The glamorization of mental illness is just as bad as the stigmatization of it

At the risk of being misinterpreted as being somehow passive-aggressive, I’m going to write about something pertaining to an interpersonal spat I’m kind of in the middle of right now. I’m going to share my story of struggles with mental illness, as well as my personal thoughts about the way “normal” people think and talk about mental illness. For some of you this is old news, many of you probably know bits and pieces, and if you’re a stranger, acquaintance, or someone I just met within the last year, it may be brand new to you. I would appreciate it if you kept the jeering and judging to a minimum.

Ever since I was about ten years old I have suffered from a whole slew of anxiety disorders. I like to joke that I have every anxiety disorder on the books. I always have a very difficult time staying still because I’m constantly filled with so much anxious energy that I just have to keep moving to expel it all or risk exploding. Among these anxiety disorders are obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), social anxiety disorder (social phobia), and pathological perfectionism, which is not technically a recognized mental illness, but most of the doctors I’ve spoken to tell me that the general consensus is that it is closely related to anxiety disorders and specifically OCD. On top of all of that, I have had major depressive disorder (clinical depression) since I was 12.

My mental illness is generally described by clinicians as “severe” in that it greatly negatively impacts my social, school, and work life. In fact, in 2007 it led me to flunk out of school, which is why I’m almost 26 and still not finished with college. The combination of the fact that I have a bunch of rituals which I can only do in private and the fact that I used to have a hard time being in groups of more than three strangers without freaking out led me to miss a lot of class. On top of that, I spent a great deal of my free time playing video games, not because I was a lazy geek, but because gaming for some reason has always helped me with my anxiety. (I just recently found out that that’s why one of my neighbors games, so apparently I’m not the only one.) Despite the fact that I almost always got As on assignments and tests, my grades would suffer from my attendance problems. Once m grades began to suffer, my pathological perfectionism kicked in and I began punishing myself for not doing well by forcing myself to stay in the class as opposed to withdrawing before the late withdrawal deadline and I would just take the F or C- or whatever. In the first semester of what should have been my senior year (I was still only a junior though)–Fall 2007–I ended up flunking all of my classes and getting kicked out.

This led to me beginning to drink heavily to cope with the anxiety and depression. By May 2008, I was in the beginning stages of a complete psychotic break. I had begun to develop paranoid delusions and heard the occasional voice or two. (Voices in your head are never nice; mine laughed at me and told me what a failure I was.) I ended up spending most of the summer of 2008 in the psych ward of the local hospital, followed by nine weeks in partial hospitalization. It’s still unclear why I had a psychotic break, but my suspicion is that it has something to do with the pathological perfectionism and the fact that I’m an obsessive planner, and flunking out of school, becoming an alcoholic, and entering into an abusive relationship was not part of the plan. After that, I spent a while trying to get back on my feet before finally entering into a social rehabilitation program run by the Lancaster County Community Mental Health Center. Despite the fact that the anxiety and depression became worse than ever after recovering from my brief psychotic episode, I began to make progress, and since the summer of 2010 things have been looking up. I still have an insane amount of anxiety, but the depression is under control and I’ve learned how to cope with the anxiety.

Anyway, the thing that really offends me as a person who has suffered most of her life from a severe and persistent mental illness (“SPMI” in the biz) is the fact that no one really understand what a mental illness is or what it’s like to have one. There are two types of misunderstanders: those who fear us (the general public) and those who romanticize us (usually artsy types).

The frightened people are victims of the mass media’s portrayal of the mentally ill. The only time we make the news or appear in movies is when we’ve done something illegal (usually murder), which creates the stereotype of the raving mass murderer. Unfortunately, nothing can be farther from the truth. Last I knew (2010), the mentally ill were perpetrators of only 2% of violent crime. However, we were victims of 40% of the violent crime in this country. Why don’t you ever hear about hate crime against the mentally ill? Because it’s okay to hurt us: we aren’t fully human.

What’s got my panties all in a bunch right now, though, is that minority of folks who like to glamorize and romanticize mental illness. These people are generally people who would be described as “artsy”, and I think that they come to identify with the mentally ill because of the fact that they feel like social outcasts because of their career choices, and there’s no bigger social outcast than a crazy person. These people like to talk of a “fine line between genius and insanity”, which is perhaps my least favorite expression simply because of how ignorant it is. Aside from OCD, which is startlingly more common in people with higher IQs, there is no link between mental illness and intelligence. In fact, people with SPMIs tend to be markedly undereducated, simply because their mental illness gets in the way of their education. People with SMPIs often have a hard time functioning and a lot of times when are symptoms are severe we can barely take care of ourselves and need serious help. We frequently lose our jobs and friends, which are both things I went through in 2008-2009. Mental illness is a disability. It is not simply eccentricity or idiosyncratic behavior. It is a severe disorder.

I’ve been fishing around for the past few hours for a fitting analogy, and I’ve come up with one which is probably not a completely true analogy, but will have to do until I can think of a better one. Glamorizing the mentally ill is like when rich white suburban teenagers glamorize gang violence because they come to develop some ignorant and narcissistic identification with the plight of poor inner-city blacks. Like I said, it’s not entirely fitting, but it comes close to my point.

So anyway, this glamorization of the mentally ill by artists and other “outsiders” has got to stop. We need your help and support. We do not need you to idolize us.

I want to clear some things up about the philosophy thing

So, seeing as how I study philosophy and am hoping to go to graduate school for the subject, I get a lot of people coming up to me and asking me philosophical questions or telling me about their favorite philosophy. The thing is, there seems to be a major disconnect between what the average American thinks philosophy is and the actual subject as it is practiced by American academics.

You see, there are several different types of philosophy, and each one is so distinct from the other that they almost seem like completely different fields of study. The two major traditions of philosophical practice in the Western world are analytic and continental. Most professional philosophers in the English speaking world practice analytic (or analytical) philosophy. This is the type of philosophy I practice.

Different philosophers define analytic philosophy differently, and there are philosophers with wildly divergent methods who all call themselves analytic. The thing that ties all of us together, though, is an emphasis on clarity of argument and cold, hard logic. Analytic philosophy is concerned primarily with finding out the truth of things and determining what those truths mean for humanity. We generally aren’t concerned with things like spiritual growth or how to lead a productive life or any of that fluff. That’s continental stuff.

Analytic philosophers differ in their opinions of the relationship between philosophy and science. Until around the mid-20th century, most analytic philosophers saw philosophy as a sort of adjunct to the natural sciences. Now, most analytic philosophers reject things like logical positivism and the idea that philosophy is subservient to the natural sciences. My view on the matter is that philosophy and science are best practiced together, with philosophy doing the bulk of the “intellectual” work. In my opinion, philosophy’s first job is to set up the boundaries in which science is required to work: we define the appropriate scientific method, the standards of evidence, ethical guidelines, etc. Then, science goes out and collects the data while working within the framework set up by philosophy. Once science has collected its data, they perform a preliminary analysis of it and then bring it back to us philosophers. We then perform a more thorough examination of the data and figure out what it all actually means. Some scientists (and some philosophers, as well) may disagree with this framework, but I think things would go best if this is how it all worked. (It actually does work like this most of the time.) Initially, I actually wanted to go into astrophysics until I realized that I was more interested in the philosophical side of science than the applied side of the equation.

Another thing that analytic philosophers have in common is the belief that our inquires ought to be conducted into narrowly defined topics and with a great attention to detail and the ordinary usage of language. Other philosophical methodologies like to paint with a much broader brush, and frequently the have a tendency to use language or specific words in unusual ways (which really pisses me off).

Continental philosophy is more like what most people think of when they hear the word “philosophy.” Continental philosophy tends to put more emphasis on spirituality and personal growth and stuff like that. One of the more central themes of continental philosophy is the idea that human experience is entirely subjective, and that human consciousness can somehow be changed or reprogrammed. (The now-famous concept of an altered state of consciousness comes from continental philosophy.) Probably the two most famous schools of continental philosophy in the English speaking world are psychoanalysis (which is not a science) and existentialism (the philosophy that life has no true meaning and that we each must create our own meaning of life). While these are perfectly fine philosophies (I agree with some ideas from existentialism and I think that psychoanalysis has great value as an art/lit critical theory), they are not what most academic philosophers in mainstream English speaking institutions mean when they speak of philosophy.

So, next time someone tells you they’re a philosopher or philosophy student, before you start to talk their ear off about anthroposophy or whatever, it would be kind of you to ask first whether they are interested in analytic or continental (or Eastern or Islamic, etc.) philosophy. Not all analytic philosophy like or know very much about other philosophical traditions. I, for one, enjoy reading from a wide selection of philosophical traditions. However, I’m a philosophy snob, and while I think that circular living and subtle energies make for fun stories and interesting things to think about, I don’t think they have any real value in the scholastic world. Bitchy, I know, but I loves me my precise arguments back by cogent logic.

Fotography Friday: Plastic Camera Month Extended

So since my plastic camera month was not a full month, I decided to extend it just a bit. Here’s one that may look a little familiar:

Halo II, 6/2011, Lincoln, NE

This is just a shot of the dome at Sunken Gardens in Lincoln, NE. It was taken on Kodak Ektar 100 120 size film. It’s a little out-of-focus, but that’s the nature of Holgas. I have another shot of this same subject taken on my Canon EOS Rebel T2.i, but I like this one too. If you like this, be sure to say so!

Dr. Oz: America’s Quack (and now, “G-Spot” enthusiast)

Last night I was watching Piers Morgan (when I have the TV on it’s usually on CNN, regardless of what time it is) and in case you haven’t heard, it’s Guest Host Week. That means that some random dude whom I’ve never heard of was sitting in for Piers (whom I had never heard of before last year) and running the show. The first guest was that dude from the Today show, which I haven’t seen in at least 3 years, but that was more “with it” than I usually am with Piers’s guests (I usually have no idea who his guests are; the main reason I watch that show is so I can feel in tune with popular culture). After that torture, they brought in Dr. Oz for the coup de grĂ¢ce.

Now I first became familiar with Dr. Oz last year when the James Randi Educational Foundation denounced him for featuring con-artist extraordinaire James Edward on his show. I did some research and found out he broke into stardom sometime around 2005 when Queen of the Deluded Gullible Douchettes, Oprah Winfrey, had him on as a guest. Apparently she thought he was great, which is usually a major warning sign for me. Usually, the likelihood that something is true is inversely proportional to how much Oprah seems to buy into it. I call this phenomenon the “O Factor.”

I did a little more digging and found out he’s a big supporter of integrative medicine. Us skeptics have a technical word for doctors like this: Quacks. I prefer to use the more scientifically accurate term, though: crazy, dangerous nutjob hucksters. Also, sometimes wannabe Messiahs or conspiracy theorists. Sometimes all of them at once (*cough* Deepak Chopra). I was quite puzzled to learn that Dr. Oz was sometimes referred to as “America’s Doctor.” I wonder if we can impeach him.

Anyway, last night Dr. Oz was explaining his latest quacky bit of advice: How to find the “G-Spot.” Strangely, he didn’t say anything I hadn’t heard before, but he also neglected to mention that if the “G-Spot” does exist, it only exists in a very small percentage of women (<20%). At the risk of sounding like one of those crazy conspiracy theorists I like to bash, I can see why belief in the G-Spot is so widespread. Since Victorian times, there has been this fear of clitoral stimulation, simply because it doesn’t seem to do anything useful in terms of procreation. Sex shouldn’t be about pleasure: it’s a reproductive act. On top of that, we live in a patriarchy, so the woman is inherently subservient to the man. This means the man’s pleasure should come first. For a dude, coitus is pretty damn pleasurable. Most women think it feels okay, too. However, most men are clueless egoists and don’t think of anyone but themselves (they’re conditioned to be that way), while women are told not to be too blunt about sex for fear of looking like a slut. The damage all this “G-Spot” talk does is as follows: It tells women that it is normal to be able to experience vaginal orgasms, which leads to the 70-80% of women who can’t feeling defective, like there’s something wrong with them. What’s normal about something the vast majority of the population in question will never experience?

So here’s the deal: You can try to find the G-Spot if you want, but don’t get discouraged if you don’t find some sort of magic pleasure button. Really, we should be teaching guys how to please a woman. So, ladies: Don’t be shy to take a guy by the hand and actually physically show him what pleases you. As a biological male-type, I have always found this most helpful. And guys, don’t be afraid to ask your ladies what turns them on. I know it can be kind of embarrassing, but your partner will have much more fun once you know how to push all her buttons.

Also, here’s a secret that a lot of men don’t seem to realize: You shouldn’t have to ask a woman if she had an orgasm, because most of the time you can feel it. When women cum, they usually experience a series of muscle contractions in the pelvis, vagina, and anus. Most of the time you should be able to feel it. Wikipedia says that not all women experience these contractions, but most of my partners have so I’m willing to bet the majority of women do (I’ve had a lot of partners; I used to try to fuck my way to manliness).

So, moral of the story: Dr. Oz is a nut, men need to think of their partners more. The end.

Book discussion group and other philosophy jazz

So I haven’t been posting here for a while because I got invited to join a book discussion group one of my philosophy professors has put together with her grad students and I’ve been busy doing reading for that. Honestly, it’s kind of intimidating, since I’m just an undergraduate and probably not as smart as everyone else there, but I figured I would try it out since I’ve decided that I want to pursue a Ph.D. in Philosophy. The book we are discussing is Judith Butler’s Bodies That Matter, which is an incredibly interesting read. Not sure how much I agree with her, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

One thing that came up during the discussion that makes me want to reread the introduction came from a woman I’ve had a class with named Clare. I had read Butler as arguing that our classification of people based on sex leads to two groups: those who are “people”, i.e., those who fit into the category of “normally sexed”, and those who are categorized as “not normally sexed”, who are culturally unintelligible. Clare, on the other hand, thought Butler split people into three groups, with the “culturally unintelligible” as people outside the “masculine/feminine” spectrum. We never quite figured out who was right, so I’m going to go back and re-read that bit.

Another thing that came up is something I feel strongly about. I’m only going to bring it up here because I’m thinking of using the idea for a writing sample for graduate school applications; I’m not going in-depth because I haven’t properly fleshed it out yet. Anyway, we were discussing the nature of language as well as trying to get to the central focus of humanity’s collective worldview, and I proposed that the answer was control. Everything we do is an attempt to control our environment, which drive has been the primary moving force behind all of human history. It’s similar to Foucault’s notion of power, but slightly more nuanced. I haven’t yet figured it all out, but I’ll try to post more as I do.

Another idea I’m playing with is a pragmatic account of hate speech and its relevance for radical word reclamation/reappropriation. I’m waiting for some articles I ordered through interlibrary loan to get here (they weren’t available online). Once I get the details set in stone I’ll post more.

Fotography Friday: Plastic Camera Month 3

So I was so busy playing with my new Droid that I almost forgot about this place! Just kidding. Here’s another one from the plastic camera vault:

Fountain, 8/2011, Lincoln, NE

This one was also taken on Ilford HP5 120 size film. It’s a fountain at the spa down the street from me. As I was taking the film out, I wasn’t using a changing bag, and it got loose and I had to reroll it, which is why it’s so leaky. I kind of like it; it pulls the picture together.

A woman’s personality is a direct function of her looks

So, for the past two days I’ve been seeing this promotional poll on Facebook:

Which do you think fits me?

So, as you can see, the question reads, “Which Chubby Stick name fits your personality best?” Chubby Stick is a lip balm made by Clinique, so obviously this poll is aimed at the lady-types. Anyway, the thing that’s got me pissed off is the last option, which also seems to be the most popular. I see no way in which it could be extrapolated onto a personality type. It’s obviously a reference to a woman’s figure, which has absolutely nothing to do with her personality. The fact that the female Facebookers are responding that this matches their personality kind of makes me sad. It’s like the misogynist brainwashing is so complete a woman can’t separate her dreams, likes, dislikes, intelligence, ambition, etc. from her figure.

Why do we have to be like this? I’ll admit, I’ve been guilty plenty of times of assuming things about a person just because of how they look, but still, it’s something I try to change about myself and I think the world would be better if more people fought it. Someone’s figure is completely out of their control, and last I knew there was no known link between a woman’s curvosity and her personality. It’s like saying my gorgeous, curly locks say something more about me than the fact that I have really good genes. Incredibly ridiculous.

Also, I’m kinda irked about trying to jam people into really vague personality types based on clever names. Something about that bothers me, but I’ve always been confused by the personality typing craze. Completely unscientific.