Phenomena one: people don’t claim to be want to be told. Phenomena two: they admit they want to be told, under the pretense a favorable manner as deemed possible. Phenomena three: Two didn’t turn out that way, but it’s A) Okay or b) Not Okay. Phenomena four: something is learned. Phenomena five: nothing was learned, only who can be useful to whom for whatever riles them.
so tired of seeing on social media people say "wait, why didn't any of those men step in to save the woman in xyz scenario???" like sorry you believe some random man will jump in and save a woman being held at gunpoint, but in reality the man will, like the woman, not want to be at risk of harm in a life-or-death situation. he may also have biases that lead him to view the woman as deserving of her fate--many such cases for cops it seems! overall positive traits assigned to men and women by patriarchy are as untrue and harmful as negative ones and a lot of people don't seem to pick up on that, which leads to the tradwife "embracing femininity" shit that ends in financial abuse
screenshotting this one bc I can acknowledge that I’ve got shipper goggles on and op isn’t about that life which is fair but
I feel like batfam fans misunderstand the term parentification a lot and conflate it with Dick filling a parental role for his siblings, which might be part of the “oldest daughter syndrome” that’s so often pinned on him but that isn’t what parentification actually means
If I say that Dick Grayson was parentified, then that isn’t referring to him taking care of his siblings, it refers to the way Bruce treated him. As someone capable of taking care of his emotional needs and not as the child in need of care in the relationship
Parentification is a term that’s been around for decades, and while having to care for younger siblings might be a part of the definition, it focuses mostly on the role reversal of the parent-child dynamic. I’m not going to get into the psychology of it but being parentified has very little to do with if he actually acted as a parent for his siblings and everything to do with if he acted as a parent for Bruce
This is honestly why I prefer the term spouseification, which is less ambiguous than the term parentification and I feel accurately describes their “equal” relationship and the type of emotional abuse that Dick went through
Also from what I’ve read, Dick doesn’t act as a parental figure for any of his siblings except for Damian. While he might have given extra emotional support to Tim due to Bruce being Bruce, Dick still fits solidly into an older brother role. I’m not even going to touch on Dick’s relationship with Jason which is too weak to even be considered fraternal never mind parental
I think there's nothing wrong or that far off by headcanoning John as physically abusive but you must ask yourself: do I think that's the only legitimate way to make sense of why his abuse was so traumatising compared to what is shown in canon? do I understand that the physical abuse wasn't the sole traumatising factor for Sam & Dean? Do I take neglect & psychological abuse seriously or am I making it worse to try to make it valid?
The idea of immortality is a psychic phenomenon that is disseminated over the whole earth. Every "idea" is, from the psychological point of view, a phenomenon, just as is "philosophy" or "theology." For modern psychology, ideas are entities, like animals and plants. The scientific method consists in the description of nature. All mythological ideas are essentially real, and far older than any philosophy.
it goes something like this. you do something random, something unconventional, because it brings you joy - you let out a weird little noise bc it's satisfying, you wiggle in excitement, you make an oddly specific remark because you think it's a clever observation, you enjoy art/media that's considered just a bit too cringey or meme-y - and immediately your friends laugh, saying how "funny" and "random" you are, how they "can't imagine what it must be like inside your head", and wondering if you're perhaps drunk or under the influence of drugs. And after a while, you start to present your happiness as jokes, because it is much better to think that you've made your friends happy by making them laugh on purpose than to have them laugh at you, until you no longer understand why it hurts to hear others laugh at your own jokes
tfw an ex-mutual talks down to you very rudely for disagreeing/being mad ab their fringe psychology beliefs. Lemme guess, you also believe ODD is a real actual disorder.
Sorry you feel the need to make fun of people because they don't listen to your youtube guy. If I agreed with every conflicting psychology researcher and academic I would have every mental disorder in the book and so would you.
Codependency isn't always (but absolutely can be) about "seeing others as an extension of yourself" as referenced in cases of NPD. Sometimes codependency is about traumatic attachment. That is decidedly not narcissistic because neither party has NPD. Sometimes codependency is born out of necessity; ie-- there is one person you have had to depend on your entire life. You got stuck on a remote island for a decade or more. You were in a cult and knew only one person outside. A million scenarios but I won't write them out here.
Furthermore the claim on my own mental state is even more absurdly and rudely armchair psychologist. I don't feel connected to people, let alone see them as an extension of myself. I don't *understand* some people's anxieties and motivations at all and wouldn't claim to. Because they are very much not me. I am me, they are they (about 8.5 billion of them to my knowledge). I can never hope to truly get into their brain universes and unfortunately no one can get into mine either. We are all in a state of internal isolation to some extent because you cannot feed someone your dreams, no one can personally experience what is not their own experience. If I saw others as extensions of myself, would I take the time to study the motives, fears, and ways of showing love to those closest to me? I'd just assume they were like my own, no? But I will ask my therapist quite bluntly if she thinks I have any cluster b disorder if you are so certain. And about her opinion on all this shit. I'll even send her the video, if I can find it on my own again. She is a licensed psychologist with an extensive education and experience in the field. So you know.
Truly insane the level to which some people believe they know exactly how everyone's brains tick. All the same. Almost similar to your claim about seeing others as an extension of yourself. Huh. Maybe I'm just being dramatic and it's again another iteration of "if you haven't personally experienced it, you can believe anything about it simply because you don't understand." But hey, you armchair diagnosed me first. So, I think you have a cluster b disorder despite probably never having been professionally diagnosed with anything remotely similar. I believe it wholeheartedly. You see the world, and people with their complex minds, as black and white. A symptom of, you guessed it, NPD. You defer to any authority that will back up your point of view. Spoiler: there will always be one, because there is no such thing as a unanimous academic vote on what is true and what is false. But most importantly you talk to people who (what a scandal!) haven't read and immediately believed the things you have read and immediately believed like they are inherently below you (see: you talking to me in the most condescending and unnecessarily mean way possible over an academic dispute).
A bunch of G0mens anti's on Twitter vehemently deny that Neil Gaiman, while not self-identified as one, would qualify as a proshipper. This just goes to show that none of these people actually know what proshipper means. The actual proven definition doesn't mean shit to them.
But I also wanted to point out how much this proves that they don't actually give a shit about "protecting" anybody. None of this is about preventing harm, or keeping fiction pure - it is all wholly about feeling morally superior and having an excuse to abuse and harass people. It's all a high-school bully power fantasy to them. If they actually had any form of integrity or any of the morals they claim to have, they wouldn't be sticking their fingers in their ears and blocking everyone who shows them blatant proof that Gaiman is on the side of anticensorship, and that's what proship IS. He's saying exactly what we have been saying, that even fiction that is objectively gross and terrible still has a right to exist and you cannot prosecute someone based on the FICTION they enjoy or create. He has also WRITTEN the things that antis would throw a fit about if it was in fanfic.
The only difference is that Neil's untouchable. At least to them. They know that no amount of call-out post, no amount of online harassment, will ever make a dent in his reputation. Even though Neil OBJECTIVELY has more reach and influence than some random person writing niche fanfic in a niche fandom. Logically, by their own beliefs, Gaiman would be a dangerous predator who is endorsing "problematic" things. However, they have no power of Neil. They don't have direct access to him. They like Neils stories. So block everyone sending you articles, or posts, or screenshots of interviews. Clearly, it's different.