|
Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2019 15:40:44 GMT
A person will be judged Unholy if they do not have money & hypocrisy shall be accepted as virtue.
Ancient Hindu Prophecy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 15:46:58 GMT
They don't need to be sucked up into it, Madonna writes songs so could take a back seat and write for others instead of being in the public eye, although at her level of fame I suppose they would hunt her down and take pictures of her looking - God forbid - her age. The 'enhancements' do not look natural at all though.
There is a bitchy culture around woman's magazines too, a kind of schadenfreude around snapping female celebrities looking average and completely unrecognisable without make up, or having a 'fashion faux-pas'. So I can see why they feel the need to maintain the façade, but when your career is based around your looks and you have no other discernable talents it's no surprise.
I like the singer/songwriter Sia, because she doesn't play on her looks, but writes catchy songs for herself and others.
Also there is the point that there's a lot more money to be made in original work, such as songwriting, than performing someone else's creation.
Cathy Dennis is another example, she was a pop star in her own right in the late 80s/early 90s, but has made millions from writing/co writing songs like this, a worldwide bestselling song. Its singer on the other hand is (as she always has in ways) going down a similar route to Madonna, and she is not considered a strong songwriter.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2019 15:53:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2019 16:06:45 GMT
Comprehensive psychological / social / integral understanding, help & support if appropriate & done properly doesn't cause such damage. I mean physical treatment on the brain, from lobotomies to ECT to meds. They all damage or disable some part or all of the brain in some way. Yup - social control & disabling the individual.
|
|
|
Post by snowstorm on Jan 4, 2019 16:13:05 GMT
There is a bitchy culture around woman's magazines too, a kind of schadenfreude around snapping female celebrities looking average and completely unrecognisable without make up, or having a 'fashion faux-pas'. So I can see why they feel the need to maintain the façade, but when your career is based around your looks and you have no other discernable talents it's no surprise.
I wonder if this is pandering to the real life not-so-nice way some women have of criticising other women for what they are wearing, how they look etc. There are lots of mags around like that. Kylie confession time - I have seen her in concert and she is very much a performer and saleswoman for the songs rather than a singer, still enjoyable though. Er...I now have to apologize to Madonna for mentioning her new look
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 16:38:39 GMT
There is a bitchy culture around woman's magazines too, a kind of schadenfreude around snapping female celebrities looking average and completely unrecognisable without make up, or having a 'fashion faux-pas'. So I can see why they feel the need to maintain the façade, but when your career is based around your looks and you have no other discernable talents it's no surprise.
I wonder if this is pandering to the real life not-so-nice way some women have of criticising other women for what they are wearing, how they look etc. There are lots of mags around like that. Kylie confession time - I have seen her in concert and she is very much a performer and saleswoman for the songs rather than a singer, still enjoyable though. Er...I now have to apologize to Madonna for mentioning her new look Kylie confession time part 2.. I was a big Kylie fan when I was a kid, and that was in the Stock Aitken and Waterman years, so you have nothing on me regarding guilty pleasures, lol. I bet a Kylie gig is a lot of fun.. but as you say she is not a great singer, nor is Madonna. That kind of thing in magazines is justified by them as making us 'mere mortals' feel better, that these women we are supposed to aspire to look like are really not much better than us without an army of make up artists and the 'right lighting' etc. You don't see that in men's publications about men though (as far as I have seen). Even now there is not the same level of judgement over how men look as there is for women. But we perpetuate this by buying into this kind of bitchy culture that the media (and those in the public eye) prescribe for us. Ultimately I don't think these celebrities are any happier within themselves. Being conventionally attractive doesn't guarantee them successful sexual partnerships either, and I think the more people tell them that they are good looking/'hot', the bigger their egos grow, which leaves room for only one person in their relationships, i.e. themselves. And yet this is what we are sold by the media - the better you look, the more happy/successful you will be, and the more men will want to be with you.. well, maybe they will, but whether they actually like you as a person is another question entirely, and you can't have a successful marriage (etc.) if that is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2019 17:02:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snowstorm on Jan 4, 2019 17:11:37 GMT
That kind of thing in magazines is justified by them as making us 'mere mortals' feel better, that these women we are supposed to aspire to look like are really not much better than us without an army of make up artists and the 'right lighting' etc. You don't see that in men's publications about men though (as far as I have seen). Even now there is not the same level of judgement over how men look as there is for women. Sadly I don't think the impossible expectations for men are far behind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 17:25:43 GMT
Yes, you can see it getting worse and 'programmes' like TOWIE do not help. The advent of social media and online dating has not helped either. It's a new level of shallowness and it is no wonder the divorce rate is so high now. Then again have heard online dating is more about casual sex and nothing more, can't speak from personal experience as it holds no appeal to me, have just been told as much. Honestly it's probably best for that and nothing else anyway, because of its shallow nature.. expecting anything else is a bit optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2019 19:13:32 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 20:08:29 GMT
If you are genuinely mentally ill then this will not fix the problem; it might improve things but it sounds as silly as saying 'pull yourself together'.
I took lots of exercise when I was psychotic but it didn't stop the symptoms, although it did help me sleep which did do a lot of good.
This idea is probably indicative of too many people being diagnosed with an mental illness unnecessarily, is not as you would say at the 'severe end' of mh issues.
Wish I could walk my way to perfect mental health though, as I love walking.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2019 20:13:19 GMT
If you are genuinely mentally ill then this will not fix the problem; it might improve things but it sounds as silly as saying 'pull yourself together'.
I took lots of exercise when I was psychotic but it didn't stop the symptoms, although it did help me sleep which did do a lot of good.
This idea is probably indicative of too many people being diagnosed with an mental illness unnecessarily, is not as you would say at the 'severe end' of mh issues.
Wish I could walk my way to perfect mental health though, as I love walking.
Of course & we are back with the severity question that 'no one' will go near. i do personally agree with psychiatry on all this - severe mental illness is a low demographic, it's 4% - severe schizophrenia is around 0.2%. But to try & broach the severity issues opens a mine field with people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 20:19:50 GMT
Well I think if you can run your way to recovery it can't be that severe, and this kind of article just reinforces the 'lazy scrounger' narrative of the media about mentally ill people. You just can't be bothered trying etc.
It's not helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2019 20:28:46 GMT
Well I think if you can run your way to recovery it can't be that severe, and this kind of article just reinforces the 'lazy scrounger' narrative of the media about mentally ill people. You just can't be bothered trying etc. It's not helpful. But what about all the people outside of the 4% demographic of severe cases, & 0.2% demographic of people with severe schizophrenia? Some people cite genuine & severe madness may only exist in around 1 in every 75 thousand people, or less. 20% of the UK & 40% of of the USA diagnosed as mentally ill & medicated & rising all the time, with 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 people experiencing mental illness in their lifetime. What do you say & do as to what isn't genuine / severe mental illness? How is it measured? How do you argue with people that claim mental illness doesn't exist, & are extreme anti-psychiatry / anti-medication & right wing libertarian, who seek to abolish psychiatry & the entire mental health, pharmacological & social security system? How do you try & explain to someone who claims that they are fully healed medication free, who in my view had fuck all wrong with them to begin with, that their experience is totally different to a case of genuine severe mental illness? Who claims it's the 'same'. How do 'you' separate it all out? & make logical sense of it all?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 21:47:20 GMT
If the welfare system wasn't tied to the medical model, and you didn't need an official mental disorder to claim disability benefit, it would be easier. People suffer, regardless of whether they qualify for an official diagnosis or not.
If people need help then they shouldn't have to prove they are in the 'worst 4%'. Whatever works for you and improves your wellbeing, works for you. It would be good if society acknowledged that paid work can cause mental health problems too, and that a person's wellbeing is more important than whether they are paying a certain type of tax. It's clear that a whole new system and society is probably the best way forward, and one of the most important things is recognising others' worth outside of monetary value and how much they financially 'contribute' to it. That mindset does not help, and it also drives psychiatry - drug companies strongly influence the direction psychiatry has taken.
People who are right wing libertarian are probably not the people to argue and collaborate with over this, as they already think that a state should not aid anyone, the market should rule supreme, and charities should provide for those who are life's 'losers', as they would see it. It will be like getting blood out of a stone to expect compassion for those who are not 'self sufficient' (i.e. working) from them, and of course it's a great excuse to say 'if I can beat the 'mentally ill mindset', anyone can' but it's incredibly narrow minded to presume your experience fits everyone else. It's lack of empathy and open mindedness that is the problem, and I'm not sure you can teach someone to be able to see another's point of view or be less judgemental. Don't bother trying to win them over.
I think if the DSM and Big Pharma hadn't got so much of a hold on mental health problems then this situation would not have happened, mental illness would not be seen as so common, as there would be no drive to drug everyone. In a way a lot of people like the '1 in 4' statistic, as it suggests you are less of a freak if you suffer from mental illness.
I think a lot of people like having something to explain their behaviour, as with that Carrie Fisher quote in the earlier article. You don't need to call it mental illness, but people suffer emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually, and to deny that is mad in itself, so anyone who says that anything like that does not exist is pretty insane.
Top priority should be geared towards peoples' wellbeing, not profits, or getting them back to work, or whether mental illness exists or not, or what it should be called. Services should be tailored to individual needs, and for those who genuinely need them, not someone who can realistically run their anxiety away. A GP can deal with someone at that level. But if you are not fit for work, it should not require a full diagnosis and meds, that's a systemic problem and attitude that does not need to exist.
|
|