Mujeres sects

This story is set in the year 1600.
Jhoanna and Jhoan are siblings.
Jhoanna has curly, coal-black hair, her skin is olive, and his eyes are an alluring golden color. Jhoan has straight brown hair, his skin is white and his eyes are deep violet. They have been raised for most of their lives by Aura, a kind and cautious woman.
Their biological mother is Azahara Khayn, a lady from a noble family. Azahara Khayn is the aunt of Lord Sahar Khayn, the current leader of the "Khayn Sect".
When Azahara was 13 years old, she first saw Jhean, a boy from a noble family from faraway lands. Jhean, who was only 10 years old at the time. They didn't share words, just an exchange of glances and nothing more.
Jhean and Azahara's second meeting came half a year later and this time they struck up some words. The situation was repeated during the following months and years, they met whenever they could and talked about their problems, family, friends, desires and dreams. Due to the friendship they developed, Azahara used to ask her parents to let Jhean join them at some of her dinners.
Thus, when Azahara was 17 years old and Jhean 14, they shared their first night together. Azahara became pregnant and shortly after finding out about her pregnancy, she learned that Jhean was going to marry another woman.
Azahara gave birth to her daughter, Jhoanna. Later, when Jhean visited her for the last time (One year and 3 months after Jhoanna's birth), Azahara told him that she had given birth to a stillborn baby.
Jhean was visibly hurt by that information. Azahara convinced Jhean to have one last night together... after that, Jhean never contacted her again. Azahara became pregnant again as a result of her last night with Jean and 9 months later, she gave birth to Jhoan and also hid it from Jhean.
Jhean married the woman he was engaged to and had a family with her, knowing nothing of Jhoanna and Jhoan.
Jhoanna and Jhoan know that Azahara is their biological mother. During much of her childhood, Azahara visited them 1-2 times a month, these visits were always made at night, never lasting more than two hours. After Jhoanna turned 12 years old and Jhoan turned 10 years old, Azahara's visits stopped.
The reason? Azahara literally disappeared. No one knew more about her. Some rumors said that she had taken her own life and her nephew had not wanted the other members of the Khayn Sect to know, others that she had been captured by some rival sect of the Khayn Sect.
Jhoan and Jhoanna have the ability to "see" through the eyes of the animals with which they have established a connection. For example, Jhoan and Jhoanna can see through the eyes of two injured crows that they found and helped days after their birth mother went missing.
How do you think Azahara's actions should affect Jhoanna and Jhoan's lives?
ווווווווווווווווווווווווווו
Está historia se ambienta en el año 1600.
Jhoanna y Jhoan son hermanos.
Jhoanna tiene cabello negro carbón y rizado, su piel es aceitunada y sus ojos son de un atrayente color dorado. Jhoan tiene cabello castaño y lacio, su piel es blanca y sus ojos son de un profundo color violeta. Han sido criados durante la mayor parte de sus vidas por Aura, una mujer amable y cautelosa.
La madre biológica de ambos es Azahara Khayn, una dama de una familia noble. Azahara Khayn es la tía de Lord Sahar Khayn, el actual líder de la "Secta Khayn".
Cuando Azahara tenía 13 años, vio por primera vez a Jhean, un niño de una familia noble de tierras lejanas. Jhean, que en ese momento solo tenía 10 años. No compartieron palabras, solo un intercambio de miradas y nada más.
El segundo encuentro de Jhean y Azahara se produjo medio año después y esta vez entablaron algunas palabras. La situación se repitió durante los siguientes meses y años, se reunían cada vez que podían y hablaban de sus problemas, familia, amigos, anhelos y sueños. Debido a la amistad que desarrollaron, Azahara solía pedirles a sus padres que dejaran que Jhean se uniera a ellos en algunas de sus cenas.
Así, cuando Azahara tenía 17 años y Jhean 14, compartieron su primera noche juntos. Azahara quedó embarazada y al poco tiempo de enterarse de su embarazo, supo que Jhean se iba a casar con otra mujer.
Azahara dio a luz a su hija, Jhoanna. Posteriormente, cuando Jhean la visitó por última vez (Un año y 3 meses después del nacimiento de Jhoanna), Azahara le dijo que había dado a luz a una bebé que nació muerta .
Jhean estaba visiblemente herido por esa información. Azahara convenció a Jhean de tener una última noche juntos... después de aquello, Jhean nunca la volvió a contactar. Azahara volvió a quedar embarazada como consecuencia de su última noche con Jean y 9 meses después, dio a luz a Jhoan y también se lo ocultó a Jhean.
Jhean se casó con la mujer con la que estaba comprometido y tuvo una familia con ella, sin saber nada de Jhoanna y Jhoan.
Jhoanna y Jhoan saben que Azahara es su madre biológica. Durante gran parte de su infancia, Azahara los visitaba 1-2 veces al mes, estas visitas siempre se hacían de noche, nunca con una duración superior a las dos horas. Después de que Jhoanna cumpliera 12 años de edad y de que Jhoan cumpliera 10 años de edad, las visitas de Azahara se detuvieron.
¿La razón? Azahara literalmente desapareció. Nadie supo más de ella. Algunos rumores decían que se quitó la vida y su sobrino no había querido que los otros miembros de la Secta Khayn lo supieran, otros que había sido capturada por alguna secta rival de la Secta Khayn.
Jhoan y Jhoanna tienen la habilidad de "ver" a través de los ojos de los animales con los cuales hayan establecido una conexión. Por ejemplo, Jhoan y Jhoanna pueden ver a través de los ojos de dos cuervos heridos que encontraron y ayudaron días después de que su madre biológica desapareciera.
¿Cómo crees que las acciones de Azahara deberían afectar la vida de Jhoanna y Jhoan?

Accusations of pedophilia, rejection of homosexuals, "social death". 15 former members of this "sect" reveal their testimony to EL ESPAÑOL.
https://www.elespanol.com/reportajes/20190217/entramos-testigos-jehova-abusos-mujeres-sometidas-suicidios/376712676_0.html?
You can use Google Translate to read it in English.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.elespanol.com%2Freportajes%2F20190217%2Fentramos-testigos-jehova-abusos-mujeres-sometidas-suicidios%2F376712676_0.html

I know that at this point we would have expected Alondra or Susana to flip against naason, but to our surprise they haven't, and they probably never will.
Let's begin with the their mentality.
These women both have been prepared since they were children to serve the "Apostles" of this cult. Since this was their upbringing they believe that their only purpose on this earth is to fulfill anything that comes from the "man of God. So these women as well as others in the cult are willing to go to jail for naason. So for them to be in jail with him right now is considered a great blessing as well.
​
Their families are mega fanatics who willingly gave up their daughters to be abused, they knew exactly what they would go through and what would happen to them. They will never see naason's actions as atrocities, and they will always justify his actions because you can't judge the "servant of God", only God can and if God doesn't do it then why will we? So to them having their daughters in jail with naason, they believe their daughters have already earned their place in heaven.
​
Their community inside the sect believes that they are great warriors of naason. They believe that their names will be written in the book of God as holy women who accompanied the "Apostle" in his darkest moments. Don't believe me? You can go ahead and head to Alondra's family member's fb where they have images of her and the comments are all about how they are praying for her and that God is going to bless her etc... Now Susana is in house arrest so she already has a bit better than Alondra but she also has the church of San Diego treating her like a queen at home, of course just like everything in lldm on the down low they are helping her out, sending gifts and treats.
​
So although we think that they will flip on naason because a life in prison is not pretty, they might not do it. At the moment since the trial hasn't started, they still think that God will somehow make the charges go away so they have no need to turn on him or admit anything when it still hasn't been proven. When the trial begins maybe they can turn on him, but it will be extremely difficult for them to do so. If they do turn on him they will lose their family, they will lose their community, they will lose their prestige and they will still go to jail, so imagine going to jail and then coming out to nothing. So they might just go with it and not turn on him even if they go to jail for a long while, because when they come out they will have support everywhere and the biggest honors in their cult.
​
I hope I'm wrong, but what do you think?
​
*********************************************************************
Sé que en este punto hubiéramos esperado que Alondra o Susana se voltearan en contra de Naason, pero para nuestra sorpresa no lo han hecho, y probablemente nunca lo harán.
Comencemos con su mentalidad. Estas mujeres las han preparado desde que eran niñas para servir a los "Apóstoles" de este culto. Dado que esta fue su educación, creen que su único propósito en esta tierra es cumplir con todo lo que viene del "hombre de Dios". Por lo tanto, estas mujeres y otras personas en el culto están dispuestos a ir a la cárcel por El. Tambien estar en la cárcel con él en este momento dificil se considera una gran bendición.
Sus familias son mega fanáticos que voluntariamente renunciaron a sus hijas para que fueran abusadas, sabían exactamente por lo que pasarían y lo que les sucedería. Nunca verán las acciones de Naason como atrocidades, y siempre justificarán sus acciones porque uno no puede juzgar al "siervo de Dios", solo Dios puede hacerlo y si Dios no lo hace, ¿por qué lo haremos nosotros? Entonces, para ellos tener a sus hijas en la cárcel con Naason, creen que sus hijas ya se han ganado su lugar en el reino de los cielos.
Su comunidad dentro de la secta cree que son grandes guerreras de Naason. Creen que sus nombres estarán escritos en el libro de Dios como mujeres santas que acompañaron al "Apóstol" en sus momentos más oscuros. No me creas Puedes fijarse en el fb de miembros de la familia de Alondra donde tienen fotos de ella y los comentarios son sobre cómo están orando por ella y que Dios la va a bendecir, y que es muy santa etc... Ahora Susana está en arresto domiciliario, así que ella esta un poco mejor que Alondra, pero aparte de eso tiene a la iglesia de San Diego tratándola como una reina en casa, y por supuesto, como todo en lldm, bajo el agua la están ayudando, enviando regalos y premiando sus acciones.
Entonces, aunque creemos que se voltearan en contra de Naason porque una vida en prisión no es bonita, es posible que no lo hagan. Por el momento el juicio no ha comenzado, todavía piensan que Dios de alguna manera hará que los cargos desaparezcan, por lo que no tienen necesidad de voltearse en su contra o admitir algo cuando aún no se ha probado nada. Cuando comience el juicio, tal vez puedan voltearse contra él, pero seria extremadamente difícil para ellas hacerlo. Si se le voltean, perderán a su familia, perderán a su comunidad, perderán su prestigio y de todos modos iran a la cárcel, así que imaginate ir a la cárcel y luego quedarte sin nada. Por lo tanto, podrían seguirlo y no ir contra él, ir a la cárcel por un largo tiempo, y cuando salgan tendrian apoyo en todas partes y los mayores honores en su culto.
Espero estar equivocado, pero ¿qué te parece?

Political correctness is contentious – it was meant to be that way. It was a lousy right-wing media stitch-up to disparage the left and mask political encroachment upon our liberties. It’s been going on for decades. The idea that the right are the new advocates of freedom of speech is plain farcical.
Political correctness - attributed to leftists if one is to believe the press - is for the most part a conservative concoction. The more senior among us have heard it all before on numerous occasions.
The Looney Left.
In Britain in the early 1980s, the Thatcher years, the predominantly right wing press was hysterical with incendiary, yet apocryphal stories of ‘loony left’ extremists advocating near identical PC reforms to the ones currently being touted. Nothing has changed. Newspapers ran daily stories about leftist PC extremism while the right-wing government simultaneously busied itself reducing personal freedoms, not increasing them. PC was an invention to deflect attention away from major policy shifts.
The 1980s were, of course, the period of re-militarization of the economy with the Falklands War, when huge increases in military, police and security service expenditure were seen (totally in opposition to Thatcher’s supposed Hayekian minimal government politics). Simultaneously, workers’ rights and the power of trade unions were being massively curtailed. The notion that our freedoms were under attack by a few ‘right-on’ looney left-wingers was preposterous.
The years of political incorrectness
The early 1970s in Britain, had, in fact, been the golden years of political incorrectness (and were, revealingly, presided over by Labour governments). This was an era of heavy left-wing bias by the BBC, for instance, that allowed some of the most ludicrously un-PC programming ever aired on public TV. The BBC, to cite just one example, broadcast the ultra-incorrect Till Death Us Do Part for a full decade. The show’s fictional protagonist, Alf Garnett, was an old-school racist and anti-immigration bigot whose outspoken rants about ‘coons’ made even Enoch Powell seem moderate. Ironically, the un-PC persona managed to accurately mirror many Britons while, at the same time, making a mockery of the ultra-right extremism of the emergent British National Front party. It would now be impossible to make such a portrayal on public TV, as now we have basically sanitized the baddie.
It is, nevertheless, hard not to sympathize with some of the right’s assertions about the ridiculousness of the political correctness craze, even if they did surreptitiously invent it. The movement represents a form of modern-day Puritanism with the entire discussion hinging on the dubious notion that there is one political subset who should be allowed to impose their biases over another. By what right? The trite left-wing response cites grounds of equality, democracy, liberty and so on… but the thousands of disgruntled right-wingers ousted from social media, purely based on their political views negates the arguments. Ultimately, freedom of speech only works if everyone is allowed a voice, no matter how repugnant the sentiments. Bring back Alf Garnett, I say, and make a fool of the intolerants that way.
Skewing the argument.
The right dug its own grave. Conservative media invented and promoted political correctness to disparage the left, and then many got themselves banned from social media for not adhering to the rules. The left has effectively dug its own grave too. Instead of disregarding the hysterics and getting on with the great work, they walked into the trap and imposed further a kind of cultural censorship, with disastrous consequences. Rarely now do we talk about such crucial issues as fair pay, labour conditions, workers’ rights, kleptocratic bank fraudsters, tax havens or other issues crippling the world economy. There is, however, far more debate about the rights of transsexuals. (A recent poll by the Williams Institute concluded that 0.6% of the U.S. identified themselves as transgender, while a Gallup poll put the number of LGBT at 4.5%.)
Political correctness is dangerous. We now have traditionally intolerant voices on the right claiming to be the true advocates of free speech.
Conservatives against free speech
But the right, whether it be moderate Tories or hawkish Republicans, have never been true advocates of freedom or free speech. It has been forgotten that for decades there were huge conservative attempts at censorship and opposition to themes such as nudity, language, sex, homosexuality or other gender or race based issues. Let me refresh your memory.
Let’s take a look at the early 1970s. These were, of course, the nascent years of extreme cultural freedoms, when Hustler first appeared on newsstands, disco on the dance-floor, and when even hardcore films like Deep Throat were playing at local movie theatres. The left, Hollywood actors, the alternative press and counter-culture advocates were by far the staunchest defenders of these new freedoms. Conservatives most definitely were not. They opposed them vehemently. The Reagan and Bush eras continued this intolerance into the 1980s. The uncomfortable truth is that the advocates of real-life correctness in these decades were the conservatives. And in wasn’t just lone voices either. There were legions of do-gooders, setting themselves up as the defenders of correctness and decently. In Britain and the U.S. there were numerous large scale conservative clean-up TV campaigns and Christian pressure groups galore.
The Moral Majority on the rampage
One of the more prominent was the Moral Majority, which, as the popular wisdom now recognises, was neither. This Christian and Republican sect was founded in… guess when? Yep, 1979. The year exact year of British conservative re-election with Republican Reagan just about to take office in the States. A coincidence?
Free love, mass drug consumption and college drop-outs
Quite possibly recent history’s foremost advocates of political correctness and censorship were the Washington Wives and their Parent Music Resource Center whose campaign to purge American music of themes such as sex, masturbation, the occult, violence and bad language eventually spawned the Parental Advisory sticker. This attempt to censor language deemed to be offensive or disadvantageous towards a particular group had an interesting twist. Instead of protecting marginalized groups, ethnic minorities or gender discriminated people, the Washington Wives were pioneering a type of PC - purportedly to ‘protect’ their own children - but really an arbitrary crusade against young people making music. The Washington Wives’ peer group had, of course, 20 years earlier, been the generation of free love, mass drug consumption and college drop-outs. This was obviously the hangover or the guilt trip for past sins.
Censoring Madonna and other Satanists
The PMRC made a bid to, first, convince people that words are imbued with ‘good’ and ‘evil’ rather than purely subjective abstractions. (This was the period when right-wing moralists the world over were playing records backwards in a bid to discover satanic messages.) Having established their own warped agenda - in this case a set of taboo words and random topics used by certain rock and pop singers - the PMRC then set about censoring, finally falling short of outright bans, but managing to convince the Senate to rule in favour of Parental Advisory stickers on records containing swearwords. If you think modern day leftists choose odd victims, think again. Conservatives were far worse. Included in PMRC’s delightfully named ‘Filthy Fifteen’ were Madonna, Cindy Lauper and Sheena Easton! Thanks for advising me… the damage it could have done to my kids… And you still think that the right are the representatives of free speech?
The absurd, subjective logic of moralists
On the other side of the Atlantic a near identical, nationwide Conservative-Christian clean up TV campaign had been spearheaded by Mary Whitehouse. Tapping into Britain’s weakness for snobbery, Whitehouse became the darling of Daily Mail-reading housewife hypocrites keen to show that their moral rectitude and ‘correct’ middle-class agenda should be the cultural model. Not the bawdy, liberal working class one. Whitehouse would have censored Shakespeare.
Key to debunking cults like the Moral Majority, the PMRC and many other cultural sanitization campaigns, is understanding the fallacious reasoning that underpins them. Political bigots and religious fundamentalists often first invent what they consider to be acceptable. Then they whinge and cry like babies when the non-political and non-believers do what they deem to be unacceptable. It’s an absurd logic. One example will suffice. Take swearwords. In some countries there are virtually no taboo words at all. Spain, for instance, is highly tolerant of practically all swearwords, to the point that most have lost any type of power to offend. The identical set of words, however, will cause extreme offence in other Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. Why? The subjectivity and desire of an individual to let themselves get offended by someone else’s language or opinions is what makes the whole issue so contentious. Those who really get upset and offended, and need to be protected, are the poor sensitive bigots and fanatics themselves. They are inventing the story. Think about that next time you criticize some leftist snowflake.
Decaffeinated Christofascism
We have been through this on dozens of occasions. This time the entire discussion has re-emerged during the period when the hip right-wingster is all the rage and mushrooming across America, packing out Milos lectures on campus, as a handful of dodgy right-wing intellectuals give a ‘credible’ public voice to some highly suspect ideologies. The jocks love it. It’s basically a scrubbed-up, down-market, redneck moralist version where y’all get to defend ya freedom, arms, borders and ya white folk… But it’s just a rehash of the duplicitous, bigoted do-gooder mentality practiced by Jerry Falwell or the Washington Wives, where anyone not in agreement with light Christofascism is thought to be a Communist or a Satanist… or any left-winger who might mention inclusion of LGBTs or any other marginalized groups is obviously a leftist snowflake in need of time in the on-campus safe space. Go back to the trailer park!
But it’s all a giant lie to undermine the people and their opposition to elites. Ultra- conservatives and the far right have never been real advocates of either freedom, free speech or correctness of speech. Completely the opposite. Their obsession with hierarchical power structures shows this: the state, the government, the military, the monarchy, the church, or even the family have never allowed insubordination. Their entire ethos involves maintaining power and privilege among (their) small groups of concentrated power. Subservience, not freedom, is their real aim. Take a look at the families of some of these hawks. You are supposed to stand to attention and call your dad ‘Sir’. You are not allowed to defend yourself – that’s called answering back. Punishments are dealt out – in one direction only. Bullying is standard practice. Rules are for lower ranks. And that is only at home. Wait until you get a job or join the army! (And yes, they let these people possess firearms.)
True liberty
Thus the true advocates of freedom can really only be those who oppose statism, war, clericalism and patriarchy. That basically leaves the anarchists, whether they be of the European libertarian socialist variety or the anarcho-capitalist ‘libertarians’ (a hijacked term).
Authoritarianism is the enemy, not the leftists
The reason that the right (and much of the left) is a continual letdown is because they consistently fail on every one of the above counts. They holds liberty as their highest value but are, paradoxically, hugely pro-statist. Jingoism abounds. Instead of challenging the military industrial complex, they usually work for it. Religions are divided into acceptable and unacceptable, but they fail to challenge any of the evils of clericalism. Freedom is preached, but they denounce equality in the same sentence. Take a look at the resurgence of anti-feminism among the alt-right. Yet even those who claim to support feminism often refuse to challenge male power structures. Anarcho-feminism remains the only credible form of female emancipation as it is the only ideology aimed at reconfiguring the authoritarian family paradigm. Forget the Washington Wives; think Spain’s Mujeres Libres in the 1930s. They ran the Spain’s major cities and fought the fascists alongside the men. In America and Britain the girls stayed home from the wars ‘sewing bandages’ as Emma Goldman put it.
So when someone declares themselves in their Twitter profile to be a ‘A Christian, a patriot, a defender of individual liberties and an opponent of political correctness’ they have clearly got their wires crossed. The first two negate the last two. It’s hypocritical and oxymoronic. It’s also a complete cop out. It’s like saying, ‘I want freedom, but my wife should get back in the kitchen and the snowflake should stop complaining too!’
Ask yourself this. Are you really for freedom? Or are you for authoritarianism? You can’t be for both.

Muchos estadounidenses ignoran que la terapia de electrochoques (TEC), más comúnmente conocida como electroshock, continúa siendo ampliamente utilizada por la psiquiatría estadounidense. En el número actual de la revista Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry el psicólogo John Read y la coautora Chelsea Arnold señalan: "El receptor arquetípico del TEC sigue presente desde hace décadas, y es una mujer angustiada de más de 50 años".
En una revisión exhaustiva de la investigación sobre el TEC, Read y Arnold informan de que "no hay evidencia de que el tratamiento de electrochoque sea más efectivo que el placebo para la reducción de la depresión o la prevención del suicidio". Concluyen: "Dado el alto riesgo bien documentado de disfunción persistente de la memoria, el análisis de costo-beneficio del TEC sigue siendo tan pobre que su uso no puede justificarse científica ni éticamente".
Esto plantea la pregunta de por qué este abuso eléctrico que daña el cerebro de mujeres predominantemente de mediana edad y por qué a diferencia del abuso sexual de mujeres y niñas más jóvenes, hoy no es abordado por la mayoría de las feministas de alto perfil. Una famosa feminista que habló contra el TEC fue Kate Millett (autora del libro de Loony Bin Trip, aparecido en 1990), pero murió en septiembre de 2017 después de recibir poca atención en los últimos años. Sigue habiendo mujeres como la psicóloga Bonnie Burstow (autora del artículo de 2006 "Electrochoque como forma de violencia contra las mujeres, que ven el TEC como un problema de gran importancia para las mujeres, pero Burstow es reconocida solo entre expacientes "psiquiátricos", "activistas sobrevivientes" y profesionales disidentes de la salud mental.
Hoy muchas feministas identificadas como tales, como la mayoría de los demás estadounidenses, aparentemente han aceptado acríticamente el dictado de la Asociación Psiquiátrica Estadounidense (APA) de que "una investigación exhaustiva ha encontrado que el TEC es altamente efectivo para el alivio de la depresión mayor", una promulgación que no tiene base científica. En los últimos años, las afirmaciones de la psiquiatría han sido aceptadas acríticamente, tal vez porque la APA ha vendido con bastante eficacia la idea de que cuestionar la psiquiatría es como desafiar la evolución, el calentamiento global y la ciencia misma.
La realidad es que la APA y la psiquiatría convencional, desde hace bastante tiempo, han dejado de lado la ciencia, específicamente la metodología científica estándar mediante la cual se evalúan tratamientos como el TEC. La metodología científica estándar requiere un grupo de control con placebo, sin el cual no se puede determinar si el tratamiento en sí mismo o las meras expectativas del paciente concluyen en resultados positivos. La psiquiatría ha abandonado durante mucho tiempo el estudio del TEC con un control de placebo, sin duda porque en el pasado dicha metodología mostraba que el electrochoque era ineficaz.
Antes de 1986 se realizaron 10 experimentos controlados con placebo sobre el uso del TEC en pacientes deprimidos. El placebo utilizado en estos estudios fue una simulación del TEC (STEC) durante la cual se aplica la anestesia general pero se retiene la electricidad real. Read y Arnold informan de que ninguno de estos estudios mostró la efectividad del TEC más allá del final del tratamiento.
Entre estos 10 estudios controlados con placebo, seis informaron beneficios inmediatos para una minoría de receptores del TEC (percibidos como beneficios a veces solo por psiquiatras y no por otros calificadores) y 4 estudios informaron de que no hubo diferencias inmediatas entre ECT y SECT. Lo que es más importante, ninguno de los 10 estudios informó diferencias en la efectividad entre TEC y SECT más allá del tratamiento. Solo cuatro estudios siguieron a los participantes después del final del tratamiento y ninguno de estos estudios encontró diferencias entre los sujetos que recibieron ECT y SECT.
Es preocupante que desde 1985 no haya habido estudios controlados con placebo que examinen si el TEC tiene algún beneficio para la depresión más allá del período de tratamiento. En ese último estudio de 1985 los investigadores no encontraron diferencias en la efectividad entre los grupos de TEC y SECT ya sea en un mes o tres meses después del tratamiento. Si bien se han realizado estudios sobre el TEC para la depresión desde 1985, ninguno ha sido controlado con placebo, por lo que no permiten conclusiones científicas sobre la efectividad. (Los recientes estudios de TEC han considerado en la generalidad de las respuestas lo anticipado por el establishment de la psiquiatría, incluido el examen de las diferencias de procedimiento en la administración de TEC).
Si bien la psiquiatría cita los estudios -que carecían de control con placebo- que indican que un alto porcentaje de pacientes mejoró con TEC, estos estudios carecen de sentido científico. Un número significativo de pacientes con depresión informará de que mejora con cualquier tipo de tratamiento. Gran parte de la efectividad de cualquier tratamiento para la depresión tiene que ver con la fe, las creencias y las expectativas. Por eso es fundamental comparar un tratamiento con un placebo para que se pueda deducir qué parte del tratamiento tuvo que ver con la mejora en sí misma frente a la fe, las creencias y las expectativas. En una línea similar uno puede encontrar muchos testimonios de pacientes que han recibido TEC, ya que uno puede encontrar testimonios de cualquier tratamiento. Pero en la ciencia estos testimonios se conocen como anecdóticos y solo significa que una persona cree que un tratamiento funcionó para ella, no que el tratamiento haya demostrado ser científicamente efectivo.
La psiquiatría es consciente de la imagen pública negativa del TEC, por lo que hoy la administración de ese tratamiento se ha hecho menos agresiva. A los pacientes se les administra un anestésico y oxígeno junto con un fármaco relajante muscular para prevenir fracturas. Sin embargo el objetivo del TEC es crear una convulsión y estas "mejoras de procedimiento" elevan el umbral convulsivo, por lo que se necesita una carga eléctrica cada vez más alta, lo que puede ocasionar un daño cerebral aún mayor. La "dosificación eléctrica" ​​estándar es de 100 a 190 voltios, pero puede aumentar a 450 voltios. Por lo tanto, aunque el TEC ya no resulta tan tortuoso para los observadores como parecía antes de estos cambios en el procedimiento, los efectos en el cerebro son tan dañinos o más que nunca.
Incluso defensores del TEC como APA reconocen los efectos adversos en la memoria, pero la institución tiende a minimizar el alcance de este daño. Sin embargo, en 2007, la revista Neuropsychopharmacology informó de un estudio a gran escala sobre los efectos cognitivos (inmediatamente y seis meses después) de las técnicas actualmente utilizadas del TEC. Los investigadores encontraron que producen "una ralentización pronunciada del tiempo de reacción" y "amnesia retrógrada marcada y persistente" (la incapacidad de recordar eventos antes del inicio de la amnesia) que continúa seis meses después del tratamiento.
¿Qué tan extendido está el tratamiento con TEC? En 2009, el Journal of Psychiatric Practice informó de que "aproximadamente 100.000 personas en los Estados Unidos y más de 1.000.000 en todo el mundo reciben TEC". Sin embargo esto es solo una estimación. No en todos los estados de EE.UU. se deben presentar informes de ese tratamiento, pero Texas sí lo exige y documenta a principios de este año: "En el año fiscal 2016, 22 de las 25 instalaciones en Texas con equipo TEC registrado realizaron tratamientos y proporcionaron los informes de pacientes requeridos por el estado. Hubo un aumento del 1,1 por ciento en el número de tratamientos en el año fiscal 2016 en comparación con 2015. "Texas reporta 2.675 informes trimestrales de pacientes agregados que recibieron TEC" (si los pacientes recibieron TEC en otros trimestres en el transcurso del año, puede que hayan sido contados más de una vez). Existe una amplia variación del uso de TEC dentro de los Estados Unidos, ya que la revista Brain and Behavior informó en 2012 de que, entre la población de Medicare en los Estados Unidos, los tratamientos TEC eran dos veces más comunes en las áreas urbanas que en las rurales y más comunes en el noreste que en el oeste.
"Las mujeres son sometidas a electrochoques de dos a tres veces más que los hombres", señala Bonnie Burstow. No hay controversia acerca de que las mujeres son mucho más propensas a recibir tratamiento con TEC que los hombres. El informe de 2016 de Texas señaló que las mujeres recibieron el 68 % de los tratamientos con TEC. Mientras que los hombres también son tratados con TEC, de forma similar a las estadísticas sobre abuso sexual, los hombres reciben TEC en una proporción mucho más baja. Con respecto a la edad, Texas informó de que el 61 % de los que recibieron TEC tenían 45 años o más (la edad según el sexo no se desglosó en el informe de Texas).
El psiquiatra suele recomendar el TEC a pacientes con depresión grave después de que varios antidepresivos no mejoran los síntomas. La psiquiatría se centra cada vez más en los síntomas y no en las causas de nuestro malestar, por lo que a menudo no aborda las causas obvias de la depresión, como la pérdida, los traumas no cicatrizados y otros dolores abrumadores. The Interactional Nature of Depression (1999), editado por los psicólogos Thomas Joiner y James Coyne, documenta cientos de estudios sobre la naturaleza interpersonal de la depresión. En un estudio de mujeres casadas infelices que fueron diagnosticadas con depresión, el 60 por ciento de ellas creía que su matrimonio infeliz era la causa principal de su depresión. A menudo es un matrimonio infeliz o el aislamiento y la soledad lo que alimenta la depresión, pero es más fácil y más lucrativo ofrecer TEC después de que los antidepresivos fallan que hacer todos los esfuerzos terapéuticos para mejorar la fuente de la depresión.
Los pacientes con TEC normalmente firman el consentimiento para el tratamiento, entonces, ¿cómo puede considerarse el TEC un abuso? La realidad es que la mayoría de los pacientes que dan su consentimiento no son informados de la verdad de los riesgos y beneficios. Por otra parte, cuando estamos deprimidos, incluso si se habla de los riesgos que se presentan, nuestra capacidad de cuestionar y resistir a la autoridad está muy disminuida. Mientras que la psiquiatría se niega a reconocer si las personas vulnerables son pasibles de abuso de las autoridades competentes como ellos mismos, Louis C.K., finalmente, dio a conocer esta realidad sobre el abuso sexual:

"En ese momento me dije que lo que hice estuvo bien porque nunca le mostré a una mujer mi polla sin preguntar primero, lo cual también es cierto. Pero lo que aprendí más tarde en la vida, demasiado tarde, es que cuando tienes poder sobre otra persona, pedirle que mire tu pene no es una pregunta. Es una situación difícil para ellos. El poder que tenía sobre estas mujeres es que me admiraban. Y ejercía ese poder de manera irresponsable”.

El daño del abuso sexual es causado por el trauma de la violencia y para muchas víctimas por la vergüenza de no haberse resistido. Algunos sobrevivientes psiquiátricos autoidentificados tienen vergüenza por haber dado permiso a la psiquiatría para mostrarles su polla al TEC. La herida de la vergüenza puede sanar con amor. Sin embargo, ni el amor ni ninguna otra cosa pueden curar el daño cerebral causado por el TEC.
Bruce E. Levine, psicólogo clínico en ejercicio, escribe y habla de cómo la sociedad, la cultura, la política y la psicología se cruzan. Es autor de Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated y Battling the Corporate Elite (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2011). Su sitio web es www.brucelevine.net
Fuente: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/22/the-electrical-abuse-of-women-does-anyone-care/

• The Bolivian anarcha-feminist collective known as Mujeres Creando gained worldwide fame in 2001 when they (armed with dynamite and Molotov Cocktails) attacked The Bolivian Banking Supervisory Agency demanding that all debt owed by any woman in the country be removed. When riot police arrived feminist protesters fought against them by throwing Molotov cocktails at police cruisers.
  
• In 1982 in Canada a feminist terrorist sect known as The “Wimmin’s Fire Brigade” firebombed a chain of pornographic video rental stores as part of a plan to intimate the Canadian government into changing the laws to outlaw pornography.
  
• The National Encounter of Women is a yearly feminist conference that occurs in South America where close to 20,000 feminists meet for workshops and think tank discussions. The conference is usually marked as well with widespread violence being committed by the feminists who attend. In 2007 the anti-catholic sentiment (due to the catholic church being against abortion) held by a large number of women there boiled over and the mob of feminists started targeting catholic feminist women at the convention going into to a workshop to physically and sexually assault many of them and force them out of the conference. After the feminists announced their plans to attack a local cathedral police sent riot police to protect the area and the feminist groups instead just attacked and looted several local businesses instead.
  
• In 2013 Catholics in San Juan who knew the history of the The National Encounter of Women decided to go to the local cathedral and protect it from being attacked by feminists when the convention was being held their. The 1500 Catholics stood outside the cathedral hands locked in non violence to try and help protect it from the feminists who planned to storm and destroy the church. The 7000 (many topless) feminist protesters attacked the group of Catholics. Spraying cans of spray paint in their eyes, throwing glass bottles at them, attempting to molest at least several of the men guarding the cathedral along with them committing other practices of violence. Despite this the pacifist Catholics did not fight back even to protect themselves in self defense.
  
• The Zapatista Army of National Liberation is a Pro-Feminist Paramilitary guerrilla rebel group which has been in a war with Mexico since 1994. The group is so focused on feminist ideas that the first declaration of demands the terrorist group sent to the Mexican government was a document entitled The Women’s Revolutionary Law which was a list of “rights” they demanded all women get, these rights included the right to having preferential health services when they go to clinics and the right to participate in the violent overthrow of the government.
  
• Swedish politician Göran Hägglund despite being a strong supporter of women’s and gay rights was attacked by a member of an LGBT queer anarcho-feminist group due to him “discouraging LGBT rights". It’s still unclear what exactly Hägglund has done to discourage those rights due to him staunchly supporting the gay community.
  
• American Radical Feminist Jane Alpert was responsible over the course of five years for bombing 8 corporate and federal buildings. Whose ranks include Chase Manhattan, The Offices or General Motors and The New York City Police Headquarters. In Alpert’s surrender statement she claimed achieving work in the feminist movement was her major goal for committing these acts of terrorism. And in her Manifesto “Mother Right” she called for others to do the same in order to defeat the patriarchy.
  
• Feminists sent death threats to Erin Pizzey, the British woman who founded the world’s first Domestic Violence shelter. Because, she said women can be as cruel and violent as men, and then feminists ended up mutilating her pet dog to send a warning to her after she refuses to leave the country. Before this incident Erin Pizzey had previously been involved with the British Women’s Liberation Movement but left the group after overhearing plans for them to commit a terrorist attack on the upscale London women’s fashion store, “Biba.” The group later was responsible for a protest of The Miss World competition where the group attempted to shut down the event by attacking the models with smoke bombs.
  
• University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published a study showing evidence that in cases of domestic violence women are just as likely to abuse their husbands as husbands would be to abuse their wives. Feminists responded to this by sending death threats to Steinmetz and her children threatening organizers of speaking engagements that invited her to speak and sending a bomb threat to shut down a speaking engagement she had, forcing her to lose her job.
  
• After Richard Gelles and Murray Straus of the American Sociological Association simply published a survey showing the rate of male domestic violence victims feminists started a campaign of harassment contacting and threatening anyone they could find even slightly related to either of two and calling in bomb threats to conference centers and buildings where they were scheduled to present.
  
• In 2015 Feminist forced the Society of Professional Journalists (the oldest journalistic ethics association in the United States) annual conference to be evacuated after calling in bomb threats to the police as retaliation against the conference having a panel on Gamergate.
  
• During the August Revolution in Burkina Faso. The Burkinabe Women’s Liberation Movement along with other Marxist groups helped stage a coup to overthrow the French Colonial Government and then instated Marxist Rebel Thomas Sankara as the country’s new leader. Sankara on behalf of the Burkinabe feminists passed laws making female circumcision illegal along with the passing these women’s rights laws his administration was famous for ushering a new era of human rights abuses in which many of the political opponents of the The Burkinabe Women’s Liberation Movement were either arrested without cause, tortured or executed in illegal extrusions killings.
  
• The Radical Eco-Feminist group Deep Green Resistance which was founded in 2011 and is currently active in 7 countries, The group was founded by a self described feminist warrior and preaches for lone wolf terrorists to attack every part of civilian, from bombing airports to open firing on farmers on country fairs even going as far as to call for rape and assassinations against figures who are opposed to them. The group’s goal is for the destruction of industrial civilization and the return of a matriarchal hunter gatherer lifestyle. Though to give feminists credit several magazines and feminist groups have condoned their actions, not because they preaching for genocide and indiscriminate killings but due to the fact that they do not allow trans women to go to their terrorist training camps.
  
• A group known as The Women’s Brigade of Weather Underground, whose motto is literally, "Build a militant women’s movement that commits itself to the destruction of Amerikkkan imperialism and exploit the man’s chauvinism as a strategic weakness.“ was an ultra-extremist feminist terrorist sect whom was responsible for bombing the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University and The Offices of The Department of Health and Human Services in San Francisco as part of a celebration for National Woman’s Day.
  
• The violent Feminist power group M.E.K also known as People’s Mujahedin of Iran has been labeled as a terrorist organization by both the United Nations and NATO they are believed to be responsible for several terrorist attacks around Iran which has left dozens dead. The group was founded in 1965 with the stated goal of overthrowing the Iranian Shah but after the Shahs regime ending the group changed significantly going through a point in which they assassinated the President and Prime Minister of Iran in 1981. Eventually in 1985 radical feminist Maryam Rajavi took control of the group and ushered in another wave of terror attacks and shifted the focus of the group to being permanently about pushing feminist agendas, under her rule Rajivi ordered the assassination of several high level government officials in various countries and organized a bombing campaign targeting civilians. In 2005, Human Rights Watch issued a report describing prison camps within run by the M.E.K in which people kidnapped by the terrorist group were held captive tortured and raped. Maryam Rajavi still leads the group today and has been praised by the international feminist community for her work on behalf of women being honored by both the Feminist Peace Network and globally recognized Feminist Professor Donna M. Hughes and even being invited to give a speech as the keynote speaker for the International Woman’s Day celebration in France. In 2015 M.E.K was also believed to be responsible for a string of murders targeting Iranian scientists and educators.
  
• Cumann na mBan was an all female feminist paramilitary organisation, that during the Easter Rising sent 200 armed women across Dublin to help Irish-Nationalists seize major locations around the city. During the armed rebellion one of these women Constance Markievicz a British Suffragist famously took over a post office along with several other female fighters and used the building to set up a sniper nest where they carried out sniper attacks on British troops and succeeded in murdering at least 3 police officers and several more soldiers. Within 5 days the feminist group along with their allies in the IRA had succeeded in killing 132 British soldiers and local police officers along with killing at least 254 other civilians. Dozens of Irish rebel forces groups were part of the attack during the Easter Rising but historians agree Cumann na mBan was the most violent and influential of these groups with the women in it making up a fifth of the Irish rebels at the time.
  
• The Women’s Social and Political Union was one of the most famous and influential feminist groups in the history of the United Kingdom. Along with this they happened to be one of the most militant and violent committing almost nightly arson attacks on random churches, businesses and private homes regardless of the owners view on feminism. The group also attempted to burn down Chancellor David Lloyd George’s home, cut public telephone wires, sent letter bombs to various politicians and businesses, destroyed the Kew Garden greenhouses which held the world’s single largest collection of living plants and is now a United Nations World Heritage site. Tried to rush the house of commons. And attempted to assassinate British Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith. On top of this the majority of the violence perpetrated by the group wasn’t even at people who were against feminism.
  
• Rote Zora was a militant feminist group from Germany who used guerrilla warfare tactics to terrorize west Germany by bombing over 45 buildings from 1977 to 1995. The group targeted people, businesses and groups whom they thought exploited women such as sex shops, makeup companies and The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany.
  
• Mary Richardson a Canadian feminist (who would later lead women’s section of the Nazi Sympathizer group known as The British Union of Fascists) entered the National Gallery in London and used a meat clever to slash The Rokeby Venus a 450 year old painting created by Diego Velázquez who is one of the most famous Spanish artists in history. She was quoted as giving the reason for her doing this as a protest of the government trying to prosecute the feminist terrorist Emmeline Pankhurst for her crimes against the public. Along with this famous attack Mary Richardson also committed numerous other acts of arson and vandalism along with bombing a railway station in the name of feminism.
  
• In 2015 in the city of Odessa a large group of Ukrainian citizens worried about the growing Totalitarian state of their country organized a protest against Fascism to show their opposition for the way their country was changing. In response to this protest a large group of Maidan Fascists and Neo-Nazis planned to meet the anti-protesters and silence them. Among these Neo-Nazis and openly Fascist supporting extremists was Femen leader Levgeniia Kraizman who took pictures of herself wearing a FEMEN tee shirt and marching with the Neo-Nazis as she posed in front of burning cars in which the Fascists had overturned to intimidate the protesters. After the anti-fascists refused to leave the Neo-Nazis and Fascists along with Kraizman and other feminists and Femen members invited to the pro-fascist Nazi rally began attacking the anti-fascist protesters. Police were unable to stop the violence. The Neo-Nazis and Fascist who were much better armed took no time to begin killing the anti-fascist protesters, open firing and beating as many to death as they could find along with burning alive anyone they could catch. Further clashes in Ukraine between the groups outside of this one incident in the later weeks left 48 dead, 247 injured (27 shot, 31 stabbed) and 99 hospitalized and 123 arrested.