Personality disorders and domestic violence
The concept of the sociopathic personality disorder has been vastly misused. The sociopathic disorder refers, by itself, to people who are cold, ruthless and lacking in feeling. That's not however how it has been used. Many of the usages of the disorder have been directed against people who are in dissent to whatever society they happen to inhabit. Meanwhile the bulk of dissent against conservative WASP societies is precisely for reason that they are cold, ruthless, and persecutorial of feeling. Which means that the people who use this disorder in such a manner are far more actually sociopathic than are the people whom they attack as supposedly being sociopaths.
This of course is not the first or the only case of scientific concepts being perverted and misused. Much similar things we see in the false diagnoses of domestic violence. Many blame personality disorders for domestic violence, when in much of the world - and in much of the First World - people believe there's something wrong with the man if he is not violent, possessive, jealous, controlling and oppressive to his wife. I am not only talking about Pashtuns believing a man who does not beat his wife as lacking a penis, or about rural Ethiopians getting their wives by raping teenage girls. We see many similar attitudes in Western societies such as Greece, Queensland, and much of American South. The misuse of the personality disorders would therefore label men in these societies who are not violent as being sociopaths and narcissists.
We can see how far down the turtles go. In fact, the worst cases of domestic violence come not from "sociopaths" or "narcissists" but rather from people who see themselves as society's enforcers. The main reason for their violence? The belief that the partner is crazy; or that the partner is evil; or that the partner thinks differently and wants to live a different way of life. These are not something that one would hear from a "sociopath" or a "narcissist." This is something that one would hear from a person who sees himself as an enforcer of society.
When a society under consideration has such beliefs as - that women are the source of the world's suffering; that women are stupid and evil; that man owes it to the male gender or to God to control the woman; or even that life itself is an evil - it is those who consent to it, not those who object to it, that become the worst abusers. And for as long as there are major societies that believe such a thing, violence and abuse against women will remain a vast problem - with the perpetrators being, not "sociopaths" or "narcissists," but your average Muslim, Hindu or Christian conservative.
Other false analyses of domestic violence pin the blame on sex, beauty, romance and love. Meanwhile sexless Puritans are brutal to their wives; unattractive women get abused as reliably as attractive women; and in places, such as India and Middle East, where romance and love are forbidden and marriages are arranged by families, the violence is worse.
So clearly much of the conventional thought on this issue is a load of bull.
When faced with false, malignant directions taking over the right to speak for science, progress and women's rights, one can either follow along or one can fight these malignant directions. And I for one know what choice I am making.