“Emotional support animals” and increasing victimhood

[ellarose24]

https://wesleyyang.substack.com/p/on-th ... al-support

Hi all,

I read this article, which both offended and enthralled me, especially the comments.

I am, on one hand, extremely defensive. I am, on the other hand, shamefully nodding my head in acknowledgement.


This comment summed it up well:

Yep. One of the interesting phenomena here is the porous border between "cynically benefiting from a system by pretending to be X" and "believing you are X, which coincidentally brings you a benefit".

I remember a conversation my wife and I had with friends of ours who bullshitted a free ticket for their big-ass dog on a commercial flight by claiming they needed in for emotional support. They thought it was clever and funny at first; by the end of the conversation (which included no pushback from us at all) they were earnestly explaining to us that they really NEEDED the emotional support of their dumb dog.

They're two extremely confident, independent people (she's a surgeon, he's a something-that-would-identify-him-if-he-read-this). They don't have emotional issues that require support, except to the extent that we all have emotional issues that require support, which is also coterminous with the extent to which emotional support animals are permitted on planes, which makes it OK to bring their dog on the plane.

The circular logic and tautology of a lot of the expansion of the definitions of disability and victimization going on now is pretty obvious, right? How many people can you find who believe in the necessity and logic of emotional support peacocks? But it doesn't matter. When it comes down to it, many people are going to tick "multiracial" on that job application. After all, I AM both Irish AND Italian.



I’d love to hear you, whose takes I greatly respect, on this subject.

My personal takes are

1) victimization is a sure fire way to make a public dependent. Dependency increases GDP through obvious things like pharmaceuticals, doctors visits, hospital visits, IOP, extensive therapy—but also through not so obvious things like assuming an “identity” (see twitter users long list of DXes) and purchasing media and other items that reaffirms their identity. As well as general hopelessness which also increases consumption ten fold (at least that is my experience).

2) Instead of giving people protections we all should have—several weeks off work if needed to deal with personal items, reduced schedules to deal with an extremely stressful life event, etc. You must first assume The Identity—which requires a psych diagnosis, promise of (x per week) therapy, pharmaceuticals, and compliance and from there you will be legally allowed basic protections.

From my experience, the requirements end up making you feel much more victimized than the initial affirmation of victimization. Learned Helplessness.

This will be denied, but there absolutely are a huge portion of the population who went to therapy to deal with a one-time traumatic even or even death of loved one and came out with a Dx and prescription for drugs.

I wonder if rates of mental illness dxes are less so in Nordic countries, where there are greater protections and time off for workers—making the need for protections less... needed.


3) As social networks and community break down, the only support people understand is some sort of systemic support built into the very system that often caused them issue in the first place

That person that went to a therapist after their loved one died, who then referred them to a psych when they noticed they were acting impulsively and having spells of unchecked anger—would have gone to a priest, close friend group, church, etc less than a century ago. (I am making no judgement on religion one way or another, just an example of “community”)

—I obviously have a different lens as I believe I am one of the people who fell into the category they are speaking about (although I never had a support animal) But as much as I agree with them, I feel the need to have compassion for myself and others who fall into this label of “disabled but not disabled” or what have you. I do not think this is a conscious part on that of the individuals, but rather individuals deep hurt being preyed on by saying “SOMEONE (thing) will finally get it and you will be okay!”

I am still very much struggling to understand what the reason is for preying on such people, but I am thinking it is not a conscious societal push, rather the natural byproduct of making healthcare, pharmaceuticals, etc For Profit.

I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two extremes. Or completely outside of.

—this is not meant to be a political argument and I mean no offense to those who have mental health diagnoses. This conversation I believe requires a lot of nuance, obviously.—

[Hristo Botev]

Interesting topic/question; hope this thread is able to play out for a bit.

As for nuance, I think your question, and the article to an extent (and the comment you quote), may be conflating both real and feigned disability (or helplessness), on the one hand, with victimhood, on the other. No doubt there is some overlap, but it probably is necessary at the outset to define terms. I think for one to be a victim there must be a victimizer. And I don't see a victimizer in an emotional support animal scenario.* Conversely, what is the role of "dependency" (or helplessness) in the victimization scenario? Are you saying that the victimizer is the drug company, BigHealth, etc., that it is making the victim dependent on the drugs and healthcare?

I am still very much struggling to understand what the reason is for preying on such people, but I am thinking it is not a conscious societal push, rather the natural byproduct of making healthcare, pharmaceuticals, etc For Profit.

The tinfoil hat guy sitting on my shoulder would push back on the "not a conscious societal push" by asking something like: "Who does it benefit to have an entire population of folks who are entirely dependent on large systems/institutions/corporations/governments for their livelihood, entertainment, spiritual/mental/emotional well being, etc.? Why, those very same systems/institutions/corporations/governments, etc.!"

Relatedly, my wife, a dietitian who works in BigHealth, is always quick to note that a good diet is probably more important than anything else for keeping you out of the hospital--except for things like traumatic injury and the like--yet dietitians are also one of the few (maybe only) clinical jobs whose services are not reimbursed/billable. Go figure, it's in BigHealth's interests for you to be fat and chronically ill, just so long as you are not so chronically ill that you can't work to pay your insurance provider.

*E.g., I've noticed a helluva lot more people in the workplace taking days off or not fully performing at work due to their having issues with migraines, and it's impossible for me to know whether that person actually is susceptible to migraines or if they just have no clue what a real migraine is and just want to be excused from working (while still being paid) every time they don't feel 100%, or they are dehydrated and/or a bit hungover. But there is no victimizer in the migraine scenario.

[ellarose24]

Interesting topic/question; hope this thread is able to play out for a bit.

As for nuance, I think your question, and the article to an extent (and the comment you quote), may be conflating both real and feigned disability (or helplessness), on the one hand, with victimhood, on the other. No doubt there is some overlap, but it probably is necessary at the outset to define terms. I think for one to be a victim there must be a victimizer. And I don't see a victimizer in an emotional support animal scenario.* Conversely, what is the role of "dependency" (or helplessness) in the victimization scenario? Are you saying that the victimizer is the drug company, BigHealth, etc., that it is making the victim dependent on the drugs and healthcare?

Ah interesting point. I believe the appropriate term would have been self-victimhood or victimhood as a new identity in the constant need to individuate ourselves. But you do have a good point, as I also seem to think there is a real victimizer (yes, I am scared to admit, I do thing BigHealth--specifically BigPharma as well as general capitalist enterprises. BTW do you know you can now purchase ketamine through a subscription service and take in the comfort of your home? These enterprises understand I am the prime target Also see services like better help, the million and one mental health therapy apps, etc etc. Some of which, I am scared to say, have helped me.)

The tinfoil hat guy sitting on my shoulder would push back on the "not a conscious societal push" by asking something like: "Who does it benefit to have an entire population of folks who are entirely dependent on large systems/institutions/corporations/governments for their livelihood, entertainment, spiritual/mental/emotional well being, etc.? Why, those very same systems/institutions/corporations/governments, etc.!"

Yes, that is what my tinfoil hat guy also states. I have to be careful, because my mind is excited to pick up new ways to be victimized Understanding personal agency overlaid with these different pushes and pulls is hard to parse out.

Relatedly, my wife, a dietitian who works in BigHealth, is always quick to note that a good diet is probably more important than anything else for keeping you out of the hospital--except for things like traumatic injury and the like--yet dietitians are also one of the few (maybe only) clinical jobs whose services are not reimbursed/billable. Go figure, it's in BigHealth's interests for you to be fat and chronically ill, just so long as you are not so chronically ill that you can't work to pay your insurance provider.

*E.g., I've noticed a helluva lot more people in the workplace taking days off or not fully performing at work due to their having issues with migraines, and it's impossible for me to know whether that person actually is susceptible to migraines or if they just have no clue what a real migraine is and just want to be excused from working (while still being paid) every time they don't feel 100%, or they are dehydrated and/or a bit hungover. But there is no victimizer in the migraine scenario.

Do you know, it's very interesting as I never took leave BEFORE being given an "identity" of disability. Which you are right, we do need to parse out. My mother, for instance, is certainly verifiable disabled by mental illness. Whereas I believe I adopted the identity, and weirdly, I think my concept was more of a victim than as disabled--although you rightly pointed out these are two very separate things. Something I will have to think long and hard about.

But back to my point, I never had to take leave until being given a "label" and the reasons I took leave ALWAYS involved side effect from the medicine that was supposed to help me. Another reason I don't think there is some grand conspirator is that it's all a mess. Disability rights lose money for corporations in the way of productive employees. Perhaps making disability a pharmaceutical/identity enterprise was a way to cut some of those losses on the overall economy--more likely it's a way to take advantage of a new market. Unfortunately, I don't think there are really masterminds behind all of this, just ugly and messy profits to be lost and made.