Jump to content

Menu

Psychiatrist's Lecture at the Yale Child Study Center


Fritz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Horrified is not the word I would use. It makes me sad that this is the experience and reaction she has had. Controlling how she talks about her reaction to systemic racism would seem to be a confirmation of absolutely everything she's saying.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of controlling, it's a matter of her ethical duty to patients. 

It goes against everything we know about what makes a successful client-mh professional interaction for the professional to stereotype any group as 'useless' or 'demented' ( and that itself is terrible language for a psychiatrist to use).

If she wasn't dealing with a vulnerable population - people with my disorders - it literally wouldn't matter. 

Every client deserves warm, positive, unconditional regard from their mental health team, and that includes mentally unwell people who are white. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MercyA said:

 

Same person was upset about Civil War monuments being torn down. And her biological daughter is biracial (black dad). I don't really understand it. Wouldn't that make you more sensitive to racial issues? I am not judging her, although I disagree with her positions--I just really don't get it.

There are lots of White people who are married to Black (or others in minority groups) people who don't get it one iota and in fact think they are "woke" when they are horrifically racist. Some aren't awfully racist but they do not at all think about the ramifications of being a White person who is linked to people of color.  I feel so badly for those children and spouses.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Well in the US, black people have to hear all the time about how confederate flags and statues aren't offensive and how if they just were compliant, police wouldn't be killing them.  There are signs and signals constantly that most white people don't remotely pick up on.   The CRT outrage again is about making the white people feelings the most important in the room.  Even though black history has been ignored and downplayed for generations and no teacher worth their salt would direct guilt to individual children.  Where do they even get that.  If you really want some history of oppressions of blacks and direct experience, I recommend Isabel Wilerkson's books (The Warmth of Other Suns, Caste).  The author directly compares how the Holocaust is treated in modern Germany vs. Enslavement in the US.  And if you can't understand how someone who ended up in this country due to slavery might feel it compares to the holocaust, I don't know what to tell you.  

 

You know the more I think about it, it's just adults' projection. They know *they* would feel guilty if they learned more about the history, because they are (passively or aggressively) perpetuating the thoughts and systems that are allowing them to profit off of past wrongs. I don't know how conscious this is, it would vary from person to person, but letting their children know the truth and even seeing that maybe, just maybe, they aren't successful all on their own would be too big a blow to their ego.

So it's easier just to legislate the truth into a box they can't teach at school, and since that's the largest sphere of influence they don't control in their kids lives directly, the problem is mostly solved to them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's not a matter of controlling, it's a matter of her ethical duty to patients. 

It goes against everything we know about what makes a successful client-mh professional interaction for the professional to stereotype any group as 'useless' or 'demented' ( and that itself is terrible language for a psychiatrist to use).

If she wasn't dealing with a vulnerable population - people with my disorders - it literally wouldn't matter. 

Every client deserves warm, positive, unconditional regard from their mental health team, and that includes mentally unwell people who are white. 

She wasn't treating a patient though. We have no idea how she interacts with her patients. 

As for Bari Weiss, it's really about the Palestinians. She's on one side of the issue and most progressives are on the other side. 

Then she allied herself with the "Intellectual Dark Web" which is terrible. I see plenty of criticism of everyone involved with the IDW. Look at how much hatred is directed towards James Lindsay, a heterosexual man. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

She wasn't treating a patient though. We have no idea how she interacts with her patients. 

As for Bari Weiss, it's really about the Palestinians. She's on one side of the issue and most progressives are on the other side. 

Then she allied herself with the "Intellectual Dark Web" which is terrible. I see plenty of criticism of everyone involved with the IDW. Look at how much hatred is directed towards James Lindsay, a heterosexual man. 

 

Lindsay is a conspiracy theorist nutcase. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, YaelAldrich said:

There are lots of White people who are married to Black (or others in minority groups) people who don't get it one iota and in fact think they are "woke" when they are horrifically racist. Some aren't awfully racist but they do not at all think about the ramifications of being a White person who is linked to people of color.  I feel so badly for those children and spouses.

If you've lived in a mixed marriage with mixed kids, you'd know it's complicated. Not a matter of White oppressor and the rest of the family oppressed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Yes, he is but he's also a straight man and gets plenty of criticism. He fancies himself part of the IDW just like Weiss. 

Weiss and Lindsay are not comparable. IMO. One is a conspiracy theorist, the other isn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

She wasn't treating a patient though. We have no idea how she interacts with her patients. 

 

 

“This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil. (Time stamp: 6:45”

 

If she says this in a public lecture at a university, I don’t think she is the best counselor for white patients. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewnameC said:

“This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil. (Time stamp: 6:45”

 

If she says this in a public lecture at a university, I don’t think she is the best counselor for white patients. 

No one has claimed that she is the best counselor for white patients. But that doesn't mean that she deserves to lose her medical license or be subject to the kind of harassment she's getting now. 

Also, as noted earlier this was taken out of context. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

She wasn't treating a patient though. We have no idea how she interacts with her patients. 

As for Bari Weiss, it's really about the Palestinians. She's on one side of the issue and most progressives are on the other side. 

I'm not willing to concede the term "progressive" to the populist-left BDS crowd (that includes a considerable number of people with virulent anti-Semitic impulses) despite the attempted usurpation of term by many in that quarter.

Bigotry isn't progressive whether it comes from the populist far-right or the populist far-left. Both are toxic and regressive.

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was responding to a quote that said we don’t know how she interacts with her patients, which is true. However, I believe words are important and I can’t imagine trusting the judgment of a counselor who spoke, in public or behind closed doors, that way about a group of people, any group of people. 

 

Do you have more of the quote to show the correct context? Im having trouble imagining any context that would make that an acceptable statement. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

They claim to be in agreement about how terrible "woke-ness" is. They write about many of the same things. 

It does not follow that because two people write about some of the same topics that they are of the same mind or that one shares all of the other’s views.  

I don’t follow Weiss’ work super closely, less so now that she’s not at the NYT, but I am under the impression that many people working in the same general space as her make jokes about James Lindsay. Lindsay is widely regarded as having gone coo coo for Cocoa Puffs.  Katie Herzog has ripped him up quite a bit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

No one has claimed that she is the best counselor for white patients. But that doesn't mean that she deserves to lose her medical license or be subject to the kind of harassment she's getting now. 

Also, as noted earlier this was taken out of context. 

 

It's really not about being the best counsellor for white people. It's about best practice for all clients, regardless of race. I don't know if you've had occasion to access psychiatric help - it's not the time to bring any judgement to bear other than clinical. 

I've got no problem with her speech going ahead. More power to her. Black anger is valid. If Yale shuts her down, I'd have no problem insisting that they back her as a speaker. 

I just think there's a gap between the speech and best therapeutic practice, and it's a tricky one to bridge without a ton of self-awareness, and a very unusual skill set. 

Perhaps she doesn't take white clients. Even if she doesn't, I hope that if she does any therapy alongside her prescribing, that she doesn't encourage generalisation in her clients - it's not really a helpful tool for mental health. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her practice website refers to itself as the “meetpoint” where all are welcome. She also talked about meeting people where they are at in the KH interview.

https://arunakhilanani.com/the-meetpoint/

The meetpoint is a humble sanctuary for ALL kinds of people. Whoever you are, and wherever you come from, our world is better because of you. Conservative, Liberal, Old, Young, Blue, Black, CIS, Trans, Asian, Fat, Skinny, rural, urban, B-baller, international, ex-pat, Rapper, Queer, White, Muslim, Biker, Rocker , Lax player, Atheist, Trump Supporter, Darwinist, Trump Hater..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About working specifically with white people, white women, from KH interview (profanity edited by me):

Let's talk about your practice. You've mentioned that you treat a lot of white people and you treat “whiteness.” What is the distinction between the two? 

I wouldn’t say there is a distinction. For example, for white women, I do help a lot with passive-aggressiveness — not being able to use their voice, say things, feeling like there will be a negative consequence. White people have an intense level of guilt. I have never seen a level of guilt that I see among white people. I mean, white people don't eat bread. Think about that. There have been wars all over the world over grains and bread and only here, white people are depriving themselves. Think about that sh!t. Everyone has this gluten allergy and you're like, what the f*ck is a gluten allergy? That's a psychosomatic symptom. If you actually talk to a GI doctor, they're going to say, “Well, there’s Celiac and there's everything else” with a wink, and you know what the “everything else” is. It’s all the guilty gluten people. 

Sure. There are lots of white people who don't eat bread, although I am not one of them. I exclusively eat bread, and I’m also skeptical of some claims of gluten intolerance but my assumption has always been that they’re just buying into pseudoscientific B.S. and following health trends. You think it’s white guilt? 

On an emotional level, absolutely. Like, if I raise an eyebrow at a white person around bread, the first response is like, “It’s real.” What does that mean? They mean it’s not psychological.

Right. It’s a medical issue, not a mental one. 

I don’t deny that people may get symptoms, but how is it that all these people suddenly now, after all the violence has occurred, are not eating bread. It’s like the weirdest f*cking thing. 

But what does bread have to do with violence? What’s the connection there? 

I think the bread is about guilt and needing to keep them in a state of deprivation and stay guilty. 

Do you think white people should feel guilty? 

No, I think guilt is the most useless emotion on the planet. What function does it serve? It's not helpful. 

  • Confused 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people have no filter and some people love to shock. She strikes me as one of those. Just reading her responses that Pinball posted leads me to think she processes out loud without caring too much about logical cohesion, lol. Some psychoanalysts (which is a special training aside from psychiatry) like to toss connections around willy nilly, but it's more of a game of maybe rather than serious reflection. When is a cigar just a cigar? Who knows, but it's their job to speculate. 

Anyway, I think her comments were not appropriate for that setting, and I would not feel comfortable seeing her as a therapist because no filter/shock value people make me uncomfortable and not in a good way. While I do think white people share a collective responsibility for our terrible behavior both past and present, I also think she is painting white people with way too broad of a brush here. I also think it quite possible that even she doesn't consistently believe half of what she is saying in the moment, and ask her again another day and you'd get a different answer (based on my experience with such people.) 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, pinball said:

About working specifically with white people, white women, from KH interview (profanity edited by me):

Let's talk about your practice. You've mentioned that you treat a lot of white people and you treat “whiteness.” What is the distinction between the two? 

I wouldn’t say there is a distinction. For example, for white women, I do help a lot with passive-aggressiveness — not being able to use their voice, say things, feeling like there will be a negative consequence. White people have an intense level of guilt. I have never seen a level of guilt that I see among white people. I mean, white people don't eat bread. Think about that. There have been wars all over the world over grains and bread and only here, white people are depriving themselves. Think about that sh!t. Everyone has this gluten allergy and you're like, what the f*ck is a gluten allergy? That's a psychosomatic symptom. If you actually talk to a GI doctor, they're going to say, “Well, there’s Celiac and there's everything else” with a wink, and you know what the “everything else” is. It’s all the guilty gluten people. 

Sure. There are lots of white people who don't eat bread, although I am not one of them. I exclusively eat bread, and I’m also skeptical of some claims of gluten intolerance but my assumption has always been that they’re just buying into pseudoscientific B.S. and following health trends. You think it’s white guilt? 

On an emotional level, absolutely. Like, if I raise an eyebrow at a white person around bread, the first response is like, “It’s real.” What does that mean? They mean it’s not psychological.

Right. It’s a medical issue, not a mental one. 

I don’t deny that people may get symptoms, but how is it that all these people suddenly now, after all the violence has occurred, are not eating bread. It’s like the weirdest f*cking thing. 

But what does bread have to do with violence? What’s the connection there? 

I think the bread is about guilt and needing to keep them in a state of deprivation and stay guilty. 

Do you think white people should feel guilty? 

No, I think guilt is the most useless emotion on the planet. What function does it serve? It's not helpful. 

Eh that’s just nuts.  Probably more to do with the farming and processing than guilt ...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Can anyone give me the  Cliff notes on this issue?  Yes I feel lazy today.

I have heard snippets of the OK Governor making laws where teachers can't make students 'feel uncomfortable about their race or make them feel guilty for things their ancestors have done.'.....what kind of nonsense is he spouting.  

If you scroll down a few topics on the link for Bari Weiss you will see a discussion on Critical Race Theory if you ae interested.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

I didn't listen to the lecture, so I only know the snippets that I've read online, but I am generally loathe to restrict speech in academic settings. If we can no longer withstand debate, critical thinking, and the free exchange of competing ideas in academia because we have such fragile sensibilities, we have serious issues as a country.

Sadly, free speech has been being restricted on some college campuses for years. A quick google search:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/college-students-support-free-speech--unless-it-offends-them/2018/03/09/79f21c9e-23e4-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/thwarting-speech-on-college-campuses/

https://centerforacademicfreedom.org/a-university-effectively-fired-this-professor-after-he-spoke-at-a-conservative-think-tank/

https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-disinvited-speakers-at-colleges-2016-7

https://apnews.com/article/north-america-us-news-wisconsin-courts-marquette-university-87630740b8b74a04b10aac3b62c5904b

And I agree the lack of free exchange of competing ideas in academia is a serious issue in this country.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

If you've lived in a mixed marriage with mixed kids, you'd know it's complicated. Not a matter of White oppressor and the rest of the family oppressed. 

AM the child of an interracial marriage (mother Korean, Father Black American) and have been in an interracial marriage (White Jewish husband) for 25 years (dating +marriage 31 years).  It is very complicated.  It isn't just White oppressor and oppressed other family members.  But White people who freely enter into interracial relationships and/or give birth to or parent children of a different race than them should get their heads on straight about what those non-White people have to live every day of their lives and be their 1000% ally and support person.  Some White people think love conquers all and that "they don't see color".  That's BS of the highest category and hurtful and HARMFUL to those people of color to whom they are attached.  My White DH had to learn a LOT about color and race and all that come with living with a person who is not White.  He's still learning and growing and I know he is in my (and other POC's) corner.  There have been so many times he said, "I didn't know!"  or "I never thought of it that way!" or "My eyes have been opened!".  He calls White people out on their stuff so I don't have to bear another burden because of my color/background.  And his skin is soft because he learned how to put on lotion.  😁

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I was only loosely familiar with Bari Weiss as a writer for NYT until she wrote this resignation letter https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Perhaps I should have title the original post Bari Weiss. Although as has already been pointed out Bari Weiss is not the author of either of the articles I posted about. I do hope some of you will read the second article I mentioned as well. Coming from the medical field this topic is of great importance to me.

In the same vein https://unherd.com/2021/06/beijings-useful-idiots/

From the article:

Nature and The Lancet played important roles in enabling, encouraging, and enforcing the false narrative that science evidence indicates Sars-CoV-2 had a natural-spillover origin points and the false narrative that this was the scientific consensus”.

Or as another well-placed observer put it: “The game seems to be for Nature and The Lancet to rush non-peer revised correspondences to set the tone and then delay critical papers and responses.”

But why would they do this? This is where things become even murkier. Allegations swirl that it was not down to editorial misjudgement, but something more sinister: a desire to appease China for commercial reasons. The Financial Times revealed four years ago that debt-laden Springer Nature, the German group that publishes Nature, was blocking access in China to hundreds of academic articles mentioning subjects deemed sensitive by Beijing such as Hong Kong, Taiwan or Tibet. China is also spending lavishly around the world to win supremacy in science — which includes becoming the biggest national sponsor of open access journals published by both Springer Nature and Elsevier, owner of The Lancet.

Edited by Fritz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I've got no problem with her speech going ahead. More power to her. Black anger is valid. If Yale shuts her down, I'd have no problem insisting that they back her as a speaker. 

 

She’s from the US, right? One thing that’s been knocking around in my head when I read this thread is that it seems like she’s talking from a place as if she is Black (I know Australia uses that term differently, but in the US, that is not used for Indian people). It’s interesting to me because it has been making me wonder if the experience of Indian Americans is overall quite different in other parts of the country than it is where I am and in the places I’m familiar with. Where I live, the demographics for people of Indian descent and those of African descent are very different, and the kind of racism that each might experience are different.  Speaking in generalities, Indian Americans here are of a higher SES than the general public and not a group that has experienced the same kind of systemic racism that Black Americans have. There can be other kinds of racism, I’m just saying they are different, and her words made me think I was reading the words of a Black American, not an Indian American. I’ve only read it though, so perhaps her actual speech gave background that would have put that in context for me. 
 

I also differ in my opinions about a university having to support any and every kind of speech, even if they invited them. I don’t think every single person who wants to speak somewhere is owed the right to do so. I do think an exchange of lots of different view points is important, but if someone wants to come speak on campus about why we should kill gay people, I don’t think the university is at all obligated to invite them to do so. Not every viewpoint is exactly equal.  And if they do invite someone to speak, and the person says things they didn’t expect (like that gay people should be killed), I think it’s well within their rights to say, “Just so you know, we don’t at all support what this speaker said.”

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Is this the Katie Herzog interview with the psychiatrist?  

Also a link to Bari's wife's newsletter. Nelly Bowles writes 'Chosen by Choice' about converting to Judaism - it's a fab newsletter, and I am not planning to convert to Judaism or anything else! 

 

https://chosenbychoice.substack.com/

I don't know why other progressives indulge in so much Weiss hate - I don't love everything she does, but she does come in for disproportionate hate.

Yes to Katie Herzog.

Thanks for the Nelly link. Not Jewish, not gonna convert, but interesting read.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also thought it was interesting that she had an Indian background and wonder how that plays into her words.  The slang she uses on her professional site is also a bit interesting.  
“Yo... let’s roll.” I’m not sure I would hire her as my psychiatrist or psychoanalysist even if this video hadn’t come out.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, YaelAldrich said:

AM the child of an interracial marriage (mother Korean, Father Black American) and have been in an interracial marriage (White Jewish husband) for 25 years (dating +marriage 31 years).  It is very complicated.  It isn't just White oppressor and oppressed other family members.  But White people who freely enter into interracial relationships and/or give birth to or parent children of a different race than them should get their heads on straight about what those non-White people have to live every day of their lives and be their 1000% ally and support person.  Some White people think love conquers all and that "they don't see color".  That's BS of the highest category and hurtful and HARMFUL to those people of color to whom they are attached.  My White DH had to learn a LOT about color and race and all that come with living with a person who is not White.  He's still learning and growing and I know he is in my (and other POC's) corner.  There have been so many times he said, "I didn't know!"  or "I never thought of it that way!" or "My eyes have been opened!".  He calls White people out on their stuff so I don't have to bear another burden because of my color/background.  And his skin is soft because he learned how to put on lotion.  😁

Yeah, like I said, it's complicated. Hard to be your POC's ally 1000% when they're also your abuser. 

Anyhow, not a place we need to go. Complicated. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KSera said:

She’s from the US, right? One thing that’s been knocking around in my head when I read this thread is that it seems like she’s talking from a place as if she is Black (I know Australia uses that term differently, but in the US, that is not used for Indian people). It’s interesting to me because it has been making me wonder if the experience of Indian Americans is overall quite different in other parts of the country than it is where I am and in the places I’m familiar with. Where I live, the demographics for people of Indian descent and those of African descent are very different, and the kind of racism that each might experience are different.  Speaking in generalities, Indian Americans here are of a higher SES than the general public and not a group that has experienced the same kind of systemic racism that Black Americans have. There can be other kinds of racism, I’m just saying they are different, and her words made me think I was reading the words of a Black American, not an Indian American. I’ve only read it though, so perhaps her actual speech gave background that would have put that in context for me. 
 

I also differ in my opinions about a university having to support any and every kind of speech, even if they invited them. I don’t think every single person who wants to speak somewhere is owed the right to do so. I do think an exchange of lots of different view points is important, but if someone wants to come speak on campus about why we should kill gay people, I don’t think the university is at all obligated to invite them to do so. Not every viewpoint is exactly equal.  And if they do invite someone to speak, and the person says things they didn’t expect (like that gay people should be killed), I think it’s well within their rights to say, “Just so you know, we don’t at all support what this speaker said.”

You're right, it is used differently here. I've been told off for it before, but at the same time, I'm just following the lead of the Indian people I know (I married in). Idk what it is like in the US - here, there is both an experience of financial success, but also of racism and some social exclusion. 

I agree, incitement to violence is not OK. I'm not sure she crossed that line. Therefore I think Take should stand by their invited speaker. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

The bread thing is nuts. Some people have coeliac disease. That's not a cultural construct - that's a disease diagnosed through freaking surgery. 

Still, let her have her say!

While Celiacs is real, there is a lot of woo around diets and I am skeptical that the protein in wheat is indigestible or harmful to quite as many people who refuse to eat bread. I have quite a few people in my orbit who seem to restrict their diets far more than is actually warranted.  I’ve started to think some of it verges on an eating disorder (orthorexia). That said, it’s *quite a leap* to decide that white people deny themselves bread out of guilt.  It’s actually kind of an amusing conclusion to draw.  

Progressive people who are rationalizing her very broad generalizations to defend her might be interested to hear what she says about liberals in the same interview when she asks Katie Herzog if she’s conservative. 🤣

I’d also note that Bari Weiss put this interview on her sub stack- thereby giving her a platform to discuss her ideas.  Katie Herzog is consistently across the board free speech and I don’t see her trying to throw in any interview gotchas in the portions I’ve read.  
 

 

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think gluten intolerance was a 'thing' about a decade ago. Maybe diagnosis got better and those with physical symptoms had them properly investigated, and the rest decided to bake sourdough instead, lol. 

I think it's kinda weird where she located guilt. In whiteness. Guilt is a human emotion - all humans experience it at times. 

I get overwhelmed with guilt* in my personal life b/c a parent drummed it into me; I have zero guilt about things in history. Before I existed. I think it's a very small subset of people who are cultivating actual feelings of guilt for historical actions. Or perhaps they are confusing empathy and anger for guilt. 

*still allows me toast, thankfully. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I think gluten intolerance was a 'thing' about a decade ago. Maybe diagnosis got better and those with physical symptoms had them properly investigated, and the rest decided to bake sourdough instead, lol. 

I think it's kinda weird where she located guilt. In whiteness. Guilt is a human emotion - all humans experience it at times. 

I get overwhelmed with guilt* in my personal life b/c a parent drummed it into me; I have zero guilt about things in history. Before I existed. I think it's a very small subset of people who are cultivating actual feelings of guilt for historical actions. Or perhaps they are confusing empathy and anger for guilt. 

*still allows me toast, thankfully. 

Yes, that’s true.  The fad has moved a bit from everyone is allergic to gluten to everyone is fermenting shit in their kitchens.  

Now I want sourdough bread.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I would not consider "demented" an acceptable insult for a psychiatrist to use. Especially over an entire category of people on the basis of perceived impossibility to understand. "Demented" isn't simply fighting words, like "no good apples" or "bullying" might be seen. In the psychiatrist's profession, it's a relatively precise word with powerful consequences.

 

Psychiatrists encounter patients who initially seem impossible to understand on a frequent basis. "Demented" can be and often in the past has resulted in inappropriately sending people into restrictive, institutional settings. "Demented" has wongly cost some people their freedom, their quality of life, and sometimes their lives. For some people, the very fear of being treated as "demented" worsens their conditions, so even if the psychiatrist can't or doesn't directly sign any such order, it increases the risk of something happening down the road that results in someone else consigning that patient to an institution. The licence to practice psychiatry carries the potential to have the power to send patients into an institution, and most patients never find out if a psychiatrist has that power unless and until it's used against them. (If the psychiatrist is in a private institution, it's worse, since every single member of medical staff in such an institution has the power to extend or worsen the situation).

 

It's particularly worrying given that this psychiatrist appears to specialise in treating Black people. Partly due to a history of being misunderstood, Black people are far more likely than white people to be minsunderstood in therapeutic settings, and in the UK are four times more likely than white people to be referred to a restrictive institution. Thanks to the white-centered approach still taught by most psychology schools, the race of a practitioner is no bar to race-based alienation. If psychiatrists behave like patients' worst expectations of one race, the fact they are of an entirely different race is neither use nor ornament to retaining healthy responses to that situation.

 

I would be seriously concerned that this psychiatrist would be at risk of sending too many of her patients into institutions unnecessarily - especially Black people. Thus, I can see exactly why there are calls for the medical licence to be revoked - even if the most that would be likely to happen in the UK would likely be a reprimand (since no actual patients were involved and this does not appear to be a deliberate attempt to sway general public opinion).

 

(I can overlook pretty much everything else as potentially being rhetorical effect to really bring the message home to a group of people who are in unusually high need of understanding the psychodynamics of racial oppression, even as I recognise it would be an awful way to speak about anyone outside that controlled environment initially intended by Yale. Trigger warnings are a reasonable response to this getting such large amounts of public traction, since a lot of people looking at the link won't know what to expect, and the warning is a courtesy that allows people to self-manage their information content).

Edited by ieta_cassiopeia
Clarification of the danger in the insult
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...