#he's such a narcissist and he's so self important and i am simultaneously SO in love with him and SO sick of him | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lionheartslowstart · 3 years

Text

Narcissism

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor or a licensed psychologist. I have done research but I am by no means claiming to be an expert. I apologize if I get something wrong or word something incorrectly. I am 100% open to being corrected and changing this piece. This essay is primarily about two people in my life whom I have believed to be narcissists, and using the information I’ve found as a lens through which to examine them.

----------

The word “narcissist” seems to be thrown around a lot by many people, including myself. I have accused three people in my life of being true narcissists, and several of my friends have claimed to have had run-ins with quite a few narcissists themselves.

When I broke up with my first abuser, whom I call “Shawn,” I did a lot of research on narcissism, as I (and many others who met him) suspected he himself was a narcissist. Since then, I’ve continued to, I suppose, dabble, in this type of recreational research, mostly because psychology has always interested me, especially the psychology of neurodivergents. But I’ve always been particularly fascinated by those with lowered or zero empathy.

After two consecutive experiences with people I believed to be narcissists, I decided to revisit the topic. I’ve never been the kind of person to throw around opinions I can’t back up, and while I already did understand a thing or two about narcissism, I decided a refresher couldn’t hurt.

First things first, what’s the difference between being narcissistic, being a narcissist, and having Narcissistic Personality Disorder (henceforth referred to as NPD)?

----------

Basic Definition

The definition of narcissism is: selfishness, involving a sense of entitlement, a lack of empathy, and a need for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.

By this definition, everyone is capable of narcissism at some point or another. We’re all human, we’re all flawed, and so we’re all bound to slip into narcissistic behaviors at some point or another.

However, there is a big difference between engaging in narcissistic behaviors and BEING a narcissist. The biggest, and most important factor that separates a narcissist from one who is acting narcissistic is that a narcissist’s thought process is self-absorbed and self-centered all of the time, and it can be seen in every area of their life. There are certain other criteria that are required for someone to be considered a narcissist, and these are actually the same criteria that are required for someone to be diagnosed with NPD. But, funnily enough, a person can’t be “diagnosed” as being a narcissist. Because narcissism isn’t considered a mental illness. A person can only be diagnosed with NPD. So what’s the difference there?

In short, being a narcissist essentially means being an asshole. It’s not a pathology, it’s being an asshole. What turns narcissism into a pathology is the awareness of the narcissist. Only when the narcissist begins to see how destructive their behavior is, and begins to see how it’s affecting every area of their life, only then can they be formally diagnosed with NPD, even if they don’t realize that it’s narcissism. Now isn’t that interesting?

Right off the bat, this makes discussing this subject a bit tricky. I can’t exactly accuse people of having NPD if they don’t think they have a problem, right? So, until someone gets a formal diagnosis, they are simply a narcissist. Keep in mind that, while I will be using research about NPD in this entry, I am simultaneously discussing narcissists, as the only difference is that narcissists don’t think they have a problem. But the symptoms are the same, as are the subtypes. The only difference is the formal diagnosis, and, in my opinion, the level of sympathy. A narcissist who sees there is something wrong and actively seeks treatment will always be more sympathetic than a narcissist who believes themselves to be blameless and never questions themselves. It’s important to realize that people with NPD are suffering too, because they’re being damaged by the destruction of their own narcissism.

In general NPD is categorized by inflated self-importance, low empathy, copious and often exaggerated bragging, intense envy of anyone who may be perceived as “superior,” manipulation of those around them, and entitlement, which often breeds toxic relationships. People with NPD always believe they’re superior to everyone else (this could be in any capacity), they easily and indiscriminately put others down, and they will always find a way to make themselves the center of attention, and/or to make themselves look better. The other end of NPD is feelings of inadequacy and a need for constant validation. The deep-seated self-loathing drives the toxic behaviors and ideologies, and vice-versa. It’s a vicious cycle. A narcissist can have extremely high self-esteem or an extremely fragile ego, at any given point in time, usually depending on external factors. Narcissists will do anything to protect themselves from feeling inferior, which can be dangerous for those around them.

It is thought that about 5% of the world’s population has NPD, with it being more common in men than women. This seems low, but when you think about the fact that there are 7.9 billion people in the world, 5% doesn’t seem like such a small number. In fact, I would make the argument that 39,500,000 is actually quite a lot of people. Not only that, but most narcissists don’t think there’s anything wrong with them, so they don’t seek treatment or a diagnosis. This means that there may very well be a LOT more people walking around with NPD than we might realize. Both of these factors could explain why so many people believe they know or have known a narcissist, or even several, and it’s not that far-fetched.

NPD also tends to manifest differently in men and women. Narcissistic men tend to be more entitled, assertive, and power hungry. They’re also more likely to exploit others for their own gain. On the other hand, narcissistic women tend to be more insecure, jealous, and competitive, especially with other women, viewing them as “threats.” In addition, women with NPD often see themselves as martyrs, and may describe themselves as such. Of course, that doesn’t mean a narcissistic man can’t exhibit behaviors more common in narcissistic women, and vice versa. These are just averages.

----------

Symptoms

Like other personality disorders, NPD can be complicated and have varying symptoms. However, here are what are believed to be the nine most common traits. (These are copied directly from psycom.net, where I did most of my recent research.)

Addendum: PLEASE NOTE, this piece is mostly about narcissism, NOT NPD. While these are symptoms of NPD, they can be applied to narcissists as well, which is primarily what I’m discussing in this entry. Again, narcissists and people with NPD are similar, but the biggest difference is that those with NPD are struggling and narcissists are not.

Having an inflated sense of self-importance and entitlement. Deep down, you feel like you’re the best, most successful, competent, [insert praise here] in any situation.

Needing constant admiration. Your self-esteem is like a balloon without a knot, requiring a steady stream of attention, approval, and recognition to keep it inflated. No matter how much someone tells you that they love or look up to you, it feels like it’s never enough.

Expecting special treatment. Whether it’s favors or apologies, whatever you want, you believe you deserve to have it—because you’re superior to everyone around you, and they know it and should comply.

Exaggerating achievements and talents. You have no problem embellishing the facts—or even outright lying—about your life, resume, and experiences.

Reacting negatively to criticism. Even though you crave control and take full credit when things are going well, you’re quick to blame others whenever a situation doesn’t go as planned. It’s extremely hard to accept criticism or admit to mistakes because, naturally, it’s always someone else’s fault, not yours.

Being preoccupied with fantasies about power, success, and beauty. You tend to create and believe exaggerated, unrealistic narratives around your success, relationships, even how good you look to help you feel special and in control. Anything that threatens the fantasy is rationalized away or simply ignored. You also want people to feel envious of you, and you feel pretty envious of people who have what you want.

Taking advantage of others. You often don’t think twice about using or exploiting other people to achieve your own ends—whether maliciously or obliviously. You care about your relationships and the people in your life on a superficial level—if they elevate your social status, or make you look or feel good, for instance—and you don’t really think about how your behavior might affect them.

Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others. You’re super sensitive to how people treat you and react to your needs and feelings, but on the flip side, you can’t put yourself in other people’s shoes and empathize with their experiences. You might belittle others or even bully people to feel better about yourself. You never really “go deep” in any of your relationships, either—and, frankly, it doesn’t bother you all that much.

Behaving in an arrogant manner. With an inflated ego and sense of superiority and entitlement, you probably insist on having the best everything—the best car, office, designer clothes—monopolize conversations, look down on people you perceive as “inferior,” and only associate with those you think are equally special, successful, and talented.

Keeping in mind that a person only needs to match 55% of these symptoms, it’s really amazing that more people aren’t diagnosed with NPD (and/or recognized as being narcissists).

----------

Subtypes

There are also thought to be four subtypes of NPD. Though, of course, these should only be used as guidelines, as, like those with any mental illness, those with NPD can have any variety of symptoms, and those symptoms could be any level of severity. (It should be noted that the following is also directly lifted from psycom.net. I really liked their phraseology and found that using existing language would be better than trying to come up with my own, as this is is an academic issue.)

1. The Covert Narcissist (or vulnerable narcissist)

Basically the exact opposite of the stereotypical type, instead of craving the spotlight and constant admiration, covert narcissists tend to be shy, self-effacing, hypersensitive to how others perceive them, and chronically envious. They often think their pain or suffering is worse than everyone else’s—and may even believe they’re the ugliest person in the room.

2. The Cerebral Narcissist

They derive their self-importance from their intellect, believing they’re smarter than everyone else.

3. The Somatic Narcissist

Somatic narcissists get their self-worth from their bodies. They tend to obsess over physical appearance, including weight, and criticize others based on their appearance.

4. The Spiritual Narcissist

They use religion or spirituality to intimidate or justify harmful behaviors to others that can creep in when an individual takes a “holier than thou” stance, overemphasizing their level of spirituality or closeness to God. Harmful behaviors can happen when, as an example, a church leader claims they had a vision from God about someone else, or that they’re in a “higher” position to use biblical passages to control, hurt, or shame someone.

As I said, like most mental illnesses, NPD can present in a myriad of ways. So while it’s important to remember that these types should be applied loosely, I do think it’s helpful to divide NPD in this way. It may allow someone to come to the realization they are dealing with a narcissist, even if they don’t seem like the “typical” narcissist. (And, again, especially considering the variety, how are there not more people diagnosed with this disorder??)

----------

Causes

In terms of the cause of NPD, psychologists are less certain. All that’s known for sure is that NPD develops during childhood or adolescence. Personality disorders in general don’t develop in adulthood, even if the symptoms don’t show outwardly until then. Some possible causes of NPD include:

- Learning manipulation tactics from family and friends

- Excessive praise and/or excessive criticism

- Severe abuse or neglect in childhood

- Pampering/overindulgence in childhood

- Unrealistic expectations from family

- Inconsistent and/or unpredictable parenting

- A naturally oversensitive temperament

As you can see, it can be difficult to pin point any one, particular reason why someone might develop NPD, which also seems to be the case for personality disorders in general. Considering how many possible factors there are, as well as how many people can be exposed to one or more of these things and not end up with NPD, many people with NPD are not diagnosed until much later in their lives, long after the NPD has wreaked havoc.

----------

Treatment

How is NPD treated? A very important question. As I said up top, people with NPD are suffering too. What sets them apart is that they WANT to be better, and that’s commendable.

For starters, most people with NPD don’t seek out treatment for NPD. Usually, people with NPD go to therapy for another reason and end up being diagnosed with NPD during treatment for whatever it is they went for. (An estimated 40% of people with NPD also struggle with some kind of anxiety disorder.) Some people go to therapy with the expectation that their views and behaviors will be validated, and they get a rude awakening. Either way, as stated, a formal diagnosis is only given when someone meets at least 5 of the 9 symptoms, and when the narcissist is distressed by their own destructive behavior.

Like other personality disorders and trauma-based disorders, NPD is treated primarily through talk therapy. Ideally, the therapist will be able to teach the patient skills that will help increase their compassion and empathy for others. It’s also important that the patient learns to understand themselves and why they feel the way they do in order to confront their narcissism head on and change it.

Treatment for NPD is HARD. Any personality disorder requires inordinate amounts of determination, motivation, and perseverance. Unfortunately, many with NPD don’t make it very far in treatment. Many will react badly to the constructive criticism of the therapist, and some drop out before significant progress can be made. However, there have absolutely been cases of narcissists succeeding in treatment and learning how to feel more empathy. Everyone deserves help, and everyone can heal.

______________________________

There have been two people in the last year alone whom I have believed to be narcissists. One is my ex, “Kevin,” and the other is a friend turned cyber-stalker, “Mandy.” I wanted to refresh my memory on NPD so I could fully examine them and their behaviors. Like I said, I’m not the kind of person to draw conclusions without doing my due diligence.

----------

Kevin

Basic Definition:

The broad definition of a narcissist, someone who’s way of thinking is always self-absorbed, and it affects every area of their life, absolutely fits Kevin. Something I often say is, we’re all the main character in our own story. Well, Kevin thinks he’s the main character in everyone’s story. Everything he does is selfishly motivated, including his desire to help others. That’s not to say Kevin doesn’t have empathy, he does, he just uses it sparingly. For the most part, when Kevin helps his friends and loved ones, it’s from a place of duty, not a place of empathy. In fact, he sometimes complains about those very needs once those friends and loved ones are no longer within ear shot. Each and every “good deed” is stored in Kevin’s mind to be used as some kind of ammo to prove just how “generous” he is later. Plus, he usually resents you the whole time he’s doing whatever he’s doing for you, and he often gripes and grumbles. When it’s not out of some sense of duty, it’s masturbatory. Kevin often “goes out of his way” (though not far) for people so he can brag about what a kind, generous, thoughtful person he is. He also tends to do this much more often for complete strangers and acquaintances than he does for people close to him. There were also some cases where Kevin’s own feelings had much more to do with his being there for someone than the desire to actually be there for them. Case in point, Kevin was extremely supportive while Mandy was harassing me. I’m convinced this was made easy for him because he himself despises Mandy. (Regardless of his motives, the support he gave me during that time was invaluable, and I will always appreciate him for that.) Can I say for certain that Kevin never did anything selfless? No, but if he did, those actions were few and far between.

I would also say that Kevin’s narcissism does affect every area of his life. I don’t want to get too much into it because I’m not in the business of sharing other people’s business, but suffice it to say that Kevin is not a happy person. His relationship with some of his family members are tense, his love life is...well, just look at me and his last girlfriend, and his career is non-existent. Even his relationships with his friends are suffering, though I don’t know how aware he is of that. Bottom line, Kevin is a miserable person, and his misery is solely his own making, but I highly doubt he’ll ever see that. He’s far too busy blaming everyone else for all his problems.

In terms of “male vs female” presentation, I would say Kevin is pretty stereotypical. He’s certainly aggressive, especially when he’s angry, and he is chock full of entitlement when it comes to how he’s treated. Of course, he rarely treats others the same way, it’s always somehow different. He’s not power hungry in the way you’d expect. He doesn’t seek positions of power, or to overtly control others. But he definitely gets a thrill from wielding control over others, and he often goes out of his way and puts unnecessary work into gaining the upper hand. I can’t say he didn’t exhibit the characteristics more often seen in narcissists who are women, though they were much less frequent, and usually buried under the surface. Except for the martyrdom part. Kevin loves to lament his life, and does so frequently. You know, instead of doing something about it.

Symptoms

1. Self-Importance and Entitlement ✅

Kevin definitely has an inflated sense of self importance. He’s arrogant, and even though he puts on a friendly face, he often speaks about other people in terms of how intelligent they are, or how “useful” they are to him. He’s absolutely entitled, and our entire romantic history shows that. He always expected me to make allowances for him, and to put him on some kind of pedestal, even after we were broken up. Meanwhile, he never made those kinds of allowances for me, or treated me anywhere near the way I treated him. His excuse was that I was some kind of super-human who just naturally felt the urge to go above and beyond, while he was just some lowly “normie” who could never be expected to do such a thing. So when I’d voice concerns or complaints, he’d make it seem like I was going out of my way to treat him so well, and that he had never asked those things of me. Never mind the fact that the second I did anything that didn’t put him as the center of my universe, it was a conflict.

2. Needing Constant Admiration ❌

I don’t know that Kevin needs constant admiration. Kevin knows he’s intelligent, and he’s incredibly self-assured in the choices he makes and the actions he takes. He doesn’t second guess himself, maybe ever (which comes with a whole other set of problems), but if anything, that in and of itself points to narcissism.

3. Expecting Special Treatment ✅

Kevin always expected me to treat him like a priority. His needs were always more important than mine, his feelings were always more important than mine. There was always a reason why a double standard made sense, why he couldn’t do the same things for me that he asked of me. And it wasn’t just me. I won’t get into details for privacy’s sake, but there were many times when Kevin’s friends came to me to complain, both while we were together, and after we broke up. He often asked, even expected, great things from them, but was callous and inconsiderate in return. Sometimes those friends would come to me just for a vent, because they knew I would understand. They would simply lament his self-centered behavior and voice how thoughtless he was, but once it was out of their system, they could move on because, after all, everyone is flawed right? Kevin expects everyone to make concessions for him, to give him special treatment. For example, he’s often many, MANY hours late to functions, causing people to wait and put things on hold. He’s always unapologetic, and gets angry if you “make a big deal out it.” Of course, if you’re late to something that’s important to HIM, you’ll never hear the end of it. That’s just one example of many.

4. Exaggerating Achievements and Talents ✴️

No, I wouldn’t say that Kevin exaggerates his achievements. To be honest, he doesn’t really have any achievements to embellish, and he isn’t a very good liar. But he does embellish the kind acts he does for others. Earlier up, in the “Basic Definition” section, I wrote that every kind thing Kevin does is in service to this “altruistic martyr” role he takes on. When he does something nice, usually for a stranger, he feels the need to brag about it, like it was this miraculous thing, as opposed to just something a good person might do. Right around the time things ended between us, Kevin broke part of his hand helping a stranded motorist load their bike onto his truck. He kept bringing it up, like it was proof of some heroic deed. Kevin always talks about helping people like that; It always comes back to how “selfless” he is.

The only other thing I would say Kevin embellishes is his talent regarding a specific hobby of his. He pretends to be modest, but the reality is he’s not even as good as he thinks he is, especially now that he rarely engages with it anymore. But even when he did, he almost always needed help, and usually ended up walking away completely, leaving someone else to finish the project.

5. Responding Negatively to Criticism ✅

As I’ve said, everything was always my fault, throughout our entire relationship. I was responsible for all of our problems, and it was always MY fault that Kevin treated me poorly. I was always expected to work harder than him, and to give him more leniency in that regard, because it was somehow harder for him to work on himself and our relationship than it was for me. If I told him how he made me feel, it was a fight. If I told him he hurt me, it was a fight. If I told him I was unhappy, he told me to leave. And when I finally did leave, he villainized me. And again, it wasn’t just our relationship either. Anytime Kevin received any kind of criticism from his friends or family, he’d get extremely irritable and prickly (especially if it was the latter). Anytime anything went wrong in Kevin’s life, for example, when his car was towed because he parked without a pass, he would fly into a rage and no amount of logic or comfort would soothe him. I can count on one hand the number of times Kevin took any kind of criticism (or, more accurately, anything he viewed as criticism) gracefully, and they were all after we were broken up, when he was trying to prove he was working on himself.

6. Creating Fantastical Realities ✅

Unequivocally. Kevin has created his own world where he is the supreme ruler and everyone bows to him. Both of his relationships failed because he “allowed us to treat him badly in the same way,” as opposed to the fact that he was abusive to us and we stood up for ourselves. Or, more accurately, we were human beings and he expected us to be perfect and have our entire worlds revolve around him. His education failed only because he didn’t try, like, at all. He doesn’t work and has no plans to. He has no real hobbies, at least, not anymore, and he’s not interested in learning or trying anything new. He never tries to do, well, anything. He refuses to see that his misery is the product of all his own actions, and instead finds various ways to blame everyone and everything else. That, and he clearly views himself as superior to, well, everything. It’s not that he’s lazy, he just “doesn’t want to participate in our corrupt society” or some bullshit like that. By maintaining this delusion in particular, Kevin doesn’t need to be jealous of people who are more successful than he is, because they’re just “playing the game,” but he’s too smart for that.

7. Exploiting Others ❌

When it comes to his friends, Kevin is more preoccupied with what they can do for him, as opposed to what he can do for them. That’s not to say he’s never done anything for them, but it’s usually grand, sweeping gestures that he can do once, performatively, and then get away with never doing anything again, or at least, not for a long time. When it comes to small favors, he is not the one. (But again, I can’t elaborate on that. Even anonymously, I don’t want to risk abusing the trust I’ve been given, including from people I don’t talk to anymore.)

But to say Kevin is a bad friend is an overstatement. He’s inconsiderate and selfish, sure, but he’s also there for his friends in an emotional capacity. Though again, these are usually larger asks, you know like big talks, “I need to get this off my chest,” “I’m struggling with xyz,” kinds of conversations. He’s extremely trustworthy, often referring to himself as a “vault” (at least, until he no longer values you). So long as it doesn’t conflict with his needs, or get in the way of his plans, he’s happy to be there for you. This, I’m sure, is what makes his blatantly self-absorbed behavior so easy to overlook. Although, Kevin does have a threshold in terms of how supportive he can be to any one person, but most of his friends haven’t reached that limit.

All this said, Kevin has proven time and time again that he does not think about how his behavior affects those around him. But most of the people in his life are too afraid to call him out on it. I wonder why.

8. Low Empathy ✅

Yes, yes, yes. I’ll say it again: Kevin always views his feelings and needs as paramount to everyone else’s. That goes for his romantic partners, his family, his co-workers, and yes, even his friends. He is always right and everyone else is always wrong. His feelings are more valid, his needs are more important.

However, to say that all of Kevin’s relationships are superficial would be a lie. Somehow, despite his lack of empathy, Kevin’s relationships do tend to go pretty deep. I think that may be because Kevin does have empathy, but only when he’s not directly involved. I’m certain that, if we had only been friends, and I was in a relationship where I was being treated the way Kevin was treating me, he would have told me, point blank, that that was abuse and I should leave. In fact, he witnessed some really abusive friendships of mine, and not only told me I didn’t deserve to be treated that way, but would get angry and protective. This, of course, made his treatment of me very confusing. Kevin can be extremely empathetic, sensitive, and supportive, but only when your negative feelings aren’t associated with him.

On the other side, Kevin was, as I said before, adamant that he be the center of your universe. If you went against his will, if you did something that didn’t put his needs first, or, even worse, you put your own needs first, it was blasphemous. But the worst of it was, if you did something that Kevin deemed unfair, harmful, or otherwise illicit, he could be downright cruel. Kevin was never interested in talking things out or finding a solution. He was only interested in punishment.

9. Arrogance ✅

Though Kevin might have people think otherwise, he is exceedingly arrogant. He doesn’t insist on having the “best” of everything, but that’s partially because Kevin’s priorities are different from the average person. (Just another reason why he’s so superior.) When it comes to the things that matter to Kevin, he’s not afraid to shell out, often using money he doesn’t have, or should be using for other things. He does look down his nose at people he deems inferior, and, while he doesn’t refuse to associate with anyone who isn’t “special” like him, he often makes comments that make it seem like he’s oh so charitable for doing so.

As you can see, there’s quite a bit of overlap here, but that’s bound to happen with pretty much anything. On the face of it, Kevin matches six of the nine symptoms with one partial match. I’m not a doctor, and I’m certainly not claiming to be, but I can accuse someone of being a narcissist. At least now I have some evidence to back it up.

Subtype

This one’s obvious. Assuming Kevin’s a narcissist (and that’s what this is, an assumption), I’d go with The Cerebral Narcissist. He thinks he’s smarter and better than everyone else, and that’s that.

Causes

I’m not going to elaborate much on this because it’s not my place to discuss Kevin’s personal life. However, I can say with confidence that Kevin experiences/experienced two, possibly three things on this list. Of course, having those experiences doesn’t automatically mean someone has NPD.

Conclusion

I think it’s extremely likely that Kevin is a narcissist. He matches most of the common symptoms, and he consistently thinks and behaves in extraordinarily self-centered ways. I’m not the only one who feels this way, either. A good chunk of other people have agreed with me, citing their own reasons for feeling that way. I will say that I think Kevin is better at hiding his narcissism than most. Only those who have gotten extremely close to him, and/or have seen him in a moment of weakness (read: anger) have seen that side of him. But there’s no denying it’s there.

----------

Mandy

Basic Definition

Selfish, lacking in empathy, buckets of entitlement, and a need for admiration? Yeah, that sounds like Mandy. The thoughts, feelings, needs, and wishes of others play little to no part in Mandy’s choices. She breaks boundaries, violates people’s privacy and trust, and even hurts people if it serves her. And she can always justify it. Mandy’s thoughts, feelings, needs, and wishes are always more important than those around her. Regardless of whatever she claims, her actions reflect that statement. Mandy also often complained that she didn’t have enough social media followers, or that her friends weren’t following her the “right way.”

She also had a high opinion of herself in terms of how much she deserved to be admired. For instance, Mandy would constantly compare herself to people I’d known and loved for much longer than her, which felt controlling and invasive. Later she could never get over the fact that I gave someone else in my life another chance and not her, forgetting that the two relationships in question were extremely different. In one, we had been friends for five years before things ended, and a large portion of that friendship was good. While it was a really bad blow-up, it was once in five years, so, while it wasn’t “easy,” per se, it was a choice I was more comfortable making. But circumstances allowed for me to have a very distant relationship with this person. She never pushed or prodded, and it took us a whole year to even get close to how things were before we parted. Meanwhile, me and Mandy’s friendship lasted a total of approximately three and a half years, during most of which she was incredibly toxic, controlling, and manipulative, and we “broke up” on average once a year. And then, when I would give in and agree to give her another chance, she would, without exception, always ignore my boundaries and rush the “repair,” not allowing me the space or comfort I needed. Yet, Mandy never stopped huffing and puffing about how “unfair” it was that my other friend was given a second chance and Mandy wasn’t given a fourth.

On that note, when Mandy isn’t treated the way she feels she deserves to be, she becomes unbelievably pouty, and takes a strong victim stance rooted in her own reality. YOU hurt HER because YOU didn’t do what SHE wanted, therefore you are bad and she is good. She doesn’t take any accountability for her own actions or how she made you feel, because her feelings matter more. And look, we’re back to that first sentence: selfish, lacking in empathy, buckets of entitlement, and a need for admiration.

I don’t know enough about Mandy’s life to know how narcissism might affect it. I know almost nothing about her career, or her current relationships with her family, nor do I care to. But, knowing what I know about our friendship, as well as the other friendships of hers that she spoke to me about, or wrote about when I read her blog, I would say that it does impact her friendships. But I’ll elaborate on that in the “Symptoms” section.

I would absolutely say that Mandy presents with more typical “female” narcissist traits, though she possesses entitlement in spades. Mandy is deeply insecure, and often makes self-deprecating comments ranging from the “innocuous” types of comments we all say sometimes, to really upsetting things you would never want to hear your friend say about themselves. While “martyr” is not a term I’ve ever heard Mandy use outright, she did always go on and on about how her problems were always worse than everyone else’s, how she was more depressed than everyone else, things like that. She was constantly lamenting, especially when she was intoxicated, and I never really knew what to say. It didn’t feel like she was looking for comfort or to be proven wrong. I’m not totally sure what she was looking for, but I tried my best to be there for her, it just wasn’t enough. Nothing ever was.

As for the jealousy and competitiveness, look no further than the times Mandy went through my phone. (Well, the two times I know about anyway.) Once, Mandy went through my phone to see if I was “talking shit about her.” It was very childish and immature. Doubly insulting was the fact that I pride myself on being a very straightforward person; If I have a problem with you, I’ll tell you. Bottom line, it was not a good enough reason to violate my privacy, especially considering that there wasn’t even anything to find. Another time, Mandy opened my tinder account to delete one of my matches. Which like, what the actual fuck?? She later claimed that it was because she felt insecure and she was worried her friends were talking to more women than her. That certainly sounds like viewing other women as a threat to me. She may have done this to other friends of hers, too. It wouldn’t surprise me. (Also not a good enough reason to violate someone’s privacy, but there seldom is one.)

Symptoms

1. Self-Importance and Entitlement ✅

Yes, I would say Mandy consistently elevates her self-importance, mostly in relation to those around her. She always felt entitled to another chance, no matter how many chances she got, or how poorly she treated me, especially if I chose to forgive someone else. She felt entitled to my time and energy, no matter what I was doing or who I was with. If she viewed me as “available,” then I was an asshole for not being available to her. And then, of course, when I finally walked away for real, she felt entitled to a conversation, for me to, once again, explain myself to her, and for me to “hear her side,” after everything she put me through, even before the harassment started. When a person is done with a relationship, they’re done. That’s it. Especially when one party is repeatedly harmful to the other. It’s inappropriate, to say the least, to expect someone you’ve been consistently toxic towards, someone who has voiced that numerous times, and who has given you multiple chances, to give you the time of day. Based on all of my dealings with her, including hearing her describe her other relationships, I would say she’s incredibly entitled when it comes to others’ time, energy, and emotional labor, in general.

2. Needing Constant Admiration ✅

As I said earlier, Mandy would often complain that she didn’t get enough attention on social media. More importantly, she would often complain that her friends weren’t affectionate enough with her, especially me. Never mind that she often made fun of me for speaking about other people affectionately. Nonetheless, I did my best to reassure her always, and make sure she knew I loved her. But of course, it was never enough.

3. Expecting Special Treatment ✅

There was always a reason why Mandy deserved another chance, and why Mandy deserved a special place in my heart, despite the fact that we weren’t even friends for that long. Rather than wait for our relationship to fully develop to that point, she assumed she had that place in the bag already, often comparing herself to my then best friend of twenty years, as well as my other close friends whom I had known for five years or more. I don’t automatically feel close to people, that shit takes time. For whatever reason, Mandy decided she was “more worthy” than my other friends. More worthy of my time, more worthy of my focus, more worthy of my love, more worthy of my trust, and more worthy of my forgiveness. She never did anything to earn those things, she just decided it was so.

The word “comply” especially hits home, as Mandy often made comments about how I should have just done this or that, whatever it was she was “owed” or “entitled to,” in order to avoid conflict. These types of comments were especially frequent while she was harassing me.

4. Exaggerating Achievements and Talents ❌

I don’t think Mandy exaggerated her accomplishments. She graduated college and last I heard she was working full time. She never made things up (as far as I know), at least when it came to her career. There were definitely lies, but they had to do with her blatant disregard for my boundaries, and some of the things she claimed not to be guilty of during both periods when she was harassing me (the first time being “anonymously” on ask fm, and the second time being March of last year). The only thing Mandy is guilty of exaggerating is how “great” of a friend she was to me in the three and a half years we were friends. (It was honestly more like three, as there were several chunks of time where I tried to end the friendship.)

5. Responding Negatively to Criticism ✴️

This one’s a bit more complicated. It wasn’t like Mandy would fly off the handle if I accused her of hurting me. Instead, she would always find a way to divert blame. She would bring up something I did several weeks ago, something that wasn’t a problem then, but suddenly, magically became one when I had a problem with her. She would find a way to victimize herself, or try to find ways to excuse her actions. Additionally, she would flip flop between shoving the blame onto me and otherwise being manipulative to profusely apologizing and making empty promises that she would change.

6. Creating Fantastical Realities ✅

Definitely. I’ve said this before; Mandy has created a vast fantasy land for herself, where everything she does is totally acceptable and justifiable, and everyone else is always wrong. On the rare occasion Mandy has taken any kind of responsibility for her actions, it is always too late, long after those actions have taken place, and it is never to the fullest extent. She will always still find a way to blame the other party, and/or a way to excuse her actions. There are a lot of “I was wrong, BUT” kinds of statements. Mandy has also historically acknowledged that she’s not entitled to certain things, but then almost immediately followed those acknowledgements up with a restatement that she is entitled to them.

Mandy’s logic only makes sense to her. I firmly believe that, should Mandy ever come face to face with the reality outside her bubble, the result would be catastrophic. If I didn’t hate her, I’d feel genuinely concerned for her well-being. Even more than I would for Kevin, if he did the same.

I’ll also add that I do believe Mandy to be an envious person, though I won’t fully elaborate on that to respect her privacy. Vaguely speaking, I think Mandy is jealous of the other relationships in my life, including those with my family, friends, and lovers. I have my own reasons for believing that, but the fact is, I’m not in Mandy’s head, so it’s only speculation. At the very least, she’s clearly jealous of my perceived “game,” since she felt compelled to go into my phone and delete someone off my tinder account. (Seriously, I have zero game with women, I have no idea why she would be threatened by that.)

7. Exploiting Others ✅

I have witnessed Mandy take advantage of others, myself included, though I believe it to mostly (mostly) be oblivious and not malicious. Typically, she uses others for self-soothing purposes, for comfort, for reassurance, to “fix” her problems, etc. She has also, however, used her knowledge of others, their secrets, and other things she deems “weaknesses,” to hurt them, should they “deserve” it. She shared some really personal things with me about her other friends, things she definitely shouldn’t have told me. She turned around and did the same to me while she was harassing me, though, on a much more public scale. In this way, she can be extremely malicious. And no, I don’t think she considers how those actions affect the people she inflicts them on, both the oblivious ones and the malicious ones. At least, like I said, not until it’s far too late.

8. Low Empathy ✅

We’ve basically been over this, but I’ll say it again for the sake of addressing the symptom. Mandy never really gave a shit about my needs or feelings. I assume it’s the same for her other friends, partially going off of things she shared with me, and partially because it’s difficult for me to believe that someone could be like that with only one person in their life and not others. (There is also a family matter that I believe falls under this category, but I don’t feel comfortable sharing that here, it’s not my place.)

Mandy was always quick to point out when I wasn’t the epitome of a good friend, at least, not according to HER definition anyway, but always found a reason why I was not worthy of those same standards. One time, while on vacation, she told me that, if someone was doing something they knew was hurting their friend, they should stop. But later that same day, when she was upsetting me, and I literally turned her words back on her, she actually had the nerve to say, “it’s different.” Double standards were common, if not the norm. While she was harassing me, she would constantly whine about how unempathetic I was, that I clearly didn’t care how much I had hurt her (never mind that I had stated otherwise previously, but ok), and that I wasn’t giving her what she needed. I was “selfish” for finally putting my foot down and taking care of myself. Yet, she saw no issue in what she was doing to me, the distress she was causing me, and how she was disrupting my life. She saw no issue in her going out of her way to intentionally trigger me, or to call me and text me all hours of the day and night, because I “deserved” that. When her ex (allegedly) texted her, all she could do was bemoan how triggered she was, when she was the abusive one in that relationship. She never considered how difficult it must have been for her ex to (allegedly) text her, or why she felt so compelled to do so. Everything, EVERYTHING, is always centered around Mandy and her feelings and what she wants.

I would also add that, unlike Kevin, I do think Mandy’s relationships are all fairly superficial. I don’t think she likes to “go deep” with anyone. Now, there could be a lot of reasons for that, but I do think it’s important to note. “Deep talks” were exceedingly uncommon, and it was usually her trying to get ME to open up. And if March of 2021 is any indication, I didn’t ever really know Mandy at all. Even her relationships with her two best friends at the time were shockingly shallow. I know that based on watching them interact, as well as listening to Mandy talk about them. I always felt that was strange. She also never had any distinctly profound romantic relationships, as far as I know, barring her first serious girlfriend. But shocker, Mandy was incredibly abusive to her. Perhaps Mandy’s relationships are different now, but I have no way of knowing that, and I don’t really care.

9. Arrogance ❌

Arrogant? No. At least not in the traditional sense. I don’t think Mandy particularly cares about material possessions, and I don’t think Mandy particularly cares about who she keeps company with. Then again, like I said, most of her relationships seem fairly superficial anyway. She didn’t monopolize conversations either, though again, she did end up using a lot of the things I told her in those conversations against me. I can’t help but wonder how conscious she was of “collecting intel.” As I later came to find out, Mandy was far more strategic than I gave her credit for.

Like with Kevin, there’s a lot of overlap between the symptoms. I’m finding they sort of bleed into each other. I suppose that makes sense, when it comes to narcissism, since it’s ever-present. Also like Kevin, Mandy matches six of the symptoms, and partially matches a seventh, though her cocktail is different from his. It’s just interesting to compare the two.

Subtype

If I had to assign Mandy a subtype, The Covert Narcissist fits best. To my knowledge, Mandy has never actively sought the spotlight, and is often fairly reserved when meeting new people. She doesn’t like to “share,” or hang out in group settings, I think mostly due to the fact that she wants all of your attention. Mandy can be incredibly self-effacing, and can actually go pretty far when she’s depressed enough, even to the point where she’ll outright bully or hate on herself in pointed ways.

By that same token, Mandy is acutely aware of how others perceive her. She’s quick to complain if you’re not the kind of friend she thinks you should be, and just as quick to pull imaginary, self-effacing reasons why you might not be that kind of friend, like “you don’t love me,” “you don’t care about me,” “you think I’m annoying,” etc. Like I said, “martyr” is not a word Mandy has ever used, but she definitely behaves like one. She rants about how she’s more fucked up than everyone else, though it usually comes out like she’s bragging, and she constantly complains about herself and her life, often comparing it to the plights of other people. “I have it worse” is something I heard Mandy say often, particularly while she herself was harassing me last March.

While it was rare for her to downright admit to jealously, Mandy often behaved in ways and said things that pointed to envy of others, in a variety of subjects.

The “covert” part certainly rings true. While Mandy was extremely toxic and manipulative very early on in our friendship, I didn’t see how truly narcissistic she was until much, much later. She hides it well, maybe even better than Kevin. At least, at first. It was easy for me to dismiss her problems as consequences of her mental illness, and easy for me to extend her sympathy. It wasn’t until those problems escalated, as well as time passing with no visible change on her part, that I began to see what was actually going on.

I also suspect that Mandy exhibited certain behaviors of The Spiritual Narcissist when she was younger. She used to be pretty religious, and would use her beliefs to talk down to people. But I’m only going off of things Mandy herself shared with me, as I didn’t know her during that time, so this is also mere speculation.

Causes

Again, I won’t elaborate too much here, because it’s not my place or interest to divulge details of Mandy’s privacy. I actually see four possible matches to the causes listed above, and there may be more. But again, even that is not enough alone to automatically mean she has NPD.

Conclusion

I think it’s safe to say Mandy is a narcissist. She matches six and a half symptoms, and there are a lot of reasons why the narcissism may have developed. Generally speaking, Mandy is extremely self-absorbed and entitled. Everything always comes back to her and her needs. She has very little, if any, empathy for others. She claims she does, but even if that’s true, she never exercises it. She would always say she’d be there for me if I asked, but on the rare occasion when I did, she complained the whole time. Then she was shocked when I didn’t rely on her more. I think she views people’s trust in her as more of a commodity, a reflection on herself, as opposed to actually caring about the people in her life, at least at a deeper level. Everything Mandy says reveals just how little concern she has for others. I don’t think she’s aware of that, though, because of the narrative she’s created for herself. In Mandy’s mind, she’s a great, compassionate, empathetic friend, she’s always the victim, and she’s always justified. Yet, she doesn’t seem to have the evidence to back all of that up.

----------

Me?

I won’t lie, I’ve thought about it. Especially after doing this research. Anyone who studies psychology, professionally or recreationally, knows that it’s all too easy to start seeing yourself reflected in various disorders. It would be unfair and biased if I did not view myself under this lens, too, since I’m accusing others.

Basic Definition

I can absolutely be selfish, though I have become much less so over the years. It’s something I practice every day. Same things goes for entitlement, but I was never as entitled as I was selfish. In fact, I only felt entitlement in certain aspects of my life (that I won’t elaborate on), but as I’ve matured, I’ve begun to see those things differently. However, I have never felt entitled to another person’s time or energy, and I’ve never felt I deserved special treatment compared to others. (Barring, of course, certain allowances that come with being mentally ill, but those are allowances everyone with mental illness should get, not just me.)

I do also consistently ask for (and sometimes demand) praise. My self-esteem (regrettably) often stems from the approval of others, though that is undoubtedly linked to my childhood trauma. Isolation from family and peers, chronic loneliness, and always being made to feel innately “bad,” do wonders for a child’s psyche. As a result, I often seek out approval from the people whom I believe matter. It’s unhealthy and it’s something I’m working on.

Empathy, however, is not something I’m lacking in, and, according to both my therapists, is the reason why I have not received (and will not receive) a diagnosis. Don’t get me wrong, the empathy I feel for others is malleable, often depending on my relationship to them, if they’ve hurt me or others, how they’ve presented themselves to me as a person, etc. But the empathy is always there, it exists. I don’t feel like my feelings and needs are more important than any one person’s. (Barring, of course, when someone behaves maliciously towards me, but I would say that goes for anyone.) I’ve had conflicts with people where, once I got over my pride, I realized I was the one in the wrong and apologized. I’ve had people end relationships with me and, while heartbroken, have respected their choices.

Empathy has also, unfortunately, gotten me into trouble. There have been far too many instances of me staying in an unhealthy and/or abusive relationship because I extended my empathy too far. I give too many chances, and I often allow my love for people to outweigh how they are treating me. Then, of course, when I eventually stand up for myself, and try to put myself first, I am accused of being selfish. This, too, does wonders for the psyche.

I would say I “present” equally in terms of gender. (Big surprise, I’m gender-fluid!) I can be insecure and jealous, though that jealousy is often a manifestation of my body dysmorphia. (Not excusing jealousy at all. When unchecked, it’s a very ugly emotion.) That said, I don’t view other women as threatening at all. I’m a big believer in women supporting women.

Unfortunately, I would be lying if I said I’ve never made myself out to be a martyr. But as time has passed, and I’ve continued healing, I’ve begun letting that ideology go. It helps no one.

Like I said, I’m not particularly entitled, though I’m definitely assertive. Very assertive. But I choose to see it in a positive way. I’m a go-getter! I wouldn’t say I’m power hungry, as it’s not like I go out and seek out positions of power, but I do enjoy power when it’s given to me, or when an opportunity to wield it is presented. I know myself, and I know my faults, about which I’ve never been shy.

I definitely do not exploit others. I feel comfortable saying that. I don’t “use” people, at least, not unless they’ve used me first, but then I feel like it’s fair game. If you don’t value me, why should I value you? Yeah, I know, that sounds bad. But in all honesty, most of the time I just walk away. It takes a lot for me to want to return the favor. I think that’s fair, though I’m sure some might disagree.

Symptoms

1. Self-Importance and Entitlement ❌

I definitely think I’m important to the people I love. I mean, they’ve told me so themselves. But not more important than the other people in their lives. All of my friends have their own best friends, and I’m not bothered by that, nor do I feel the need to compare our relationships. I have two best friends myself, and one of them has a second best friend as well. And while I would absolutely be lying if I said I didn’t sometimes feel threatened by that friendship, I’m happy she has a second person in her life that she has a special relationship with, especially someone who lives much closer to her than me. My other best friend is busy a lot so I don’t get to see or talk to her a much as I’d like, but I have never tried to pressure her to see or talk to me. She requires a lot of space and I’m happy to give it, even though it often goes counter to my own needs.

I don’t feel entitled to anyone’s time, energy, or emotional labor. In fact, I would go so far as to say no one is entitled to anything, with rare exception. (Like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for example). The majority of things in life are either earned or hoped for. As a general rule, I do believe everyone is entitled to kindness and respect, at least until they prove otherwise. Point being, how deserving someone is of certain treatment can change depending on their own behavior. Yes, kindness should be the norm, but too many people walk around treating everyone like garbage, and then complain that no one is kind to them in return. No one is entitled to anyone else in any capacity. That includes their time, energy, understanding, love, information, and trust. I work hard to earn those things in my relationships. I’m always respectful when I ask for people’s presence, whether physical or emotional, and I try to be respectful if they decline. It’s true I can be a bit of a steamroller, and I’m working on it. But when someone sets a boundary in front of me, especially a big one, I respect it.

I will add that, when I was a teenager, particularly ages 15 to 19, I was much more entitled and self important than I am now. I absolutely put myself on a pedestal and expected others to do the same. After a lot of trauma and years of therapy, I’m happy to say that I’m not like that anymore. (✅)

2. Needing Constant Admiration ✅

This is something I’m working on. I do sometimes feel inadequate, at least in certain parts of my life, and so often seek out praise. After I do or say something that could possibly be construed as impressive, I usually say “you’re impressed.” It’s a statement, not a question, and definitely a bid for reassurance. It’s not healthy, and it sometimes puts pressure on people I care about. I do believe it stems from my childhood trauma of never feeling good enough. I was also often referred to as a “dumb blonde” in high school, and since then I’ve always felt a need to prove myself as intelligent.

3. Expecting Special Treatment ❌

I absolutely do not expect special treatment from anyone. I can’t say I’ve never felt entitled to an apology, but only when someone has hurt me maliciously, or in a really extreme way. Though I think that goes for most people. Even then, an apology is not something I ever expect or demand, whether I feel I’m owed one or not. Sometimes, even when I feel I’m owed an apology, after a conversation with the other person, I realize that I’m not owed an apology at all, and in fact, I owe them an apology. I don’t expect to get whatever I want whenever I want it, especially when it comes to the time and energy of others.

(Again, this is something I engaged in more as a teenager. I deemed myself more important than everyone else, and as such, assumed I would always be treated better and with more leniency than others. ✅)

4. Exaggerating Achievements and Talents ❌

I’ve never lied about an achievement. (Granted, I could be lying right now, but I guess you’ll just have to trust me!) I don’t embellish, and I’m always honest about the circumstances that surround an accomplishment. I worked really hard to graduate college. It took me six years instead of four because of my mental and physical health. I kept needing to take time off. I’m not even as proud of that as I should be. I’m more ashamed than anything else. I am proud of becoming a pole dancer, though I’ve only recently started referring to myself as such, despite practicing for almost eight months now. More often than not, I’m shitting on myself for not being as good as I’d like to be, and I fixate on the moves I can’t get right as opposed to the moves I do well. I am extremely proud when I do nail something though, but I work hard and I feel like those moments are earned. I’m definitely proud when I land a role of course. Hell, even an audition. And I’ve never lied about getting an audition or a role (unlike Shawn, who lied about both.) But when it comes to actually watching my work when it’s done, I’m highly critical of myself. I just don’t see the point in exaggerating accomplishments. I can’t be proud of something that’s not real.

5. Responding Negatively to Criticism ❌

It’s true that I don’t always respond well to criticism. It’s hard for me to hear negative things about myself. But I’ve worked on it a lot, and no longer react the way I used to. Instead, I take a deep breath, and, even if it hurts, I ask the person to elaborate and explain how I’ve hurt them, or why they feel the way they do. I fight the urge to become defensive and to deny what the other person is saying. I always give a person the benefit of the doubt, and will only grow angry and dismissive if their outrage is proven to be hollow. (By which I mean, they fail to be able to explain to me what I’ve done to upset them.) I try to engage in healthy conflicts and work to find a resolution, even if I’m the problem. It’s been really hard, sometimes still is, but all of my relationships have gotten stronger and healthier because of it.

(Once more, this is something I struggled with a LOT as a teenager. Telling me I had done something wrong was essentially an impossibility. I was told I could be rather scary when someone approached me in that way. I was never willing to accept blame or responsibility, and it always, ALWAYS, turned into a fight. ✅)

6. Creating Fantastical Realities ✴️

Hmm, this one’s tricky. Yes, I do create fantasies about achieving success and some relative form of power in my field. I also create fantasies about finally reaching the goals I’ve set for my body for, well, forever basically, even though my body type is such that I’ll probably never really look the way I want to. But I recognize them for what they are - fantasies. I try to keep things realistic. If I can get to the point where I’m getting enough work as an actor to support myself financially, that would be great. I don’t need to be rich or famous (but obviously that would be awesome), I just genuinely love acting and it’s what I want to do with my life. I may not ever be supermodel thin, but I can focus on getting in better shape and see where that takes me. Yes, I’m envious of others when it comes to how they look, but that has more to do with the body dysmorphia than anything else. I certainly don’t care if people are envious of me or not. If anything, jealousy only causes problems. I’d rather everyone just focus on themselves and live their own lives.

I don’t think I’ve created a narrative that puts me above everyone else. As I said, I can absolutely take responsibility when I’ve hurt people, and I almost always try to make amends, whatever that means for that person and situation. I don’t try to rationalize my poor behaviors or actions. At most, I will explain to someone why a certain behavior is related to my mental illness, but even then, I don’t try to dodge responsibility. I still apologize profusely, because, while feelings are always valid, the resulting behavior may not be, and I want to work on whatever the problem is so it doesn’t happen again. Or so, if it does happen again, I have the tools in my arsenal to minimize the damage, and/or stop what I’m doing mid way.

(Yes, I would say that, between the ages of 15 and 19, I very much did live in my own fantasy world where I was always the victim and always the hero. More like 15 to 24 in regards to my mother specifically. ✅)

7. Exploiting Others ❌

No, this is not something I do. I value all of the relationships in my life. I’m always upfront and honest about where someone stands with me. I don’t hold onto relationships for personal gain, or because being close to someone benefits me. Granted, my career relies heavily on networking, but that’s the nature of the field I’m in. Even so, I’m not a “user.” I try my darnedest to treat everyone with kindness and respect, and to treat people the way I’d like them to treat me. At least, until I’m given significant reason to feel otherwise.

(Although, once again, I would say this is something I did as a teenager. Not all the time, and not necessarily to a high degree. But I did tend to accumulate “followers” for a short time, and I didn’t always care about how my actions affected them. I was more or less indifferent to whether people chose to stay in my life or leave, barring only a few people. ✅)

8. Low Empathy ✴️

I put this one as “kinda sorta” because overall, no I don’t dismiss the needs or feelings of others. I do, unfortunately, have a tendency to belittle people, though it’s often without realizing it. I am guilty of making callous remarks, and going too far in the teasing of my friends. I’ve been told that I can even be mean-spirited at times. The fact that I’m not aware I’m being nasty isn’t an excuse. If anything, it makes it worse. It’s also insanely hypocritical, because I am very sensitive to how other’s treat me. Though, I always try to be calm and polite when broaching the subject of possible maltreatment to someone. My assumption will always be that my friend or family member isn’t aware they’ve hurt me, so I’m not going to come out both guns blazing.

I’m putting a lot of effort into understanding where this mean-streak comes from and being more self-aware in this regard. I’ve encouraged my friends to come forward and tell me when I’ve said something that’s rubbed them the wrong way. I don’t want to hurt the people I care about.

Thankfully, I am very much able to put myself in other’s shoes. I’m very quick to pick up on people’s emotional energies, and I try to use that gift for good instead of evil. I’m always there for my friends, whether it’s something big or something small. My friends always tell me how much I mean to them and how much they value our friendship (a lot of very touching speeches were made at my birthday this year), and I in turn value them. My friendships are all very real. We talk about the heavy stuff, and, at this point in my life, if I don’t trust you, if I can’t rely on you, if you don’t trust me, if you can’t rely on me, we can’t be friends. And I don’t mean that in a “fuck you” kind of way. I just mean I don’t think true friendship can exist without that foundation. Obviously, that foundation is established over time, but I’ve gotten to the point where I recognize quickly if our connection will be meaningful or not. And meaningful connections are the only kind I’m interested in anymore.

(Like I said, I had a tendency to accrue followers, not friends, in high school. I didn’t really care how my behaviors affected others, especially my family members, which definitely stemmed from my childhood trauma. I was unempathetic verging on cruel. Honestly, I was kind of a bitch. ✅)

9. Arrogance ✅

I gotta be honest here, this one’s a yes. I am arrogant, and I’ve never denied it. Is it a positive quality? No. If anything, this is the one thing that really made me question if I was a narcissist or not. I don’t feel entitled, but I do have a healthy ego, and I do always want the best of everything. (Note: wanting something and feeling entitled to something are not the same thing.)

I do have a tendency to monopolize conversations, and I’m working on that. It’s not that I don’t care about what’s going on in other people’s lives, I’m just so excited to share what’s going on in mine. But like I said, I am working on it. It’s a really bad habit, and I never want to do or say anything that makes my loved ones feel like I don’t care about them.

I certainly wouldn’t say I only associate with people I deem “worthy” of my time. In fact, I would say that you determine whether or not you’re worthy of my time, simply by way of what kind of person you are. If you’re kind, compassionate, empathetic, warm, fun, and genuine, I value my time with you. If you’re cold, mean, rude, selfish, boring, or disingenuous, then yeah, I’m probably not going to want to hang around for very long. But my desire to be around people has absolutely nothing to do with their “status” (whatever the fuck that means), or anything shallow like that.

While it’s true I am arrogant, I try to keep that shit locked down. I never talk down to anyone (at least, not intentionally), or otherwise go out of my way to put people down or assert I’m better somehow. Because, let’s face it, I’m probably not. And even if I am better in some ways, other people are better than me in their own ways.

I tried to be as self-aware as possible. I always do. Going off of my self-analysis alone (as well as the analysis of my therapists, but more on that momentarily), it appears as if I only match two and a half of the nine symptoms. So that’s good news. Of course, that doesn’t mean there aren’t things I need to work on. I’ll never be done working on myself.

As you can see, however, I did include notes pertaining to my adolescence. If I’m honest with myself, I do think I used to be a narcissist when I was younger. I did match eight of of the nine symptoms. I know you’re not supposed to say trauma happened for a reason, but I honestly believe in my case it did. I don’t think I would be the person I am right now without it. Everything I’ve been through has helped me to be a more empathetic, compassionate person. Is it possible that maturity alone would have corrected my problematic thought processes? Perhaps. But I don’t know for sure. It’s also entirely possible that I wasn’t a narcissist and I was just...a teenager. In researching, I discovered that part of what makes diagnosing NPD earlier than adulthood is that teenagers can be narcissistic naturally, simply because that’s where a teenager’s brain is at developmentally. That coupled with the Borderline could account for the way my brain worked and the resulting behaviors. Regardless, I feel comfortable saying I used to be a narcissist, and I’m grateful I’m not that person anymore, whatever the reasons for that growth may be.

Subtype

In fairness to this essay, I have to categorize myself, so I will place myself as a Cerebral Narcissist. I’m honest about how I feel about myself, especially the arrogance part, and I do usually think I’m the smartest person in the room. That might actually be part of the reason why Kevin and I got on so well - we recognized that in each other.

Causes

Because this is myself I’m talking about, I can go a bit deeper on this one. I would say two and a half of these possible causes are things I experienced in childhood.

The first, and most obvious, is that I was born with an oversensitive temperament: early onset Bipolar Disorder. Certainly, having a pre-existing mental illness contributes to the possibility of developing a personality disorder. And it did! I now also have Borderline.

I can’t lie, I was also insanely spoiled as a child. I’m extremely lucky to have grown up the way I did, and now that I’m an adult, I really appreciate everything my parents gave me. I will never be grateful enough to them.

The halvsie is a sort of combination of factors, I suppose. I would never say my parents were severely abusive or neglectful. I did feel neglected, and I was, at least, in terms of what my needs were relative to my mental illness. I wasn’t necessarily over-criticized for bad behaviors, those behaviors were just misunderstood, so I was made to feel “bad” for struggling emotionally. It wasn’t that my parents’ expectations of me were unrealistic, they were perfectly realistic for a normal child, I just wasn’t a normal child. The Bipolar Disorder made everything complicated.

The fact is, Bipolar Disorder, especially how it manifested in children, was not well understood in the nineties. And while my parents didn’t try the right things, and they didn’t handle everything the way they should have, I know they love me and they did the best with what they had. It’s taken me a long time, but I’m finally beginning to accept that. There are still times I struggle with resentment, but I can do that and still acknowledge things probably couldn’t have been different. I’m happy to say my relationships with my parents are better now than they ever were before.

Treatment

This is another section I can explore because obviously I know what’s going on in my own therapy. As I said, I have questioned whether or not I have NPD, and I’ve asked both of my therapists. They’ve both worked with me for a looooong time, one for about eight years, the other for maybe six. Both of them snorted in disbelief when I asked. They both, in different words, told me that, while I do have one or two of the symptoms, those symptoms are due to the Borderline (all mental illnesses tend to have various overlap, especially personality disorders), and that the large amount of empathy I possess essentially disqualifies me from a possible diagnosis. My psychiatrist reminded me that there was, in fact, actually a period of about six months in my therapy with her where ALL I talked about were my friend’s problems and how I could be there for them.

They both remarked on how proud they are of me and all the progress I’ve made, the hard work I’ve put in, and that, that too, is evidence that I’m not a narcissist. Or, at the very least, I’m not a narcissist anymore, but neither of them knew me back then. I’ve always been honest with my therapists about my flaws, problems, and poor behaviors and choices, and in turn, they have always been honest and quite upfront with me in response. So I have no reason to doubt them or their assessments of me. I’m lucky to have developed the relationships I have with them.

Conclusion

After much thought and a discussion with both therapists, I have come to the conclusion that no, I’m not a narcissist, though I may have been one once. I AM guilty of some narcissistic tendencies, and I’m working on that. Is it possible I’ve missed something? Of course! I’ll just have to continue my therapy and self-reflection, and hope that the work pays off. If there’s more to be revealed, I trust it will reveal itself as I peel back the layers and continue to question myself, my choices, and my motives. I know what kind of person I want to be, and I strive to get closer to that person every day. ETA: I suppose one could make the argument that the fact that I took the time to sit and right this whole entry makes me narcissistic, but I disagree. I have stated multiple times I’m not an expert on the subject, and the conclusions I’ve drawn, while based on evidence, are not necessarily facts. I did my due diligence in terms of research so it wouldn’t look like I was just wildly accusing anyone. On that note, the entry wasn’t meant as a direct attack on either of the two people I mentioned. One of them almost certainly doesn’t read my blog, and the other one is blocked, and so if she still does read my blog, it means she herself goes to the effort to do it, even if it’s minimal effort. This entry was not “directed” at either of them. This is my space to process my emotions and work through my thoughts and feelings. While I always hope my entries help others, that is not why I write them. By this logic, even just having an online diary of sorts is a narcissistic thing to do. Neither of these people are in my life, both of them have pseudonyms. I should be free to process how I need to. And despite the fact that this is my space, I spent several days doing research so my opinions would be at least based on something instead of solely driven by how I feel about these people. There is nothing narcissistic about working through your feelings, or sharing them, or doing research so as to not be biased. That said, of course I never want to spread misinformation, or hurt anyone, and, again, I am more than willing to edit things if need be.

----------

Final Conclusion

As I’ve said, I’m not a doctor. (I want to keep reminding y’all.) None of these are formal diagnoses or “exposés” or anything like that. I don’t like to make uninformed opinions, and I’m fascinated by psychology. So why not write an essay where I can both explore narcissism/NPD and elaborate on my reasonings for believing some people I have crossed paths with are narcissists?

Truth be told, I could have written a lot more, about all three of the people I chose. I could provide more evidence, more backstory, but alas, I just don’t have the spoons. This entry took me several days to write as it is. (If you’re interested in reading more about Kevin, you can read What Happened Was..., Angry, In Mourning, Late Night Ramblings, Better Left Unsaid, Gardens, Ode to Heartbreak, Believe Me, A Double Take in the Mirror: A Reflection, and/or Video. If you’re interested in reading more about Mandy, you can read Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing, Stalker, The Sting, Response, Abuse Comparison, and/or Stalker: A Reflection. If you’re interested in reading more about me, well, you can read pretty much any post on my blog!)

I hope, at the very least, that anyone reading this finds it helpful, perhaps even instructive. It’s important not to throw words around that have negative connotations. Both because we could end up hurting someone who doesn’t deserve it, and also because overuse of a strong word may cheapen it’s meaning over time. It’s also important, at least, in my opinion, not to make grand, sweeping statements, or take a strong stance, without doing your due diligence.

Could I still be wrong about Kevin and Mandy? Definitely. I’m no expert, like I said, and even if I was, experts make mistakes all the time. Still, I’m glad I took the time to do the research. It not only makes me feel more validated in my word choice and assessment regarding these people, but I’ve also learned a lot more about a way of being, as well as the possible resulting personality disorder. I never want to stop learning or growing, even if it means possibly confronting something not-so-great about myself.

The truth is, we’re all capable of narcissism, at least sometimes. The important distinction is how aware someone is of those behaviors and tendencies within themselves, and whether they’d like to change them or not.

Thanks for reading! I hope you found this helpful.

#narcissism #narcissists #narcissist #npd #narcissistic personality disorder #mental health #mental illness

46 notes · View notes

icyxmischief · 3 years

Note

Would you diagnose Loki with borderline personality disorder, then?

Well, I'm not a mental health professional, so I can't diagnose anything. And I think it's important that people who do relate to Loki because they read BPD in his thoughts and actions be able to continue to do so, without me, or anyone else, invalidating them.

I think it's a tough call. Because yes, Loki exhibits a lot of quintessential symptoms, but the way to parse out comorbidities (simultaneous diagnoses) from each other is to examine the SOURCE of behaviors, thoughts, and beliefs the person in question possesses.

I really think that so much of Loki's mental health struggle is the result of external forces that repeatedly invalided and erased his very existence. So much of it is rooted in prisoner-of-war trauma (Thanos), but earlier still, in racial trauma (once he learns he is the member of a race that his family's entire civilization ritually demonizes and dehumanizes), in cultural trauma, in the fact that his father gaslit and neglected him while grooming his brother in narcissistic ways. Non sequitur, but the way he is responding to those forces is frankly quite sane, and attests to his strength of mind (which he himself proudly refers to in conversation with Sylvie), that he didn't break sooner or more completely.

I have always read C-PTSD and Attachment Disorder as Loki's reasons for being dysfunctional. But that doesn't necessarily rule out simultaneous BPD. So it becomes a question of whether BPD is innate/genetic or the result of environmental factors like trauma, which is a question I am far from qualified to answer.

What seems to confirm BPD, regardless, is the existence of several textbook symptoms:

--Extreme emotional anguish/depression/agitation at rejection, perceived or real (but this is also a symptom comorbid with ADHD and is called "rejection-sensitive dysphoria" )

-- Unstable relationships that are rarely long maintained (the conversation on the train with Sylvie confirms that all of Loki's prior romances have been brief and stormy)

--A capacity to be emotionally manipulative (but Loki seems to do this to protect himself, as a means to an end, rather than strictly as a compulsion, although this is a noted facet of BPD: you expect that people you love will leave you, so you self-thwart intentionally in order to test the limits of their tolerance for your "unlovable" traits)

A poor sense of self/other boundaries. Just look at his emotionally enmeshed, codependent relationship with Thor (except, Odin machinated this, so is it really Loki's doing or due to a dysfunction innate to Loki?) A generally permeable identity: who am I without reference to someone else?

--Emotional lability (but this is also a symptom comorbid with PTSD and seems to decrease with each film as well as with Loki’s time spent emotionally healing, somewhat, at the TVA).

An excessive need for approval from authority figures (but this is comorbid with attachment disorders and with other so-called “personality” disorders, the very existence of which is sticky terrain in the mental health community)

You see how this gets complicated fast!

#meta #Loki meta

18 notes · View notes

seductresses-temple · 4 years

Note

Yay! Prompts! Soooo.... How about blairon, and how much Blaise loves rons cooking?

Mmmm....domestic Blairon, I’m here for it. This won’t be beta read, the pandemic is really screwing with my mental health. I hope you understand, love 💕 (I’m sorry if it winds up being absolute trash).

Coming Home

Someone had once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. After far too much wine and far too many hours than is healthy speaking with Hermione, Blaise made it a point not to use such ableist language anymore. However, his job was most definitely making him question the state of his mental health. Between his catty, snarky co-workers who’d give the most self important Slytherin First Years a run for their money, and his equally arrogant, narcissistic, useless excuse for a boss; Blaise could feel his self restraint chipping away bit by bit. Coming home at the end of the day, knowing he’d be coming home to Ron now, was the only thing that got him through the day. Tossing his briefcase on the entryway table, Blaise let his eyes drift shut as he inhaled deeply, mentally counting the seconds.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

He held his breath.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

He pursed his lips together and let the air rush out of him like a balloon. Again and again, Blaise focused on his breathing until he felt some of the stress melt out of his body enough to fully enter the house. It was a technique his mother had taught him. “Never enter your home, your sanctuary upset at others if you can help it. Coming home angry leaves you susceptible to taking that anger out on those you hold dear.” It has been sound advice. When Blaise and Ron had moved in together after just three months of dating, he knew everyone thought it was too soon, even if they were too polite to say so. The last thing he wanted was for his hot headed temper to ruin everything. Ron was too much of a good thing to screw up.

“You’re home,” Ron’s voice startled Blaise out of his thoughts. He looked up to see Ron standing in the doorway of the kitchen, dressed in pajamas already. Just the sight of him made Blaise’s chest ache, even in his Gods awful Cannons jumper.

“I am. Heathwick set all her prisoners free eary today,” Blaise rolled his eyes, just mentioning his boss sent a spike of something ugly and twisted through him. He shook it off and sauntered over to Ron, running his fingers up the taller man’s chest and relishing in the slight shudder it earned him. He looked up into Ron’s eyes and couldn’t help but grin to see his cheeks were already flushed.

“Did you miss me, darling?” he murmured.

“About as much as I would miss a cavity,” Ron stepped back and grabbed Blaise’s hand, effectively killing the mood like the killjoy he is and dragging him to the dining table.

“No need to manhandle me, Ronald.” Blaise huffed, following obediently behind his boyfriend until he was not so gently shoved into the nearest seat.

“We’ll see about manhandling,” Ron lifted a ginger brow at him before turning back to the stove.

“Mary-Anne told me you didn’t eat lunch today,” he said, blue eyes pinning Blaise to his seat.

The utter betrayal. Mary-Anne was supposed to be Blaise’s assistant yet she was constantly ratting him out to Ron. The breech of trust had to be criminal at this point.

“It was a long day?” he tried, knowing it would get him absolutely nowhere.

“Mm. Imagine what a long day it’ll be if you end up in St.Mungos again? If starvation doesn’t kill you, Hermione’s lecture might do the trick. You can’t keep running yourself into the ground without proper nourishment,” as if to make his point, Ron slid a bowl of stew across the table to him and Blaise felt his mouth instantly water.

“You sound like your mother,” Blaise muttered, spooning some of the piping hot meat and potatoes into his mouth, tongue be damned.

“But at least you cook like her too,” he moaned, savoring the taste of the gravy on his tongue. He’d gladly burn his tongue on Ron’s cooking for the rest of his life. It was that good. Everything Ron made was one of Molly’s recipes but better. Delicious. Made from scratch. Piping hot. Made with love. Made just for Blaise. It didn’t get any better than that.

“I can send a Howler like her too, Zabini. Don’t push your luck. Your charm will only get you so far,” Ron chucked a tea towel at his face, frowning. It was an idle threat, but Blaise did attempt to look as contrite as he could while simultaneously wolfing down his food. By the time Ron sat down beside him, he was already contemplating seconds, his stomach growling at him. Blaise didn’t speak Stomach but he was pretty sure it roughly translated to ‘yes, another.’

“If you make me stew like this, I’d gladly endure one thousand Howlers, love.”

#Blaise Zabini #Ronald Weasley #blairon #hp fanfic #established relationship #domestic blairon

96 notes · View notes

hatari-translations · 4 years

Text

Klemens interview about his furniture, 24.5.20

On May 24th, an interview with Klemens about the furniture he’s made was published on mbl.is. It’s a pretty interesting one, as he mentions having ADHD, talks a lot about his thoughts on art in a way more elaborate manner than any previous interview, and makes some quirky jokes such as declaring that one of his favorite things to do at home is picking his nose.

Below is a bullet point translation of what's said in the interview (not a word-for-word translation of the entire thing, but everything new said in it is there, and there are a lot of full quotes).

(Content warning: bodily fluids mention.)

The intro explains that Klemens thinks visually and contributes stylistically both to Hatari and his home. He learned carpentry before he joined a band, and he's worked on designing furniture alongside his composing.

"I learned furniture building at the Technical College Reykjavík and then went into product design at the Academy of the Arts, but found my passions lay elsewhere. I needed a broader spectrum to create and found an outlet for my ADHD in visual art. My wife Ronja Mogensen and I are classmates at the Academy of the Arts."

Klemens has always been creating things, for as long as he can remember. "I've always found joy in creating, and nothing is as creative as a childlike nature. After all, you lose your innocence somewhere on an abandoned playground and then spend most of your life trying to find it again. Creativity makes the world go round endlessly in our heads and sparks our imagination, which lets us have the most magnificent adventures, express and cope with loss, grief, fear, disappointment, joy, hope, the entire spectrum of emotions that are often so difficult to spit out. I've always sought out music as an outlet for that, but also carpentry and visual art, whether it's making cucumbers out of mud, making sculptures out of semen and hair, or making chairs out of wood."

The interviewer asks what makes a good home in his mind. "They say that home is where your family is, and there's a lot to that. Some years ago I might not have said that, and would never have imagined being a father of two and engaged in a passionate relationship, but the home and love go hand in hand, and you need to decide on where you want to live and die, so I see the home as more of a state of mind. A good home is a decently healthy mind, but if I were to imagine my dream home as a physical place, it's a house in the countryside with a workshop, a place to make music, some chickens and maybe a goat called Old Túbal, a brook that we can wade into naked, a vegetable garden and a greenhouse with fruit, a giant treehouse castle that we can climb in, and we built the house and everything in it ourselves."

He first discovered carpentry in a woodworking class in primary school; as far as he can remember, the first thing he made was a lamp for his parents with a face carved into it, though he's not sure if it was meant to be a self-portrait. He also made a baseball bat, which was subsequently stolen. The first proper furniture he did was for the Technical College when he was nineteen, a chair and a cabinet in a 70s-esque style with a modern touch. He found joy in creating a unique, useful object that you could carry with you throughout your life and perhaps even longer.

The interviewer says she heard his graduation project was sold on the spot. He corrects her and says he actually made a second copy to interior designer Thelma Friðriksdóttir's specifications, because he wanted to let his grandkids inherit the original.

Klemens recites a poem that he wrote with Matthías to encompass the core of Klemens' art sensibilities. It reads thus: I am a naivist perfectionist. I take making a fool of myself very seriously. I contemplate my own navel with humility. I'm willing to do the work of pitying myself. I capitulate to art. I want to have perfect control over my art.

"I notice that when I myself am in frame, it takes on a different tone than when the painting, the sculpture, the furniture, the evidence get to speak for themselves. On the one hand, I myself take on the role of the artist and the subject, comment on the medium through the medium and poke fun at myself while I'm at it. The artist Klemens creates a photo series that parodies the concept of photo series and simultaneously parodies Klemens. When Klemens takes on the role of 'pop star in a political supergroup' it means a radical staging where he embodies the sexy porn boy, a perverted narcissist in the depths of self-pity. Even if you use humour as a shield, you have to face that in the end, art comes from yourself. Thus, you're always vulnerable before art. It becomes an endless navel-gazing at the same time as I hope it encompasses some wider context - is bigger than my own personal experiences. When I step out of frame you see a totally different tone, like with the cabinet or the sculptures. I'm more humble before my creation and I seek a texture that could simultaneously be called naivistic, expressionistic but also formalistic and colored by a palate-driven compulsion. Unrestrained figures emerge and take on a life of their own without being commentary on the medium of painting and parodying the one who paints it."

When the interviewer asks about his studies at the Academy of the Arts, he admits he was on paternity leave for a year and also missed the second half of the first year because of Hatari's ESC journey, but it was fun and he's looking forward to continuing in the fall.

What can you tell me about the furniture you've made for your home? "It gives the house a certain character and I'm proud of it."

During the COVID-19 epidemic, he made a set of bookshelves for his parents, which he says was mostly them wanting to support a poor unemployed artist in a difficult time. Originally he was going to do something very simple from existing components but then he just kind of unthinkingly started making it all from scratch without even drawing up more than a rough sketch, and he was as excited as his parents to see how it'd turn out.

How would you describe your home? "Muy grandioso!"

Who lives in your home and do you and your fiancée have the same tastes? "The pillar of the household is my wife Ronja, and then we share it with our daughters Valkyrja and Aþena, 'V-kay and A-J'. Aþena doesn't have much in the way of taste yet as she's only ten months old, two-year-old Valkyrja admires everything and thinks everything is art, so she's not picky except when it comes to precisely how you dunk Graham crackers into a glass of milk. Ronja and I may not have similar tastes, but her strengths make up for my weaknesses and she's very patient with my perfectionism."

What's your favorite thing to do at home? "Watching the kids laugh and cry, watering the plants, picking my nose and passing time."

Klemens doesn't currently have his own workshop, but the owners of a small furniture business have kindly given him access to their workshop, and the Academy of the Arts has a good one as well.

As far as Klemens is concerned he's already living the dream, asked if there's anything he'd do with nothing holding him back.

Klemens will mix together furniture he's received for free or bought used and tries to make it work. He tries to avoid mass-produced furniture even though it can be beautiful; what he loves most is uniqueness. He wants to build as much himself as he can.

What time periods in furniture design appeal to you most? "Mid-century modern and slick."

When you look for ideas, where do you look? "Into the depths of my subconscious and to Foucault."

Is a garden or outside area important when you have kids? "Oh yes. The new trampoline, admittedly mass-produced, has really delivered."

What's your favorite kind of wood to build out of? "Oak."

What's your favorite color to paint your walls? "That depends completely on the context of the room, the lighting and the shape of it, but I love really bright colors and want a lot of those."

Is there anything you're good at at home that nobody knows about? "I'm naturally very limber."

#hatari #klemens hannigan #interview #translation

36 notes · View notes

oscopelabs · 5 years

Text

Mirror, Mirror: When Movie Characters Look Back at Themselves by Sheila O’Malley

“I always feel it behind me. It’s myself. And I follow me. In silence. But I can hear it. Yes, sometimes it’s like I’m chasing myself. I want to escape from myself. But I can’t!” —Peter Lorre as child-murderer, M (1931)

There was a period in the ‘60s and ‘70s when you could barely call yourself a male movie star if you didn’t do a scene where you stared at yourself in the mirror, doing various “private” things. The device shows up before then, too, but the floodgates opened in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Meryl Streep has observed, “Often the scenes that are the most exciting, and most illuminating in film, are the ones with no dialogue…where a character is doing something alone, where the deepest most private self is revealed or explored. Exposed.”

Mirrors have multiple thematic uses (as well as the obvious directorial choice to add visual interest to the frame). But if a character is inarticulate, then seeing him “deal with” his reflection can fill in some gaps. It’s a great storytelling shortcut. If the character has a firm public “mask,” a “mirror scene” can let us see who he is when no one is watching. We all lie, to some degree, out there in the world (or on social media). We construct a “self” and a mirror scene allows the character to strip that away.

Speaking stereotypically (or, in archetypes), what is expected of male characters in terms of public persona is different from the pressures on female characters. Not better or worse, just different. Crying, showing uncertainty, weakness, vulnerability … can be a minefield. This is why the glut of male mirror scenes in the 70s makes a kind of sense: as the women’s movement rose, men began to wonder about their place, as well as buck against some of the gender norms imposed on them (or, in some cases, re-entrench said gender norms, Travis Bickle’s “You talkin’ to me” the most classic example).

Shakespeare’s use of the soliloquy—in particular for Kings and prospective Kings—could be seen as mirror scenes, with the audience as the mirror. A man goes into a private space, showing the audience things he cannot show on the battlefield or in the court. Hamlet, one of the most introverted of Shakespeare’s characters, showing non-gender-norm qualities of uncertainty and sensitivity, has a massive six soliloquies. (“O that this too too solid flesh would melt”, “O what a rogue and peasant slave am I”, “To be or not to be”, “Tis now the very witching time of night”, “Now might I do it pat” and “How all occasions do inform against me.”) It is impossible to imagine the play—or Hamlet—without them. In Richard II, after Richard is forced to surrender his crown, what is the first thing he does? Like a true narcissist, he calls for a mirror. As he stares at himself, he wonders,

“Was this face the face That every day under his household roof Did keep ten thousand men?”

and throws the mirror on the ground.

Mirrors are powerful and mysterious symbols. The doubling-up can mean all kinds of things. Alice steps through the looking glass into another world. Goethe’s Faust looks into the witch’s mirror and sees a beautiful woman staring back. Dorian Gray takes a mirror to compare his face with the one in the attic portrait. (Like Richard III, Dorian smashes the mirror.) A mirror is crucial in Tennyson’s “The Lady of Shalott,” where “The Lady” is cursed to view the world only through a mirror. But then Lancelot rides by and she can’t help it, she has to sneak a peek. Maybe the most famous fictional mirror is the Evil Queen’s in “Snow White,” the one she asks every day, “Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?” Richard III doesn’t look for a reflection of his beauty. He wonders where his “self” even is, without the crown.

An early male mirror scene—and one of the best—is Peter Lorre’s in Fritz Lang’s M (1931). Our first glimpse of Lorre’s face comes without warning. As a handwriting-analyst theorizes in voiceover about the child-killer’s psychology, we see him, staring at himself in the mirror. He pulls at his face, slowly, manipulating his mouth into a smile, trying it on for size, maybe seeing what it looks like to the children he seduces. He bugs his eyes out, turning this way, that, a maniacal presence, almost like a shark rolling its eyes backwards as it attacks. He has no sense of what human beings feel like, of what he looks like, of how to even make a facial expression. It’s one of the most chilling private moments in cinema.

Speaking of “private moments”: Constantin Stanislavski wrote a lot about how actors needed to feel “solitude in public.” He wrote: ”During a performance, before an audience of thousands, you can always enclose yourself in this circle…You can carry it with you wherever you go.” Lee Strasberg developed his “private moment exercise” to help actors achieve “solitude in public.” There are things you do when you are alone which you would stop doing if someone walked in. Maybe you sing along to the radio. Maybe you talk to yourself. Maybe you pick your nose. Maybe you do all of these things simultaneously. Our “public” selves are drilled into us from a very young age. There are “good manners,” there are “contexts” to be memorized—what flies at home will not fly outside the home. Breaking down the public face, letting an audience see who you are when you are by yourself, is part of the actor’s job. (It’s not a surprise that the '70s came to be dominated by private-moment mirror scenes, considering the influence of the Strasberg method on acting styles.)

One of the most important mirror scenes, and a huge influence on Martin Scorsese, is Marlon Brando’s in Reflections in a Golden Eye, directed by John Huston. Brando plays Major Weldon Penderton, a closeted gay man married to a frustrated, luscious Elizabeth Taylor. Late at night, Penderton sits alone, staring at pictures of naked male statues from Greek antiquity. The character lives in an almost totally male world (the military), turned on by young soldiers, and terrified of revealing himself. In one scene, alone downstairs in the house, he walks into the hall and stares at himself in the mirror. After a moment of vacuity, he begins to talk to himself, or, more vulnerably, to an imaginary other person. He pretends to respond to what the other person says, he practices laughing, and he smiles, but the smile is superimposed. He can’t get it to look real. What he says is a kind of murmur, a “pretense” of conversation. This is the kind of vulnerability Brando could achieve like no other. Without this scene, the Major could have been a caricature. All we see is his fuddy-duddy sexless stiff public mask. The mirror scene shows his confusion at how to be a man, how to navigate even a casual conversation.

Alain Delon has a stunning mirror moment in Purple Noon (1960), Rene Clement’s adaptation of Patricia Highsmith’s The Talented Mr. Ripley. Delon plays the sociopath Tom Ripley, in thrall to his casually masculine friend Philippe Greenleaf (Maurice Ronet). Delon’s chilly presence onscreen works to beautiful effect: He doesn’t show us much. But then, he tries on Philippe’s clothes, a sleek pinstripe jacket, fancy shoes. He checks himself out in the mirror. Most actors would leave it at that. But Delon understood the homoerotic implications of the script, not to mention the character’s dangerous narcissism. Delon leans into the mirror and gives himself a rapturous long kiss, slitting his eyes open at one point, to check out what he looks like.

It’s interesting to contrast this with the same scene in the 1999 adaptation, The Talented Mr. Ripley, starring Matt Damon. Director Anthony Minghella makes the subtext practically text, by placing mirrors in almost every scene (the final shot of Ripley is through a mirror). When Ripley tries on his friend’s clothes, he dances around to Bing Crosby’s “May I,” doing a vaudeville burlesque. It’s a different kind of rapture than Delon’s swooning kiss. Damon’s drag-style dance is more for the audience, an explicit display of inner gay-ness, what Ripley is hiding beneath his good-natured submissive public persona. It’s a good scene, although I prefer Delon’s. Delon’s kiss is Stanislavsky’s “public solitude”—and it shows the terrifying void within the character. There is no self. The entire world is a mirror.

In Karel Reisz’s gritty Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, Albert Finney’s Arthur, in a whirl of work, sex, and alcohol, is suddenly caught by his reflection one hungover morning. He was beat up the night before. He plays at being a sniper through his window, targeting local women with pellets. It’s a thin line between playfulness and murderous acting-out. Finney digs into this aspect of the character when he suddenly speaks to his reflection. It is a statement of bravado before descending into confusion: ”I’m me and nobody else. Whatever people say I am that’s what I am not, because they don’t know a bloody thing about me. God knows what I am.”

For the opening sequences of Rocky, we see Rocky Balboa’s normal “day in the life.” We are introduced to him through various public selves. But when he goes home to his dank apartment, feeding his turtles, gentle and quiet, his loneliness is so acute it reverbs off the screen. Childhood photographs of him line the mirror frame, and Rocky stares at them, his big-lug face almost crushed in disappointment. Holding a container of turtle food, he starts to talk to himself. What he’s saying doesn’t sound like anything, just private-moment murmurings, but in the next scene, when he goes to visit the girl in the pet store, it becomes clear. He was practicing a joke to tell her, a joke designed to make her laugh, show her he’s a safe person, he’s nice. Rocky practicing a joke in the mirror is one of Stallone’s most vulnerable moments as an actor (and evidence of his gift as a screenwriter).

John Travolta’s mirror moment in 1977’s Saturday Night Fever is star-making, not just because of Travolta’s almost otherworldly gorgeousness (as well as how he revels in said gorgeousness, behavior considered coded-female). Surrounded by 1970s icons—posters of Rocky, Serpico, and Farrah Fawcett—he blow-dries his hair, places gold chains around his neck, and stands like a superhero in his black speedo briefs, shot from below. Perhaps the most revealing thing about the scene is that when his father barges into the room, Travolta’s Tony Manero does not stop what he is doing. His lack of embarrassment tells us everything we need to know about the character.

Francis Ford Coppola’s epic, Apocalypse Now begins with a hallucinatory sequence showing a PTSD-rattled Martin Sheen, holed up in a hotel room in Saigon, tormented by memories. In one shocking moment, Sheen stands unsteadily, and lurches around in front of the mirror, flailing his arms out in imitation martial-arts moves, an attempt to combat his helplessness and anguish, his impotence. But the gap between reality and fantasy is too great, and he, like Richard III, smashes the mirror.

Richard Gere’s mirror moment in American Gigolo is a distant cousin of John Travolta’s. His Julian has carefully crafted an immaculate persona for his female clients, and part of the movie’s pull is watching it get stripped away. At home, Julian wanders around, practicing Swedish, working out, picking out clothes for his next appointment. He’s vain, but vanity is part of his job. Smokey Robinson’s “The Love I Saw In You Was Just a Mirage,” and it’s perfect because Julian literally is a mirage. To his clients, to himself, even. When he stands in front of the mirror, flexing his muscles, he is more Evil Queen than Richard III, a destabilizing of gender norms around male sexuality (and self-presentation) which is so much a part of the film. (When Julian meets a private detective, it’s at a joint called the Me & Me Coffee Shop. Julian’s hall of mirrors shatters by the end of American Gigolo: in the final scene, he talks to Lauren Hutton through a glass partition in prison. The mirror is no more. He can see through it now to the other person, and, crucially, he can be seen, too, as he really is.)

The most famous mirror moment is, of course, Robert De Niro’s in Taxi Driver. In the insomniac voiceover, his Travis Bickle says, “I think that someone should become a person like other people,” showing the character’s alienation from other humans. You aren’t already a person, to Travis: you have to become one. As Travis descends into psychosis, dreaming of 1. impressing the cool blonde (Cybill Shepherd) who rejected him after he took her to a porn movie on their first date and 2. rescuing the child prostitute Iris (Jodie Foster), he begins to amass a small arsenal, putting together boot holsters and straps to go around his wiry body. In the unforgettable moment when he checks himself out in the mirror, he goes into a zone of macho fantasy. (Schrader’s script said only “Travis speaks to himself in the mirror.” De Niro’s “You talkin’ to me” was his improvisation.) De Niro goes so far into his sense of privacy, it’s almost embarrassing to watch. And yet it’s so human, too. (If you say you’ve never talked to yourself in the mirror, or sung in the shower, you’re lying.)

De Niro’s second mirror moment is Raging Bull’s final scene, when the bloated Jake La Motta recites Marlon Brando’s “I coulda been a contender” monologue from On the Waterfront, before standing up and doing a series of “pumping up” exercises, to get ready to go onstage. (Side note: Mary Elizabeth Winstead closes out Eva Vives’ wonderful 2018 film All About Nina, about a troubled stand-up comic, with a re-creation of the scene from Raging Bull.) What’s fascinating about the Raging Bull scene is that Jake La Motta has no “self” to reveal. It’s almost like there’s no inner life at all. He doesn’t “get it.” He never did, he never will. De Niro blanks himself out in a very unnerving way, opposite to the dangerous vengeful-spirit fantasy he inhabits in Taxi Driver.

Although Walter Hill’s Johnny Handsome descends into a cliched crime movie with paper-thin characters, the opening sequences are dark, cynical, and atmospheric. Mickey Rourke plays Johnny, a man with a deformed head, an “ugly” appearance which has separated him from other humans. Reminiscent of the Joan Crawford film A Woman’s Face, a caring plastic surgeon (Forest Whittaker) offers to operate on Johnny, to give him a chance at a new life. When Rourke unwraps the bandages and sees his new face (i.e. Rourke’s real face), Rourke has a mirror moment like almost no other, a moment worthy to be placed alongside Brando’s and De Niro’s. He touches his face with wonder, bursting into tears. That’s touching enough, but then, as he glances back at Whitaker, Rourke goes deeper. A look of fear, and lifelong anguish floods his eyes, as he says, “I feel like I still have a mask on” and then, after that, Rourke goes even deeper into a maelstrom of emotion: gratitude, bafflement, awe, despair. The scene is Rourke’s finest hour.

Up until recently (with a couple of exceptions), when women stared at themselves in the mirror in the movies, it was obvious what they are doing: touching up their makeup, checking out their mask. Once again, in the 1960s and 70s, women started doing “mirror scenes” equivalent to men’s mirror scenes, where the purpose was not perfecting the public mask, but to - as Sylvia Plath wrote in her poem “Mirror” - search “my reaches for what she really is.” Faye Dunaway has a great one in Jerry Schatzberg’s Puzzle of a Downfall Child. Gena Rowlands has quite a few “mirror scenes” in the movies she did with Cassavetes (there’s a couple of stunners in Opening Night). In my favorite moment in Sofia Coppola’s The Bling Ring, after breaking into Paris Hilton’s house, Katie Chang goes into a daze of mad-woman fantasy, staring at herself in Paris’ mirror. It’s not hard to imagine the character slipping into the Manson family, if a Manson came along. She’s as blank as Jake La Motta. In La Verite’s opening scene, Brigitte Bardot stares at her face in a broken shard of a mirror, right before marching off for her court date. Her “self” is fragmented, broken. Jennifer Jason Leigh has an extraordinary extended “mirror scene” in Georgia. The moment is everything: self-hatred, rage, searching and longing, and bone-deep narcissism.

Men staring at themselves in the mirror let us into their secret worlds, their fantasies and anxieties, uncertainties and vulnerabilities. It’s not about being self-obsessed. It’s trying to find the self, the self that is not allowed free rein, be it a benign self or a malevolent one.

In Caravaggio’s “Narcissus,” Narcissus leans towards his reflection in the water, his posture pulled downwards with a seductive tug. He braces himself by his hands on the ground, and his knee, bulging out beneath his torso, is the only barrier between Narcissus and his reflection (and, perhaps, drowning). In the painting the reflection below is cut off; all we see are the forearms and that gleaming sturdy knee. Even though Narcissus’ body is barely visible, even though he’s hunched over himself, his energy is childlike, soft and open. He gives his reflection a caressing stare, a swooning look. He yields. This is not just vanity. This is something else.

43 notes · View notes

karilamari · 5 years

Text

Psychoanalysis + Film

Freud/Lacan> Julia Kristve/Mikkel Borch

Lacan’s definition of anxiety

Anxiety: is the sensation of the desire of the other; feeling of the over-proximity of the desire of the “other” (the other could be you)

We get anxiety when we don't know what we are for the other. That your expected to give something to them based on how they say you. If I don't know how they see me, I don't know who I am. When i don't have the crutch of my image to lean on (and the belief that image is me) I don't know what place I have as an object in their desire.

Desire is something that sneaks in under the guide of demand.

Our strategies to mange anxiety really need to be strategies to negotiate our relationship with the desire of the other. What they want from us, what we want from them and our ability to control the proximity to that desire and carve out a space of our own.

Applying a psychoanalytic framework to film. GOOD summation of Lacan’s theory and how its been applied re male gaze

The mirror stage is fundamentally narcissistic “because narcissistic identification is incomplete, Lacan argues that it needs to be filled in through imagination. Imagination is a self-gratifying image through which the individual sees himself/herself as perfect. For Lacan desire points to a fundamental lack in the structure of the subject that we try to appease through temporary gratifications and demands that we place on ourselves (consumerism, sexual satisfactions, careerism, etc)

Symbolic identification pertains to how the big other sees us, judging us and pushing us to give our best satisfying his commands (god, parents)

Symbolic order > meaning to our lives > identified by how the BIG OTHER (god) sees us

Laura Mulvey applies Lacanian concepts to film analysis in “Pleasure and Narrative” 1975Fetishization arrests the flow of action, threatens the unity of the narrative

The male director is the one who controls “the gaze”

It s an erotic look of the male hero who moves the action forward, which is a REFLECTION , of “the ideal ego” of the spectator

Woman in this context, contrasts the male and is a screen for the male fantasy

A source of anxiety that needs to be investigated, punished, or forgiven

OR can be idealized (fetishized)

Fetishization arrests the flow of action, threatens the unity of the narrative

In the book, “Endless Nights: Cinema and Pyschoanalysis, Parallel Histories”, the focuses of the work of Freud/Lacan theorists, does not surpass the year 1962 and excludes more modern theories inclusive of queer sexuality and post-colonial subjectivities. Book Review

Julia Kristev, challenges or supplements? Lacan’s theory by adding a feminist/women’s perspective:

"according to Birgit Schippers, the semiotic is a realm associated with the musical, the poetic, the rhythmic, and that which lacks structure and meaning. It is closely tied to the "feminine", and represents the undifferentiated state of the pre-Mirror Stage infant.”

Symbolic v. Semotioc

SYMBOLIC "Upon entering the Mirror Stage, the child learns to distinguish between self and other, and enters the realm of shared cultural meaning, known as the symbolic.”Kristeva describes the symbolic as the space in which the development of language allows the child to become a "speaking subject," and to develop a sense of identity separate from the mother. This process of separation is known as abjection, whereby the child must reject and move away from the mother in order to enter into the world of language, culture, meaning, and the social. - ASSOCIATED w the male, the law, structure

Semotic: Kristeva departs from Lacan in the idea that even after entering the symbolic, the subject continues to oscillate between the semiotic and the symbolic. Therefore, rather than arriving at a fixed identity, the subject is permanently "in process”.

Because female children continue to identify to some degree with the mother figure, they are especially likely to retain a close connection to the semiotic. This continued identification with the mother may result in what Kristeva refers to in Black Sun (1989) as melancholia (depression), given that female children simultaneously reject and identify with the mother figure.

After abjecting the mother, subjects retain an unconscious fascination with the semiotic, desiring to reunite with the mother, while at the same time fearing the loss of identity that accompanies it. Slasher films thus provide a way for audience members to safely reenact the process of abjection by vicariously expelling and destroying the mother figure.

Mikkel Borch- Jacobsen

"In this paper, Borch-Jacobsen presented evidence that psychoanalytic transference is a form of altered state of consciousness, comparable with those that had existed in the work of pschotherapies which predate psychoanalysis, from Shamanism to the hypnotism of the Nancy School, by way of animal magnetism. He averred that "le phénomène du transfert n'est rien d'autre, de l'aveu même de Freud, que le resurgissement, au sein du dispositif analytique, de la relation (du « rapport ») caractéristique du dispositif hypnotique : dépendance, soumission ou encore… valorisation exclusive de la personne du médecin" ("On Freud's own admission, the phenomenon of transference is nothing other than the resurgence, in the bosom of [psycho]analytical techniques, of the characteristic relationship (of 'rapport') of hypnosis techniques: dependence, submission, or again... exclusive worship of the doctor").[4] He emphasised that there is consequently an important risk of suggestion on the part of the psychoanalyst, even more so when the psychoanalyst himself is not conscious of these phenomena.”

Bertrand Méheust rebuked Borch-Jacobsen for accepting without further discussion a dated view of hypnotherapy, bequeathed by the positivist institutional medicine of the 19th century.[6] Furthermore, he argues that hypnosis follows a state of absolute passivity and therefore hurts well-being, and that hypnosis is induced in someone in which all consciousness is disconnected, a being totally immersed in the inner self, indeed a puppet who thinks and lives totally by the workings of another.

2 notes · View notes

queen-asante · 6 years

Note

Why do fans hate Sarah? Do you dislike/like Sarah? Why or why not?

We talk a lot about the importance of characters that audiences like or can relate to. It’s nice to know when the good guy is good and when the bad guy is bad. That’s what you expect from a story. You want a hero, right?

Nope. Not me.

I love unlikable characters. It’s fair to say that if there’s a no-good, dirty, rotten scoundrel in the lead, I am 100 percent on board. The Eds are not supposed to be very likeable–more to the point: Eddy. If anything, they’re anti-heroes. Eddy’s a con artist, he’s selfish, he’s narcissistic. But he’s redeemable? He’s entertaining? He’s funny?? Yes? Yes. And though we shouldn’t, we find ourselves rooting for him.

So why is Sarah The Scrappy of the show? She’s just as loud, just as bossy, and just as grating on our nerves as Eddy. Nearly everyone in the cast fears her, strongly detests her, or avoids her, minus Jimmy and Nazz (and even they’ve butted heads with her at least once). Yet, she’s accepted into the social circle and tolerated far more than Eddy. She’s not popular in the fandom, whereas Eddy is very beloved despite his flaws. But maybe it’s because she’s not the lead, and this is why we need unlikable characters. It seems incongruous, doesn’t it, that a character who is wholly unappealing—repulsive, even—should be something audiences might seek out. And one step further, it seems counter intuitive to recommend that we write characters that audiences will rightfully dislike. Sarah is meant to be unlikable. The writers never attempt to pass her off as anything she’s not. She is what she is. And here, I think, is where unlikable and uninteresting are confused.

Sarah is not a boring character. Unlikable, perhaps, but not boring. A character can be very likable in their universe (Nazz, for example) but she doesn’t engage the audience. Nazz is boring. I actually like Nazz, but probably not more than Sarah. Unlike Nazz, Sarah exhibits enough agency to earn our attention—regardless of whether that attention is positive or negative.

Some characters are difficult to connect to simply because they do little to engage us. A character who lets the world act upon them and doesn’t influence a change in their situation could be unlikable or lovable, but either way they’re uninteresting. They’re too passive to warrant concern. You can’t care about this character, and as a result you can’t care about their story. You may brush it off as the character simply being unlikable. But a more accurate sentiment might be that the character isn’t interesting or compelling—all things that even a good-girl character needs to be if she wants people to care enough about her. But the opposite—a character who sets themselves up for conflict and consequences through the dastardliness of their doing—is surely unlikable, yes, but also magnetic. You want to watch them ruin their life. Eddy may repulse you in the same way a car accident is simultaneously disturbing and hard to look away from. This character is a train wreck, and it is glorious to behold. Every time he does something unwholesome, immoral, felonious or just, like, super-rude, he creates a conflict. The anticipation and delivery of that consequence is deeply satisfying for an active audience member, and by their very nature, not-nice characters create these conflicts almost constantly. In the words of Oscar Wilde, “The suspense is terrible; I hope it will last.”

Sarah creates a lot of conflict for the other characters–particularly Eddy–to bounce off of. She never moves away from her textbook definition of a spoiled brat, but why would we want her to? Sarah is almost infamous because we hate her (that murderous little wretch!), but that’s good, because we’ll still think about her long after the credits roll.

I like Sarah. I like all the characters. I like them in all their detestable, abominable, vain and cruel, conniving, snobbishshortcomings and pettiness and self-righteousness and backstabbing.

#eene #ed edd n eddy #sarah #sarah appreciation month #asante's questions

27 notes · View notes

haaliya · 3 years

Text

A Deeply Personal and Candid Story on my Father Wound: Tidbits of Knowledge to Deepen my Empathy and Love for Myself and Others

Ahhhh, my father. My father is the quintessential Sagittarius sun AND moon. He is bold, honest, enthusiastic, philosophical, optimistic and lucky but also consistently angry, emotionally distant, hurtful, sarcastic, cruel and aloof. I, as well as many Western member of Gen-Z, I have been inundated with Instagram posts, Tik-Toks, Tweets and memes that address childhood traumas and its negative impact on the previous and current generations. Whether it be a serious analysis of the effects of childhood wounding floating throughout the Twitterverse, or a Tik-Tok that makes humor of a seriously fucked up and traumatic childhood experience while simultaneously making the viewer chuckle and feel seen. I am thankful to live during an era where therapy attendance is not only popular but encouraged among the masses. Despite this, there is a pervasive notion amongst Gen-Z that is somewhat victimizing... Sorry. I know. Victim is an extremely touchy word that insights a variety of loaded emotions and negative associations. In this case I intentionally and purposefully use the word victim because I have noticed that constantly focusing on the ways in which our parents, but in this text fathers specially, have traumatized us encourages a sense of hopelessness and victimhood to deeply manifest within the psyche. "After all, we didn't choose our parents BUT they CHOSE to have us!" Is something I consistently repeated to myself in the moments where the resentment towards my father and his inability to do "right" by me exploded. At one point this sense of despair and sorriness I felt for myself lead me, as well as so many others, down the rabbit hole of ifs. If dad was here... If dad was honest... If dad didn't cheat on mom... If dad loved me... If dad respected me... If dad protected me...If dad saw me...If dad could keep a job and provide, If dad never left... Harping on past circumstances far out of our control is exrutiatingly depressing and induces sensations of hopelessness, feeling as if we have no control. "I couldn't choose my father and look how everything he did ruined me...what things can I even control?" I don't quite remember exactly when it happened but at one point in my college years, in my own process of self-pity, I recognized how deeply narcissistic my perspective was. I am not the first, or the last person to be wounded by my father. I am not the first or last girl to have daddy issues. I am not the first and I won't be the last girl to lay eyes on the most destructive, untrustworthy and emotionally unavailable guy and say "Thats the one!! I love him!!" While the presence or absence of another person's trauma does not invalidate our own, I found solace in knowing that others felt what I felt, done what I've done, and seen what Ive seen. Harping on the childhood wounds and the ones I accumulated through traumatic relationships was not actually improving my sense of self worth, my confidence and my relationships with men. This post is not intended to absolve fathers from their role in wounding children. This text is my testimony laced with tidbits of information that helped me consciously decide to transmute my paternal wounding into a learning experience that deepened my ability to empathize and forgive not only my father, but myself. It wad excruciatingly difficult for me to forgive myself for thins I did and allowed. I was unaware that my ability to forgive my father was karmically tied to my ability to forgive myself. When you can extend grace to others, you can more readily extend it to oneself. No matter who you are the wounds passed down from the father will dictate how you are able to receive and give love, and alters the way one practices discernment in dating. Awareness of one's wounding is an important step in the process, but it cannot be the all end be all. Transmuting paternal wounding into radical empathy and unconditional love was required of me, if I was to ever have a relationship with a man that would be even a tiny bit healthy. Had I continued down that path, my lover with wound me in all the ways my

father did and likely wound my children in the same way I was. Somatically feeling genuine empathy and forgiveness for my father on a deeply visceral level is a point I needed to reach to cultivate my own sanity and peace. If you are reading this and your father was deeply evil and committed horrifically malicious acts against you or was even absent your whole life, this is still for you. Nonetheless, this text does not aim to encourage the reader to contact their father, integrate him into your life, or cultivate a deeper bond with him. This text is for YOU. Not HIM.

MY WOUNDING

Although I feel in my heart the love my father has for me is real, I never felt as if I got enough of it growing up. He had a mean streak, and would tease me as if I was one of his classroom peers. He didn't dote on me, tell me I’m gorgeous and wasn't an emotionally present figure there to guide me through difficult experiences. He was extremely reactive and angry. He could not efficiently express his emotions or share a deeply personal emotion if his life depended on it. Naturally, this negatively shaped the manner in which I seek, view and express romantic love. As children when parents are incapable of showing up for children in the ways we need, the young child doesn't believe that something is wrong with the parent... The child start to believe something is wrong with themself. As I analyze my early childhood, some beliefs I cultivated around my self worth based on how my father treated me developed.

He comes in and out of my life because inconsistency is what I deserve.

He doesn't tell me I’m beautiful because I am not beautiful.

He doesn't give me a lot of attention and affection because I am underserving of attention and affection.

He teases me because I'm embarrassing and worthy of taunting.

He says I'm fat because I am ugly and undesirable.

In order to be worthy of his attention and love I must perform traits that I do not authentically possess or express.

He teases me about my acne break outs and makes comments when I gain or lose too much weight, therefore I should feel shame about myself and my worth when my looks are not deemed attractive by men.

He calls me names and makes me feel inferior, it is okay and normal for men to make me feel this way...

I was a small child who knew nothing but love for her dear daddy who could do no wrong. As I progressed into a restless, resentful and somewhat combative teenager, I transformed into a young adult who saw my father as my very own personal Lucifer. Whether I saw him as a god or a demon, whether he made me feel good, or sad, the notion that his own traumas, deficiencies, fears and insecurities influenced the way we treated me was not even a thought or consideration until I was around 20. Im currently 22 so it hasn't even been that long since I started to see my father for who he was, which was a human being. Not a god, not a demon, a human. As human nature preserves, no man that walks on THIS Earth gets to choose between his godlike and devilish nature. The best he can do is understand both dimensions of his nature and cultivate whichever aspect of himself is needed to reach his own goals and desires.

To this day, my parents are married, and have been for about 30 years. Despite their longevity and my genuine belief that my parents are soulmates and in love, they have a very odd long distance situation that is hard to explain to people who aren't apart of my family. Their situation blurred my expectations of what I thought a husband and father's role was supposed to be. Their relationship greatly contrasted who I thought my father should have shown up as because he didn't perform in the way I thought he should have based on media, friends and society . I didn't often feel love from my father that validated my being and sense of worth. He is a naturally emotionally distant man and this was only exacerbated by his physical absence from my life. He visited my mom, me and my sisters that were still at home during random moments and times. Sometimes his presence was a carrot he dangled infant of my mother, something I deeply internalized. If him and my mother had problems, I was in the middle. I always use to laugh at tv shows when the fictional parents would argue and say " We need to be quiet! The kids can't know we are having problems!" If only my parents hid things form me... man I probably would've felt more peace. He was gone most of the time, but when he was around he was either arguing with me or my three sisters, or my mom. I went on to college and our relationship was about the same. He didn't call me often, but when he did it was most likely a rant about my deficiencies. Contrastingly, there were times he would call at an offhand time and tell me he really loves me and really cares about me.

He loves and validates me at random moments because I do not deserve love that is consistent and guaranteed.

Anxiety, a general sense of longing, emotional unavailability integrated into my nervous system. The sensations I felt when my dad triggered feelings of abandonment or unworthiness are the same sensations I felt anytime a circumstance made me feel unworthy and abandoned: If a kid in my class made an offhand comment about my looks, if I didn't receive "enough" validation via social media, my committal to ONLY pursuing men who were inconsistent and would abandon me.

Nothing brings a deeper sense of contentment than the confirmation of self beliefs no matter how damaging said belief is. It is all the more painful and powerful when that belief is so deeply intertwined to one’s being that we have physical confirmations via sensations by way of the nervous system. This provides a physical manifestation of the excitement, fear, anxiety, happiness, confusion and pain we may have felt as a child which oftentimes is confused with chemistry, butterflies, or love in adulthood. Dr. Nicole Le Pera, a clinical psychologist I very much admire maintains the theory that we can become addicted to our own emotions, which I think is extremely applicable to the way I operated. Experiencing situations that trigger those emotions that run so deep that they garner a physical reaction from the body are dangerously tantalizing and addictive. Every guy I liked had to trigger those feelings in me, or the possibility of our love was dead. I unintentionally chased a variety of new experiences with "different" people that are different enough to satisfy my human desire for novelty and delude me into thinking I wasn't repeating toxic patterns. “How could it be a pattern when the situation is completely different?”

HIS WOUNDING

I don't remember the instant when I viewed my father as a flawed human being with his own fears, insecurities, projections and traumas. As I grew older, when my father's words or actions hurt me, I started to pity him. One time he was tearing into me with his words and instead of responding to his insults I simply asked "Was your father cruel to you? Is this why you're so mean to me?" For the first time I saw him give pause, a somewhat concerned expression flashed across his face and he answered "Maybe." My father had a very inconsistent mother figure who essentially abandoned him and his sister. She was cold and emotionally distant. To make matters worse, she physically abandoned him and went on to live her life without him or his sisters when he was about 5 or 6. I met my paternal grandmother once at the age of 20. He was abruptly moved from Ethiopia to the Virgin Islands to live with his father, for reasons he was too young to then understand. I never knew my grandfather because he died before I was born, but based off what I know, he had the same mean streak he passed to my father. There are many things I do not know about his childhood, but the things I do know, make me feel a great amount of empathy for the wounding I know he received from both his parents.

PRACTICING EMPATHY

Empathy is a word so overused, we lose touch with its true meaning and origin. Both Empathy and Sympathy share the suffix -pathy, originating from the Greek word pathos, meaning "feeling." The Greek prefix -sym means "with." Therefore, sympathy is defined as feeling sad for another's misfortune. On the other hand, the prefix -em, Greek meaning for "in" illustrates the the powerful difference between "feeling in" and "feeling with." The feelings of abandonment and inadequacy I feel on a deep, almost innate level are things I feel within myself. These are things my father felt within himself as a child and that he unknowingly projected unto me. I have deep empathy and feel in him, the pain he felt as a child through his words and actions towards me. I know how he made me feel so I know at some point he was taught to both feel and make others feel the way he did. Abandoned and unworthy.

Mnemosyne, the Greek Goddess of memory gave birth to her creation, the Muses who preside over the arts and sciences. Today we use the word muse to describe the person or entity that inspires art, story telling and song. In the introduction to The Odyssey translated by Emily Watson, she eloquently states that story and song are a means to "remember the times before we were born." Our DNA is an extremely complex form of memory that is deeply engrained into all of us which is passed down from our biological parents. The DNA passed from our parents helps us remember in a round about way, time before our existence. In a very intimate, indescribable way, we can inherit then feel their fears, pains, traumas. In a similar way, we can inherit their beauty, talents, interests and mannerisms. The mode in which one's nervous system and the brain function is highly genetic. The way we practice and manifest feelings throughout the body is often inherited. When my chest hurts and my stomach is in knots after my latest lover abandons me, I feel in me the way my father felt many times through his life. One cannot always tangibly grasp the ways in which ones fathers genetic memory helps us remember the past. We internalize both genetic and socialized aspects of our parents personality. Not only does the genetic memory of my father that allows me to feel some of his pain deepen my empathy, but it reminds me of a more tangible and over way that memories influence the way one chooses to parent, which allowed the child to remember a time before they were born. His memories carry deep emotions, fears, insecurities and traumas that he used as a frame of reference to parent me.

HE WASN'T ALL BAD

This candid blog post detailing my personal journey towards radical empathy towards my father made him look like a detestable asshole. lol. While he had his downfalls ever since I could remember he always envisioned a life of luxury for himself. Every memory I have of him during my younger years was him planning a new business venture, drawing professional quality designs and doodles of yachts and mansions he said he would have, that we would have. He didn't even finish the 10th grade. He had no emotional, physical or emotional support from his mother or father yet he built a successful business and provides for his family to the best of his ability. He viewed a mans love as hard, financial and aloof. He didn't intentionally wound me in this way so that he could inflict pain and ruin my future loves. He just repeated the emotional patters he internalized as a child and projected them unto me. Yes, he SHOULD do the work to evaluate his trauma so that he can be a better father. In a perfect world, he would do the work and heal. Realistically speaking, he is old and stuck in his ways. No he is not absolved of responsibility, but forgiving him for the ways he hurt me, and empathizing with his pain instead of internalizing was for ME. I had to break the cycle within myself, I cannot control another human being or force their healing.

As a child my father did hurt me but I still really saw him as a likable ambitious man. He instilled in me at a young age that you can dream bigger than your situation. Not only did he dream, I saw the fruits of his labor. He proved to me in my early years the power of belief in oneself and ones ability to pursue their dreams against all odds. His belief is something I deeply feel within myself. While I did inherit some wounds I also inherited a deep sense of belief in my ability to accomplish my goals. My father is lucky, philosophical, honest (when he’s not playing a practical joke), intuitive, playful, optimistic. He is also human and completely imperfect.

0 notes

deepspacepirate · 7 years

Text

Director Orson Krennic: a character analysis

(Or, a rebuke to a post that got way out of hand, and I ended up dumping literally every thought I have about Krennic, so I decided to make it into its own independent meta.)

Yes, Krennic’s a poor guy who just wants some respect and never seems to catch a break. But he’s also a ruthless and Machiavellian narcissist with a dastardly sense of fashion. One doesn’t negate the other. His character is an interplay of both.

Krennic doesn’t come from the same posh background as other imperial officers and faces much classicism as a result. It’s undeniable that he is incredibly ambitious. He had to be in order to get to his position, both in the Republic Corps of Engineers and as the Director of Advanced Weapons research (aka the Death Star), in the face of much resistance. It’s quite admirable, really, and he sees it as a source of pride as well. Everybody loves a rags to riches story.

His bombast, ego, ambition, and lust for power are not things he’s ashamed of. In fact, these traits in themselves are not bad, nor do they make him a bad person. Problems arise because of these traits in combination with the following, mostly of which are traits of narcissists. He’s less entitled than your average narcissist and has evidence to back up his ego, but still a narcissist.

He is afraid of taking risks. He clings to the rails of the bureaucratic ladder instead of staking it out on his own in a field like pure research, where you can either be wildly famous or wallow in obscurity. Galen says this to him in the Rogue One novelization, and boy does it hurt because he knows it’s true. Because he fears taking his own path, he’s at the behest of the Empire. All opportunities that present themselves to him will be ones that further the Empire’s own goals. Not that he has a problem with them.

Speaking of which, Krennic doesn’t have real goals; he doesn’t know what success for himself looks like. In full accordance with being a raging narcissistic, he’s an ambitious social climber whose only goal is to be powerful. What that looks like, we have no idea.

Before we go any further, I want to make an important comment about power. Power is not inherently evil. Wanting power doesn’t make you a bad person. Being powerful just means having the ability to effect change. You can use it to command the massacre of millions of people, but you can also use it to create a system for sustainable energy. Power is not an end, but a means to an end.

That said, being powerful isn’t actually a real goal. When you set goals, you want them to be SMART. Goals must be specific, measurable, attainable, reasonable, and have a time deadline. Krennic’s goal is neither specific nor measurable (which renders consideration of the latter three letters moot).

There are so many ways to be powerful including, but not limited to: senator, social media mogul, actor, political activist, prominent author, famous architect, and successful tech entrepreneur. “I want to be powerful,” is so vague, it may as well not even be a goal at all. And if you don’t even know what your goal looks like, how can you measure it? How do you know that you’ve reached it?

A quest for power ends when one has enough to execute on whatever end goal they have, but Krennic has none, so his quest for ever greater power never ends. He’ll just keep climbing the bureaucratic ladder to the top. The only way to climb the ladder is by serving your superiors, so the Empire’s goals become his goals.

He has problems with authority. He hates all of them. He wants to have the freedom to do things on his own terms, but they won’t let him. That’s the consequence of working for somebody else. And when you work for somebody else, you know you don’t have all the power.

Now, I want to go on a brief tangent about Galen’s business partnership offer to Krennic. It was an out for Krennic. The perfect out, in fact. He would have been unbelievably happy there. Barring responsibility to shareholders, there are no restrictions as to what entrepreneurs can do; they get to be their own bosses, set their own goals, set their own rules, do whatever they want. The only other authority figure in the vicinity would be Galen, who wouldn’t even be his superior. He’d be working alongside his best friend, whom he knows respects him.

In fact, when Galen first tells him about the project, Krennic is reeling, literally incapable of saying anything other than dazedly repeating Galen’s words with a question mark at the end.

For a brief moment he glimpsed a new destiny opening before his eyes, a window into a future he had never imagined for himself, a path to an entirely different life, and yet just as quickly as the window opened, it closed, slammed shut as much by long years of training as by a feeling of trepidation.

This is such an incredibly tragic moment when you consider how different things could have been had he said yes. How much better things could have been. A life without betrayal and loss. Unfortunately, he was too afraid to take it.

So he’s stuck in the position of simultaneously hating his bosses and also wanting respect from them. This becomes a problem because…

He’ll do what it takes to get what he wants, but he’s not a spineless bootlicker. He’s much too prideful for that. The thing about people ruthlessly ambitious as Krennic is that they don’t bow down to anybody. Bureaucrats hate this. To them, Krennic is just an uppity chav ¹ who thinks he can make it to the top. I have no doubt Krennic picks up on the fact that he’s hit a glass ceiling. He can’t woo them; they hate him just for being him. It’s unbelievably petty, so he’s petty right back at them. They owe him respect for all he’s done! So he seeks to undermine the authority of those above him (i.e. Tarkin) the only way he can - via manipulation and cunning. It’s what he’s good at and he knows it.

Despite all of the above, he seeks external validation (a mark of narcissists), such as rank squares, a dramatic cape, and being in charge of big projects. Narcissists are both immensely prideful and profoundly insecure. His ruthless ambition is a direct consequence of these insecurities. He needs to show off for any modicum of self dignity. Even in the presence of Galen he gets defensive about his position.

“But I am serious,” Galen cut in. “And I do understand your position. I just think you deserve more than…this,” he added, motioning in a way that took in the Corps of Engineers headquarters. Krennic swallowed to suppress a sudden defensiveness, a raw desire to tell Galen Erso that this was all a sham; to load that datapad of Erso’s with the schematic of the battle station and show him what he was really in charge of.

This ties closely to his lack of concrete goals. Without those, everybody else always determines your worth: whether you stand up to their expectations. When you can set your own goals and your own standards for success, you can fall back on those. If you fall short of someone else’s expectations, you can say, “Fuck that. This is what matters to me and I meet my own standards.” But Orson has none of those. He’ll never feel self fulfillment, and he’ll never be personally satisfied with himself.

He doesn’t want to be responsible for his actions, specifically, the ones that reflect poorly on him. I don’t know why Krennic doesn’t have a goal more concrete than “be powerful”, but if had to guess I’d say it’s because he’s afraid of failing at that goal. It would be a failing on his own part and there’s no plausible deniability. He can’t say, “They gave me unrealistic goals,” or, “ They were plotting against me.” It falls on him now. He’s more than eager to take credit for his success, he’s too afraid to take responsibility for his failures. Even though Krennic hates being beholden to anybody, he’s afraid of being completely independent. He’s a child that wants to be a grown up, but he doesn’t want to wake up and smell the taxes.

Everything he does, his ambition, his quest for power, his Machiavellian tendencies, even his dramatic fashion sense, all stem from the fact he is a sad and lonely narcissist trying to prove himself in place where nobody wants him to succeed. It all feeds back into itself. He’s put himself in an environment that exacerbates his narcissistic traits, and he becomes more and more ruthless as he tries to maintain his dignity and feed his ego.

– Notes 1. I apologize for using this word; I don’t know another less offensive word that more accurately describes what the posh officers think of him

Bonus: AU where Orson accepts Galen’s business proposal and quits his job in the Corps of Engineers. The Death Star never gets built, nobody dies, and it’s happy endings for everybody.

#orson krennic #rogue one #sw #ro #this was sitting in my drafts for months wtf #since like january #jesus

7 notes · View notes

vasilinaorlova · 8 years

Text

hologram and flamingo, superimposed / the self-contained luxury of esoteric fascism

“imagine a man of his age risking what little life he has left for something so absurd as a country.” (Heller)

while the sentiment “Anne Frank might have lived in Brooklyn now and be an 80-y.o. respectable Brooklyn woman, but she was denied the US visa” is very clear to me, the “Brooklyn” part is what makes me question this sentiment

as if it is only Brooklyn–of all the US–that is a suitable place for Anne Frank and the most terrible part, is that it might very well be so. today’s Brooklyn is, evidently, a very Anne-Frank-friendly place. it is easy to be friendly to Anne Frank today. especially in Brooklyn.

carry your inner Brooklyn in your heart indefatigably [imaginary Brooklyn]

yet the Syrian refugees, denied entry to the US

having green cards on their hands

is a different story

inasmuch as Brooklyn is a friendly place

the positionality of the hypothetical Arab in the modern world is altogether different from the positionality of the hypothetical Jew in the modern world

not to mention that Syrians come in different ethnic backgrounds and national affiliations

different histories different sensibilities to the cultural figures set in motion in mind of the hypothetical Brooklyner it all is horrendous to be sure one could only wonder if there is a little child writer amongst those people stuck in the USA airports

and if it validates everything in a perverse manner

as if we only can be capable of appreciating carefully trimmed writers

attending to European standards of being humans a child already and inevitably enveloped in the political and literary contexts, the discourses and their perpetuators and perpetrators, performing multiple political and cultural and plainly human violations another curse in haste sent into the useless, irresponsive sky. finally I feel like home in the US. well done, mr president “illegal immigration” is not a target of Trump, as became crystal clear by airport detention of green-card holders. green cards=>their status in the US was legal. the target is people(s) of “wrong” races. I hope I will be deported or denied entrance to the US one day. to be sure, it’ll be a drama for me and my family. yet such is the sacred duty of every honest noncitizen as revealed today. history is coined today said my imaginary Marx looking like philosopher Daniel Dennett too, in the sheen of his rarefied beard* phallogocentrism, said Derrida (what did he know--almighty phallus precludes these beings from knowing anything( as facebook reached the definitive completion of becoming a police machine--with border patrol checking facebook accounts for undesirable political messages--let’s remember this day there was a lot of speculations and evidence as to how facebook controls and polices citizens. and it'd be naive for the state apparatus--unimaginably naive--not to. were you a state representative, would you refuse to use such an endless source of most intimate information? of course not! yet this

is taking it to a new level

“it’s official”

“it’s a boy” “it’s a beast” what do I do? the answer is of course not to abandon social media and nook into a corner but to use platforms for more open and straightforward political commentary between silence and speaking out time and again one chooses speaking out not because it makes so much of a difference but because thus one earns self-respect loyalty to oneself even though I often find myself sadly devoid of the pleasure of aligning with American elites, whether they are the establishment or the opposition. particularly in this dreadful time when everyone starts speaking in slogans. the very mechanisms enabling free speech and exchange of ideas, are simultaneously the mechanisms of controlling with lots of fear devices embedded that promulgate self-censure or cautionary gestures such as “friends only” settings. and why? well, it is because if you were to express yourself freely without reservation, you should first resign from all the positions you are currently holding–at least,that is what people believe; and who could tell them that they are wrong? not everyone is capable of becoming either a homeless body or a mini Žižek (some would argue, those two figures are in some sense synonymous, but they are not: the first figure is the figure of the radical renunciation of societal etiquette, and the second is performative of radical renunciation, in which absolute conformance is deftly packaged). Trudeau looked great on the backdrop of mumblers consisting of the Western politicians of all ranges. a new Western masculinity of sorts: kind and soft, still performatively masculine. in this sense, Trudeau is very much like a naked-torsoed Putin, a statue of Putin. the next Canadian Prime Minister would be a loyal Trumpist, because Trudeau has such a beautiful chest and wide shoulders--he should have looked less of a politician in all the maleness of this role. another spectacle to watch would be, a quick drift to the right of the Democratic party. half a year, and you would not tell the tomorrow’s democrat from the yesterday’s republican. “conservatives,” in their turn, would evolve into something which eats werewolves in the full moon. I told my husband six years ago that the revoking of the birthright citizenship would happen on our memory. one could never err predicting the worst.

back to being an unrelenting misandrist, I guess

even the best among men are still men, and thus deserve contempt.

“yes, I am a hatred-spewing feminist,” she said and turned into a dragon vomiting fire.

the main concern is to not wake up, come to the mirror, and see a face of the fascist in there one day

“There are many who do not know they are fascists but will find it out when the time comes” - Hemingway, For Whom the Bell Tolls (thanks to Liz Lewis for the reminder)

to take a refuge in madness seems to be an appealing option these days

only it, like any other eccentricity, is a luxury for a dispossessed, displaced human being, madness means a series of terrors enacted upon them, and then the quick, violent death--and I, not being such a dispossessed individual, will merely spend several months taking the vertiginous drugs after a short incarceration in a pristine laboratory-like clinic. yes, I am the same self-centered, narcissistic fascist. I am the heartless sadist, a servants to the esoteric ideas of my own superiority. that’s why Trump is crystal clear to me, and, the whim he is, it is merely a historical whim also that I cannot praise and laud the vulgar fascism that he propagates. with the methodicalness and accuracy that befitted fascists (something close to this W.G. Sebald once said, I cannot find the exact quote, said with a cold, lingering surprise--the writer whose oeuvres are one vibrating (vibrant and reverberating) lament and repentance over the crime of the Nazis, the lament never expressed directly and straightforwardly, but gently, in all sorts of circuitous ways, allegorically, if you will, yet that surprise of his pierced me as my own icy surprise: it could hardly contain admiration “Every woman adores a Fascist” (Sylvia Plath)

Everyone adores a fascist yet of course oh of course everyone is repulsed by a fascist, you would want to say, yet a month ago I did not read objections to suggestions that Hitler was a brilliant politicians, and no one questioned--among those who consider themselves sane-- or asked on Quora,** if Hitler really was that bad surely bad but not that bad

that’s because things change quickly. and I am the worst fascist (well, I am a femi-Nazi after all), who is ascribing the name of fascists to anyone who is regretfully male or - - - (the continuation is not important). _______________________________________ *Daniel Dennett’s treatise “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” I read after I was lucky to meet Dennett in person at the Philosophy department of the Lomonosov Moscow State University where he first gave a lecture and then was greeted at our division (of the History of the Western Philosophy). He was there in all the shine of his white beard.His crisp ideas are generally well-known. In his ardent atheism, Daniel Dennett goes as far as to use a metaphor of humans being robots of sorts, while the true subjects of evolution are genes. Being a consistent evolutionist, the philosopher nevertheless uses the expression “Mother Nature,” which shows, despite the intended irony, how difficult it is to change the language practice (linguistic ideology) even when one tries to repudiate ideas behind said practice. Dennett very well might be a deist after all. I perceived him as a part of that front of atheism which includes Richard Dawkins. Admittedly, new atheists “can’t be sure that god doesn’t exist.” It is evidently as difficult to be a consecutive atheist as it is difficult to be a theist in our times. And why? Because the very nature of “God” (as a term) is a linguistic fallacy. Another reason of why everyone is merely lukewarm, is that humanity inhabits the post-human era. Human is at least two centuries outdated, and there is no one coming to take on their place. **On the February 9th, 2017, the website functioning as opening space for questions and answers, Quora, “collapsed” (made invisible) my answer to the question formulated as follows: “Is the story about Hitler and the piano wire hangings a myth? I'm aware these hanging occurred but I've read that Hitler asked that the hangings be recorded for viewing. This seems to clash with what I've read about Hitler and his tendencies to witness atrocities authorized by him; that Hitler had a very weak stomach for actually wanting to see brutality.” My answer was: “No, Hitler was a nice weak-stomached kitten, everything too harsh that is said of him is but propaganda. I hope I answered this question in the mood of the times and can be a Standartenfürer of tomorrow.” (To clarify, it is a historic fact that Hitler watched the executions conducted through hanging, on video. Plenty of sources there are to support this. But for the shift of the linguistic framing the actual fact is not important. It suffices to say that the repetitive expression of the disbelieving doubt--no matter how irrational such doubt is, after everything that had been conducted under the orders of Hitler--is enough to signal the change in the atmosphere, the change difficult to catch, and these doubts--well-meaning and seeking the historical truth, ostensibly, doubts coming from the good Samaritans--will reoccur time and again, until they will reach their halt, which is also their climax. And the notched wheel will skip a bit: the perception of historical figure will shift undeniably. Intelligent people will ask: but what proofs do you have? Just as my friend, a literary critic and a writer, asked me once: “But what proofs do you, you yourself, have?” when we spoke about Stalin and his atrocities. And I did have plenty. But this is not the beginning of the conversation. This is the end of it. After this type of question, no amount of proofs could possibly doubt the doubt. Cogito ergo sum? No. Cogito ergo non cogito. He did not express doubt--he stood for the new order, in which Stalin was the great leader of the great country. His cogito was non cogito, for non cogito ergo sum in such a world’s (re)ordering.)

#prose #poetry #stream of consciousness

10 notes · View notes

redantsunderneath · 8 years

Text

Bruce Springsteen: Born to Run (an autobiography)

This is going to be more exorcism than exegesis – this book is odd, and I can’t stop thinking about why. The review line here is that this recent Springsteen autobiography is worthwhile enough if you are somewhere north of a casual Springsteen fan but if you are looking for a single Springsteen historical document, you’d be better served with the Dave Marsh biographies. Superfans will of course love it, the curious will find it entertaining if they wind up with a copy, and the odd people like me who are obsessives without being real superfans will, well, find it peculiar but involving.

Bona fides: I’m an obsessive in that I’ve listened to every Springsteen song, legally released or leaked, up to 2006-ish, have read many of related books, filtered through ephemera, had the concert experience numerous times at different stages of his carrier, and have intermittent year long bouts of compulsively listening/getting moved/thinking about the whole Springsteen enchilada. What really attracted me to him as an artist was that, unlike chameleons such as (Bruce fan) Bowie who committed to one thing at a time, he seemed to carry a bunch of different influences simultaneously, the skills of which he was proficient in, and would combine and project them - the arena rawker, the street party leader, the acoustic poet, the rock and roll revivalist, the RnB review, the storyteller, the piano balladeer - often capturing several in the space of a song. He also had such great phenomenological and artist-as-story interest: I had seen this with Elvis, but this was more complicated and comprised the sum of on stage relationships, story content, song preoccupations, personal life leaks, and attitude towards fans coalescing into a legend of an avatar of the American working class and underclass, coming in with a bunch of buddies who together were a family, to redeem something in the American spirit, all on the shoulders of some incredible will and discipline.

So why am I exiled like Moses, able to see the super fan promised land but never enter? First (and this is not restricted to Springsteen) I find the fan ethos offputting. It combines a deification I loathe with a fake chumminess that makes me nauseated. More importantly, though, I really don’t like much he has produced since Tunnel of Love marked his most significant career transition. I note only one great song (“Terry’s Song”) written since the Chimes of Freedom EP which marked the end of the ToL tour, his first marriage, and the initial E Street Band run. This includes a take it or leave it attitude towards current concerts on my part (the spark isn’t there for me) and wariness about where the Springsteen “story” has gone. One of the greatest things about him early on was the mastery of basically every corner of rock and roll, and his attempt to incorporate new elements and stay fresh are kind of embarrassing (I like Rage Against the Machine too, but the weak link there is Tom Morello’s guitar, and Springsteen hired him to “rejuvenate his sound”. Ugh).

So, why is it weird? I don’t read many autobiographies (only one I can remember finishing is No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish) so maybe it’s par for the course, but this isn’t a sculpted recounting of history but a chain of 80 or so “stories” like extended versions of the ones he would tell on stage, and are concerned more with internal rhythm than an external sense of pace or continuity. There is a lot of backtracking where the reader needs to “match” events. This story approach extends to frequent use of his stage voice(s), where he will go into revival preacher or beat poet mode, do stream of consciousness riffs, and recount back and forth embellished dialogue (without quotes, but with interjections like ‘Marone!’) like he is arguing with himself. The good news is you can truly hear his voice in the semi-poetic prose. The bad news is it doesn’t flow well, leaves strange things out, cuts back and forth, and the story seems incomplete.

The best thing about the book is an authentic third angle on the Springsteen legend that I legit had never heard before. The Springsteen myth is heavily curated by the Boss himself and has always painted a picture, as I noted above, of a rock’n’roll family bringing a fun redemption to the world. This had to be resolved with journalistic and tabloid information that challenged the story, but there was always a fan synthesis that incorporated the info and left the godhead intact. My memory of rec.arts.music.springsteen (one such recounting was called “a good man,” gagh!) is that Juliana Philips was seen as “a mistake of exposure to big success” and “a vain actress,” and he soon realized that what he needed was a good Jersey girl (which resolves how the marriage never fit fan image of him and sands the edges off of the inconvenient timing of the affair). Springsteen’s recounting of this is a good example of the value of his non-filtered point of view. He goes out of his way to demonstrate the small town authenticity of Phillips and describe her as wonderful and loving. The problem was that he was impossible to get along with for anyone after a couple of years and his mishandling of the separation (not wanting the press to know while he began another relationship and got caught) is the biggest regret of his life (because of how it impacted his then-wife).

This approach reveals him as a hard guy to know. He describes himself as a narcissist and self-hater (cue Venn diagram of the overlap of narcissism and self-doubt being Art), and he tells story after story of the men in his life where he lengthily but gently drags them through the mud, then says “but we would die for each other and I love him.” These stories come off as whatever happens to passive aggressiveness after expensive therapy (and this book is therapy-speak rich), and often serves to make him look worse than outside data does (the Mike Appel story especially where Springsteen was utterly in the right and was maliciously kept from recording for several years, but here Springsteen does everything to make excuses for him, gives him a butload of credit, and still manages to come off a little petty, i.e. these stories tend to backfire). He spends a lot of time recounting how he told the bandmembers that they just had to understand that he needed all the control and that he had all the power, so they needed to suck it up.

The upbringing stuff is probably the best material and the most untrod ground. His family history is pretty compelling and I finally understand how his religious and ethnic background shaped his personality. The sex stuff makes him look idiosyncratic and selfish: a monk sometimes, do anything that moves one year, but usually a serial monogamist with uncondoned cheating. He comes off like a terrible boyfriend and worse husband (lots of lost weekend stuff), but this doesn’t really capture how odd the sex stuff is as much as that one passage about he and his dad went to Tijuana and he came back with the crabs. He mentions prostitutes more times than he mentions groupies.

He picks several concerts to elevate to most important status that are not big ones in Springsteeen lore, but have some kind of multicultural underpinning. To at least some extent, this is to craft a version of a guy who is in touch with human experience. He spends so much time on post Katrina, 9-11, and his hurt at the cops rejecting him after what he thought was the evenhanded “American Skin (41 Shots)” (the fact that he was surprised surprises me). His talk about race and Clarence Clemons is fascinating – their relationship was molded on stage because he thought it was an important one to America both as an example and as an aesthetic statement. They only knew each other in this context and rarely ever saw each other outside of stage and studio. So their friendship, such as it was, was a Springsteen story performed into existence. He is very conscious of (and calculated about) his cultural legacy.

So much is left out, yet there are a lot of stories that are barely OK, but seem there specifically to mark time so that it’s not Born in the USA cut-to everybody starts dying (thinking of the horse riding stuff as an example). His discussion of his depression is very valuable, but asynchronously told and thus hard to follow. The book is full of “aw shucks” enthusiasm, idiom, and showmanship, but is somehow unexpectedly unguarded about the inner workings of his mind. He comes off as someone driven and not comfortable in his own skin unless he is accomplishing something, but in a human, actually painful way, that I have only ever seen divulged by a celebrity once before (David Foster Wallace). I had an idea of Springsteen as reasonably well adjusted, but after this if he commits suicide I would not be surprised.

In the end, the book crystalizes in a new set for meanings of that old story of him ripping down the posters saying “the future of rock and roll” at the Hammersmith Odeon in London, 1975 – Springsteen is a control freak, most of all about what people think of him, crippled by self-doubt, with the constant need do something, anything, to reassert mastery over his art, his message, and his mind. That this is at odds with the book’s willingness to go deep and spill stuff he would usually keep close and it is this tension (along with its storyteller-quilted nature) gives it its strange charge. In the end, there is a grandiose humility that keeps it together and I’m glad I read it.

#springsteen

4 notes · View notes

apostateangela · 6 years

Text

Well, isn’t that just Marvel-ous

I know I said at the end of my last post that there was more sex to come… and more of that particular story.

But I’m having to step back from it this week; just until I talk to my therapist.

Remember this part…?

I can’t tell you all the sex in my marriage happened because I wanted it.

I also can’t comfortably say it was forced upon me.

Let’s just say I don’t want to look at that part of my past yet.

Except, now I have to.

Something that has been happening since I began this endeavor is that as I articulate and create sentences on a page clarifying and identifying realities about my past it makes them more real and subsequently more startling and disturbing.

I wrote it.

And now I can’t help but look at it.

The truth seems to be that a large percentage of the sex in my marriage falls under the category of Forced Consent.

Which is, by definition, sexual assault.

And I don’t know what to do with that…

I promise I will circle back after I flesh some things out in therapy this coming week.

Instead I feel compelled to talk about something that isn’t on my chronological trajectory.

I’m being pulled off course by a very strong force.

Her name is Carol Susan Jane Danvers, also known as Captain Marvel.

Thursday night, when I went to the movie premiere of Captain Marvel, I had a very personal and emotional experience, and not the one I thought I would have.

I have been incredibly excited for this movie.

A badass female superhero who is also a soldier checks so many of my boxes.

I want to be a strong woman. I am looking for strong female role models in both life and fiction.

So this character has been someone I have started to become marginally obsessed with.

I even dressed up as her earth military persona for Halloween.

Sadly, the models of women that I HAVE had don’t always track with this kind of strength that I earnestly desire. So before I delve into my Captain Marvel deconstruction I’m going to add to the pictures of womanhood I have already shared.

Again, let’s start with the Church’s idea of what a woman should be:

I will remind you of a previous post discussing Eve and the concept of a ‘helpmeet’

(Is it good for (Wo)Man to be Alone?).

To add to those scriptures and that image, I’m going to draw your attention to various quotes said and written by men taken from within the structure of the Church, again from lds.org.

From the Church’s founder Joseph Smith:

“Let this Society (he is referencing the Relief Society, the LDS Church Women’s Organization) teach women how to behave towards their husbands, to treat them with mildness and affection. When a man is borne down with trouble, when he is perplexed with care and difficulty, if he can meet a smile instead of an argument or a murmur—if he can meet with mildness, it will calm down his soul and soothe his feelings; when the mind is going to despair, it needs a solace of affection and kindness” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 228).

Various leaders since Joseph Smith, but all within the late twentieth and twenty first centuries:

“It is divinely ordained what a woman should do, but a man must seek out his work. The divine work of women involves companionship, homemaking, and motherhood” (“In His Steps,” 64).

“Beware of the subtle ways Satan employs to take you from the plan of God [2 Nephi 9:13] and true happiness. One of Satan’s most effective approaches is to demean the role of wife and mother in the home” (Elder Richard G. Scott).

“There are voices in our midst which would attempt to convince you that these home-centered truths are not applicable to our present-day conditions. If you listen and heed, you will be lured away from your principal obligations.

“Beguiling voices in the world cry out for ‘alternative life-styles’ for women. They maintain that some women are better suited for careers than for marriage and motherhood.

“These individuals spread their discontent by the propaganda that there are more exciting and self-fulfilling roles for women than homemaking. Some even have been bold to suggest that the Church move away from the ‘Mormon woman stereotype’ of homemaking and rearing children. They also say it is wise to limit your family so you can have more time for personal goals and self-fulfillment” (“The Honored Place of Woman”).

Translation: Women have a very clear subservient role: that of mild smiling wife, homemaker, and mother.

It is Divinely appropriated, meaning that God has said this is what a woman should be.

If you deviate from this role it is suggested that you are following Satan.

My mother is this woman: a simple, faithful, subservient woman with incredible homemaking skills. I learned from her.

But it goes deeper than that; my grandmothers, aunts, great grandmothers, friends, and fellow sisters in the church all followed in the footsteps of Eve, holding themselves accountable to God and their husbands, fully dependant and creating beautiful homes while rearing well-behaved, righteous children.

I suppose I should take this opportunity to say that I do not regret my choice of motherhood.

I value my abilities to garden, sew, crochet, embroidery, preserve food, cook, and keep a clean house.

These are all good things. So is this picture of womanhood inherently problematic?

No. The problem lies in the message that THIS WOMAN is all you CAN or SHOULD be.

That someone else, a man or group of men specifically, knows what is best for you and only through him/them can you become the best woman you can become.

This was my culture.

Add to that my marriage to the unstable, narcissistic sociopath I’ve mentioned before, and you have a clear picture of the limitations and restrictions and sorrow that surrounded much of my life.

(Captain Marvel is on her way, wait for it)

One of the key tools a narcissist uses within their relationships is gaslighting.

From Psychology Today:

Gaslighting is a form of persistent manipulation and brainwashing that causes the victim to doubt her or himself, and ultimately lose her or his own sense of perception, identity, and self-worth. The term is derived from the 1944 film Gaslight, in which a husband tries to convince his wife that she’s insane by causing her to question herself and her reality.

There will be a seperate gaslighting post, but sufficeth to say that as “the gaslighter creates a negative narrative about the gaslightee (“There’s something wrong and inadequate about you”)” both my husband and the church as an organization created this narrative for and about me.

Back to Captain Marvel=Spoiler alert!

Captain Marvel is a story of a woman who finds herself with significant gaps in her memory, to the point that she doesn’t really know who she is. She is given significant training and instruction on who she should be and how she should act with a suitable noble cause attached. This indoctrination extends beyond military training as she has a device in her neck that limits her use of power and allows her to be directly brainwashed by an AI all powerful entity (something God-like) called The Supreme Intelligence. It is discovered as the movie progresses that her past has been taken away from her as well as her identity. She has been shattered like her dogtags, reduced to Vers, a small piece of who she was or could become. Her incredible power is muted and the gaslighting spins the lie that it is only through the Divine will of the all powerful Supreme Intelligence that supposedly gave it to her (with an alien blood transfusion) that she has any power whatsoever. This lie extends even further in that she must be taught to control this gifted power through the instruction of a male benefactor, Yon-Rogg. He says more than once that it is his job to help Vers become all that she can be through his instruction and the controlling of her emotions and there-by her power.

Are you seeing the parallels yet? (a prescriptive identity with a noble cause, power that is God’s and not yours, a culture outlining your worth and purpose, lies used to make you feel powerless, emotions being pitched as something bad and wrong).

Writing that summary paragraph makes me want to vomit. My stomach is literally clenching.

And this was true during the movie as well.

I spent much of the movie horrified for Carol Danvers and simultaneously myself.

Good Job Marvel and Disney, you always create this fucking hero’s journey where the protagonist had to struggle through incredible challenges and odds until they eventually prevail.

But truthfully, we see ourselves in this fiction because it is archetypal and resonates deep within us.

And like a true hero, Captain Marvel does discover who she is, unspins the lies, unleashes her own power and its potential, and kicks everyone’s ass that needs to be kicked.

The problem is, we can’t all be Captain Marvel… can we?

A wise man who went to the movie with me, whom I love and who knows my tragic story, said to me afterward as we were talking about my obvious emotional response to the movie and the existence of parallels, “See, your blog and Muay Thai are your superpowers.”

(yes, I’m in martial arts training. I’m sure I’ll write about that at some time in the future)

This should have made me feel good.

But it did not.

Compared to the atomic, otherworldly, titan-like power of Captain Marvel,

these small things felt like nothing.

I’m sorry, or I’m not sorry… I apologize too much….rather, I’m filled with sorrow that this is my take away.

But it is important for me to be honest here.

My experience watching this incredible movie was that of emotional horror.

I was sad for what had been done to Carol Danvers because I understood the scope of that.

I understand the feelings of confusion at having your identity stripped away and not knowing who you really are.

I understand how it feels to only have flashes of yourself somewhere in your heart and brain, but not being able to nail them down or see them clearly. And to have people around you tell you to ignore those things and then outline for you what you are supposed to be.

I understand what it feels like to be gaslighted by a culture, an organization, a God, and a man who was supposed to care for you, to the point that you completely buy the lie.

Even if the lie is about you.

I understand how it feels to be told you have no power. And if you ever did exhibit evidence of having any power, being told that it isn’t really yours, but something given to you by God and thereby only good for doing the things that God told you to.

I understand being told that my desires and emotions were wrong and that I needed to stamp them down and “control” them.

Watching this movie for the first time made me also understand that my story was not as far along as Carol’s.

I didn’t feel powerful.

I didn’t feel strong.

The good news is, I went and saw the movie again the next night.

So here is my addendum:

There are three lines that impacted me the most from both my viewings… (forgive me if they are not exactly accurate). As I heard these three lines again, the negative feelings I experienced after the first showing shifted.

First: At one point in the movie, after much of the lies are revealed and Carol discovers that even the war she’s been fighting is based on an ugly lie, her old friend Maria Rambeau says this to her,

“You are Carol Danvers. You are smart, funny, and a huge pain in the ass.”

Rambeau then expresses how Carol had supported her as a mother and a pilot as well as standing up for those who needed her--as a hero should.

This moment reminds me that when I can’t believe in myself

or doubt my strength, power, and validity because of my Mormon programming

and the gaslighting of my culture and my ex-husband,

there are those around me that believe me and know who I am.

I need to turn to them for their support and clarification.

When my kind, smart companion told me of my superpowers,

I needed to believe him

and take comfort that even if I don’t know, others do.

And they will help me with my truth based on evidence and experience instead of abstract rules and limiting parameters.

And he is right. This blog is my unfettered voice and Muay Thai is helping me create both mental and physical strength. Both allow me to fight for myself.

Second: One of the most powerful moments in the Captain Marvel movie is when Carol is being held by the AI and it tells her, “Without us, you’re only human.”

A montage of all the moments in Carol Danvers original life where she got knocked down in some way, but then got up flashes across the screen.

There is a clear moment of revelation for Captain Marvel.

And Carol Susan Jane Danvers replies, “You are right. I’m only human.”

After which, she breaks free of the not so powerful AI holding her.

This line is where it’s all at for me.

Because the images of Carol through different ages of her life, taking risks, and doing what she wants in spite of the people who tell her she can’t,

then falling, failing.

AND THEN, getting back up and trying again and again until she succeeds creates the message that... it is THIS behaviour that makes us remarkable HUMANS.

I am humbled to be able to tell you that THIS is also WHO I AM.

If I do anything of note, it is that I do not give up. I keep trying and I get up after I fall.

It is in this way that I am heroic.

It is in this way that I have risen from the rubble of my damaging paradigms.

It is in this way that I seek to find the new ways in which I will live my life.

I will continue to keep trying to find myself, and my truth.

I will not fall back into that which was created for me, but instead create a place and identity for myself.

Finally, there is the line that is sure to go down in the history of this movie as its most quotable line. Captain Marvel says,

“I’ve been fighting with one hand behind my back, but what happens when I am finally set free?”

This is both a rhetorical and a warning question.

Because as Carol Danvers removes the control device in her neck and both channels and releases all her power, she defeats those who have held her captive and steps into that place where she can and does realize her true potential.

Sure, she has some moments when she fumbles around a bit and has to feel things out, discovering what she can do as she experiments and fights her way free.

But eventually she FLYS, glowing in all her glory.

And the final message she leaves us with, is in her handling of Yon-Rogg when she, without hesitation shoots him and says, “I don’t have to prove anything to you.”

I agree Carol, I do not have to prove anything to those who held me captive in foolish dogma and lies.

But, I am not flying… yet.

I HAVE broken free of everything that was tying my figurative hands.

And while my wrists are still chafed and I am trying to rid myself of the psychological muscle memory, I believe I will only continue to heal and discover my power and its potential.

I must.

Because I will not stand for the alternative.

-Angela

0 notes

memyself5022 · 6 years

Text

It’s 3am and I’m awake because a perfect storm of shitty events and biological factors and very specific circumstances have brought me back again to the point I enevitably find myself at a few times a year. Does its relative infrequency diminish its legitimacy? Or is it its circumstantial nature that makes it less clinically significant? Either way it makes me feel like everything up to this point has been a lie and that the only way out is either never sleeping, or going to sleep forever. And you know what else? I have to work hard to keep its frequency below monthly, or even daily. So that surely counts for something. Anyway. Never sleeping it is tonight. Does that mean something? I’m simultaneously incredibly awake and brain dead. Do you know the feeling? Do you want to hear what I’m hearing?

1. You’re a doofus, he’s a doofus, you’re both fucking idiots. At least he isn’t actually a self aware, sensitive, emotionally intelligent and selfless person. You are and it makes your doofusery even more infuriating and unforgivable. You told him he was a stupid idiot for letting me go and wow guess what here you are doing the saaaaaaaame bullshit years later WOW SHOCK ME. Side note UNLEARN ALL THIS TOXIC SHIT YOU USE TO AVOID FACING YOURSELF AND THOSE WHO WANT TO LOVE YOU PLS because lord knows I am not up for another unpaid internship whereby I teach a 28 year old man how not to be an insufferable 12 year old who refuses to take responsibility for his own emotional growth and gives literally zero in return. TU,N.

2. Ariana Grande is great. An inspiration to us all. Obviously.

3. I’m sorry I forget about you. Truly, you’re a wonderful person and I can’t fathom how you’ve come out of everything not being an absolute dickhole like your dickhole brothers. I hope I haven’t made you lose your kindness and I hope you don’t drink so much red bull any more. I’ll always love you. Really.

4. Can you not? Like honestly I know I’ve been a bit ‘much’ over the years but seriously can you just be a normal fucking friend for once? Maybe you never cared that much about me and I blew/blow everything out of proportion, but I don’t think so. There have been too many teary nights and slips of the tongue and eerie coincidences for it to be simply an annoyance that you’re happy to let slide. But maybe not lol. I don’t KNOW JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING TO WORK WITH HERE. surely I’ve done enough in this particular unpaid internship for you to be at least AWARE that you should just tell me to fuck off if you want me to fuck off, or tell me you can’t or don’t want to or whatever. So it’s either you don’t really care whether I’m in your life or not OR you’re madly in love with me and I mean sure but like can you just fucking give me something?? Or just be an adult and try to take this wherever you want it to go? Who am I to you? I don’t know why but I can’t handle this just fading into obscurity, and I feel like maybe you’re one of the only people that I feel that way about and wow does that have an elusive explanation bc lord knows I cannot ever fucking ever see myself having you be a steady, reliable and real presence in my life. I just want to drink beers with you and talk about sex and why I’m Elaine and you’re simultaneously Jerry and Kramer and like maybe even go to Mexico together and be each other’s wingmen and do lots of coke OK IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?? I don’t love you by the way. Not like that anyway. Is that why you fuck off every time you get a girlfriend?

5. Can I just live in a Japanese garden with Loki but like a version of Loki that likes to go on walks and hold hands with me when I’m sleeping? Even if it’s just regular Loki that’s ok too bc he’s great. His front legs are really long when he lies down like he is right now and it’s lovely. I’m scared I might break my teeth one day from clenching too hard.

6. I think I hate my job. And any job I might have next. Don’t you hate that. Maybe I just hate here and there and them and him and her and everyone but who the fuck knows. If I was Virginia would I be happy? Probably not. If I just became a florist or a painter or a potter would I be happy? Probably not. I think the answer to any similar question would be probably not so it’s probably an entirely futile exercise. Moving on.

7. I’m thinking about the time I first saw you after England (I think?) and we hugged in the street and you picked me up and twirled me around in front of whatever loser deadbeat friend’s house it was. That was real fucking nice and one of the times I think I’ve felt the most in my life. You’d laugh at that I’m sure. And I’m almost entirely certain you wouldn’t even remember it. Who are you? Do you even know? Tonight is one of the nights that I’d prefer those terrible fucking awful months and years to what I have now. Just so I could feel connected enough to something that it could hurt me so badly. You couldn’t hurt me at all anymore (especially not tonight) and that really really makes me want to die. Gross. What’re you like? Are you as happy as she makes you both seem?

8. I could probably do away with literally everyone in my life right now bar you two. Is that sad? Is that normal? Is my work laptop charger at your house somewhere?

9. LOL @ the credit card debt that’s coming my way in the next 2 months. Adding to it is the way I choose to cope with it right now and I think I’m okay with that.

10. Man I reaaaalllly don’t want to see you this year but I guess I can’t change that. Let’s hope everyone ends up realising what I’ve realised sometime soon. Honestly you’ve made me feel really shit so many times over the years and you would have zero clue, do you ever examine the way you interact with people? Do you have as much of a sense of self importance as it seems like you do? Do you realise I kind of hate you and the way you’ve made me feel, especially with this latest bullshit? Dunno man. How much do you ~really~ self reflect? How much do you actually listen? Maybe I’m just jealous of you. That’s highly likely.

11. I will appreciate what I have because of you and the kindnesses you continually demonstrate instead of focusing on how self involved and wasteful and judgemental and completely insufferable you are. Easy.

12. I need to go see a crystal healer or some shit. Maybe tomorrow. Sleep now?

13. Oh yeah and I’m really sad about tumblr getting rid of all its porn and how that will probably mean I don’t use it much any more.

14. I wish that I could be someone that is not me reading all of these now and know what picture it paints of who I am. I think I wish for those things more than most people. Is that narcissistic?

15. OH AND LOL I had a dream last night that my cunt of a boss’ baby actually turned out to be a lemur. How good.

17. I saw a picture of you recently and you look happier and fatter and jollier and I’m glad for you. I think I could be your friend now.

18. I think it’s time to go live in Amsterdam with Clark and Michael. Bye.

0 notes

clubofinfo · 7 years

Text

Expert: Since the FBI never inspected the DNC’s computers first-hand, the only evidence comes from an Irvine, California, cyber-security firm known as CrowdStrike whose chief technical officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, a well-known Putin-phobe, is a fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank that is also vehemently anti-Russian as well as a close Hillary Clinton ally. — Daniel Lazare, Consortium News The masses did not mistakenly choose fascism. Rather, there is a more fundamental nonidentity between class consciousness and mass movements. Fascism was not a Falschkauf (mistaken purchase) followed by buyer’s remorse. The people fought for it, fiercely and stubbornly—though this desire for fascism is also a desire for suppression, a “fight for servitude,” if you will, or an “escape from freedom,” as Erich Fromm put it in the title of his 1941 book. — Ana Teixeira Pinto, E-Flux This week an angry dead end kid named Nikolas Cruz took his legally purchased AR 15 and walked into a school and opened fire. The FBI knew about Cruz because he had been reported to them. Cruz had been reported to the school, too. But nobody followed up. Cruz himself is one of those unpleasant looking young men that are visibly angry, and who exhibit, even in photographs, a quality of emotional disturbance. But nobody followed up. The FBI is too busy writing narrative fiction about Russia. The FBI is more concerned with constructing terrorist threats and then busting various patsies and making a big show of their success. This same week the US has continued to bomb Yemen alongside Saudi Arabia. This same week Mike Pence stomped around the site of the Winter Olympics and managed to insult most every foreign leader in attendance, but most acutely the hosts of this event. But then Pence is a vulgar rube from the hinterlands of Indiana. A fundamentalist Christian whose knowledge of the world is even smaller than his boss, the President. The Hill reported….“Approval of the FBI has increased among Democrats and decreased among Republicans since President Trump took office, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll.” So, uh, Dems and liberals are fawning over the FBI because, presumably, Mueller is after Satan-in-Chief The Donald, while Republicans are pouting because, presumably, the FBI isn’t dropping the fictitious investigation of Russian collusion. Meanwhile, the FBI, famed for various cluster fucks like Waco and Ruby Ridge, not to mention COINTELPRO and countless undercover surveillances on journalists and dissidents of all kinds, is being embraced by liberal America. (COINTELPRO, as a reminder, attacked the Black Panther party, and among its victims were Fred Hampton, Geronimo Pratt, and Mumia Abu Jamal. And it was J.Edgar Hoover who wrote letters that described Hampton as the ‘new black messiah’ — one that needed to be dealt with). That is your virtuous FBI. Now part of this is just the desire among liberals for the status quo. At all costs. It is liberals far more than Republicans who want a Norman Rockwell America. The arch conservative wants something closer to gated communities of whiteness and armed privatized security roaming the streets keeping their property safe. It is the liberal Democratic voter who WANTS TO BELIEVE in the goodness of America. Who wants to believe in all that progress in civil rights and gender equality. But both will in the end default to authoritarian political control. They always have. Joseph Kishore over at WSWS wrote back in 2016 already: … the Times’ article set the tone for a wave of war-mongering commentary in the American media. Lipton was interviewed on the cable news channels and the Public Broadcasting System’s evening news program. Democratic Senator Ben Cardin declared on MSNBC that the US had been “attacked by Russia.” He called for an independent commission, citing the bipartisan panel set up after 9/11. CNN commentator Jake Tapper referred to Russia as the “enemy” and openly wondered, in the course of interviewing former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden, whether President-elect Trump was “siding with the enemy. But most Democrats believe in Russian evil doing. They believe Putin is a tyrant. They WANT TO BELIEVE. Now, the logic of Crowdstrike and all those US security experts on cyber warfare is that only the most sophisticated hackers could have penetrated the protections of the U.S. government, while at the same time only the most unsophisticated cyber hackers, revealing their amateurish clumsiness by leaving a variety of Russian language clues in the meta data, could have done such a thing. It is the same logic that posits Taliban or ISIS commanders, cunning…evil geniuses..who plot the overthrow of western civilization..but who are also simultaneously primitives living in caves. The Russians are also evil geniuses but also primitives. On one level the U.S. loves the uneducated. America has never trusted intelligence or education. But they have to at the same time be the best. The best at everything. The best killers. The most violent soldiers. Etc. But not the most educated. Trump’s approval ratings climb as he cuts funding to libraries and the arts. Such actions have always been an electoral winner in the USA. Edward Luce had a cogent piece at Financial Times of all places. He wrote America’s elites have stored more wealth than they can consume. This creates three problems for everyone else. First, elites invest their surpluses in replicating their advantages. Kids raised in poorer neighbourhoods with mediocre schools stand little chance. Their parents cannot match the social capital of their wealthier peers. The drawbridge is rising. The gap between the self image of meritocratic openness and reality is wide. Psychologists call this “self-discrepancy”. Economists call it barriers to entry. This is an important observation. He also added: …Social capital is about knowing what to say to whom and when, which is a sophisticated skill. Technical learning is for others. Children of the elites are learning how to raise money for philanthropic causes. Economists define this as a positional good. Sociologists call it virtue signalling. Mr Trump calls it political correctness. And finally, Luce points out that the new bourgeoisie (not his word) are suffering from a loss of even the appearance of a meritocracy. Too few jobs for what are now the over-educated (well, over degreed). And Luce concludes with a particularly astute insight. The bourgeoisie are finding they need Trump. Without him there is no distraction. And then he poses the question for these aspiring classes; do they really love the highly educated as they claim? Do they deserve admiration because of their degrees? And here we touch upon the core issues at work socially in the Trump phenomenon. Trump is easy and even enjoyable to make fun of. He IS a distraction. But Trump also serves a very clear purpose for the 1%. Those who reign above the haute bourgeoisie. For Trump is still implementing the same policies that Hillary Clinton would have. The same wars, by and large. The same military build up. All the right people are still making money. The difference is in Trump’s less important appointments. The difference is Jeff Sessions for one. And the various minor cabinet hacks and flunkies he has installed in positions of limited but not insignificant power. He is normalizing in a way unprecedented, the weaponized ignorance of the Christian right. And this includes, of course, the open racism and xenophobia on display and perhaps crystalized in Mike Pence’s boorish crassness at the Olympics. Pence suffers no doubts. The new Christians of televangilism never do. These are creationists and believers in the rapture. That they are barking mad has been known for a while now, but never before have they entered the corridors of power. The 1% carry on as before. So does the Pentagon and CIA — though the infilitration of the Christian extremists in the Air Force is well documented. Remember, all Presidents must have prayer breakfasts for fuck sake. They must go to Church. They get a dog, and they put on leather bomber jackets for photo ops. And they have a spiritual advisor. There is a whole laundry list of must do’s. What is different now is that stupidity is being not just normalized but accepted as, perhaps, a virtue. Beevis and Butthead go to Washington. Bill & Ted’s excellent adventure on Capital Hill. How different, really, was George W. Bush? (the newly rehabilitated GWB, in a curious charm make over…but I digress…). So, no, the aspiring haute bourgeoisie do not REALLY love education. The hard work of studying is for proles. For Asian kids and social climbers and those quota scholarship kids. The idea of learning having some inherent value is now fully gone from the public imagination. Socrates who? He played *soccer* for Brazil, no? Literally nobody reads. I mean book stores are closing en mass. The Gutenberg era is over. I wrote recently on my blog about Hugh Kenner. I used to sneak into his lectures at UCSB in the early 70s. There are no Hugh Kenners anymore. Erudition is to become an obsolete word. The state of Minnesota is taking Huckleberry Finn off high school reading lists. Harper Lee is being taken off, too. No doubt others will follow. Hurtful. Twain’s epic novel is, apparently, “hurtful”. I am coming, I have to admit, to just not care about who has hurt feelings. All those social correctives that looked to rid the culture of racist images and language are now appropriated for other purposes. For narcissistic vehicles for anger. For America is as angry a society as the world may have ever seen. All that I see now, the new McCarthyism, the Russophobic propaganda that is swallowed wholesale, and not just swallowed but used as a kind of narcotic — is carried along and draws energy from a deep reservoir of rage. The old Puritan consciousness that wants nothing more than to chastise and shun is alive in the U.S. today. All these hurt feelings are expressions of the narcissistic desire to believe in our own uniqueness and specialness. And such subjective manufacture helps distract from the increasing sadism of American society overall. The real violence of a system based on inequality is buried. It is obscured. The violence of capital, of wage slavery is mystified. All relations under capitalism are coercive. And when the early Capitalist class collaborated with the Church to burn a few hundred thousand women as witches in the early 1700s, across Europe, they were setting a structural dynamic in motion. The Inquisition and witch burning were not the result of magic, but of the need for scapegoats and for ridding the system of autonomous women and small craftspeople. It set up a class war, essentially, one mediated in that case by a deep hatred of women. And fear. The destruction of various celebrities (mostly) for sexual *misconduct* has already been appropriated by NATO and CAA and even Paul Kagame got in the act (see Emma Watson and the Rwandian war criminal share a dais…all to *help* women in war torn areas, or something. I mean who knows. But its mind numbing how quickly such things are activated). Angelina Jolie, who never saw a country she didn’t want to bomb or quarantine (see marriage and honeymoon in Namibia) is also is out stumping for NATO aggressions under cover of protecting women in war zones. No mention of stopping war zones from being created, of course. MeToo became, as quick as you can write hashtag, a vehicle for the exact opposite of that for which it began. And this was predictable. Today the system has other scapegoats and other needs than it did during the witch trials in Europe. But the violence of capital is alive throughout the carceral system, alive in black communities where cops operate as anti insurgency soldiers bent on pacification. Fallujah or Baltimore, there is not a lot of difference. And the violence of Nikolas Cruz will cause great oceans of tears and hand wringing. Get rid of guns. Okay, how about those in the hands of cops — or those in the army or marine corps? Those are OK, because they don’t shoot up schools. Well, not *our* schools, anyway. There is a sort of pattern recognition in the public now. Shoot up a school is a certain class of irrational violence. People will posit notions about anti depressants or whatever. And it might have some truth to it. Maybe a lot, but I can guarantee that few will read anything about the beliefs of these *sick* shooters. That they all, like Anders Breivik, adhere to classic fascistic values and ideology. They do not fall out of the sky. They are the product of a vast number of forces, but they also kill not just because they suffer humiliation and are frustrated and emotionally disfigured. Or, rather, that emotional disfigurement creates the fascist sensibility. They do not think it is wrong, what they do. Cruz had a history of aggressive behaviour toward women. He was a member of ROTC and posted constantly on social media with various guns and weapons. Those who knew him said he was obsessed with guns. The chilling photos of cops in SWAT attire arresting a kid who wanted to be just like them. There is a strange closed loop of morbid mimetic activity on display. The U.S. today creates enemies. It often seems the primary activity of America, the manufacturing of global enemies and threats. Of late it is Putin and Kim Jong Il. But they are only the latest in a long line. U.S. police departments, heavily militarized, and increasingly trained in Israel for counter insurgency, are no longer in the policing business but rather in the soldiering business. They are militia, not peace officers. The dysfunctional extreme for what this produces is Nikolas Cruz. But how far is Cruz from the Florida cop who murdered a begging man, on his knees, on video? How far from George Zimmerman? One suspects those three might enjoy a beer together and share many of the same values. I am always struck when reading about these alleged lone wolf shooters how NOT alone they are. Klaus Thewelit’s seminal work Male Fantasies should be required reading. But if male-female relations of production under patriarchy are relations of oppression, it is appropriate to understand the sexuality created by, and active within, those relations as a sexuality of the oppressor and the oppressed. If the social nature of such “gender-distinctions” isn’t expressly emphasized, it seems grievously wrong to distinguish these sexualities according to the categories “male” and “female.” The sexuality of the patriarch is less “male” than it is deadly, just as that of the subjected women is not so much “female” as suppressed, devivified. — Klaus Thewelit Theweleit didn’t see genocide as the thwarted expression of inhibited sexual energies. His point was rather that the production of gender and sexuality are intimately tied to the content of anti-Semitism and overt racism—both before, during, and after the fall of the Weimar Republic. Fascist sexuality is not so much repressed as it is ideological: it idealizes virility and fertility as political imperatives. — Ana Teixeira Pinto The cultural post-modernism of today, at least in the U.S., is technologically sophisticated and socially hyper conservative. The neoliberal system might marginalize white nationalists but they cultivate their symbolism and much of their rhetoric. A Nikolas Cruz desired completion as the captain of capitalist manhood. His failures, his lack of productive labor, his relative poverty, escalated his hatred of those he saw as responsible — and at the head of that list one would guess would be women. But the indoctrination of men like Cruz, or boys, begins earlier. As Theweleit writes: “No man is forced to turn political fascist for reasons of economic devaluation or degradation. His fascism develops much earlier, from his feelings; he is a fascist from the inside.” The violence of the U.S. military, globally, inflicted on the most defenseless nations and people cannot be separated from cops in Chicago or Baltimore or Los Angeles, nor from Fallujuh and Libya and Syria. I mean, the U.S. has occupied Afghanistan for sixteen years. The U.S. military metaphorically rapes these countries. And it is a kind of re-colonializing. Sylvia Federici called the World Bank and IMF “the new Conquistadors”. Nor can it be separated, finally, from Harvey Weinstein or James Toback. Nor from the lynch mob hysteria that has coopted the entire #metoo* phenomenon. Nikolas Cruz sensed he was broken, and his longing for restoration was reflected back at him by those men who would later capture him. Kevlar and weaponry, helmeted faceless phallic superbodies. He could only merge with his fantasy through mimetic approximation. Cruz may be seen as insane, but he was not *only* insane. The anti-Russian propaganda that is spewed out daily by mainstream media is an insidious and destructive force that also cannot really be separated from the tidal swell of violence on the streets and in the institutions of U.S. society. Manufacturing contempt for North Korea or Yemen or Libya is not *only* propaganda. It has consequences to the psyches of the people that must absorb that inculcating assault. (Go back and read Ben Judah’s bizarre and lurid anti Putin piece at Newsweek,July 2014 — the one with Putin in shades on the cover, his eyes reflecting a burning …we presume…America. Read it now and just try to digest that this is what passes for *real* news as opposed to fake news). In March of last year Brian Cloughly began an article on this massive anti Russian propaganda this way… On January 30 NBC News reported that “On a snowy Polish plain dominated by Russian forces for decades, American tanks and troops sent a message to Moscow and demonstrated the firepower of the NATO alliance. Amid concerns that President Donald Trump’s commitment to NATO is wavering, the tanks fired salvos that declared the 28-nation alliance a vital deterrent in a dangerous new world. One intriguing aspect of this slanted account are the phrases “dominated by Russian forces for decades” and “vital deterrent” which are used by NBC to imply that Russia yearns, for some unspecified reason, to invade Poland. As is common in the Western media there is no justification or evidence to substantiate the suggestion that Russia is hell-bent on domination, and the fact that US troops are far from home, operating along the Russian border, is regarded as normal behaviour on the part of the world’s “indispensable nation”. This is just one example of out of literally hundreds and hundreds. One could find the same against Maduro and Venezuela and against the DPRK. It hardly needs pointing out that Hollywood produces endless paeans of love for militarism and male destructiveness. Capitalism produces economic inequality and as such cannot exist without political and social oppression. The contradictions of Hollywood’s endless fascist product and its equally endless hand wringing over sexual harassment or gun control should be obvious. The sexual harassment in Hollywood goes back to Shirley Temple. It is built into a system in which all parties are there to monetize themselves. It is also true that men with power must punish those beneath them. They cannot exist without subordinates. What Theweleit wrote of the *soldier male* (his term for the prototype ur fascist) that the most urgent task facing him…“is to pursue, to dam in, and to subdue any force that threatens to transform him back into the horribly disorganized jumble of flesh, hair, skin, bones, intestines, and feelings that calls itself human.” Hollywood produces narratives that make the non human heroic. The first Terminator was a watershed moment in that respect. A film whose message was that an android…no, a ‘killer’ android…made a better parent that the human version. Propaganda that creates phantom enemies is justified because Trump is now the perfect villain. And as such, is a tool of the ruling class. He is the justification for the abandonment of all notions of integrity and honesty, compassion or honour. One case of harassment I know of included a woman who had signed a non disclosure agreement and took payment of tens of thousands of dollars. She disclosed anyway and was applauded as heroic. It is not heroic to break your word. To take a payoff and then snitch anyway. But punishment is its own justification. Trump’s vulgarity is a kind of pride in ignorance trope. He intentionally chooses to be crude, because that is what his base desires. They may not admit it, those suburban small businessmen and managerial white class — but they do. A sense of shunning the soft and sensitive. Stories about escorts and golden showers only adds to his appeal. Those guys wish they could afford escorts. Trump is the grandson of a whore house owner, after all. He never sold himself as Adlai Stevenson. So, Mark Twain is hurtful. Libraries are being shuttered across the country. Book stores are closing. The U.S. poverty levels have exceeded those of many developing countries. The compulsive hatred of Putin by many who have almost zero idea about Putin or Russian history is disproportionate to any rational analysis, but not surprising. Trump and Putin are like weird doppelgangers in the liberal imagination. For the propagandists of the exceptional and indispensable nation the by-product of their creative activities is Nikolas Cruz. Trump shares with the far right parties growing across Europe the open disdain for democracy and free speech. Cruz was wearing a Trump cap in one of his Instagram photos. He wasn’t wearing a Che t-shirt. He wanted to kill antifa. He was not an isolated mentally disturbed killer. He was a fascist killer. He wanted to be made whole and inviolate. The way all fascists want to be whole, but cannot. http://clubof.info/

0 notes