I'm thankful to the author for writing and publishing this. It took courage, and it makes absolute sense now why she would have left this information out of the original article.

I sympathize with the Catch-22 of requiring patient signatures to authorize treatments when those treatments are rarely used except on patients who are so ill as to be virtually incapable of signing their names, much less deciding what treatments they want or need. And also with the terrible burden placed on family members to decide for their loved ones whether gambling on memory loss and other unknown consequences is an acceptable risk, given the alternatives. No one wants to have to do that type of emotional Calculus. And no one but no one wants to have to defend their choice to a public primed to react with some serious knee-jerking at the mere mention of ECT.

(On a side note, it seems to me that /One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest/ has done a lot more harm than good for the seriously mentally ill, given both the bias against ECT it engendered as well as the closure of many longterm facilities that followed in the film's wake and left thousands upon thousands of our mentally ill citizens perpetually homeless).

I do wish, given the anti-pharmaceutical perspective of the original article, however, that the author would have included the name of the drug that her son took after the first rounds of ECT failed, by themselves, to create a sustainable improvement.

It is very rarely purposely manipulative, nor is it always manipulative. It often comes from precisely the severe disempowerment that you describe, and for that reason develops as a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms that outlast the threats that created them, however, can turn into the only strategies we have to handle social situations, and I have seen some pretty nasty situations arising out of such a dynamic.

But by all means, it is not the case that /all/ women with high pitched voices are traumatized, disempowered, or manipulative. I was referring to the specific behaviors described in the article.

I agree very much with what you are saying, though that is not how I read Brightstar the first time around. I agree that there are power differences between males that are used to harm some men (often but not always informed by some combination of race, class, and sexual orientation), and that this commercial likely taps into that. In fact, I think just about every representation that seeks to define a narrow view of what it means to be male and/or masculine can be an act of oppression on the part of some men, and some women, against other men; it can also be an act of oppression the reinforces narrow gender roles for women as well. A double-whammy, if you will. Take this commercial;s message: be a real (literally!) man by buying a condom so that sexy women at bars will want to fuck you.

And extra hoorays for the term "wart-hoggyness."

This seriously restores my sense of our intellegent, well informed little community here. What a treasure trove of information! Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and experiences.

Does the LW currently laugh back nervously when the assistant goes into one of her strange bouts of hilarity? Or does s/he raise an eyebrow quizzically, tilt head, frown? What social cues might the LW be giving the assistant that support the assistant's behaviors? When folks laugh we tend as social creatures to smile and laugh along even when we don't get the joke. I'd suggest starting by making very sure not to do that. The first few times giggles are followed by the sound of pins falling should clear up this problem right quick.

And honestly, who cares if the assistant thinks she's angling for a better job or not? I would not suggest trying to discern her ambitions from the gleam in her eyes or the length of her last employment. We so very often misinterpret people, after all. Sometimes we think they are after us even when they are not, just like sometimes we think they are funny when they do not intend to be.

Right, because as a country - as a world even - we care sooo much about the safety of the poor. Sure. Right. Gotya.

How terrifically condescending: well, it's all well and good that our rich kids have internet access. But those poor people, /you/ know how they are, always selling their daughters into sex slavery and being totally ignorant about technology and all, hell, they're likely to bumble their way into a child web pornography ring before you can even blink! Why, sometimes those poor parents, unlike the rich ones who spend all their time in conference rooms and on golf courses, are just too busy with backbreaking labor to spend sufficient time monitoring their children's activities. Guess we should restrict their children's lives as well. For their safety, you know. Trust us, it's for their own good.

Gimme a break. Are these people sincere and just extremely ignorant and unsophisticated about class prejudice, or so focussed on their pet panic (scaaaary internet predators!) that they will use any excuse to put that agenda before all others, or are they people who would rather keep technology out of the hands of the underclasses because then we might (gasp!) be providing them with a new and more effective way to organize and demand justice? Really, when these folks get all panicked about poor kids' deplorable lack of adequate health care and malnutrition and substandard educational opportunities ... then maybe I'll believe that they actually care about protecting kids. Until then, I read this as one hell of an attempt to yank our Puritanical chains and distract us from the /real/ threats our children are facing.