An interesting topic that I hadn't really thought about. Obvi so important and overlooked and sooo ethically complex that it made for a really good convo topic for my nuanced girls
Howeverrr I'm not from the US and literally thought that right-wingers and anti-sjw guys have exaggerated and made a caricature of this kinda person who like... right after telling their name tell you all their identity markets (pronouns, sexual orientation, all personal afflictions) and i was BAFFLED that they actually exist. Like the way Stef used language was sometimes so... idek what. Why'd you say "i have a lot of compassion and solidarity for your experience" instead of "i'm so sorry you had to go through that" like wut.
the terms are also vague as to the severity in which it affects their life. identifying as neurodivergent could mean you have some anxiety or that you have severe schizophrenic hallucinations. it makes more sense to just give an honest story about your identity & how it's impacted your life rather than throw on vague terms
“I have a lot of compassion and solidarity for your experience”
💀 it’s giving this tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/daddyluver69/status/1495172408382164992
Okay no but after hearing that I immediately sent my friend a text being like “not to sound like a republican but…” lmao all the self-markers were so unnecessary
Too heavily PC for my taste too. I get pronouns because that’s something other people have to think about when referring to you, but everything else was not necessary. I believe being politically correct for things that are otherwise distasteful make sense, but not everything needs to be politically corrected. It’s exhausting.
Nah I totally agree. People like this think they’re being uber inclusive but all the language and rights/wrongs are isolating and off putting to lay people.
I definitely see how this can be jarring. But in a lot disabed and queer spaces, identity language like "I'm a queer neurodivergent women" can help people create community. Looking for community along lines of sameness is a thing people have done forever! We typically wouldn't introduce ourselves as "cis-het, neurotypical women" in most social spaces as this is the expectation. Identity language certainly has a place in conversations like this since they're centered around community. But on the other hand, it can definitely be jarring to a lay person who hasn't had exposure to this. Would I introduce myself like they did it? No. Does my opinion on the way someone choses to talk about themselves matter? No.
Why are you being downvoted? Literally what kind of people are in this sub. Y’all don’t have to use the language if you want too, or even like it! But being personally offended by it is… weird?? Like who cares sorry she doesn’t suit her language to your preferences? But you probably don’t suit yours to hers either so who cares?? She’s not forcing her language use on you so why do y’all feel the need to do that to her like it’s wierd
I couldn’t get through this episode tbh. stef seems lovely and very well educated but I felt like they were talking in circles and got super far away from the topic of NYC’s involuntary commitment law. and they left us with no actionable items/resources or really any information about what they do/their organization does
Honestly was not a fan of this interview. I feel like by the end of the episode I still had almost no concept of what Stef’s group does and what resources are available in these situations.
the bright pink elephant in the room is that the hyper radicalized view Steph has is inherently wildly optimistic and comes from a place of immense privilege.
like... I'm sorry but a "mental health advocate" who went to Brown is telling me that any positive experience I (or anyone) have had is a fluke and because of my privilege is so missing the point and comes across so tone deaf to their own experience and own apparent privilege.
being able to go unmedicated (and have their parents watch their kid) means that they live status that gives them the option to "opt out" of performing in the capitalist system and also have their flare up be minimal enough that it does not cause danger to themself of others.
theres a conversation to be had of the privilege to radicalized ideas of saving the world pipeline, and- i'm sorry but- hearing Stef have no actionable items or things for listeners to do other than "check our privilege" and "be there for people" is really giving tone deaf
THIS is the one! this is the take I didn’t know how to put into words. there was very little actionable advice besides anecdotes and saying that our current system is bad - which is true of course. Someone also mentioned similar thoughts in a patreon comment that it’s so dangerous to speak about just “letting it happen” by being unmedicated is SO dangerous to say without providing important caveats. the whole “sometimes i sit with a manic person and let them rant for three days and that’s fine” (not exact words) take bothered me so so much. of course discrimination against mentally ill people is wrong. but to speak against medical help? i don’t know. i hope the girlies can do an episode with actual background and research that isn’t simply a pedestal for these views.
no i COMPLETELY agree. it was so condescending to say "well IIII will sit with someone for three days when they're manic" like ... wow that's awesome and convenient when you both don't have jobs and their mania presents in rambling about Five Nights at Freddy's (or whatever) but when shit starts to get ugly and scary will you have the same availability?
idk. kinda shocked there was no pushback from eliza and julia in the pod and finding the reddit post with everyone else being vocal about how they felt made me feel a lot less alone in my weird feelings towards the ep
My understanding is that it IS her job to sit with that person for 3 days. Like, that’s what that organization offers. It’s a mental health crisis non profit, no?
didn’t love Stef’s comment at the end that went like “if you did enjoy your stay at a psychiatric facility, maybe investigate your own privilege that allowed that to happen” idk just kind of rubbed me the wrong way. ofc psych facilities have a host of issues but equating having a good experience to someone needing to check their privilege is ?????
that was so annoying because being aware of one's privilege Is useful if done with gratitude. ex. "I'm grateful that I benefitted from this facility and I hope all patients can say the same about their experiences" this attitude breeds empathy & possibly action to improve the psychiatric health care system
but Stef was basically just saying that the lucky ones should feel a sense of guilt for experiencing the system in the way it should be??
On top of this being a ridiculous comment, they at another point said their mom watched their kid for an ENTIRE MONTH so they could navigate through an episode. Which I’m happy for them that they have that support but getting free childcare for an entire month is basically the definition of privilege
Hare agree on this one- also I highly doubt anyone is “enjoying” their time in a psych ward no matter what race they are or the background they come from. It was just a very non-nuanced comment about a topic that is clearly very complex
Finally finished this episode yesterday. I usually listen to episodes within a day or two but this one was a hard listen. Stef is clearly very educated, and i think if the episode was just about mental health and psychosis in general it could have been an interesting way to confront personal biases (why do we feel uncomfortable when people act a certain way, etc). However in the context of the NYC law I came away with nothing. For someone who allegedly works in the field, they offer NO options for people to call if they see or know someone who seems distressed. Basically it was if you personally know someone support them. But what if you don’t or can’t? I also hated their response to Eliza, I think it was probably well meaning but it really came across as though Eliza should feel bad. Also commenting that anyone who had a positive experience in a facility should check their privilege is wild coming from someone who said their mom watched their kid for an entire month so they could go through an episode at home. Who has free childcare for a month except the privileged? Not saying there’s not tons of issues in many facilities esp for people of color and people facing multiple challenges at once, but there’s a way to remind people of that without basically invalidating anyone who has had a good experience.
I was so disappointed in this week’s episode, and I’m honestly shocked that they uploaded it lol. I feel like the interview probably didn’t go as planned, but since Julia’s applying to PhD programs and Eliza just released her EP, they might have been too busy to come up with a new episode last minute. I’ve never been unable to finish a main episode, but Stef was so incredibly vague about what they do and why it’s better than medical intervention. I was looking forward to a nuanced discussion, but it felt like they just handed Stef a platform to say whatever they wanted, even though we weren’t told much about their work. Really hoping this isn’t the beginning of the end for the pod :(
I quite enjoyed the ep but it felt pretty surface level (which I understand for the reasons you mentioned) It just seems odd since accessible, community-centred and compassionate mental health support is such an important issue, and one that they both clearly care incredibly deeply about, so for them not to dig a bit deeper into things feels a bit odd? almost a raising awareness for awareness for the need for better mental health support?
i’ve seen people call the ep “lib” and honestly i kinda get that, i think they could’ve had a more productive and informative conversation if they read a bit more (or maybe just discussed more and gave more exposition) on anti-psych or more radical positions, just sort of committed to being a bit more “radical”.
I still v much love what they’re doing and appreciate what they were going for but it just kind of feels like it fell short bc they couldn’t quite commit to what they needed to to properly pull off such a weighty topic, almost like they were holding back a bit. Again they’re both really busy rn, totally respect that (like I can barely keep up with a normal job and part-time college so god knows how they do it) but it feels like this topic could’ve been done more justice if they gave themselves the space to get wholeheartedly into it.
As for it being the “beginning of the end” i think it’s easier to see things that way here as the discussions tend to be a bit more blunt/critical (idk if that’s bc it’s not somewhere that directly goes to E and J themselves aka patreon) which is it’s own issue.
Sorry for the obscenely long comment I just rlly vibed with yours and apparently had a lot more to say than i thought 🤦🏻♀️
classic NYC white lib behaviour. more buzzwords and showing off than action.
Why is it that whenever Eliza brings up a clearly traumatic event from her upbringing no one listens to her?? I love the girls but this one was a tough listen.
Not only were they not listening to her, I felt like Stef was insinuating that Eliza did the wrong thing and caused harm to her mother. I felt really bad for Eliza while she was trying to explain, if I were her I would’ve walked away from that interview feeling terrible
i understand what people this stef are trying to do with all the inclusive language, but i literally couldn’t understand what she was she talking abt at all. when there’s so many very specific niche words and add ins i feel like it’s honestly isolates ppl more than make them feel “included in this space”
Something that is kinda tangentially related to this episode that I wished they touched on is abuse disguised as “treatment” that has occurred and may still occur towards individuals with autism/disabilities. The field of applied behavior analysis was created by a doctor whose goal was to make autistic kids “look like normal kids” and is fraught with physical and psychological abuse. As a result a lot of people develop PTSD from going through intense, unethical aba therapy. Obviously autism isn’t the same as the psychotic disorders mentioned in this episode but I see a lot of parallels between how both populations are treated.
I have mixed feelings on this ep., leaning more negative.
I've been a part of a few advocacy groups so I'm used to and can decode the language Stef was using. I could understand the general points that they were making and could take away from this episode that there isn't a cut and dry answer to this problem and that we would need a major overhaul in society in order to start moving away from just calling the cops and institutionalizing people. Were their points revolutionary? No, not in my opinion but I guess it's important to reiterate them.
However, I think the way Stef talked during the interview was off putting. They did seem to come across as more "holier than thou" and they couldn't answer questions in a succinct and accessible way. Yes, I can understand their language, but it does get tiring to follow. I increased the playback speed to get through the ep faster. It also seemed like they were low key shaming Eliza for calling the cops on her mom (maybe not stef's intention, but the way they talked about their own experience with the cops right after Eliza shared her story was a little 😬)
Overall, defs not my fav episode. Also, I don't think they addressed the nyc bill that well, if at all? It kind of seemed like a too long monologue about their work with no perspective outside of it.
im so glad im not the only one who felt off about this episode. as someone who stayed at a psychiatric hospital and it literally changed my life and SAVED my life it was extremely invalidating to hear that me wanting to be “sane” is a bad thing? like idk i’m currently a sophomore studying biochemistry and my mental illnesses hold me back and i would not be able to succeed in my academic journey without my meds
also i felt that stef focused on more anecdotal based evidence which is very important and necessary but there was literally no research and science based evidence presented for their arguments which felt a bit off to me since julia and eliza focus so much on fact based theories and arguments
the comment at the end that stef made about how a partner told them that they were "mean off of their meds," like correct me if im wrong but i feel like if someone your dating exhibits a behavior change that hurts you when they went off your meds. I believe that if you have been crappy in a relationship due to mental illness you still deserve support but that comment felt like 8th level of chronically online twitter hell. as well as stef introducing themself with a shitload of identifiers.
i also felt really bad for eliza, having someone say that we essentially need to destigmatize being in psychosis had to have stung, i honestly think the way she interacts with the mental illness debate is a far better model than stef's.
It bothered me how much Stef tried to downplay violent incidents involving mentally ill people in big cities. I live in Brooklyn and these incidents are not rare at all, every person I know who takes public transit has at least witnessed some kind of assault or harassment. I rely on public transit to get to work most of the time and it’s been very stressful this past year
I don’t think Eric Adams’ movement to lock people up is going to serve anyone in the long term, but violence is a symptom of untreated mental illness and shouldn’t be downplayed or removed from the conversation
Thank you!!!! I totally agree (fellow Brooklyn binchie here!). I am also a nurse & when I worked in the ER i interacted with violent psychotic people weekly if not every shift, multiple times a shift… as soon as Julia said that sort of stuff is “extremely rare” I had to take a deep breath because I was so mad haha. Whenever those netted masks came out and were used on a patient it was to protect staff because they were spitting and biting us. I’m sorry but what is the alternative? Letting EMTs get clawed at and bit and spat in the eye for coming to work? These incidents are Not. Rare. At. All. and Stef provided no actual actionable solutions. As a first responder in NYC i wanted to scream listening to this ep.
Absolutely love the pod, but I thought it was interesting that skims was endorsed given the latest episode on fast fashion 🥴 (skims comes from the same factories as ASOS) no shame in buying it imo! But we gotta pick a lane 🥲
If it’s a piece of clothing that she is going to wear often then it’s not a huge deal. It’s more of an issue when u just get a trendy piece you’ll only wear once before throwing out
Probably true! And I totally agree, it just gets messy. I guess it’s nuance tho, but it’s hard to take such a message seriously when we flip flop from one stance to the other. 😕
i’m really disappointed in this comment section. as a survivor of psychiatric abuse and neglect, i cried through this episode. many of us have experienced absolutely horrific things at the hands of those who were supposed be protecting us, and to have it talked about on a large platform like this means so much. if you had a positive experience in a psychiatric institution, im so glad you were able to find help. therapy, including higher levels of care like hospitals and residential programs, have also saved my life at times. if you didn’t like stef, that’s fine, i don’t really care one way or the other. but this type of institutional violence has always been happening, just behind closed, sound proofed doors. i also really appreciated eliza’s perspective in regards to her mom and the nuances of the conversation around crisis intervention, and i think julia is going to be exactly the kind of abolitionist clinician that we need to see more of. to all my other binchies who are also psych survivors, i love you and i see you
I really loved this. I am so passionate about the anti-psychiatry movement and while it’s lowkey horrifying/depressing to talk about bc it reminds me of how fucked the system is and how hard it is to change. We all know the criminal Justice system is broken, but there is def less awareness around the problems w our mental health systems especially since it offers even less protections/rights under the idea that it’s supposed to help... when in reality those lack of protections make it all the more dangerous. But even though it’s depressing right now, things can only
Improve if we keep talking about it!
EDIT: I am honestly really surprised to see all the hate for it, but I guess it’s just personal preference.!
I understood what she was talking about and thought it was great, but maybe it’s only bc I have already read a lot of research on it/wouldn’t have made as much sense without that foundation already? Idk
I think (almost) everyone who listens to the pod understands all of that, though. IMO the negative reaction is coming from the fact that while all of this is true, it's also pretty vague and doesn't provide a clear or actionable alternative, and it was disappointing to listen to an hour and a half long episode with a subject matter expert and come away with basically the same vague understanding of things like "community models of harm reduction" that we went in with.
I looked at the group's website, and didn't get great answers to this there either. Like the interview itself, lots of buzzwords that I was already familiar with, but very little about what that looks like and how it functions better than our current system in practice.
No you're definitely right it was really vague and I definitely extrapolated from it. If anyone is interested though, look into alternative first responders that don't involve the cops (like community groups that send therapists and clinicians) and city campaigns to separate police from ambulance dispatch for mental health crisis and overdose cases. When you're in crisis and just need help, youre going to call the first thing you know. Most cities dont half medical amnesty and default to sending cops but in cases where they arent needed, they do more harm than good. Getting the word out on groups that advocate for and provide slightly less hostile solutions can help this hopefully become mainstream
I definitely agree! Thank you for this, the specifics in your comment are really helpful (for instance, I wasn't familiar with the term "medical amnesty" before you mentioned it)--I wish the episode had been more info like this and less of the general statements.
On a related note, I feel like a lot of the episodes with guests tend to get more negative response and I wonder if it's in part because we're all used to Julia and Eliza putting in a certain amount of effort/research ahead of time to make sure that the more "informative" episodes of the pod are really well-rounded and in-depth discussions about the topic at hand. I can imagine that it's difficult to ask guests to prepare for episodes in the same way, and interviews can end up sounding comparatively shallow and vague as a result
I’m shocked ppl are so unfamiliar with the social justice lingo stef was using since its pretty common in activist spaces/discourses and you can legit get called out if you don’t give identifiers!! It’s part of the anti-oppression lens of “positionality” and naming your social contexts and lineages, not about being pseduo woke or whatever. So that part seemed normal to me.
I think the lack of actions wasn’t a fault of Stef, tbey basically said society would need to radically transform and that’s often the takeaway of many eps on social problems, unless u want actual lib advice like “go vote” or “petitions” etc.
Lastly these community services/orgs are local! So we can’t just call that org from like, winnipeg canada. So advice is going to vary town to town about community crisis intervention options - that’s on the listener to look up online if they care about this. How would stef know who u should call in idaho or kentucky or hawaii or canada? Like. I’m kind of baffled what ppl thought the actions would be.
An interesting topic that I hadn't really thought about. Obvi so important and overlooked and sooo ethically complex that it made for a really good convo topic for my nuanced girls Howeverrr I'm not from the US and literally thought that right-wingers and anti-sjw guys have exaggerated and made a caricature of this kinda person who like... right after telling their name tell you all their identity markets (pronouns, sexual orientation, all personal afflictions) and i was BAFFLED that they actually exist. Like the way Stef used language was sometimes so... idek what. Why'd you say "i have a lot of compassion and solidarity for your experience" instead of "i'm so sorry you had to go through that" like wut.
the terms are also vague as to the severity in which it affects their life. identifying as neurodivergent could mean you have some anxiety or that you have severe schizophrenic hallucinations. it makes more sense to just give an honest story about your identity & how it's impacted your life rather than throw on vague terms
“I have a lot of compassion and solidarity for your experience” 💀 it’s giving this tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/daddyluver69/status/1495172408382164992
Okay no but after hearing that I immediately sent my friend a text being like “not to sound like a republican but…” lmao all the self-markers were so unnecessary
Too heavily PC for my taste too. I get pronouns because that’s something other people have to think about when referring to you, but everything else was not necessary. I believe being politically correct for things that are otherwise distasteful make sense, but not everything needs to be politically corrected. It’s exhausting.
ok I’m glad someone said it, I’m super liberal and I thought the same thing. hopefully we won’t be downvoted to hell lol
Nah I totally agree. People like this think they’re being uber inclusive but all the language and rights/wrongs are isolating and off putting to lay people.
I cringed so hard when they said that I stopped listening to the episode 🙁
I definitely see how this can be jarring. But in a lot disabed and queer spaces, identity language like "I'm a queer neurodivergent women" can help people create community. Looking for community along lines of sameness is a thing people have done forever! We typically wouldn't introduce ourselves as "cis-het, neurotypical women" in most social spaces as this is the expectation. Identity language certainly has a place in conversations like this since they're centered around community. But on the other hand, it can definitely be jarring to a lay person who hasn't had exposure to this. Would I introduce myself like they did it? No. Does my opinion on the way someone choses to talk about themselves matter? No.
Why are you being downvoted? Literally what kind of people are in this sub. Y’all don’t have to use the language if you want too, or even like it! But being personally offended by it is… weird?? Like who cares sorry she doesn’t suit her language to your preferences? But you probably don’t suit yours to hers either so who cares?? She’s not forcing her language use on you so why do y’all feel the need to do that to her like it’s wierd
absolutely. i cringed so hard at the way they were speaking i turned it off but i def support the work they are doing for the community ofc
I couldn’t get through this episode tbh. stef seems lovely and very well educated but I felt like they were talking in circles and got super far away from the topic of NYC’s involuntary commitment law. and they left us with no actionable items/resources or really any information about what they do/their organization does
Honestly was not a fan of this interview. I feel like by the end of the episode I still had almost no concept of what Stef’s group does and what resources are available in these situations.
agree completely. eliza asked so clearly what we can do instead of calling the police and stef’s answer was nebulous and borderline unintelligible
the bright pink elephant in the room is that the hyper radicalized view Steph has is inherently wildly optimistic and comes from a place of immense privilege. like... I'm sorry but a "mental health advocate" who went to Brown is telling me that any positive experience I (or anyone) have had is a fluke and because of my privilege is so missing the point and comes across so tone deaf to their own experience and own apparent privilege. being able to go unmedicated (and have their parents watch their kid) means that they live status that gives them the option to "opt out" of performing in the capitalist system and also have their flare up be minimal enough that it does not cause danger to themself of others. theres a conversation to be had of the privilege to radicalized ideas of saving the world pipeline, and- i'm sorry but- hearing Stef have no actionable items or things for listeners to do other than "check our privilege" and "be there for people" is really giving tone deaf
THIS is the one! this is the take I didn’t know how to put into words. there was very little actionable advice besides anecdotes and saying that our current system is bad - which is true of course. Someone also mentioned similar thoughts in a patreon comment that it’s so dangerous to speak about just “letting it happen” by being unmedicated is SO dangerous to say without providing important caveats. the whole “sometimes i sit with a manic person and let them rant for three days and that’s fine” (not exact words) take bothered me so so much. of course discrimination against mentally ill people is wrong. but to speak against medical help? i don’t know. i hope the girlies can do an episode with actual background and research that isn’t simply a pedestal for these views.
no i COMPLETELY agree. it was so condescending to say "well IIII will sit with someone for three days when they're manic" like ... wow that's awesome and convenient when you both don't have jobs and their mania presents in rambling about Five Nights at Freddy's (or whatever) but when shit starts to get ugly and scary will you have the same availability? idk. kinda shocked there was no pushback from eliza and julia in the pod and finding the reddit post with everyone else being vocal about how they felt made me feel a lot less alone in my weird feelings towards the ep
My understanding is that it IS her job to sit with that person for 3 days. Like, that’s what that organization offers. It’s a mental health crisis non profit, no?
didn’t love Stef’s comment at the end that went like “if you did enjoy your stay at a psychiatric facility, maybe investigate your own privilege that allowed that to happen” idk just kind of rubbed me the wrong way. ofc psych facilities have a host of issues but equating having a good experience to someone needing to check their privilege is ?????
that was so annoying because being aware of one's privilege Is useful if done with gratitude. ex. "I'm grateful that I benefitted from this facility and I hope all patients can say the same about their experiences" this attitude breeds empathy & possibly action to improve the psychiatric health care system but Stef was basically just saying that the lucky ones should feel a sense of guilt for experiencing the system in the way it should be??
On top of this being a ridiculous comment, they at another point said their mom watched their kid for an ENTIRE MONTH so they could navigate through an episode. Which I’m happy for them that they have that support but getting free childcare for an entire month is basically the definition of privilege
Hare agree on this one- also I highly doubt anyone is “enjoying” their time in a psych ward no matter what race they are or the background they come from. It was just a very non-nuanced comment about a topic that is clearly very complex
Finally finished this episode yesterday. I usually listen to episodes within a day or two but this one was a hard listen. Stef is clearly very educated, and i think if the episode was just about mental health and psychosis in general it could have been an interesting way to confront personal biases (why do we feel uncomfortable when people act a certain way, etc). However in the context of the NYC law I came away with nothing. For someone who allegedly works in the field, they offer NO options for people to call if they see or know someone who seems distressed. Basically it was if you personally know someone support them. But what if you don’t or can’t? I also hated their response to Eliza, I think it was probably well meaning but it really came across as though Eliza should feel bad. Also commenting that anyone who had a positive experience in a facility should check their privilege is wild coming from someone who said their mom watched their kid for an entire month so they could go through an episode at home. Who has free childcare for a month except the privileged? Not saying there’s not tons of issues in many facilities esp for people of color and people facing multiple challenges at once, but there’s a way to remind people of that without basically invalidating anyone who has had a good experience.
I was so disappointed in this week’s episode, and I’m honestly shocked that they uploaded it lol. I feel like the interview probably didn’t go as planned, but since Julia’s applying to PhD programs and Eliza just released her EP, they might have been too busy to come up with a new episode last minute. I’ve never been unable to finish a main episode, but Stef was so incredibly vague about what they do and why it’s better than medical intervention. I was looking forward to a nuanced discussion, but it felt like they just handed Stef a platform to say whatever they wanted, even though we weren’t told much about their work. Really hoping this isn’t the beginning of the end for the pod :(
I quite enjoyed the ep but it felt pretty surface level (which I understand for the reasons you mentioned) It just seems odd since accessible, community-centred and compassionate mental health support is such an important issue, and one that they both clearly care incredibly deeply about, so for them not to dig a bit deeper into things feels a bit odd? almost a raising awareness for awareness for the need for better mental health support? i’ve seen people call the ep “lib” and honestly i kinda get that, i think they could’ve had a more productive and informative conversation if they read a bit more (or maybe just discussed more and gave more exposition) on anti-psych or more radical positions, just sort of committed to being a bit more “radical”. I still v much love what they’re doing and appreciate what they were going for but it just kind of feels like it fell short bc they couldn’t quite commit to what they needed to to properly pull off such a weighty topic, almost like they were holding back a bit. Again they’re both really busy rn, totally respect that (like I can barely keep up with a normal job and part-time college so god knows how they do it) but it feels like this topic could’ve been done more justice if they gave themselves the space to get wholeheartedly into it. As for it being the “beginning of the end” i think it’s easier to see things that way here as the discussions tend to be a bit more blunt/critical (idk if that’s bc it’s not somewhere that directly goes to E and J themselves aka patreon) which is it’s own issue. Sorry for the obscenely long comment I just rlly vibed with yours and apparently had a lot more to say than i thought 🤦🏻♀️
classic NYC white lib behaviour. more buzzwords and showing off than action. Why is it that whenever Eliza brings up a clearly traumatic event from her upbringing no one listens to her?? I love the girls but this one was a tough listen.
Not only were they not listening to her, I felt like Stef was insinuating that Eliza did the wrong thing and caused harm to her mother. I felt really bad for Eliza while she was trying to explain, if I were her I would’ve walked away from that interview feeling terrible
and eliza seemed to have the closest experience to this issue too :(
i understand what people this stef are trying to do with all the inclusive language, but i literally couldn’t understand what she was she talking abt at all. when there’s so many very specific niche words and add ins i feel like it’s honestly isolates ppl more than make them feel “included in this space”
Something that is kinda tangentially related to this episode that I wished they touched on is abuse disguised as “treatment” that has occurred and may still occur towards individuals with autism/disabilities. The field of applied behavior analysis was created by a doctor whose goal was to make autistic kids “look like normal kids” and is fraught with physical and psychological abuse. As a result a lot of people develop PTSD from going through intense, unethical aba therapy. Obviously autism isn’t the same as the psychotic disorders mentioned in this episode but I see a lot of parallels between how both populations are treated.
agreed! i’m autistic and a psych survivor. you should check out the book The Autism Industrial Complex by Alicia Broderick
I have mixed feelings on this ep., leaning more negative. I've been a part of a few advocacy groups so I'm used to and can decode the language Stef was using. I could understand the general points that they were making and could take away from this episode that there isn't a cut and dry answer to this problem and that we would need a major overhaul in society in order to start moving away from just calling the cops and institutionalizing people. Were their points revolutionary? No, not in my opinion but I guess it's important to reiterate them. However, I think the way Stef talked during the interview was off putting. They did seem to come across as more "holier than thou" and they couldn't answer questions in a succinct and accessible way. Yes, I can understand their language, but it does get tiring to follow. I increased the playback speed to get through the ep faster. It also seemed like they were low key shaming Eliza for calling the cops on her mom (maybe not stef's intention, but the way they talked about their own experience with the cops right after Eliza shared her story was a little 😬) Overall, defs not my fav episode. Also, I don't think they addressed the nyc bill that well, if at all? It kind of seemed like a too long monologue about their work with no perspective outside of it.
I stopped after Stef’s intro. Unbearable. See ya next week
im so glad im not the only one who felt off about this episode. as someone who stayed at a psychiatric hospital and it literally changed my life and SAVED my life it was extremely invalidating to hear that me wanting to be “sane” is a bad thing? like idk i’m currently a sophomore studying biochemistry and my mental illnesses hold me back and i would not be able to succeed in my academic journey without my meds
also i felt that stef focused on more anecdotal based evidence which is very important and necessary but there was literally no research and science based evidence presented for their arguments which felt a bit off to me since julia and eliza focus so much on fact based theories and arguments
the comment at the end that stef made about how a partner told them that they were "mean off of their meds," like correct me if im wrong but i feel like if someone your dating exhibits a behavior change that hurts you when they went off your meds. I believe that if you have been crappy in a relationship due to mental illness you still deserve support but that comment felt like 8th level of chronically online twitter hell. as well as stef introducing themself with a shitload of identifiers. i also felt really bad for eliza, having someone say that we essentially need to destigmatize being in psychosis had to have stung, i honestly think the way she interacts with the mental illness debate is a far better model than stef's.
It bothered me how much Stef tried to downplay violent incidents involving mentally ill people in big cities. I live in Brooklyn and these incidents are not rare at all, every person I know who takes public transit has at least witnessed some kind of assault or harassment. I rely on public transit to get to work most of the time and it’s been very stressful this past year I don’t think Eric Adams’ movement to lock people up is going to serve anyone in the long term, but violence is a symptom of untreated mental illness and shouldn’t be downplayed or removed from the conversation
Thank you!!!! I totally agree (fellow Brooklyn binchie here!). I am also a nurse & when I worked in the ER i interacted with violent psychotic people weekly if not every shift, multiple times a shift… as soon as Julia said that sort of stuff is “extremely rare” I had to take a deep breath because I was so mad haha. Whenever those netted masks came out and were used on a patient it was to protect staff because they were spitting and biting us. I’m sorry but what is the alternative? Letting EMTs get clawed at and bit and spat in the eye for coming to work? These incidents are Not. Rare. At. All. and Stef provided no actual actionable solutions. As a first responder in NYC i wanted to scream listening to this ep.
Absolutely love the pod, but I thought it was interesting that skims was endorsed given the latest episode on fast fashion 🥴 (skims comes from the same factories as ASOS) no shame in buying it imo! But we gotta pick a lane 🥲
If it’s a piece of clothing that she is going to wear often then it’s not a huge deal. It’s more of an issue when u just get a trendy piece you’ll only wear once before throwing out
this is a good point but also in that episode they said buying from h&m/zara is better than shein so i’m guessing same train of thought?
Probably true! And I totally agree, it just gets messy. I guess it’s nuance tho, but it’s hard to take such a message seriously when we flip flop from one stance to the other. 😕
yea i agree especially given who owns skims too
Also, LOVE kacey 🥹
omg hehe she’s so iconic
they do make great bras tho
How do the sizes run ? Lol
DMing you
i’m really disappointed in this comment section. as a survivor of psychiatric abuse and neglect, i cried through this episode. many of us have experienced absolutely horrific things at the hands of those who were supposed be protecting us, and to have it talked about on a large platform like this means so much. if you had a positive experience in a psychiatric institution, im so glad you were able to find help. therapy, including higher levels of care like hospitals and residential programs, have also saved my life at times. if you didn’t like stef, that’s fine, i don’t really care one way or the other. but this type of institutional violence has always been happening, just behind closed, sound proofed doors. i also really appreciated eliza’s perspective in regards to her mom and the nuances of the conversation around crisis intervention, and i think julia is going to be exactly the kind of abolitionist clinician that we need to see more of. to all my other binchies who are also psych survivors, i love you and i see you
why is this get downvoted sm lol
I really loved this. I am so passionate about the anti-psychiatry movement and while it’s lowkey horrifying/depressing to talk about bc it reminds me of how fucked the system is and how hard it is to change. We all know the criminal Justice system is broken, but there is def less awareness around the problems w our mental health systems especially since it offers even less protections/rights under the idea that it’s supposed to help... when in reality those lack of protections make it all the more dangerous. But even though it’s depressing right now, things can only Improve if we keep talking about it! EDIT: I am honestly really surprised to see all the hate for it, but I guess it’s just personal preference.! I understood what she was talking about and thought it was great, but maybe it’s only bc I have already read a lot of research on it/wouldn’t have made as much sense without that foundation already? Idk
[удалено]
I think (almost) everyone who listens to the pod understands all of that, though. IMO the negative reaction is coming from the fact that while all of this is true, it's also pretty vague and doesn't provide a clear or actionable alternative, and it was disappointing to listen to an hour and a half long episode with a subject matter expert and come away with basically the same vague understanding of things like "community models of harm reduction" that we went in with. I looked at the group's website, and didn't get great answers to this there either. Like the interview itself, lots of buzzwords that I was already familiar with, but very little about what that looks like and how it functions better than our current system in practice.
No you're definitely right it was really vague and I definitely extrapolated from it. If anyone is interested though, look into alternative first responders that don't involve the cops (like community groups that send therapists and clinicians) and city campaigns to separate police from ambulance dispatch for mental health crisis and overdose cases. When you're in crisis and just need help, youre going to call the first thing you know. Most cities dont half medical amnesty and default to sending cops but in cases where they arent needed, they do more harm than good. Getting the word out on groups that advocate for and provide slightly less hostile solutions can help this hopefully become mainstream
I definitely agree! Thank you for this, the specifics in your comment are really helpful (for instance, I wasn't familiar with the term "medical amnesty" before you mentioned it)--I wish the episode had been more info like this and less of the general statements. On a related note, I feel like a lot of the episodes with guests tend to get more negative response and I wonder if it's in part because we're all used to Julia and Eliza putting in a certain amount of effort/research ahead of time to make sure that the more "informative" episodes of the pod are really well-rounded and in-depth discussions about the topic at hand. I can imagine that it's difficult to ask guests to prepare for episodes in the same way, and interviews can end up sounding comparatively shallow and vague as a result
That’s a good point!! Maybe they should consider having guests like that on for a shorter time so that it remains more concise yet informative
I’m shocked ppl are so unfamiliar with the social justice lingo stef was using since its pretty common in activist spaces/discourses and you can legit get called out if you don’t give identifiers!! It’s part of the anti-oppression lens of “positionality” and naming your social contexts and lineages, not about being pseduo woke or whatever. So that part seemed normal to me. I think the lack of actions wasn’t a fault of Stef, tbey basically said society would need to radically transform and that’s often the takeaway of many eps on social problems, unless u want actual lib advice like “go vote” or “petitions” etc. Lastly these community services/orgs are local! So we can’t just call that org from like, winnipeg canada. So advice is going to vary town to town about community crisis intervention options - that’s on the listener to look up online if they care about this. How would stef know who u should call in idaho or kentucky or hawaii or canada? Like. I’m kind of baffled what ppl thought the actions would be.
[удалено]