Last December 21, 2006 I had to bring my wife, Lolita, over to the Women's Health Center in West Haven, Connecticut; for "women's problems" that required immediate attention, diagnosis and treatment.
When we had arrived in the basement floor of Building 1, I believe, where this Women's Health Center is presently located, next to the Pharmacy, a female receptionist ordered me out of this section unless I had a "woman's permission to be here." I ignored her. I told her I don't need her permission, or the permission from another woman, to be with my wife. Then my wife and I proceeded to walk into her doctor's office about 15 to 20 feet away from the receptionist's office.
Less than one hour later both of us left her doctor's office with instructions to return a little later. As we walked by the receptionist's office, that same woman repeated her demand I leave the woman's section unless other women agree to my presence. She ordered me to stay in the Pharmacy Lounge for the duration of my wife's stay in the woman's section. Again, I ignored her. She has no such authority. My wife and I then went upstairs into the cafeteria for lunch. While we walked out the woman's section, I looked to the left and right of me and found a pharmacy about 25 feet to the my right but no pharmacy lounge, just an empty hallway -- a clear indication of fraud.
While walking upstairs into the cafeteria, I gave more thought to the receptionist's comments, the tone of her voice and facial expressions.
Her voice contained an air of arrogance, a "chip on her shoulders", contempt for the male gender -- though I didn't perceive it immediately until my wife and I went into the cafeteria -- and the common personality characteristics of an inferiority complex she was attempting to conceal with arrogance and an air of superiority. Arrogance was the psychological mechanism this woman was using as a "force field" around her person to conceal her feelings of inferiority with the male and, all the while, attempting to portray herself as "superior" to the male.
I have seen this psychological profile on many occasions in my 62 years among both men and women.
At the same time I saw her eyes and saw redness, contempt, anger, hate and rage. Initially, I thought I was dealing with an angry woman who had been overly hurt by a man. It has been my experience most of the time it is a man who is responsible for the woman's pain. Also, when I gave more thought to it, it had occurred to me I had also seen a slight silly smile on her lips -- a curious indication of some kind of disorder I did not immediately understand.
On the following day, December 22, 2006, I believe, I called the Patient Advocate, the person responsible for representing the patient when he has an issue with a member of the staff. She did not answer the phone; however, I left a message on her answering machine. Needless to say, she never responded to my message, a common occurrence when dealing with certain issues of controversy they can't handle.
It has been my experience they tend to be women put there in that position out of political correctness consideration, and to give them a good-paying job and responsibility but without the authority to carry out their responsibilities properly. No thought at the time was given to the legal repercussions of hiring women for political reasons when they're not really competent, either. Nor has there been any thought or consideration given to the social and legal repercussions of hiring several lesbians, with their anti-male ideology, and putting them into control of the same chain-of-command in management working with men under them.
Later, another woman admitted the Patient Advocate only "periodically" answers the telephone.
Over a period of several months I have attempted to communicate with the Director, a woman. I have left several messages. Never has she responded to them. In one instance a woman, representing the Director, I was told, called me with the obvious purpose of rationalizing their policy of not allowing men in the Women's Health Center without a woman's permission as a "civil rights" and "privacy" issue. Knowing these two subjects very well, I called her a liar and fraud. No other VA clinic or hospital practices such a policy. Besides, I said, she is a "lesbian", the first time I had used this word in any of my conversations or correspondences with them. That woman did not deny my allegation, in fact a tactical admission of the truthfulness of my allegation. In American law, failure to deny the averments in an allegation constitutes an admission of their truthfulness.
Yesterday, I called the VA in West Haven, this time to change my wife's schedule for the Women's Health Center. Although my wife was very sick and trying to sleep, the receptionist in the Women's Health Center -- possibly the same woman -- refused to make any changes without her first speaking to my wife. She argued it was a "privacy" issue. I called her a liar. No other VA clinic or hospital has such a requirement. Besides, that is not law.
Then I said something that surprised me. I said I think a bunch of lesbians have "infiltrated" into the management of the VA in West Haven and have been attempting to alter the relationship between man and woman with an ideological agenda motivating and driving them. I made this statement out of an intuitive recognition several of the women in management are lesbians. Up to that time only an unconscious analysis was leading me to that conclusion, but was not aware of it until that precise moment when I made the allegation. I was seriously surprised with myself and a little frighten for making it without further research and confirmation. I can remember feeling a little cold and disappointed with myself. Normally, I don't do such things unless I am really sure of myself.
To my everlasting surprise, that woman responded, "Well, lets not put our 'sexual preferences' in this picture."
First, we must realize only the homosexual community, gays and lesbians, use that term -- "sexual preferences." Non-homosexuals almost never use the term. They argue their homosexuality is a "normal" sexual preference and, in their literature, they portray themselves as "superior" while, at the same time, radiating an inferiority complex and frequently using arrogance to conceal it. Some of their "informative" literature and web-sites attempt to "instruct" us in the "proper way" for us to treat them and to treat their "sexual preferences" as "perfectly normal and healthy behavior." Anything less than that is "discrimination" or "intolerance", they argue, without realizing homosexuality is a counterproductive mode of sexual behavior. If not, then where is it going? What is its purpose? Actually, it is far from "normal."
Until about 30 years ago, when political pressure from the homosexual community forced a change, homosexuality was listed as a serious personality disorder by the American Psychiatric Association in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the International Classification of Diseases. Now this subject is ignored by psychiatry for political reasons. They can no longer discuss this subject objectively without receiving massive criticism for discrimination and hate.
Secondly, it is an admission of her own homosexuality.
Finally, it is a tactical admission of the truthfulness of my allegation there are several lesbians in control of the management at the VA hospital in West Haven.
A lesbian is a woman who entertains sexual fantasies of making love with other women. She has no need for a man in her life. MotherNature screwed up on her brain. With some important exceptions, she may feel contempt and anger over the man's ability to define and control the relationship with her. She keeps herself separate and distant from the man in order to minimize the influence, power and control he has over her. She may feel jealousy and over time may convert the jealousy into hate, anger and rage. She wants that power herself and, when the occasion arrives, she may attempt to manipulate a change in this relationship, as they did in the West Haven VA hospital, to emulate a man's power out of contempt for man.
She doesn't want a man to have power over her but wants the same power over him, though she probably wouldn't know what to do with it other than to play games and to maintain her distance between them. Since she doesn't entertain sexual fantasies with a man she can not understand the relationship and sexual attraction between a man and woman. It confuses the hell out of her! She doesn't seem to realize the normal sexual fantasy for a woman is to fantasize sex with a man -- not with another woman.
When we had arrived in the basement floor of Building 1, I believe, where this Women's Health Center is presently located, next to the Pharmacy, a female receptionist ordered me out of this section unless I had a "woman's permission to be here." I ignored her. I told her I don't need her permission, or the permission from another woman, to be with my wife. Then my wife and I proceeded to walk into her doctor's office about 15 to 20 feet away from the receptionist's office.
Less than one hour later both of us left her doctor's office with instructions to return a little later. As we walked by the receptionist's office, that same woman repeated her demand I leave the woman's section unless other women agree to my presence. She ordered me to stay in the Pharmacy Lounge for the duration of my wife's stay in the woman's section. Again, I ignored her. She has no such authority. My wife and I then went upstairs into the cafeteria for lunch. While we walked out the woman's section, I looked to the left and right of me and found a pharmacy about 25 feet to the my right but no pharmacy lounge, just an empty hallway -- a clear indication of fraud.
While walking upstairs into the cafeteria, I gave more thought to the receptionist's comments, the tone of her voice and facial expressions.
Her voice contained an air of arrogance, a "chip on her shoulders", contempt for the male gender -- though I didn't perceive it immediately until my wife and I went into the cafeteria -- and the common personality characteristics of an inferiority complex she was attempting to conceal with arrogance and an air of superiority. Arrogance was the psychological mechanism this woman was using as a "force field" around her person to conceal her feelings of inferiority with the male and, all the while, attempting to portray herself as "superior" to the male.
I have seen this psychological profile on many occasions in my 62 years among both men and women.
At the same time I saw her eyes and saw redness, contempt, anger, hate and rage. Initially, I thought I was dealing with an angry woman who had been overly hurt by a man. It has been my experience most of the time it is a man who is responsible for the woman's pain. Also, when I gave more thought to it, it had occurred to me I had also seen a slight silly smile on her lips -- a curious indication of some kind of disorder I did not immediately understand.
On the following day, December 22, 2006, I believe, I called the Patient Advocate, the person responsible for representing the patient when he has an issue with a member of the staff. She did not answer the phone; however, I left a message on her answering machine. Needless to say, she never responded to my message, a common occurrence when dealing with certain issues of controversy they can't handle.
It has been my experience they tend to be women put there in that position out of political correctness consideration, and to give them a good-paying job and responsibility but without the authority to carry out their responsibilities properly. No thought at the time was given to the legal repercussions of hiring women for political reasons when they're not really competent, either. Nor has there been any thought or consideration given to the social and legal repercussions of hiring several lesbians, with their anti-male ideology, and putting them into control of the same chain-of-command in management working with men under them.
Later, another woman admitted the Patient Advocate only "periodically" answers the telephone.
Over a period of several months I have attempted to communicate with the Director, a woman. I have left several messages. Never has she responded to them. In one instance a woman, representing the Director, I was told, called me with the obvious purpose of rationalizing their policy of not allowing men in the Women's Health Center without a woman's permission as a "civil rights" and "privacy" issue. Knowing these two subjects very well, I called her a liar and fraud. No other VA clinic or hospital practices such a policy. Besides, I said, she is a "lesbian", the first time I had used this word in any of my conversations or correspondences with them. That woman did not deny my allegation, in fact a tactical admission of the truthfulness of my allegation. In American law, failure to deny the averments in an allegation constitutes an admission of their truthfulness.
Yesterday, I called the VA in West Haven, this time to change my wife's schedule for the Women's Health Center. Although my wife was very sick and trying to sleep, the receptionist in the Women's Health Center -- possibly the same woman -- refused to make any changes without her first speaking to my wife. She argued it was a "privacy" issue. I called her a liar. No other VA clinic or hospital has such a requirement. Besides, that is not law.
Then I said something that surprised me. I said I think a bunch of lesbians have "infiltrated" into the management of the VA in West Haven and have been attempting to alter the relationship between man and woman with an ideological agenda motivating and driving them. I made this statement out of an intuitive recognition several of the women in management are lesbians. Up to that time only an unconscious analysis was leading me to that conclusion, but was not aware of it until that precise moment when I made the allegation. I was seriously surprised with myself and a little frighten for making it without further research and confirmation. I can remember feeling a little cold and disappointed with myself. Normally, I don't do such things unless I am really sure of myself.
To my everlasting surprise, that woman responded, "Well, lets not put our 'sexual preferences' in this picture."
First, we must realize only the homosexual community, gays and lesbians, use that term -- "sexual preferences." Non-homosexuals almost never use the term. They argue their homosexuality is a "normal" sexual preference and, in their literature, they portray themselves as "superior" while, at the same time, radiating an inferiority complex and frequently using arrogance to conceal it. Some of their "informative" literature and web-sites attempt to "instruct" us in the "proper way" for us to treat them and to treat their "sexual preferences" as "perfectly normal and healthy behavior." Anything less than that is "discrimination" or "intolerance", they argue, without realizing homosexuality is a counterproductive mode of sexual behavior. If not, then where is it going? What is its purpose? Actually, it is far from "normal."
Until about 30 years ago, when political pressure from the homosexual community forced a change, homosexuality was listed as a serious personality disorder by the American Psychiatric Association in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the International Classification of Diseases. Now this subject is ignored by psychiatry for political reasons. They can no longer discuss this subject objectively without receiving massive criticism for discrimination and hate.
Secondly, it is an admission of her own homosexuality.
Finally, it is a tactical admission of the truthfulness of my allegation there are several lesbians in control of the management at the VA hospital in West Haven.
A lesbian is a woman who entertains sexual fantasies of making love with other women. She has no need for a man in her life. MotherNature screwed up on her brain. With some important exceptions, she may feel contempt and anger over the man's ability to define and control the relationship with her. She keeps herself separate and distant from the man in order to minimize the influence, power and control he has over her. She may feel jealousy and over time may convert the jealousy into hate, anger and rage. She wants that power herself and, when the occasion arrives, she may attempt to manipulate a change in this relationship, as they did in the West Haven VA hospital, to emulate a man's power out of contempt for man.
She doesn't want a man to have power over her but wants the same power over him, though she probably wouldn't know what to do with it other than to play games and to maintain her distance between them. Since she doesn't entertain sexual fantasies with a man she can not understand the relationship and sexual attraction between a man and woman. It confuses the hell out of her! She doesn't seem to realize the normal sexual fantasy for a woman is to fantasize sex with a man -- not with another woman.
No comments:
Post a Comment