Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

Status
Not open for further replies.
But, 10 years ago, were consultants really saying sufferers had to smile and act girlie to show compliance and get their passports stamped?

Dunno tbh. Although this did come up in class the other week when discussing careplans for an anorexic case study. The suggestion was made about helping this patient feel good about themselves via makeup, feeling feminine etc. I raised the point that "feeling feminine" and wearing makeup were very much value judgements and very culturally/socially loaded things. Careplans should be person centered, but this doesn't always happen. I can imagine a situation where a certain take on femininity was encouraged on a ward, yes. Shit practice, but shit practice happens a lot in mental health.
 
Is the context 'treat and discharge as quickly as possible (there's lots of people who need the beds)' or is it 'my professionalism means i will do it my way however long it takes' (given that wearing trousers isn't linked to anorexia as Laurie Penny points out)?

Who knows in this case?
 
Is the context 'treat and discharge as quickly as possible (there's lots of people who need the beds)' or is it 'my professionalism means i will do it my way however long it takes' (given that wearing trousers isn't linked to anorexia as Laurie Penny points out)?

I don't know but even I, author of the cartoon, think this is starting to turn for the worse.
 
They were assuming that the root cause of her anorexia was a failure to accept her gay/bi/queer/whatever-label-you-like sexual identity, and that by embracing a more feminine lifestyle (dress, make-up, hair) and (more disturbingly) demure/submissive 1950s housewife mannerisms, she would be 'cured'. I felt it wasn't strictly accurate for that passage to be presented as you did - that the treatment for her was being LP forced into being traditionally ultra-feminine.

However if what others have posted is correct about consultant behaviour, it means the consultant(s) did force that upon a teenage patient.

(I think it's an unclear writing style that's the problem. That's what I'm coming round to.)
 
However if what others have posted is correct about consultant behaviour, it means the consultant(s) did force that upon a teenage patient.

(I think it's an unclear writing style that's the problem. That's what I'm coming round to.)

Not all consultants are like that though. However, a lot of mental health is about control and imposing certain views on people about their condition. Its complex.
 
Isn't it rather distasteful to speculate on a stranger's health problems?

Yeah...but nobody's doubting the fact of the anorexia, just the course of treatment she describes, which seems at best irrelevant and at worst distinctly harmful....

or possibly just 'imaginatively reinterpreted' for artistic/ polemical considerations....sorry, there's a word for that but I can't remember it.
 
Yeah...but nobody's doubting the fact of the anorexia, just the course of treatment she describes, which seems at best irrelevant and at worst distinctly harmful....

or possibly just 'imaginatively reinterpreted' for artistic/ polemical considerations....sorry, there's a word for that but I can't remember it.

Lots of mental health treatment is distinctly harmful. Better than it was, but...
 
But, 10 years ago, were consultants really saying sufferers had to smile and act girlie to show compliance and get their passports stamped?

It doesn't suprise me, I've seen all manner of 'corrective' behaviours set down by psychiatrists - especially if any gender/sexuality related issues are 'apparent'.
 
Isn't it rather distasteful to speculate on a stranger's health problems?

Fine. I'm stopping because it's considered wrong, but I never post on other posters' health (mental or otherwise), this is someone who has long overcome their condition writing about it for educative (examining sexism in the 2000s) purposes. I don't think the article succeeds (that has nothing to do with health or suffering).

edit to add: Writing about it in a free to access publication with her real name, explicitly about her past experiences.
 
Yeah...but nobody's doubting the fact of the anorexia, just the course of treatment she describes, which seems at best irrelevant and at worst distinctly harmful....

or possibly just 'imaginatively reinterpreted' for artistic/ polemical considerations....sorry, there's a word for that but I can't remember it.

I have lots of memories of my recent medical treatment, most of which are probably grossly inaccurate. Such ist he way when you're in highly emotional and full of drugs. I was convinced I was left to lie in my own shit overnight but it turned out that it was only an hour.
 
It doesn't suprise me, I've seen all manner of 'corrective' behaviours set down by psychiatrists - especially if any gender/sexuality related issues are 'apparent.

Ok possibly I stand corrected...but it still seems odd...this was the 21st century we're talking about and, speculating admittedly, probably near Brighton. The article sounds more like Donegal circa 1956.
 
It's the writing that's being speculated about, not the fact that she has had anorexia. We all know mental health issues and treatments are complicated and that MH professionals may apply different treatments. Certainly no-one is mocking her illness or doubting this part of her life in any way.

What I'm trying to look at is her viewpoint that anorexia is a) a capitalist disease and b) complicated by gender/sexual identity politics.

However, comparing and contrasting some of the articles she has written on this topic are slanted heavily towards different readerships - see the New Enquiry piece vs that in the Evening Standard, and I think what they have in common with other pieces she has written on other topics is their chameleon-like nature. I'm not even convinced there is a coherent political standpoint underpinning her work.
 
Actually, this is a bit of a bull shite. While I have no doubts people claim to be polyamorous to justify sleeping around, I do happen to know people for whom polyamory is a functional, stable relationship pattern. I get that you probably have seen the term abused one too many times, but no need to try and undermine the whole thing. It works fine for some, probably no worse than regular monogamy.

i'm sure it does work fine for some, it's just that it doesn't really need to be part of one's identity. if i am in a monogamous relationship through choice, am i no longer part of the polygamy identity? am i still in the gang?

e2a actually this is possibly for a different thread. i'm not sure my own personal revelations regarding this particular identity and my position are entirely relevant.
 
i'm sure it does work fine for some, it's just that it doesn't really need to be part of one's identity. if i am in a monogamous relationship through choice, am i no longer part of the polygamy identity? am i still in the gang?
Polyamory is perfectly compatible with monogamous relationships AFAIK. It's the old thing about separating deeds from identity or intention. If the expectation between a regular couple is that the relationship can take more people, then that's polyamory in my book. Anyway.... ain't what the thread's about mate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom