Chicanery & She-canery: thought-gap, attention-to-detail-gap sexistly cheat vapid women at Psychiatric Times online

She-canery, with Hillary Clinton & Nancy Pelosi (pictured)

She-canery, with Hillary Clinton & Nancy Pelosi (pictured)

While reading analyses of the DSM5 at, I finished an insightful article, then ventured into the comment section. There, I was happy to see several good contributions from readers, many of whom themselves are doctors of this or that. I kept reading one meaningful statement after another–so many concise, poignant, earnest comments…then women weighed in.

Misogyny = …anything but credulity and placation?

Now, for those who know me somewhat, I love criticizing women–socking it to the ladies. And for those who know me well enough, I am wholly uninterested in the shape of anyone’s genitals as I critique their foolishness and ineptitude. Still, our culture routinely cuddles, coddles and shields women from such killjoys as introspection, earnestness, a sense of proportion and justice–so I have to report what I see: relatively inept women in undeservedly high social- and educational-places.

Starting things off with a she-bang

First, Kurt Kemmerer commented, “..I strongly agree with Dr. Huffine’s response. Certainly, a system-wide change where only psychiatrists make diagnoses would need years of planning and development to avoid some serious voids in the care system. What I am most puzzled about is…”

Then, Valerie K bumbled in: “Psychology Vs Psychiatry: The classic debate. We have to agree that both of them offer precious help to people with different psychic abnormalities or issues. The point is that psychiatrists do not do what they MUST do. They give some drugs and that’s it, however this is not enough and psychologists make efforts to fill this gap. Thus, both of them are essential for a good outcome both for the patient and the professional.”

When you began reading my article, perhaps you thought especially well well of me–when I casually mentioned I had been “reading analyses of the DSM5 at” Well, Valerie was let in too, so don’t think too highly of the site.

After Valerie’s contribution of exactly nothing useful whatsoever, Deb Sanchez chimed in with idiocy that, tho glib enough to be terse, she didn’t even bother to read one time herself to check for typos, instead just sending it off, then wandering on: “There are not enough of either of us to go around, so why to (sic) we have to fight?  Each discipline has its own strengths and weaknesses, and no one has the corner on ‘the truth’.” Sanchez says “either of us,” referring to psychiatrists and psychologists–and I confidently bet my salvation that she doesn’t hail from the more-science-based camp.

Thereafter, Kimberly Roberts forced a big word she learned, as well as sharing a lovely and talented way to make important words STAND OUT: “Unfortunately, I think that you might find a paucity (if any) of professions in which ALL practitioners submit high caliber reports.  Let’s not pretend this doesn’t happen in psychiatry.” And let’s, likewise, not don’t unpretend it doesn’t not happen either, Einstein-ette.

Then misogyny stormed mercilessly through the lovely and talented she-party

“Ms Hunziker is not a ‘humble’ Ph.D student – but unfortunately a rather arrogant one,” screamed Joseph Berger sexistly, further threatening patriarchally: “Having performed a very large number of Independent Assessments and written a book on the topic, I can assure readers that some of the many clinical examinations performed by psychologists were most definitely NOT indicative of a ‘large advantage in diagnosis’. Some were good, many average, and quite a few were of really poor quality.”

Incensed at the hateful, sexist accusations of Joseph “the woman-hating mansplainer” Berger, I scrolled down, frightened and chivalrously pre-humbled as I set to behold the she-genius whom sexist perv creeper Berger had besmirched in his tirade–frightened like men fear commitment. Then I realized men only fear commitment with women who fear contributing anything worthwhile to a relationship; that made me realize that the she-genius might just be stupid. I scrolled down.

God smiles upon my computer screen, manifest as the enchanted keystrokes of Elizabeth Hunziker (spoiler alert: no.)

“Like Ms. Roberts, I am also a humble Ph.D. student. While I acknowledge that psychiatrists, with their medical training, have knowledge which is helpful in ruling out medical conditions, when it comes to having specialized knowledge, Ph.D. psychologists also are at an advantage when it comes to diagnosis. Being the profession that is trained and quailified (sic. lol: gotta be ‘quail-i-fied’) to do psychological assessment, whether that be personality assessment or neuropsychological assessment, gives psychologists a large advantage in terms of diagnosis. I’m a little dismayed no one cared to mention this, as good assessment goes a long way, as even a great clinical interview has its limits. That being said, suggesting that the business of diagnosis be left to psychiatrists and psychiatrists alone just does not make sense. Lastly, while I’m sure psychologists could come up with ‘their own’ diagnostic manual, having one set of criteria all can agree on and use as mental health professionals in a multi-disciplinary setting is much more parsimonious and preferable, allowing for better communication and collaboration in providing the best care.” (Based on a Friends episode she once saw–where the scraggly friend kept hiccuping anytime someone said “parsimonious”–lol omg etc.)

And, to finish up my report on this she-canery, here are the hurried, harried, hairless she-thoughts of the other humble Ph.D. student:

“Being a  humble student (I’m working toward a Ph.D. in psychology and am currently a prison social worker) I understand that you may not take me as seriously as others.  However, Dr. Moffic’s statement ‘This diagnostic manual is derived mainly from the expertise of psychiatrists.’ is perplexing to me.  In its development,  the research of psychologists, physicians, nurses, neuroscientists, and countless other professionals  and even social workers and students is utilized!  Obviously, the writers are considering ALL research (at least I would hope) and not just that of psychiatrists…”

At this point in the comment–with just one sentence to go–I literally thought, “Well that was a somewhat decent change of pace, for women’s comments here–at least there was a speck of analysis buried beneath that mountain of duh.” And then I saw the final sentence…and can never un-see it:  “While I understand your argument, Dr. Moffic, I wonder about the benefits of it to humanity.” Holy steaming pile of Obama! It’s like…her idiocy-depravation-alarm had sounded, alerting her that she ought to balance out–in one line–all her previous less-stupid #FullRetard.

This is the end, beautiful (and dumb) friend

Surely, for the preceding, some she-tards may level charges of ‘misogyny!’ at me–since, apparently, they believe that genitals matter to me, in matters like these: “You’d’ve been fine with–even vicariously proud of–such inanity, if it were men who had lumbered up to that online conversation, passed textual-gas to their mental-colon’s content, and then stupided off to other targets! (none leaving even a single follow-up to the responses they each received).” And actually…that’s true: my problem wasn’t with the quality of their comments–I just hate women: I just had a problem with their penis-less-ness. And up is down, and the sky is blue at night–and women get paid less to do the same work as a man…pure she-canery.

This entry was posted in Russ Lindquist and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.