The Mentality of the Female Narcissist

(image of Mata Hari)

The Mentality of the Dangerous Female Narcissist – How to spot real ones!

I think, if you are a narcissist, you will find spotting other narcissists very difficult.

Maybe you should read this!  It is a slightly different take than you are probably used to.

I have so much experience of narcissists.  To me they are not, and never have been, charming, in any way.  In my experience, most of them are men, though I have met female narcissists, one of whom was my mother; maybe not one of the worst, but most are men, statistically. 

Let’s consider the most commonly known female version first, the ‘dangerous female narcissist’ in a work environment; she is often a woman that has adapted to a male-dominated environment that devalues her and is culturally affronted by a woman demanding typically ‘male-characteristic traits’ and ‘respect’.  She adopts a ‘male attitude’ to fit into the male environment, then gets called a narcissist because she is displaying male traits, which, are narcissistic and egotistic.  This could be one of the reasons very successful women are more likely to be called narcissistic, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are narcissists.  

Narcissism for women is expressed differently, according to psychologists.  Conversely, narcissists are more likely to be promoted, so displaying narcissistic traits, in a largely competitive and male dominated environment may be beneficial to women. I think this kind of female narcissist is not a real narcissist.  Real female narcissists are more likely to be found in more traditionalist roles doing traditionally female things but in a very narcissistic way. 

Let me describe two different narcissists.  One was my late mother and the other was a psychologist in Switzerland.  Both considered themselves to be caring people and both were involved in working in social services.  Both were heavily swayed by charm. Helen Urban once said to me:

 ‘You can forgive people for thinking your brother was ‘charming!’

(She said this to me, realising her mistake, after speaking to my narcissistic brother (without my consent - implicit or explicit; but because the IPT court and Colin Boyd; the FCDO; Police Scotland; and the City of Edinburgh Council had written this, secretly, for decades); because he is shown in multiple secret documents as being ‘consulted’; by the FCDO (2018; 2020; 2023/4); and British state and in 2005/06 by Procurator Fiscal Colin Boyd; after my son was murdered.  

Helen, the psychologist (read seriously damaged and deranged woman-child) was trying to justify her big, big mistake, to me, thinking I would just forgive her for a line of questioning which was intended as torture (not by her, by the FCDO and Police Scotland)! Clearly, she was not a very good psychologist or had insight into herself in any way at all!

My mother, in her later years was an Assistant Social Worker; previously an accountant; lab assistant at Edinburgh University; orthopaedic nurse; and the psychologist (Helen Urban) was, a psychologist. Helen particularly liked working, and maybe even asked to work with, women, and young women in particular.  I know this because I only ever saw her with vulnerable young women.  I am not young.  I am 58.  I met her , when I in 2024 when was 56 as an asylum seeker.  Her English was low C2 level, but she was a French national working in Switzerland.  She understood everything I said but was so arrogant and narcissistic that she would not, and could not, listen.  

What excited Helen and what interested her about me, after getting absolutely everything wrong about my life and my life in the asylum camps was:

'I have heard about 'cases' like yours before.' Again, she was not very good at hiding her absolute confusion. She went from: Lucy, you are an arrogant woman with PTSD and are triggered from your 'childhood trauma'; to 'I have heard about cases like yours! You must forgive me for consulting your brother. It is an easy mistake to make!' (I feel physically sick!)

I sat for six sessions with Urban; 80% of the time listening to her problems; her telling me about her clients (some of which I knew because they were the people assaulting me); her refusing to listen to anything I said; and her paranoia when her theories fell flat on their face every time she asserted one and always refused to justify them, give evidence for them, explain how she came to her deranged conclusions! The only logical and acceptable reason to me is that she was trying, and failing, to get me or not get me deported, because there was not one tiny piece of evidence to support any of her lies. Her behaviour was so irrational and erratic it was impossible to tell.

I only saw her to try and get her to record the torture, assaults and abuse I was experiencing in the camps. This is the one thing she absolutely failed to do! Regardless of repeated requests. Someone told her not to! Someone told her not to because it would not have and does not tally with their preferred narrative. Police Scotland were dictating Helen's ideology because Police Scotland are trying to cover their tracks! Still to this day!

You don't have to forgive anyone - but you do have to understand them!

No, you are not forgiven Helen Urban, because of all people you should be able to spot a sadistic narcissist; and you should have better listening skills; and you should not threaten normal people because they have sussed that you are a completely deranged nutter!

Where does narcissism come from?

Well, most psychologists state we all have narcissistic traits which are necessary for survival, so there’s that. Instinctive, intuitive narcissistic traits which help us survive.

Simplistically, Freud, Rogers and Jung said narcissistic personality traits (‘disorders’) start as a child when that child does not receive the ‘normal’ love and attention they should receive (as a normal narcissistic need a child has in order to survive); or because of some kind of ‘childhood event’.  

The trouble with a lot of psychological research is confirmation bias.  

Consider: 

‘Studies of narcissists confirms most narcissists suffered neglect, abuse or a catastrophic event as a child.’

These isolated (isolationist) studies are not compared with studies of people who also did not have ‘perfect childhoods’ (and let’s face it most people do not have perfect childhoods), also experienced similar events, but are not considered narcissists.  Additionally, most people do not focus on, blame everything on, or even admit to having ‘(non)perfect childhoods’ due to the social stigma associated with this.  So, people lie or omit!  This is one of the reasons psychology is such a pseudo-science – psychologists believe what they choose to believe because it supports their narrative.  They are not interested in other narratives or investigating their blind spots.  Psychology is a soft science – useful for possible explanations but whose theories provide little hard evidence.

Almost all can be disputed or proven wrong. Just ideas!  Often tautological:  

                        you are sick because you don’t accept that you are sick!

But let’s continue with this popular western idea.

It is difficult to spot real narcissists because their behaviour is often supported by the environment and people they exist in.  Mothers have a lot of power over their children; psychologists have a lot of power over their patients.  A lot of trust has to be invested in these relationships, out of necessity, by the powerless (their children and the clients).  It is assumed the psychologist is a better expert on the mind than the person herself.  It is assumed the mother has the best interests of the child at heart.  Both are not necessarily true.  But before you get into a general woman-hating and bashing mindset (for narcissists reading this), let’s look at other facts associated with narcissism.

Cultural aspects related to the economy and GDP.

Some studies have looked at the way cultural aspects (collective versus individualistic societies) affect narcissism; or how GDP affects narcissism; and compared these things.  It would be a normal assumption to think there would be more narcissists in individualistic cultures than collectivist, but this is not true.  This study found that ‘perceived status’ is strongly, positively correlated with narcissism; a pre-occupation with status and prestige – which are of course different in different countries; Buddhist monks in Buddhist (collectivist) countries for example.

 If we probe further down to the micro-level and continue with the same theory: ‘perceived status’; familial dynamics, can influence narcissism; economic freedom and opportunities can affect narcissism; normative behaviour within a family can tolerate, encourage or discourage narcissism; power dynamics in every environment – the biggest factor in narcissistic harm and power injustices.  

Hegel (1770 to 1831)

‘The thing we learn from history is that men do not learn anything from history!’

Maybe Hegel meant powerful men?

Nobody can see exactly what other people see, as I have said before in previous posts and videos.  We only have an approximation of each other and the ‘thing we see’; which we gain through perception, language and ideas which already exist in our own heads, gained through experience.  

The tabular rasa v’s innate/nature v’s nurture debate can never be resolved, entirely, because people and context are often very unique.  

How you see me is not the same as how I see me!  I am a much nicer person in my own eyes because I know what I have sacrificed to help other people, and the effect that has had on me.  You don’t! My perception is preferable to me, of course, and better.  That is part of perception – not creating narratives of ourselves which are harmful to us! You may think it is not true, but who do you think has more evidence of me, you or me? I am the expert on me.  If you have power, you can take away my expertise and convince me you are more correct than I am, but that is about power and language.  It is not about reality!  Reality is just perception!

If you want to look at Buddhist beliefs, Buddhists do not even believe a self exists, and to achieve enlightenment you have to let go of this, perhaps comforting idea. The self is an idea in your head to help you deal with uncertainty.

Alternatively:

How you see or what you see depends on your previous experience, knowledge and internal beliefs/the context! (David Hume; Emmanuel Kant; Donald Hoffman)

Are you a tabula rasa or were you born with some knowledge?

Language as a form of mind control.

Language in itself is used to manipulate, control, deny, form opinions, and convince ourselves ‘everything is as it should be’.  We experience feelings on a spectrum from ‘an adrenaline rush to extreme calmness’ when we convince ourselves with creative narratives which lesson the doubt, deal with uncertainty and appear to resolve unresolvable human experiences.  Man is a mess.  He is not a logical, thinking and intentional being most of the time.  He (human) is a beautiful mess.  

Language is more structured.  Language can both confuse, control and create false narratives which are very convincing.  Psychology and many psychological theories are just convincing narratives people accept because, for some, they calm the mind, provide solution and deny responsibility.  They reduce cognitive dissonance. Responsibility can be painful, but it is also the most enlightening and rewarding human experience.   Psychology is damaging to humanity in this aspect because it does not allow people to become fully autonomous being because of the convenient lies it promotes.  Lies which can create narcissists, ironically.

INJUSTICE

If you lock up a human being (metaphorically or physically) and tell them if they do not accept the narrative which a powerful person has stated, which is untrue, the human ’spirit’ will either die or fight.   The cognitive dissonance cannot be resolved with the narrative handed to the human being who has been locked up. The innocent person will search and search for a way to resolve the dissonance between their reality and the lie.  Some will die trying! When powerful people try to destroy innocent people there should be repercussions, because humanity is a living thing, changing and adapting; and allowing barbarity to become normalised promotes more barbarity.  This is an environment where narcissists thrive.  One person is every person.  We are all connected.

Back to female narcissists.

So, given that perception can be influenced and altered, and power is a huge influence in this, I want to go back to my own experiences of female narcissists in the environment I just described: where powerful people allow great harm to occur without any repercussions for them or any option to redress injustice. Time is not a healer in this situation!

My mother presented herself in a way that made her look like a successful, divorced woman with four children.  She owned her own house, was grammar school educated, a professional for most of her career, and had relatively ‘successful children’.  I shattered that illusion when I took part in a media campaign in Scotland discussion how childhood neglect harmed children and how I had decided to change history by openly discussing this, so that my son, Danny, would not experience the same harm.

My mother’s narcissist traits went full on Usain Bolt!  From when my son was two years old, which is when I started to volunteer for Scottish Child Magazine, she did everything surreptitiously to try to make her youngest daughter (me) look like a liar.  She started to stalk me; wrote to social services claiming I had a huge drug and alcohol problem; got her social friends to stalk me surreptitiously; wrote to my son’s school, etc.

I was about 25 years old at this time.  I was only starting to understand how sick she was, having left the home when I was sixteen years old, to escape her; and my brothers’ violence. I had some distance but not enough.  I started to set limitation on her access to my son; on the understanding she did not take my son anywhere hear her other children.  Of course, she disobeyed me.  I just didn’t realise to what extent she would!

I would allow her to have Danny for the weekend now and then, half-believing her story that she had been unfortunate to have been left alone with four children.  This was indeed difficult.  She was an intelligent woman who had been left with four children, but we always managed to have food and clothes and a regularish life.  

Except for the violence and abuse that is.! The psychological abuse also.  

However, I won’t go into that. It will take you down the rabbit hole of: ‘everything you experience is as the result of childhood trauma’!  You must consider the life I had after I joined Scottish Child, after I got my first degree, and after I left Scotland, to see what my life was really about. You must consider my knowledge of psychology from my degree and my resilience as a person who has played semi-professional touch rugby until I was 45 years old.  These things mitigate against ill health.  These life choices were mine, alone!

You cannot see people clearly if you insist they fit all experience and perception into a tiny, selective perspective. You are choosing to limit people. It is inhumane!  Those with a very short, tiny life experience of maybe even 30 years, living in one culture, living off theories which are intended to limit your consciousness, cannot comprehend life outside of that culture; or those who have lived ‘different’ lives to them.  The inexperienced and unimaginative people.  That is why travel is an education!  You don’t know until you know!

I want you to consider that repeating the same mantras to yourself (psychological theories) as an explanation of your life, creates your life! You can choose whichever mantra you want as an explanation of your life.  You can choose who you want to be.  It is not limited to one culture, one idea or one perspective.  You can embrace other ideas which are better, more exact and healthier.  Ignoring a lot of psychology is actually healthy for you, because you are not just a psychological case or experiment!

My mother was not a narcissist because her mother died when she was ten years old and she was forced to stay in the house, with her two younger siblings, during a black out in WWII.  Alone with a dead body!  She was a narcissist because people did not care about what she was doing.  Her anger, her rejection by her family, the lack of neighbourly involvement, the stigma with being a single parent, led her to create a narrative for herself which was actually more realistic than the stigma she experienced as a single parent.  She was an amazing woman who survived on her own with four children and did the best she could.  That doesn’t mean that she was not very damaged or that a relationship with her was not very damaging; or that she never became, by choice, a vocal narcissist who repeated, ‘I am an amazing woman, and I raised four children by myself.’ That was true.  She still became a narcissist because she was intelligent enough to understand it was the exact opposite of what she was being accused of:  a stupid woman, who was left with four children.  Her ‘bastards’ (which is what we were called) were fair play for any random abusive man who wanted to try and abuse her daughters.  Including her stigmatized sons. The environment turned her into a narcissist because the environment did not care; so, she created a very successful persona for herself, which people believed.  It was a form of self-protection. It was very damaging for her children, psychologically.

She made a choice; from a limited choice of options!

“Admit your female children were sexually assaulted and have them removed to a children’s home (worse) or pretend to be perfect”!  In retrospect I think she made the better choice.   It was a situation of lose/lose for her and for all women where males raped their children.  So, she chose to be a narcissist.  She was not stupid.  It was all deliberate, although motivated by a lack of options. She was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t.  I see her for who she was.

I got over the abuse.  I am not sure I would have gotten over living in a children’s home, from speaking to people who lived in them in the 60s and 70s.  

So, when psychologists say, ‘narcissist’; it comes across as not a choice, but an unconscious thing.  They have no proof for this!

Helen Urban had a similar life experience to my mother and myself, except she had not resolved her ‘issues’, was a drug addict and had no insight into her narcissism.  She was damaging in the same way my mother was:  she was compromised by the fact she lacked the personality and character to stop what she was doing.  Her impetus was greed and callousness, dressed up as ‘care’!  She also chose and she was a pathological liar!

What has been asserted about me, privately, is the weaponisation of psychology by the state and has been widely documented throughout history!

I will come back to this...Please be cognisant of the fact none of the things I just wrote are or were new to me. I knew these things thirty years ago, when I choose to cut the Turnbulls out of my life. And this, narrative, is not how I see my life but a response to how other people, who hold these beliefs, and they are beliefs, understand life. It is important to note: this is not how I see my life; but the powerful narratives you hold in your head force people to respond, especially when they are intended to contain the truth and deny consciousness. Narratives are powerful. Be careful which ones you choose and repeat!

Second Part:  how did a narcissistic psychopath ruin my life in Switzerland?

How the Swiss and British State weaponised myopic psychological narratives to make me look deranged!

(Please note, the image of Mata Hari is for symbolic effect. I am a celibate woman (have been for over ten years))