At the same time, society maintains a kind of gender-discriminatory Ibsen “Doll’s House” universe, shaped by cultural notions of women as innocent, lark-like creatures.
We live in a time when psychological awareness has made it possible to articulate destructive patterns and protect people from invisible forms of power. Yet it is striking how many of the tools we use—such as Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist (Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist – Revised, PCL-R)—primarily capture traits that are typically male: megalomania, a need to dominate, emotional coldness, and grandiose self-images.
Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist is intended for professional use. Yet it takes only a few casual internet searches before it appears, complete with tools for scoring (evaluating) individuals. The items and supporting descriptions on Hare’s checklist may be exactly what some people need to realize that they—or others—are experiencing something they should never have had to endure. It can reveal a new, unfamiliar, difficult, abnormal, and yet very ordinary world.
The use of the checklist can make it harder for adults to recognize that they are being subjected to psychological abuse—even when the abuser qualifies as a psychopath. It is even more difficult for children and young people with limited life experience to understand this. At the same time, manipulative forms of abuse—used by both women and men—can go unnoticed in relationships and in society, including in disputes and court cases concerning, for example, child custody or situations where someone has been psychologically provoked into committing physical violence.
Read also: How Oagal Intends to Strengthen Norwegian Democracy, Step by Step
The danger is that violence becomes synonymous with masculine, physical violence. Psychological violence—which occurs more frequently and is perpetrated by both women and men—can slip under the radar as an explanatory factor. The societal consequences of this have been evident in the handling of the Children Act, where many have inaccurately promoted a distorted picture of violence committed by women and men, including the downplaying of psychological abuse.
failure to uncover psychological abuse effectively constitutes gender discrimination
The gender biases are evident in the PCL-R, Robert D. Hare’s revised version of Harvey Cleckley’s sixteen behavioral symptoms characterizing the psychopathic personality. Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist consists of the following twenty items (source: Wikipedia):
Part of the reason Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist is best suited for assessing men is that it was originally designed for professionals and intended for use with serious offenders—and in, for example, Norwegian prisons, women make up well below ten percent of the population. The article Psychopathy in Women: Theoretical and Clinical Perspectives—published by the U.S. National Library of Medicine—clearly outlines the serious consequences of applying tools designed for men to women:
It is therefore hardly surprising that popular media outlets, such as Kvinner og Klær, conclude that most psychopaths are men. Because the analytical tool largely excludes women, this becomes the inevitable conclusion—problematic not least for women who are subjected to abuse by other women without understanding it or being believed.
Read also: The Use of Deliberative Assemblies Can Strengthen Popular Rule
Narcissists and psychopaths don’t walk around with identifying labels and may not even recognize their own behavior. In some countries, psychopathy is not considered a diagnosis at all. Instead, terms such as antisocial personality disorder or dissocial personality disorder are used—as in this Supreme Court ruling.
When an ordinary person unfamiliar with manipulative or psychopathic behavior begins to suspect that something is not normal and starts searching for answers, they can quickly be led to Hare’s psychopathy test. Whether the checklist is intended for professionals or not, most people will find it and use it—encouraged by media coverage that presents the psychopathy test and invites people to score women and men they have relationships with.
Those subjected to a man will recognize many personality traits described in the test. If the abuser is a woman, they will also recognize certain traits—but most likely fewer. This does not mean that women do not manipulate; it simply means they often do so in ways that this widely used test fails to capture. Whereas men are more likely to exercise direct power, female manipulation often operates through relational and emotional means: withholding warmth, playing on guilt, using the victim role to influence decisions, or building alliances that create social exclusion.
This is not necessarily less harmful—but it is often harder to see.
In real life, much of the manipulation takes place with a smile—very different from the image many hold of a psychopathic person. Many of the tactics used by both women and men are not captured by scales like Hare’s and therefore fall outside the language available to confront them.
To illustrate this, classic “male” traits from the Hare scale can be compared with possible “female” traits that could be included in a broader framework and understanding of manipulation (presented here as four summarized points):
Perhaps the most surprising—and deeply gender-discriminatory—aspect of today’s measurement tools is that they deprive women of accountability for manipulative or destructive traits. When their behavior is not captured by the scales, they simply fall outside them. As a result, they appear innocent—not because they are, but because we lack the language and tools to see them. We end up in an Ibsenesque universe, where the woman remains a lark-like creature to be protected and excused, even though she is an equal in a far more complex modern reality.
Read also: 2024 — A Horrible Year for Norwegian Democracy
Oagal’s aim is not to judge, diagnose, or attack either gender—quite the opposite. The purpose of developing scales and concepts is not to label anyone as “sick” or classify them as something as serious as a psychopath, but to give people a clearer understanding of what they are facing. Many who live close to manipulative individuals—whether in families, relationships, or workplaces—become uncertain, doubtful, and self-blaming precisely because the behavior they encounter does not fit the cultural image of what power and transgression look like.
In a democratic sense, their civil rights are not being upheld.
Equally important is that we must have tools that enable us to help. If female forms of manipulation are not recognized or made measurable, female perpetrators of abuse easily fall outside the psychological support system. There are many men and women with difficult relational patterns—some genuinely wish to understand themselves and change. But to make that possible, we must give them concepts that actually reflect how their behavior manifests in reality.
A renewed measurement tool must therefore walk a fine line: between acknowledging gender differences in expression and avoiding the pathologization of ordinary, gender-neutral traits.
Many feminine strategies that are not pathological in themselves—such as sensitivity, relational adaptability, or emotional expressiveness—can, when misused, slide into manipulation and control. The professional and ethical challenge lies in distinguishing between socially learned interaction styles and deliberate, systematic use of power.
If such traits are explained solely as “feminine” and therefore normal, we conceal their darker sides. Society then continues to trivialize female destructiveness, and those affected—whether partners, children, or colleagues—lose the language to describe the abuse. A democratic healthcare and legal system must be able to recognize both forms of power with equal seriousness.
This does not mean that femininity should be “pathologized,” but rather that we must be able to distinguish between empathy and the exploitation of empathy. Only when we dare to recognize the socially accepted forms of control can we develop a psychological and societal language that safeguards legal protection for everyone—regardless of gender.
De fleste av artiklene på Oagal er utarbeidet av redaksjonen. Innholdet fra redaksjonen er det fortløpende redaksjonelle arbeidet i Oagal. Redaksjonen driver undersøkende journalistikk, utvikler ideer til saker og utarbeider artikler ved hjelp av ulike tilgjengelige kilder og verktøy. Meningsbærende innhold og også reportasjer bærer skribentens navn.
0 Comments