(no subject)

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

I'm occasionally weirded out severely by finding links to things like Pavilion or Astraea's page, labeled as "a personal page about the experience of MPD/DID", or "resources for those with dissociative identity disorder," or things along those lines. Sometimes I think this is a result of just not reading the pages very closely, or seeing them come up in search engines as results for MPD or DID; or just going through and linking to every page that relates to the subject of multiplicity at all (though this seems to be done less often now than it once was).

The stranger ones, to me, are the people who seem obviously to have read the page, but still insist on referring to it as "a DID page" or whatever. We've never actually run into anyone calling our page that (although it may well be out there somewhere), though we've had some requests from people wanting to link our page from their MPD/DID site. Usually our policy has been to say no, because that isn't what our website is about, although we've reconsidered that a bit in view of the fact that someone finding our site through such a page might get more use out of it than out of MPD-type pages.

I was looking for something completely unrelated last night, and found someone actually quoting Astraea's webpage while calling it "a resource for people with mild to moderate dissociative identity disorder." Astraea's page was the first multiplicity page that was NOT about DID. It says nowhere in the site that it's aimed at "people with mild DID," and this person had obviously read far enough into it to be able to quote what they said about talking to one's story characters. To call it that seems to require a rather bizarre re-interpretation of what's actually there; I, for one, do not like having outsiders "translate" my words for me and tell all the normal people what I'm "really" talking about, or present it in a form which might be more palatable to them. I can only assume here that people who state that their multiplicity isn't a disorder are being assumed to have 'a mild form of the illness.' Because of course there's something wrong in and of itself with having more than one person in your body-- all the DID bits like lack of communication and operating systems are just details. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if something doesn't cause you distress or reduce your ability to function, doesn't that mean that by definition it is not a disorder?
This rant comes to mind: http://www.bentspoons.com/Shaytar/soapbox/badlinks.shtml

Although, I'm not sure how much good it'll do to just tell people not to call it an MPD/DID page, if they seem to believe that it's their prerogative to decide whether we're talking about a disorder or not, regardless of what we say about ourselves.

Comments

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

There is -- multiplicity.

Or are you referring to the creation of a DSM-IV diagnostic term that doesn't have "disorder" in it? I think that'd be a contradiction in terms -- kinda like "Military Intelligence". I mean to say, if it were acknowledged by modern psychiatry to not be a disorder, it wouldn't have to have a name and be in the Big Red Book.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Aha, the famous V code. I remember that.
(Readers can see V codes here:
http://www.psyweb.com/Mdisord/DSM_IV/jsp/DSM_VCodes.jsp)

I'm interested in what you say about counselors who are morally against diagnosis. I'm trying to amass info on decent therapists because we still occasionally get "PLEASE HELP ME" emails. I refer them to Lynn Wasnak, but I figure she can use all the help she can get.

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

I know of one therapist who only performs diagnoses when required, or by request. He's otherwise opposed to them.

Unfortunately there were some issues I have which prevent me from recommending him. Nothing horribly scary, but it is a QoS issue, and those who really need reliability from their therapist will have a serious problem. Those who are scraping together money for sessions will also take issue.

--Me

TR= Text Revision

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

It's technically not a new full version. It's an update because there was significant new data to enter into the book, but they haven't compiled a new version, which would, going with it's current number/versioning scheme be version V.

Using one of the typical typical version string notation conventions (http://eduplone.net/devel/releasenamings) in software as an analogy, it's the difference between going from 4.4.x to 4.5.x and going from 4.4.x and 5.x.x.

At least, that's what I'm gathering from the data I've looked up on the book. Given that, it's possible that the grey is to indicate the fact that it's not a full version, but an revision of the older version.

Do you have any information as to whether or not they intend to print the DSM V with a red cover? I'm actually curious, from a dorky tech/technical writing standpoint.

--Me

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

Is there an easy way to find out who's linking to a page?

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en
Go down to where it says
"Find pages that link to the page"
and type your URL in it.

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

Thank you! :)

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

You're welcome. It doesn't seem to be working very well tonight.

[kasiya-system.livejournal.com]

yeah. we also just found one on alta vista too :)

[luwana.livejournal.com]

People are stupid, closed minded, and prone to altering the world appears to them to make it work better for them.

Unfortunately, this is just how people are.


Just spite them by having a big disclaimer at the top of every page, lol. THIS PAGE IS NOT ABOUT DID. DEAL WITH IT KTHNX.

[echoesnspectres.livejournal.com]

Hahaha. It's just like saying that Getting the Truth Out is "about one person's experience" or that if someone says autism shouldn't be cured/pathologized that person must be "aspie" or "mild" or whatever.

The kind of people who say these things just can't grasp the fact that this is political, that it's more than one person/system's experience and more than one person/system's opinion, that it represents a movement for re-educating the public, that it isn't made to "inspire" readers in the sense of making them feel good about themselves, but in the sense of getting them to think and to take action.

BTW, congrats on the phrase "weirded out severely". (I've heard of a t-shirt with the text "severely normal", but the idea of "severely weirded out" or "severely weird" is new to me.)

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

That second paragraph is inspired. Can we quote you please?

[echoesnspectres.livejournal.com]

:P Go ahead.

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

I think what got me was that the group, or at least the thread, that we gacked the example from was for people who have characters in their heads. Not that there's anything wrong with that-- I'd be the first to defend it as legit, considering how many professional authors do so-- but it makes me think that what we're doing must make them very uncomfortable because it's not so far from where they are to where we are. I suppose that calling us a disorder is their way of affirming that what they do is not one-- which happens all the time, of course; people always point to the one they see as being a "more extreme case" to establish that they're okay-- but still, it frustrates me every time it comes up. Gah.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Usually, when people like that link to us, we take it like well, okay, they completely misunderstood what the site's about, but that means people who come onto their site thinking that being multiple means you have to have MPD or DID and you have to be helpless, if they click on the link, will find us instead.

We used to have "This page is not about MPD/DID, this is not about a diagnosis" but changed it. It now says "This is not a survivor page.
This page is not about a diagnosis. It is about a way of being and perceiving the world. It can be as healthy as being a single person."

We got a couple of letters saying that "this is not a survivor page" made some people feel "blindsided and excluded", but better they know up front. That way they won't go looking for tragedies or The Usual on our pages.

?

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

It's not immediately exclusive. There is much about the experience of multiplicity, even for those who have been abused, that doesn't by necessity require the topic of the abuse to be an issue. Cooperation, coordinating efforts. and personal responsibility are valid topics for multiples of different backgrounds. It's even a valid topic amongst singles. Although it is true that for some their background will be a significant influence on other issues, a frank exploration of where the different issues intersect for some people doesn't make it a survivor page.

--Me

Re: ?

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

That's what I told them, but they really just wanted to be reassured that they were helpless broken pieces of splintered parts and exchange horror stories... I mean, I know it really happens that way sometimes, but even in that situation, it's like you said, they can learn to cooperate. They ended up going to Split Angels and Mosaic Minds. I think that even for people who really have had that happen to them, such places should be more like a waystation and not someplace they live the rest of their lives. Most of the people who fire off these tirades don't leave an email address for us to write back so we can't discuss it even that far.

Re: ?

[eridanusus.livejournal.com]

God, I've left SO many mailing lists because of people like that. Nara always used to call them out on one list because after two weeks there we couldn't actually name more than one person from each system. They all just talking about the problems they were having with their others, and stuff.

Re: ?

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

That state of mind should be a waystation on the journey, not the %$#@ destination. This has been a public service announcement.

Re: ?

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

What bothers me most in these sitiuations is the encouragement of a total lack of consideration for the so-called "others". The "other " causing so much trouble, and co-opting the hosts life, but what about the dreams wants and desires of the "other"?

Given our situation, it would be extremely easy for either or both to make the decision that the other was the interloper. Among some of our friends they made the decision themselves and don't like hearing that another friend may make a different assumption based on similar criteria. We don't encourage that behavior, and have taken measures to make it difficult for friends to do that, with varying degrees of success.

I digress. In what other situation are people so blatantly encouraged to have a lack of consideration, or empathy for another being? I've been told I'm not a nice person, but at least, when I decide to show a lack of consideration for another at that level, I'm conciously aware of the shaky moral ground on which I tread.

--Me

Re: ?

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

I get some of what you're saying there. At the same time, I don't consider our names, mine included, anyone on a mailing list's business. Those in this community either know me in person, have heard my voice over the phone, or know someone else in the house I live in enough to get the information from someone else. If you're close to us, you'll either figure it out, or can ask us.

We keep our social lives, especially online, relatively separate. Those who interact with both of us, will hear either of us refer to the other in the third person. You'll hear her perspective on events going on in our lives if you know where to find her. If you go to another mailing list, or group, you might meet her, although you might not know it, because she may not identify me.

Not everyone knows about us. The people who do know about us don't necessarilly know much about others in the system. I know of at least one system which keeps the information more separate than we do.

There is also the other end of the spectrum, where everyone in the system seems to be bagged, tagged, and quantified according to every measure known to the system, such that noone is permitted to have the flexibility of behavior that a person deserves.

--Me

Re: ?

[tianamalla.livejournal.com]

Huh, apparently I'm Tian today. Oh well, I can't be bothered logging out. It's Dat, not her, anyway.

I get THAT. That's cool, I've been in places where people didn't want to give their names or whatever, all sorts of things like that. It was the way these people went about it that irritated us. I think there was only us and like one other lot on the list that wasn't body people writing all the time, and they were always saying things like "I don't know how to control my others, I don't have any time to myself, my parts ate all my jam", etc. I don't think I'm really getting it across quite well but it usually came across like.. they didn't know them as people, and in a couple of cases they didn't *want* to.

Re: ?

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

Gotcha. I get into some of my frustration over that over here (http://www.livejournal.com/community/multiplicity/344199.html?thread=4637319#t4637319).

--Me

[shatterstorm.livejournal.com]

That's more or less how our old front came across it. She was trying to figure out how to make things work.

Most of what she found was about damage and from a victim's stance. They didn't talk about getting memory to flow well, or how to deal with all these people coming and going. The two main themes we'd seen for dealing with one's insiders were either to tell them they're all imaginary or to have one person control everyone. We needed something different.

[eridanusus.livejournal.com]

This reminds me that I need to update our webpage. Or rather, find somebody who knows the requisite coding and ask them to do it.

It is a thorny issue, though. I often find myself bemused by the patronising, condescending manner of some. Some of us are guilty of getting snide in reply even to other multiples and the way they refer to us.

And there are always people who will believe anything they read, even on the internet where anybody capable of clicking a mouse is able to publish a web page.

Interestingly enough, I have been reading the latter 40% of Sybil that Dat and Christopher gave up on a while ago, and I do find it amusing that many singlets say that the "parts" "can't talk to each other".

"Do you want the dish?" the clerk asked.
"No," Peggy Lou replied. "I want to break it."
"Put the dish back," Vicky ordered.

There are so many examples of it in the book, and yet, these are the people who claim that they know all about MPD/DID because they've read Sybil!

I am, however, getting slightly off topic with my ramblings now, so I shall bow out and find someone capable of coding.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah, but that was after years of grueling, backbreaking nightmarish therapy! No one seems to take into account that multiples might be able to talk to one another or even walk and chew gum at the same time without that.

[changelyng14.livejournal.com]

I'm occasionally weirded out severely by finding links to things like Pavilion or Astraea's page, labeled as "a personal page about the experience of MPD/DID", or "resources for those with dissociative identity disorder,"

The thing is though, the majority of people out there know little to nothing of the subject. if they know anything, its because they saw sybil, or eve's faces etc... and all they know is MPD, or DID. suddenly, one day, the issue becomes relevant to them (themselves, or a friend) they punch MPD into google, and don't find 'healthy multiplicity' sites and never see the side. they never see the stance that DID is offensive nor do they ever learn the alternative terms for the subject. if they even think to, they might try 'multiple' which drowns them in twin/triplet/quadruplet links and such.

we found lj-multiplicity thru a multiple friend, which we consider luck. we were researching integration at the time, as well. we found alot of ralph allison, and psychological babble, but MPD and DID don't hit many 'functional multiplicity' sites, and we didn't know to call it anything else.

Lovecry o da Changelyng

Letting the phrase Stand

[kathrynnstjames.livejournal.com]

Actually I am THRILLED that one of the sites that wasn't assuming a disorder was listed as such. I have lived my whole life like this and didn't consider it a disorder (just something that we dont mention unless we find ourselves in a relationship deep enough that informing seems important).

I did mention it to my new boyfriend, and it freaked him out and he gave me the phrase DID and he was mad that I took it so casually that I hadn't looked into it. So I started looking into it, and was getting rather depressed and really starting to let such sites make me feel crazy (not good), but one of the sites (http://www.karitas.net/blackbirds/layman/whatis.html) that clicked and made sense with what I have always felt. But I only got to it because someone had it listed in the DID search.

For those who came to searching it like I did, with just the term DID or MPD it is helpful. It gives another view than just the Bad Disordered attitude.

Kathrynn