Theory: "Feminism" = "Splitting" + "Attachment Disorders"?

This is one of those "don't type angry: you may regret it, later" moments, for me ... but after watching the DVD "The Red Pill" again, last night (on top of a month of deep-diving other forms of Red Pill ideas) I woke up with what feels like an epiphany. One that I'm almost certainly not going to be able to easily "un-see" or "un-think" now that the idea has, apparently, firmly roosted in my cranium.(Last chance for readers to take the Blue Pill, instead!)Okay. Your mileage may vary and this idea is pretty new to me, and is thus subject to alteration, but, here goes:I am beginning to think that what was said in the Red Pill DVD was right, as far as it goes (that "feminism," which usually / almost-always translates to "toxic feminism" or "radical feminism" is better described as being some kind of sick religious dogma) ... but I no longer believe that even that unpleasant description goes nearly far enough.I have come to the conclusion, almost against my own free will, that the best way I personally know of to describe the “feminism” I have seen happen, with my own eyes, over the forty or so years that this older (mid-fifties) MGTOW has seen feminism actually play out in everyday life, is that “feminism” is far more aptly described as not only a full-on plague, but a particularly virulent plague.What I’m seeing, or think I’m seeing, is an unholy alliance between the mental illness types known as “psychological splitting” and “a viral version of attachment disorder”.I wish I was kidding!Or at least, mistaken?I am not going to retroactively "Take the Blue Pill" on this matter, in hopes of forgetting and disregarding this ill-tasting epiphany -- however such a thing, in its raw infancy stages, might be telling my brain to "Run Away!!" (Even if I can almost hear a faint echo of Graham Chapman’s version of King Arthur, as he repeatedly gives his troops exactly that advice, in a classic Monty Python film.)Nothing like “toxic” feminism ever happens in a vacuum. It can’t. That level of toxicity must have been lurking, in the wings as it were: waiting for the right conditions, so it could get out into the world, and infest “everything”.The thoughts that led to this one, grew, slowly, quietly, over four decades. The specific path it took, through my heart and mind, was only the latest "sight-seeing spot" on a long journey. Aside from cognitive analysis based on many observations, over time, I also took in a view of previous "sight-seeing spots" that weren’t originally meant to have anything to do with MGTOW research (such as any books on "attachment theory" and/or copies of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (versions 3, 4, and also 5) and also many instances of seeing "psychological splitting" defined and/or acted out, in other books or in Real Life) ... (Ugh! The after-taste of some of these Red Pill epiphanies can be quite nasty; just as their real-life counterparts are!) ...So, anyway: things smashed together in my mind, and when I woke up this morning, it was with an insight that I figured I should write down, and share with my fellow MGTOWs before my brain (perhaps?) rebels, and becomes tempted to un-see it, in some sort of an inner self-defense mechanism way.I can't shake the idea that feminism (as I have experienced it in my life and heard about it in other's lives) is, at a minimum, a form of various “co-morbid” mental illnesses, all slammed together, and rolling around in some people’s brains. (Like tiny marbles, except made from toxic waste?)If I am substantially correct with this unbidden idea the recipe apparently starts with a particularly nasty and impossible-to-eradicate-in-some-people mix or combination of "attachment disorder" and "psychological splitting" ... and it apparently picks up added potency and virulence, with "incredibly sh*tty attitudes being deified at worst, and lionized at a minimum, by hateful b*tches who want lots of attention no person like them deserves".Narcissism is nothing new, in this world, but it’s still surprising to see an implied formal plan to “spread noxious narcissism”: which is how I’m beginning to see things like feminist magazines and the like. I can’t see it being fair and kind or even sane, to think it’s a good idea for anyone to suggest, as far too many obviously-hate-filled feminists do, that empathy being selectively turned off, but only against men, via a process of hate speech and shouting down alternative opinions can lead to anything except half the human race being cr*apped on, repeatedly, by people that, eventually, the males are going to write off as being hopelessly virulent and toxic. Let such toxic and noxious concoctions keep brewing, for at least half a century, and is it any wonder, that men have tried to "inoculate" themselves from it, in various ways? (Including but not limited to Men Going Their Own Way -- as fast as their legs or their vehicles can carry them!?)How could any sane person not see that as the end result?I think that’s what kept my mind percolating this epiphany or whatever it is, that it all goes inevitable back to forms of mental illness: no sane person would believe it. So the only remaining idea is that they must be insane.A few more thoughts, before I wander off in disgust ...I wasn’t looking for MGTOW, a month or so ago. I didn’t have a clue that it existed. I was shocked to discover it existed – but, in short order, I began to see it as the inevitable conclusion to feminist’s insane “experiments” on the human race. Before I found MGTOW was a “thing,” I was minding my own business, researching self-help things like the concepts of narcissistic abuse, and how such abuse may cause “Complex PTSD” in its victims. Which, now, is how I see the whole mess feminists have created. That and worse, actually, but to get back on my thought thread: I spent the past several years doing things like filling my head full of "attachment theory" ideas. I also researched anything I could find in print or online, on the idea that, perhaps, if the ideal form of "Secure Attachment" had not been fully or at least partially acquired by, say, such a victim of narcissist abuse, within the first two years of that baby’s life, that, maybe, if a person, once he or she grows up and decides to throw a LOT of effort over a LONG time into the quest to retroactively become “securely attached,” then MAYBE such a person could obtain what social scientists / attachment theorists now call "Earned Secure Attachment". That is, the ability to bond with at least one other human being – or failing that, with books or pets or whatever a person has, when human beings fail to meet those needs.Well, the thought occurring unbidden this morning was, "if scientists studying attachment theory and complex forms of PTSD now believe that, yes, such a thing can be earned with enough (that is, ridiculous amounts of) effort, isn't it then also quite logical and rational to assume that even a person who had a happy childhood, and thus had the ideal and most-desired form of Secure Attachment could, later, lose that once-secure attachment to other human beings?That such a person, in a sense, could become “averse” to other human beings? It made sense. It matched what MGTOW seemed to represent, to me: people with once-secure forms of attachment and bonding ability, forcing themselves out of an evolutionary (counter-evolutionary?) need to turn that once-adaptive, but now-dangerous, attachment “off”.That’s some scary sh*t to ponder, right there!And yet, what do women and feminists and their supporters try to do, to “fix” the problem they themselves caused? A lot of emotional invalidation; victim-blaming; and worse.What the f*ck crazy-*ss kind of world has this become, that a large segment of the male population has to “undo” their own once-secure attachment to others, simply for safety?!?So, ironically, what began as my own personal search for a way to heal my own C-PTSD and “narcissistic abuse” wounds instead led me to seeing that it’s not remotely “only me” and that, surprise, gynocentric society fails to see any of it as “wrong” or a problem with anything but their maxxed out victims, who’d rather defy biology than risk more of the same incredibly insane treatment they’ve already had.Wow. Just freaking wow. I’m stunned. "You b*tches who began this War On Men didn’t see it coming? Seriously? How?!”I for one do not blame we MGTOWs for inventing an overdue inoculation, to the plague that feminism represents!Any woman that wants “good men” to turn their empathy for women back on, should first ask themselves why they turned their empathy for men off. (Or if it was ever even “on”?)I love truth. I love reading; thinking; writing. But the nasty aftertaste(s) involved with something like this needs something to chase away at least part of what this Red Pill (series of epiphanies) tastes like. Maybe I’m just way more ignorant of the MGTOW reality we’re all stuck in, and none of this is truly news? Maybe others already swallowed this particular Red Pill? If so: what cures this aftertaste?!Maybe it’s past time for me to re-read Jerome Kagan’s book, “Three Seductive Ideas,” with an emphasis on the section “The Allure of Infant Determinism,” to see if it kills the taste; or tones it down a bit more than is the case at present? (But might it not make this aftertaste worse?!)Wrapping up this vent-fest, and/or Red Pill Rant:If I was an MRA instead of a life-long MGTOW, I might try to helpfully suggest that "sane women" (how did Agent Smith once put it, on the subject of smell: "If there is such a thing"?) should very emphatically / belatedly realize that they have spent half a century taking life advice from an overly vast collection of Rich But Crazy Bag Lady Types; who, in a far saner universe, would have probably long ago been humanely rounded up, and put into pens where they could not hurt themselves, or ruin anyone else's lives. But I'm not an MRA. Long before MGTOW invented a name for the inoculation against feminism, I was living that style of life. So instead of any more thinking-work, I'll go watch paint dry, or squirrels playing in nice calm trees, or go do any number of other things which sound infinitely more fun than trying to cure a plague that men didn't create; didn’t ask anyone to create; and did zilch to make worse.(Sigh. I’m writing these after-thoughts while listening to Mister Burns, from “The Simpsons Sing the Blues” audio track, singing "Look At All Those Idiots" – trying to use it as a substitute for more on-topic validation of the emotions female’s collective insanity brought up in me.)(What’s next is a worrisome question. If I have many more of these thought-collision Red Pills, will I end up being tempted to throw myself into editing up a digital copy of Machiavelli's "The Prince," with a goal of putting that slim but infamous ancient tome back into the form that I can't quite un-imagine it first came in? That is, that the draft notes he may have used, involved manipulative women plotting against men, using passive-aggressive techniques and a collection of mental illnesses, to try to create their very sick and delusional form of Dystopia? In other words, was the infamous book, “The Prince,” that was based on studying what some might call “evil” men, really just those men’s reactive abuse, learned from their wives and girlfriends? If the original draft copies of that book were to ever turn up, would the title be “The Hypergamous Wife”? Such an idea appalls me. And sounds about right, at the same disgusting time. Ugh. It’s past time for me to push away from the keyboard: before I take my own jests about that infamous book seriously, and really give myself a reason to think “typing angry” is unwise therapy, when trying to make sense of a world which makes zero sense.) via /r/MGTOW http://bit.ly/2XeB0Yo