Esther Crawley's contribution to #MEawarenessweek

"Noticed" and "tend to be" are far less reliable research than the crap we complain about. I would be very wary of making such claims. Far too subject to recall bias etc.
I lean to the left myself (didn't want to say that in case it was too political).

I think the issue of what world view drives certain attitudes to our illness is worthy of discussion, and I don't think we're required to restrict ourselves to facts that have been demonstrated by RCTs, as long as we all recognise that we're talking impressions, perceptions. Which I think I indicated.
 
And the doctors who have harmed us the most - the BPS acolytes - tend to be left-leaning.

That's weird, and I don't know if this means anything at all, but in France, there's a similar trend with autism (disclaimer: I'm not leaning to the right).
Libération (a newspaper comparable to The Guardian), and L'Humanité (linked with the communist party) have been (and still are at some point) the best supporters of the psychoanalytic crap. Psychoanalysis has been historicaly linked with the left (thanks to our national genius Lacan, who revived psychoanalysis in the 60's, it was considered by a whole generation as liberating, don't ask me why feminists ended idolizing one of the most mysoginist theory). Le Figaro, a very conservative newspaper has been the first to harshly criticize autism care in France.
 
Slightly politically left myself (by Australian standards). But the left has to take some blame for the current disrespect for epistemology via their post-modern nonsense during the 70s and 80s.

Oh, I understand that there is no view from nowhere. But that doesn't mean there are no standards by which to help judge truth. Not all interpretations are epistemologically equivalent.
 
To be honest, they feel more New Labour than actually left, to me. And New Labour was basically Tory-lite. The SMC comes from that sort of icky looks-left-but-acts-right ideology. It's all neo-liberalism (do as thou wilt so long as you're powerful), calls to listen to and obey authority 'because', and highly corrupt nepotism/cronyism.

The Socialist Workers Party and disability charities tend to be the ones I see protesting here. They're on the left. The BPSers claim to be on the left, but they're that smug sort of bourgeois liberal that thinks they're cleverer than everyone else, but deceives themselves into ignoring their own oppressive behaviour.
 
Agree with @Sean. Too far left and you find yourself talking about "knowledges", all of which are apparently equally legitimate.
The SMC comes from that sort of icky looks-left-but-acts-right ideology.
Yes, I've thought the same about the BPS lot, because they are so in bed with the insurance industry and the DWP. The ideology that gave birth to some of their beliefs might have come from the left but I think they sold out somewhere along the way.

And yes, important to recognise that some of our staunchest allies come from the left in the traditional sense of the word - people advocating for greater rights for the sick, disabled and poor.

But then there's the Guardian. Nuff said.
 
A not unknown pathway in the world of politics, start some flavour of hard left, and go right over time, sometimes a long way.

Yes. And the Revolutionary Communist Party have frequently been accused of entryism (i.e., infiltrating the left to propagate ideas which aren't very left at all).

They made some very contentious statements during the AIDS crisis, which perhaps foreshadows the work of the SMC!
 
The trouble with organisations like the Revolutionary Communist Party is that you never know who are the double agents, who the agents provocateurs, and who just ordinary members who actually believe.

A lot of it is to do with ego too. Just look at those who emerged from the organisation... Delusions of grandeur and an obsession with paternalistic authority.
 
Back
Top Bottom