Comparative Psychoanalysis: Dunham v. Duggar

June 30, 2015 · Leave a Comment

by Deborah C. Tyler

Lena Dunham opened her stand-up at the Austin Texas Planned Parenthood clinic last October with her usual jiggle-shtick, pointing to her breasts, visible through her top, and coyly asking, “Do I need to cover up my nipples?” Elle magazine reported the irony of her “free-boobing” at the clinic: “Her rack has logged so much screen time, it could be considered the show’s fifth girl.” Dunham is the deformed grandchild of terminal sex politik feminism, incapable of understanding the tastelessness of hawking her aureoles in a place where healthy human lives are ended.

Dunham describes herself as “passionate” about Planned Parenthood. Passion is apt. The psychological gravitation of sacrificing innocent human beings transforms any group into a cult. Dunham’s feminism is a loutish death-cult driven by mindless passion informed by sexuality and morality voodoo.

Elle reports Dunham, “works the crowd like a career politician.” She gushes over Ken Lambrecht, the homosexual president of Texas Planned Parenthood. Lambrecht squires an ebullient Dunham around the clinic. She “claps her hands” and says “I love it,” referring to the little girl Lambrecht and his boyfriend are raising. “She is so lucky to have a dad who can educate her about all of this stuff. Two dads!” Dunham exploits the cultic delusion in a distinctively gross way that American children lack information about sex. The opposite is true. Because degenerates like Dunham control the media, American children get no relief from infotainment about sex. Who needs a mother when a child has two gay men educating her about sex, abortion and that “stuff?”

It is fitting for this comparative psychoanalysis to begin at an abortion clinic. The battle between Christians and the left is fierce regarding sexuality and choice v. life philosophy. The “right” to eliminate the “unwanted” is the irreconcilable divide between the world views of Lena Dunham and Josh Duggar. Dunham epitomizes left-wing pro-sexuality feminism; Duggar’s life is grounded in Biblical Christianity. Dunham and Duggar both molested younger siblings and other children. Dunham cashed in on her abusiveness; Duggar has been vilified and misdiagnosed, his family humiliated and financially punished. The Duggars are the fortunate ones.

Dunham’s feminism is basically a reaction against Judeo-Christian morality, an unconscious terror of facing its own cruel, empty oppositionality. Dunham’s lewdness and dishonesty are defenses against that emptiness, which are projected as rage against Christians.

The German-based Bauer publishing group is known for Neo-Nazi literature and pornography. Its magazine In Touch has been the most vindictive publication against the Duggar family. After minutely combing through evidence, In Touch wrote, “…Josh molested his victims four to five times in March 2002 and again in July 2002. Then, according to the newly obtained police report, in March 2003 he confessed to Jim Bob he fondled his five-year-old sister while she sat on his lap…” Josh must have felt terrible shame because the police report says following that incident he “ran out of the room and confessed to (his father) what he had done.” Following their son’s confession they made the most protective choice parents can — they sent their son away. This says to the offender that while there is nothing you can do to lose our love, you can lose the right to live in this family. It reassures the other children the parents are not in denial and they will be protected. The Duggars stated they put in place permanent safeguards. Finally, over a span of years they availed themselves of the defining resource of their faith, which is to dip in the eternally clear waters of Christ’s forgiveness, a recourse that enrages the jealous left who admit of no such cleansing.

Christians can make use of the knowledge of psychiatry and psychology, and the Duggars apparently did. But that advantage is a one-way street. Psychiatrists and psychologists dismiss or even express contempt for the emphasis on forgiveness. On Fox News (6/4/2015), psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow accused the Duggars of inadequately supervising their children and repeatedly labeled Josh Duggar a pedophile. The actions of a fourteen-year-old boy in this case do not confirm the diagnose of pedophilia, which refers to a persistent, abnormal pattern of sexual gratification. Unless Dr. Ablow knows more than others about this case, he is parroting the left’s dread that Josh Duggar has recovered and can live a happy adult life. Also, as a cult specifically centered around suppressing birth, the left hates large families and devalues the relationships among siblings even though those connections carry on years after the parents are gone.

There is no one-size-fits-all response to the heartbreak of abuse in a family. The Duggars might have done things differently, but they did all they knew to protect their children. It was brave of them to make 19 Kids and Counting, not letting the transgression of one child diminish the possibilities of the whole family. They mistakenly trusted government drones with confidentiality for the victims.

Lena Dunham’s psychology is the opposite extreme, a ferocious defense against feeling shame for any sexual behavior, including child abuse. Dunham unconsciously outlines her own dehumanization in the opening pages of Not that Kind of Girl: “Sex and identity are one… sex was maybe the only time I actually believed anyone besides me even existed.” Dunham’s parents fostered an environment of incestuality and abandonment, which prefigured her molestation of her sister and mistreatment of the people around her to this day.

What the Dunhams’ lack in talent they make up for in grossness. Her father paints primitives of female genitals protruding from headless bodies. His “art” make it plausible that when she was a small child Lena announced, “When I’m bad my father sticks a fork in my vagina.…I thought I was petting my hairless cat, it was actually my mom’s vagina.” That’s cuteness, Dunham style. She describes nude photographs of her mother: “The shadowy place between her ass cheeks… Closeups of her unshaven armpits. But mostly the eye is drawn to her nakedness, legs spread defiantly.” Dunham proclaims, “This wasn’t just pushing your tits together. This took work.”

Much of Dunham’s book is not believable, but her account of sexually molesting her sister is credible. “One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist…. My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things I did.” This normalized abuse doesn’t happen “one day.”

Dunham paid her sister in candy for prolonged kisses on the lips and recounts, “I shared a bed with my sister, Grace until I was seventeen years old.” Dunham writes “ She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me.” “Though I persisted in complaining I cherished her presence in my bed.” Dunham describes the enjoyment of her sister’s body lying next to her while she masturbated or as Dunham put it, “I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure stuff out.”

Dunham admits she was not a popular child. She accepted this was because she was “achingly brilliant.” More likely it was because she started violating the rights of other children at an early age. For example, at about 10 while riding a bicycle with a neighborhood boy she pulled her top off to expose her chest. Was he embarrassed or afraid? She didn’t care. Dunham recently bragged, “There’s not one guy who works on [my] show who hasn’t seen the inside of my vagina…. Yes, it’s just a job… slamming your vagina against the nylon-wrapped penis of a guy…” Translate this boast to 19 Kids and Counting. Imagine the adult males saying, “We expose our genitals to cast and crew. Don’t like it? Quit.”

Dunham writes about returning to Oberlin College where she earned a “degree in self studies, minor in all about me.” She reminisces about, “yanking my tampon out and hurling it into a bush outside the church.” Not coincidentally, Dunham left her bloody calling card outside a church. The left wing has deteriorated into little more than an adolescent tantrum against Judeo-Christian heritage. In Dunham’s piece, “Dog or Jewish Boyfriend?” Jewish men are weak, sickly, effeminate, greedy, and cheap. Left-wing bigotry has also projected a new stereotype against Christians, which has been liberally dumped on the Duggars: they represent themselves as perfect.

In the final psychoanalysis, the difference between Dunham and Duggar is in reference to forgiveness. Josh Duggar’s faith, that humans are inherently sinful and yet abundantly forgiven, enabled him to take responsibility. Lena Dunham believes however sexually dehumanizing she is to herself and her fellow beings, she never needs forgiveness.

New Varieties of Religious Experience

July 8, 2014 · Leave a Comment

by Deborah C. Tyler

A new theoretical framework in the tradition of William James’ work posits that religious experience is the deepest level of self-comprehension, and that four streams of consciousness — natural, unnatural, theistic, and deistic — flow together to form both individual and social religious experience.

You can take an online assessment to profile your religious experience!


You Can Buy Your Own F*****G Brick!

July 8, 2014 · Leave a Comment

by Deborah C. Tyler & a Vietnam-era Vet

A Vietnam era Marine with a traumatic brain injury asked me to write up his idea to solve the crisis at the border. He told me nobody would listen to him because he’s just a nobody, a vet with a hole in his head. I assured him of the perfect equality of our nobodyness, but promised him I would get his idea published.

Mindfulness and the Problem of Anger in Political Discourse

January 22, 2014 · Leave a Comment

by Deborah C. Tyler

“I am paying for this microphone!” Do you recall the anger in President Reagan’s words?

Mindfulness is the term for an interdisciplinary movement in psychology, philosophy, and the health sciences. One of its founding parents, Jon Kabat-Zinn, perfectly expressed the greatness of Ronald Reagan in his definition of mindfulness: “Living as if your life really mattered.”

Mindfulness is moment-to-moment living in full awareness and acceptance of thoughts or feelings that enables one to take in what is really there and to act with authenticity and vitality.

Mindfulness is a big tent of consciousness that covers the psychological concept of “healthy anger,” which means swiftly dispersing the fume of the moment. It is an immediate and proportional response to wrongdoing that can be understood by its intended recipient. It may cause discomfort but not harm. Mindfulness is necessary in healthy relationships because it communicates authentic feeling and enables the addressee to make informed choices about their own behavior. It reflects the belief that one deserves to be treated respectfully and that the recipient is capable of respectful behavior. Anger within mindfulness does not seek to manipulate or intimidate. Resentment and rage are mindless and unhealthy. Bitterness and wrath result from “carried” or “transferred” anger that, for one reason or another, did not diffuse when it arose.

One of the reasons Americans of traditional values and their leaders do not speak up is because they have become numb and paralyzed under relentless mental abuse from the government-media-educational establishments. In response to the open hydrants of over-the-top vituperative from the left, many conservatives do not respond mindfully. An important reason these behaviors regarding the problem of anger differ is a reflection of differences between the psychological conditioning of Judeo-Christian beliefs and humanism. These perspectives not only differ, they are diametrically opposed.

The heart is the seat of the mind. The Bible has hundreds of passages which say that sin begins in the individual heart, mind, and soul and that angry thoughts and feelings are in themselves sinful. Matthew 5:21-22: “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister shall be subject to judgment.” The Judeo-Christian belief system regarding the problem of anger was the accepted basis of civility and self-control in American public life until the mid twentieth century, until the assumptions of humanism came to define much of public conversation, particularly political behavior and discourse of the left-wing.

Humanism assumes there is nothing beyond this life – no God Who cares about thoughts/feelings or judges anything. It is a humanist cliché that there is only heaven or hell on earth. Humanism leads to the unintentional religious experience of “autodeism,” in which one’s own mind is the all-powerful judge. In such self-directed life, expressing emotion is a positive end in and of itself. And because emotional disrestraint can be habit-forming, such expression tends to snowball.

Psychological theory supports the Bible, insofar as establishing that that which is mentally envisioned tends to be behaviorally expressed. Angry thoughts are precursors to violent deeds. But for decades the philosophical and moral underpinnings of humanism have dominated psychology and have opened the floodgates of anger in everyday life in America.

In a recent American Thinker essay about racism, I recounted how a friend, Joe, had been harassing me with unwanted e-mails, slandering me and others with the appellation of racist, and ruining meetings with his compulsive defense mechanism of projected racism. When I finally challenged him, Joe angrily barked that I was rude. I said, “No Joe, that wasn’t rude, this is rude.” Then I suggested where he might insert his abuse.

Those words, which I believe expressed mindful, healthy anger, were omitted from the published piece. Perhaps the AT editors were wise in purging what they believed to be objectionable material. Perhaps that editorial decision was to some degree the self-suppression which can develop among people who are constantly called names.

The mindful expression of anger is influenced by cultural expectations. Joe and I are both originally from New York. Possibly because of the crowded conditions, the tendency to quick familiarity, and a sense of camaraderie under the rigors of urban life, big city people tend to have good healthy anger skills. I would never tell a Southerner to “lodge it away from the moonlight” because of their culture of pride and decorum. But after repeated polite requests, finally telling Joe what to do with his allegations improved our relationship. He has backed off on the racism echolalia, at least around me.

The 2008 interviews of Sarah Palin by Katie Couric is a study not only in Couric’s insincerity, but also of different cultural norms regarding the expression of anger. By the end of the interview, Palin was very angry. When a woman of her culture says in that tone, “I’ll get back to ya on that one,” that is her idiom for what I said to Joe. But it was ineffective because nobody seemed to hear it. I did because I have been practicing psychology among such people for years. Couric came off as in control, not only because Palin was operating under mistaken assumptions about honesty in the left-wing media, but also because of her style of expressing anger based on her religious and cultural backgrounds.

Americans of all geographic and cultural backgrounds are craving a conservative president who has the integrity to express healthy anger. Bluntness has become a political advantage. Chris Christie and Donald Trump enjoy that advantage because they are brusque New York types and are not afraid of a little conversational push and shove.

Just as devout people do not have to give up their belief in the sins of the heart, conservatives do not have to resign their convictions. Everyone who loves America must open their eyes and see, open their ears and hear, and feel within their hearts the abuse they are paying for. They need to say with Reagan’s tone, “I am paying for this IRS, NSA, DOJ, Planned Parenthood, government schools, and all the rest. I am paying for that pen and phone that the President threatens to use dictatorially. And I have the mindfulness to stop paying.”

Do me once, shame on you. Do me 100,000 times makes me a Republican. Do you recall Governor Romney being a punching bag for Candy Crowley and standing mutely while Obama lied about Benghazi? Or Marco Rubio’s furtive water-drinking incident. He was a senator but apparently afraid to wet his whistle and take a sip of water. Mindfulness empowers the individual to set their pace and claim their own power in the moment.

Every relationship necessarily proceeds at the level of the more restricted consciousness. The relationship between the Christ and humanity is conducted at the level of humanity. The relationship between an adult and a child proceeds at the level of the child. And the relationship between conservatives and liberal progressives has been controlled by the latter. Conservatives must take back control of that relationship – and that requires cultivating mindfulness.

Zimmerman Among the Zombies

October 10, 2013 · Leave a Comment

by Deborah C. Tyler

Trayvon Martin’s last act in life was to commit an assault and battery. He had illegal drugs in his system and he lashed out in unjustified violence against a stranger who had offended him. George Zimmerman’s behavior that evening can be characterized as adaptive post-traumatic hypervigilence. He knew that a home invasion had occurred in his neighborhood and he was taking reasonable steps to protect his wife and home.

Next Page »