Functional Neurological Disorder is a Feminist Issue 2023, McLoughlin, Chalder et al

So what is this functional neurological disorder you're all writing about?

So massive shifts in people's living context across countries, societies, cultures, through a two century+ rise in civilisation cause no variation in a condition that is caused by the way people think, perceive and process their world? Huh.

On the very minor end of 'things wrong' —

Heterogenous means "different or foreign origin".
They probably mean heterogeneous, which means "structurally different" or "diverse".

 

"We call for.."

A manifesto then. At least they've started to be honest about what they do then. Oh, except they haven't because it is a 'hand over to us' but without details of the what.

The lack of insight is demonstrated by that quote you've picked out and the fact the authors can't see what they've written around that is 'why won't these people know their place' equivalent. With some manifesto of their own personal psychology trying to infer them not understanding the answer to that isn't their own thinking problems.

We need to be allowed to say the line that both women, and people who trot out a self-label for themself of 'feminist' can well be some of the worst misogynists towards women, certainly specific women. It's a weird concoction of terms some seem to get confused, but not really if you think that certain types just have irrational contempt for certain women, if they get the opportunity to get away with it, and that tends to be reflected in what they do and say about them whatever they like to think of themselves of re: other stuff.

Sticking a label on another group without proof and suggesting insinuations about their personality whilst not striving to allow them to speak for themselves and for you to hear them is basically that. So anyone who says 'these women' is a good clue. Or who thinks they can theorise for someone else without ever caring to know them. It's as objectifying as anyone else who might do that.


And I find Margaret Atwood and her elucidation of just how certain women actually prop up that hierarchy in the Handmaiden's Tale a picture that is too familiar and obvious when you see it in real-life for even those doing it to deny. Yes there is one aspect that is different, which might be picked on as distasteful but sorry the rest - given the author researched it on societies that build this way around contexts that don't involve handmaiden's specifically - is relevant to draw on.

The language in that abstract is chilling to me. And that is no exaggeration. A request for 'permission' to do unto others "the care they need". Different to promising to get behind scientific research to find out what actually the condition is to make sure you provide something actually useful. But I know the context from which it comes as 'a plea' and from whom and wat they've been involved in previously etc.

Bit blinking weird and unoriginal that suddenly this author is referenced within weeks of me mentioning her (it was the Testaments actually - which is more incisive as it shows how such powers etc build). It does feel like Darvo as simply as someone not liking it when the bell rings too close and only has the intellectual reaction of trying to point the finger in reversal before anyone else does at them.

I'm guessing this line will be cut, but yes there is a certain character that I am actually often reminded of being in the world where I do read 'the latest from' and I do think Atwood nailed the psychology and the journey to that and why beautifully so would hate to think such important insight would be lost due to context being seen as distasteful, with the large caveat noone should be cribbing one-liners like a juvenile from it given the critical thinking and self-reflection etc it is supposed to provoke.

Agree I'm bored with individuals who think re-hash gravy train of 'we only want the best'; infer [patients/objectors] deluded; and then spend rest of article not very thinly veiled trying to build mind-game ramparts lest someone disagree with your 'big wisdom' of trust me because I've got myself a badge with a loveheart above [insert disease name]

Surely even half-interested social-media-types have moved past the days where just saying you support 'better non-specific x' was seen as a good thing lest you were inadvertently liking someone/thing underneath that mantra who was doing something different to what you assumed when the detail was unbundled. So you'd think there'd start to have to be more in these articles these days.

 

https://lithub.com/margaret-atwood-on-how-she-came-to-write-the-handmaids-tale/

I might not have said it quite right then - the exact story itself is obviously fiction, but in creating that and how it could happen and the details and elements, a number of interviews that I have read and seen from her note quite in-depth study of other cultures, events, points in history and regimes interweave in the lead up to and during changes etc. and the mechanisms, tools and features often involved (symbolism, ideology and so on)

 

Perhaps a letter to Margaret Atwood would be worthwhile?

 

Yes my nuance in writing is never quite right so sorry if it came across as directed at you, it wasn't intended, was more musing outloud meaning I got the tone wrong, - I agree it is distasteful how they have tried it on here I think too, and I always feel anyway I have to be cautious when mentioning the book because of certain contextual aspects one needs to acknowledge aren't the same.

But I think they want us to say it in blanket terms so that they can stop us from citing the parallels that it can sometimes be hard not to notice - I'm very cynical about their drawing on its usage (and thinking it's can't lose for them because if someone calls them on it then they'll just have dirtied that as a reference). I think that is absolutely something in the DARVO-land playbook. And this reference is one that really chimes with me for the world the biopsychosocial bunch created for me - I just need to get the acuity to be able to dance that 'apart from' well try and make sure I don't get that pulls face at me because 'isn't it about handmaiden's' type response nailed I guess.

I really don't get quite how they thought they could invoke that one tbf - the only stretch I could see is someone doing word-association and it goes from 'let's invoke feminist' (cos its a buzzword/can be used) ... so 'handmaids tale is a feminist TV series' type thing (and pertinent due to recent events - ergo, your point might be correct but even more darvo or really missing the dischord to my mind given Roe V Wade is 'control over their own body and being best-placed to make choices that involve it' as well).

Let's be honest their aim tends to be to want to distract to an argument on anything other than them missing the actual science part, or even logical what, why how. SO I can see that nailing a snappy one-liner to be repeated for advertising emphasis each time they do might be worth the time on this particular one.

Those writing this would love nothing more than to get publicity by ending up in a debate on it via twitter or something, because their marketing messaging is clear to brand it based on 'feminism' so any mention of that with their names and FND is basically exactly what they'd aim for/like as a result of this 'academic paper'.

 

that's the words! (I thought there is a phew icon but failing at finding it)

 

What like 'just because it is a new name you are trying to develop to resurrect hysteria/neuresthenia as a 'transdiagnostic' for women doesn't mean that action or condition is either help or feminism'

Just reading through the document it feels like: here is the history of how women have been done over by misogynistic attitudes, particularly with regard to health and using fake psychosomatic buckets for them - let's repeat it, because surely I wouldn't dare mention all of this if I was doing the same.

And a link to Chalder's 'how to trick the patients into thinking you aren't just bunging them in a bucket where you think it is in their mind and behaviour' video: https://www.s4me.info/threads/old-maudsley-gp-training-video.32271/#post-464790

I guess even then they were smart enough to have picked a male actor as the patient.

ON a re-watch what I'm quite shocked by is how many times she says the word 'disability'. More than would be natural - and as someone familiar with marketing I noted the emphasis, the regularity etc as you would aim for at least 7 times of repetition (of an identical, specific word or phrase said the exact same way) for advertising effectiveness. Even in contexts where you'd think words like debility or other more specific symptoms would have come in that exact word is re-iterated. Obviously the same with beliefs, but noone is shocked there.

And then her latest transdiagnostic stuff

- so people can notice the formula and same end-result, little real interest in the medical being looked into etc. Here's a bucket for me and my treatment, just lump and dump, we just want to help, so more must be

 

Susie Orbach, who as author of Fat is a Feminist Issue is referenced in the title, might get grumpy too. Psychodynamic psychotherapists often complain about CBT being used as a panacea. They don’t like the idea that trivial affirmations are enough to change behaviour, because they want patients to acknowledge the causal subconscious issues, and they don’t like patients being referred to easily-trained, not-too-bright, youthful clinicians, because qualifying as a psychodynamic therapist is gruelling and expensive, and they charge high fees.

Orbach herself features in Nick Duernden’s meretricious book about adventures in BPS therapy for ME/CFS (which has a thread on it here https://www.s4me.info/threads/review-cfs-book-by-nick-duerden.7021/#post-127634), as the voice of doubt about the value of CBT.

 

Yeah it felt all of the above when I looked at it, it's like a dump of notes they got the PhD assistant to trawl up from internet sites in 2 days (possibly to 'mimic' anything people like us might want to touch on). My only comfort is that I have ME and I'd manage to present something better than that given enough time to do that cut and paste job. And who wants to open a word doc that might have a virus. It's a bit weird.

So I think the work and the aim was just having something underneath to justify being allowed to release their press statement (which is the most cynical thing I've seen in a long time), sorry 'Abstract'

EDIT: I've just noticed the date of release 26th Feb 2023 (Sunday which is unusual) was ten days before International Women's Day (Wed 8th March 2023). Which just confirms my thoughts rather

Baroness Monaghan and so on (it's good we are all fine with distinguishing people by how they act and speak for a group).
Brain struggling but who is the Dame/Baroness/House of Lords lady who has been really good on highlighting the scandals in women's medicine e.g. Mesh etc.

Anyway - she does some v good speeches and I think that is one retort:

"this is what people who care about women being mistreated in healthcare do and say, and the evidence and action they put behind it [link to video]"

and then I'd really like to reply with

"... and this is what you get when some people want to create a lump and dump transdiagnostic label for their supply-led business, and decide they are entitled to use that term as a buzzword one day just because they themselves are women in attempt to assert 'they know what's best for them' #cynical"

"Shouldn't the primary concern be to hear directly from the [women] all patients who are actually having the horrendous symptoms about what research and treatment is or would be actually helpful.... and let them tell us if these salespeople are either help, wanted... or feminists (what's that got to do with the price of eggs on this occasion?)"

 

well you know, she gets a decent amount of money from your UK funding body already. and she wants more for herself.

 

for info

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735822000319

 

They actually did that. I mentioned the Handmaid's tale without seeing this, simply from how the situations are identical.

It's hard to accept that they don't understand that there is some overlap, but, like in the Handmaid's tale, they truly believe it is for the greater good and that they have the right, absolute, to impose their will to achieve the ends they seek. Ends that they seek through immoral means.

One thing I noticed in psychosomatic circles is the complete lack of self-awareness, but to actually refer to it this way, from a position that is basically identical to the horror of the Handmaids in the novel, is truly astounding. It feels more like bragging, like the quote in the Enron movie: "they're not confessing, they're bragging".

Evil is banal. It puts on a smiling mask while it robs you of everything, not because it wants to harm you, but simply because what they want happens to run through you. Under their eyes.

 

But they are taken very seriously. Not the patients, which is the pretense here, but the conversion disorder is taken more seriously than at any time in history. We are in the golden age of this ideology, it's never been more influential or used in real life.

And the medical profession will never see the conversion disorder as something that is their problem, they will never see the patients as anything but pests to be thrown down the drain. Because the conversion disorder is not even a real thing. It's pseudoscience for pseudoillness, as far as they are concerned.

IMO this is simply part of the big lie, to pretend to take this seriously, while making sure it never happens. This is as absurd as heavily defending a traditional caste system while pretending to advocate for the poor people on the wrong end of it, it's fully mutually exclusive. The insincerity is dripping.

 

Hearing this sort of thing (speaking about their quotes you have in your post, and have requoted the first below - which is indeed a peversion) my only 'coping mechanism' - and I thank goodness it exists so I know the world isn't totally 'gone' - is to quietly sit and think of Madeleine Allbright's rightly well-known phrase.

All of course there is 'not supporting' and then there is what could only be termed as another level beyond that.

I do think we need to keep including the link to the video of Chalder training GPs - and any other factual evidence that brings alive what these individuals actually do as their 'main earner/reason for being': https://www.s4me.info/threads/old-m...MkUfjcmbuOlDv-6cF6REZg_4IOeEJH4iw#post-464790

As their focus seems to be claiming that when someone says who they are, they try and pre-bunk by suggesting such frank factual statements would be terribly wrong somehow. I say if you are going to be that and do that then you should at least own it, and the consequences you caused to others. In any normal world with normal people. Rather than keep burying the aim and facts of what you are doing under more and more layers of 'speaking between the lines', 'wink wink nudge nudge'.

The interesting thing about the video is that whilst history makes it clear what she is feeding as a bigotry, it is also plain obvious she is training in manipulation. Which is rather relevant to what is coming through now as a mere reiteration of the gravy train.


Who are they bartering with anyway in all of this article, that what they really did and who they really are somehow isn't that? Themselves and their own conscience as they still want to continue to do it but somehow self-delude it's for any 'good'?

This is as far from a mea culpa, come to Jesus moment as one can get. Though it is a classic reaction in some when they are allowed to be that way. Rebranding doing the same thing, and acting like you are faux-offended, faux -we are different even though we are the same people, isn't being less misogynistic at all. It's just 'not getting it'.