1990s was a workaholic decade. 23 million private sector jobs were created under Bill Clinton, and the budget was brought into balance. It had the greatest peaceful economic expansion in America's history. Economically, the times had never been better. Socially they have rarely been much worse.

Women were under intense pressure to be mean and paranoid. Men lost their jobs for looking at a woman the wrong way. Families were torn apart for unsubstantiated allegations. The leaders of feminism claimed leadership over 50% of humanity without 50% of humanity having voted for them to do so, and used this vast usurpation of power to abuse women who are kinder and prettier than themselves.

What took place was in fact the worst hysteria in the history of the United States. People were claiming that some people - “sociopaths” and “perverts” and “narcissists” - were evil and could only be evil whatever they did. This was of course in contradiction to most basic reason. If people are responsible for their actions then anyone – including a sociopath – can choose to act rightfully; and if some people can only be evil whatever they do then people are not responsible for their actions. Instead people were both blamed for whatever these people thought was wrong with them and claimed that they are incapable of improving their behavior. The result was the worst witch hunt in American history, one that would make Joseph McCarthy look like an angel..

I got falsely branded a sociopath. I later found out from someone who knew what she was talking about that, far from being a sociopath, I am a sociopath's jelly. She said that I was someone naïve enough to fall for the gag of a sociopath and strange enough that they can have success in blaming me for their wrongdoing. She has herself been accused of completely ridiculous things. However she happens to be one of the best people I've ever known.

While feminism was teaching women to be mean and paranoid, many others fed completely wrongful beliefs. There were people in the New Age claiming that love is search for external validation, which according to them should come from within. Maybe that was the case for them; but it had never been the case for me. My love for Michelle had nothing to do with seeking any kind of validation. It was not about what I felt about myself; it was about what I felt for her. If all you care about is yourself then you may develop such convictions. I however have higher standards for myself than that.

A related claim was that one must first love oneself before one can love another. Once again, completely wrong. It works the other way around. You love people for traits that you find lovable. Seeing these traits expressed successfully in another person, you then know what you need to work on within yourself in order to be lovable in your own eyes.

Probably the saddest statement I've ever heard came from a feminist graduate student, who described her female body as useless. Useless? How can it be useless? A female body can produce new life. What can be more useful than that?

Then there were people who claimed traumatization through sex. Oh yea, and sex abuse victims own traumatization. In fact people get traumatized through all sorts of things. People get traumatized in war. People get traumatized in bad upbringing. People get traumatized when their families get shot or when their countries get destroyed. There are all sorts of ways in which people can be traumatized. That some people get traumatized through sex no more damns sex than does that some people get traumatized in families damn family.

Then there was a claim that beauty destroyed women's self-esteem. The confusion here is between a value and the misuses of the value. Anything with any kind of appeal – beauty, intelligence, money, whatever – will always see some kind of scoundrel wanting to use it for wrong. That there are jerks who use beauty for wrong does not damn beauty. Any more than does the fact that some people use money, or patriotism, or intelligence, or anything else, for wrong, damn money or patriotism or intelligence. The behavior of bad parents, ignorant teenagers and unscrupulous plastic surgeons does not damn beauty or love of beauty. Elizabeth Barrett Browning or Edna St. Vincent Millay are not responsible for this behavior. Once again, we are seeing here a confusion between a value and the misuses of the value. Anything with appeal to people can be used for wrong. That does not damn the thing in itself.

Another central claim was that beauty was only "in the eye" or only relative. This is in fact wrong. There are findings for both absolute beauty and relative beauty. A study by Judith Langlois found that a face with a particular set of proportions will be found beautiful everywhere. This reinforces the case for absolute beauty. Another study showed 500 faces to 20,000 viewers, and each face got picked as the most beautiful at least once. This reinforces the case for relative beauty. Together these two studies support the correct claims on both sides while invalidating the incorrect claims. The first study shows that there is such a thing as absolute beauty, and that artistic search for truth in beauty is a valid one. The second study shows that there is someone for everyone and that the bad parents and stupid teenagers who think that unattractive teenagers are doomed to a life of loneliness are wrong.

There was also a lot being said about inner beauty as opposed to outer beauty. I see no reason whatsoever why the two should have any relationship, positive or negative. We are dealing with completely unrelated things. On one hand we see physical attractiveness; on the other we see being a good person. Why would they relate one way or another? Some people will be both; some will be one or the other; and some will be neither. This claim has been used by women who are neither physically attractive nor good people to attack women who are either or both. Which means that it is a labor of love for me to stand up to them for such women, who include my family and the women I've loved.

Of course these people's claims were refuted by their own behavior. If beauty really was relative, they would be attacking all women. Instead they attacked the attractive women while leaving unattractive women alone. This means that their claims, once again, are refuted by their behavior; which means that there is no reason to take them seriously.

Many people became absolutely ridiculous. There were people describing me as a misogynist. I am such a misogynist that I've written extensive sets of poetry for five women. There were people very aggressively claiming me to be a sociopath. My score on the sociopath dimension was significantly less than that of an average person.

What I saw being practiced was a Big Lie, where things were not only explained incorrectly but in fact misrepresented as their precise opposites. And I took it upon myself to fight it.

Ilya Shambat
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatbiography