its reporting with alternate references to the unborn 'baby' or unborn 'fetus,' sometimes using the terms interchangeably within the same sentence. It was an equally transparent fraud.

The media's partnership with NOW was also in evidence at ABC where the headline Deadly Pregnancies exploited the Peterson tragedy. The attendant story bristled with alarm: "According to a new study in the Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health, homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States." Based on a single study in the District of Columbia, where 651 women's homicide autopsies from an 8-year reporting period were reviewed, 13 were found to involve pregnant women. 21 other pregnancy deaths had been reported as resulting from medical causes.
"Why are pregnant women dying?" asks Rebecca Whiteman of the Family Violence Protection Fund in San Francisco. "Their partners are killing them," she answers.
The report leapt to the overarching conclusion, "When included in the maternal death data, pregnancy-associated homicides account for 38 percent of the total."

To establish some perspective in the ABC story it should have mentioned that over that same time span there were 58.3 million pregnancies in the U.S. 13.5 million of those were ended with induced abortion, and 8.8 million ended with spontaneous abortion. That's right, 38% of the pregnancies for that period were aborted, 23% as a result of the 'choice' entitlement, which as a proportion was 60% of all aborted pregnancies.

Consistent with the NOW antipathy for marriage, empathy for the unborn was eclipsed by entitlement of 'choice' and the grossly magnified 'victimhood' of women. Nor did this story touch on another extremely relevant perspective - the positive value of marriage for pregnancy. In a similar period, about 75% of pregnancies among married women ended in live births, but among unmarried women the live birth outcome averaged about 40%. And among unmarried women and female drug/alcohol abusers, pregnancy-associated homicides are most likely to occur.

In Arizona, Governor Janet Napolitano hastily "convened an emergency meeting of the Arizona State Board of Geographic and Historic Names. The Gov asked that the offensive [emphasis added] name of Squaw Peak, a Phoenix mountain, and its nearby Squaw Peak Parkway, be changed to Piestewa Peak and Piestewa Parkway, respectively." The occasion of this emergency was to override the traditional five-year wait for honorary name changes to landmarks. The recipient of this honorarium was Army Pfc. Lori Ann Piestewa, a non-combatant, who was the first woman to die in combat in Iraq. Meanwhile, "the family of Lance Cpl. Michael Williams, who died in battle in Iraq, quietly laid their fallen son to rest;" as have more than 130 other families who lost their sons, brothers and husbands in the war. In the end, this was little more than a exploitive derivative of the 'affirmative action' entitlement racket, and a sad diminution of Pfc. Piestewa, as well as her valiant brothers.

The much reported, and frequently controversial, rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch spotlighted America's empathy for our captured military personnel and their families' gut-wrenching vigils. But did it? As the war was winding to a conclusion, A U.S. search team found Navy pilot Scott Speicher's initials scratched into the wall of a Baghdad prison cell. He was shot down in the opening days of the first Gulf War. Some have raised the question of whether there is a gender priority for rescue efforts. According to Resa LaRu Kirkland, an avid military historian, "The hypocrisy of 'preferential rescuing' regarding females over males is the topic of the day. ... This is in no way against our front-line men. They did the right thing. This is not against Jessica Lynch. She did the magnificent thing. Our men proved it could be done, and so did the young private. No, this sin is the hypocrisy of a system which will go all out to save a woman on the word of an enemy civilian, but ignores the life of a man on the word of an enemy general. This is the evil of Political Castration and deliberate denial."

At the Air Force Academy, empowered female cadets brought down the administration and a decades old motto, Bring Me Men on the basis of mere allegations of sexual improprieties committed by male classmates. Never mind that to date, not one allegation is known to have been subjected to the test of due process. Disregard the obvious disparity inherent in these women's protests against being restricted from battle conditions, but so easily and frequently falling victim to sexual suggestion or approach. It is their membership in the victim cult that precludes empathy for the wrongly or disproportionately accused males.

Homosexuals flashed their rage in response to Senator Rick Santorum's observation that the pending Supreme Court decision in a Texas sodomy case had solemn implications as to the limits of private self-indulgence. Their alarm was not that of empathy for the larger issues of the preservation of a wholesome culture and the imperative preservation of child protections. Rather it was one of self-centered outrage against the perceived threat to the 'gay rights protections' entitlement racket. “It’s exactly what we’ve been afraid of,” said Lorri L. Jean of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “The Bush administration now thinks it has carte blanche to run roughshod over the GLBT community and others.” This conclusion, drawn by Ms Jean, is nothing but faux rage bred of narcissistic humiliation from an imagined slight. The narcissist wounds easily and never heals.

Meanwhile, the Atlanta Journal Constitution headlined, AIDS tightens grip on South. The expressed reason for southern concern is, "While the South represents a little more than one-third of the U.S. population, it accounts for 40 percent of people who have AIDS and 46 percent of new cases. Georgia, which has 11,193 people with the disease, ranks seventh in the nation for the number of cases." Bowing to the sodomy lobby, the AJC proselytized this outlandish conclusion: "The South is more greatly plagued by AIDS and HIV infections because of racial and economic differences and a conservative cultural attitude [emphasis added] that interferes with attempts to halt the disease." So the implied conclusion is that racism, poverty, and a lack of conservative compassion are causal agents? And AIDS is a plague, a disease that spontaneously spreads on its own? In truth it is the 'gay rights protections' entitlement racket that permits self-destructive behavior, and prohibits intelligent solutions based on demands for personal responsibility and abstinence.

In Wisconsin, Christian students attending a public school opposed the school supported 'Day of Silence' protest against alleged discrimination against homosexuals. The Christian kids' protest took the form of praying and sharing Bible verses. They gathered in the school commons during class. And were punished with unexcused absence slips by school authorities, despite parental permission. By comparison, the Gay Straight Alliance Club "was permitted to advertise the event through posters, literature, and on the school intercom. The school even provided them with a "safe room" to sit in if they felt they were being harassed during the day." It comes as no revelation that Tolerance is the sole entitlement of the victim industry. And for those students whose religion and moral code preclude the endorsement of predatory and immoral sexuality, empathy had an excused absence.

In Massachusetts, the home of the infamous 'fistgate', kindergarten teachers bemoan the difficulty of teaching children the acceptance of homosexuality. Theirs is not an empathetic concern for the vulnerability and innocence of these little ones. It is a pathetic resentment of parents who object to this predatory practice. " 'I work in the Newton public schools, and a lot of times (parents) can be a very reactionary group, and it has not been easy at all,' said Laura Perkins, who is a social worker in the schools. ... Perkins, who identified herself as "straight" during the session, concluded, 'I think it's more the parents who should go to a psychiatrist to become comfortable with who their child is.' " Tolerance clearly has no provision for parents who resent the indoctrination of their children to accept deviant behavior. In fact it is their perceived 'intolerance' that is labeled as pathological.

Homosexuals and feminists rarely shrink from an opportunity to blast their critics with ad hominem attacks and virulent slurs. Consider this response to Senator Santorum, "Rick Santorum is afflicted with the same condition as Trent Lott—a small mind, but a big mouth," said National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy. Or consider the case of Mary Stachowicz who was murdered by homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez in Chicago. "When Stachowicz asked him, 'Why do you [have sex with] boys instead of girls?' Gutierrez snapped. In a fit of rage, he punched, kicked, stabbed and strangled the 51-year-old wife and mother of four." Following her murder and the Gutierrez arrest, an online ACLU forum received this response: "But one fact remains ... if she would have been minding her own [expletive] business instead of attempting to ram her religion where it didn't belong, none of this would have ever happened. I really don't feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her."

Is 'ruthless narcissism' just a cheap shot, an unwarranted appellation for these behaviors? You be the judge.

Ruthless, defined as merciless, cruel, having no ruth [compassion for the misery of another; sorrow for one's own faults] is particularly evident in the coercive methods, distorted interpretations, and verbal attacks that typify the foregoing examples.

Within these reports are the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) clinical indices of narcissism as well:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy and hypersensitivity to the evaluation of others ... as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) reacts to criticism with feelings of rage, shame, or humiliation
(2) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
(3) has a grandiose sense of self-importance
(4) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
(5) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
(6) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
(7) requires constant attention and admiration
(8) lack of empathy: inability to (genuinely) recognize and experience how others feel
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Perhaps the most visibly ruthless and scurrilous of the narcissistic contempts are those against heterosexual men, alleging either an epidemic of violence against women (example: the alleged pregnancy-homicide connection, a mere extension of VAWA), or strategic allegations of abuse as a method of acquiring or sustaining power (example: the Air Force Academy allegations, and the Santorum outcry). Believing in their own self importance, preoccupied with power, requiring constant attention, exploiting others for personal advantage, unable to recognize the pain they are imposing, and with a monumental sense of entitlement, ruthless feminists narcissists continue to propagate the great lie of male violence, while ruthless homosexual narcissists pathologize revulsion toward their perverse lifestyle as homophobia.

On a more subliminal level, these ruthless victim narcissists have been particularly exploitive of blacks. Earlier I alluded to their 'stolen' mask of victimhood. Both feminists and homosexuals have usurped and remolded the legitimate civil rights history of discrimination against blacks. But as Bryant Gumble admonished the infamous feminist Martha Burk, "You don't worry about your safety on this, do you? Nobody gets shot over women's rights. Nobody gets beaten or lynched over women's rights!" Homosexuals exploit and contort the discrimination issue as well, falsely equating a remediable behavior 'orientation' with the irremediable - skin color.

There is an even more elusive element to feminist and homosexual ruthlessness. That is feminine violence of expression, the mirror image of male expression of violence. Where men are an easy target for allegations of violence because of their physical strength attributes and their penchant for aggressive sports competition, women and homosexuals are given a pass. But traditionally, little has been made of the feminine penchant for verbal and psychosocial violence. Recently, a spate of social scientists has begun to look at this female side of the equation.
    "Actually, girls and boys are equally aggressive, but they usually express such feelings differently, social scientists say. While boys use physical harm or its threat to get what they want, girls are more likely to hurt others by wreaking havoc on relationships with peers or by sabotaging other girls' feelings of acceptance.
    Girls who practice such behaviors — dubbed "relational aggression" — might purposefully ignore someone when angered. They might spread rumors about a child they don't like. Or they might even instruct friends to stay away from a specific classmate as a way to retaliate.
Despite the promise of these initial research forays, those same social scientists tend to recuse female 'relational-aggression' as an artifact of cultural expectations and societal reinforcers that prevent females from acquiring real guy-power.

Nonetheless, we have now begun to peer ever so timidly beneath the mask of normalcy worn by the ruthless narcissist. The inexplicable success of the feminist lie (male on female violence, the oppressive patriarchy, the wage gap, the frequency of male on female rape), ironically derives in the first part from the male penchant for protecting the female of the species. When they fail to consistently meet the maximal expectations of the victim, however, they inevitably find themselves on the receiving end of the 'persecutor' label. Because men haven't learned the rules and strategies of feminine warfare, they usually fail to recognize when they are being violently manipulated. Contemporary "experts say girls/women are not really different from boys/men when it comes to acting out their aggressions, although females are more likely to spread rumors and ostracize another female than to beat her up." Those same girl-vs-girl strategies are skillfully employed in the girl-vs-boy, woman-vs-man arenas.

Beyond the one-on-one strategies, both feminists and homosexuals share an understanding of the power and fragility of group coalitions. Consequently they speak and lie as one, knowing that failure to follow the group mindset will only lead to ostracism and the loss of group power and status. Even women who reject the label of feminist in order to distance themselves from the ruthless narcissists are unlikely to divest themselves of the mantra of equality victimhood. They understand that heterosexual male chivalry is both an exploitable strength and an Achilles heel. If you doubt that perception, spend a few hours in front of the tube viewing the most popular series. They almost invariably feature the rescuer male [with the indispensable supervision, expert assistance, physical protection, or advice of a female] pursuing and bringing to justice the aberrant male-who-victimizes-women.

So have we had enough? Did a three-week pilot episode entice us to renewal? What face does America want to present to the world? Are we in majority the ugly minor face of unbridled, ruthless narcissism? Or are we in majority the shining face of empathy, patriotism and honor, and the unequivocal truth of absolute heroism? I think our warriors and leaders answered the question admirably in those three brief weeks. Now the job is to convince the public media to refocus yet again, to have empathy for the real America and show its shining face.

Back to DA*DI's Home
Dads Against the Divorce Industry Dads Against the Divorce Industry