...should recognize that she consistently makes very hasty and inflammatory comments based on the contents of a single email for someone who she has never met before about subjects for which she never hears the "other side of the story".

It's done on purpose, so it can continue to entertain readers. If she were truly this way in real life, she'd be the person diagnosed with a "personality disorder". Keep this in mind when reading her column: if she makes a rather cruel comment, it's because "That's Entertainment, folks!"

TiQuinn:

... based on the contents of a single [communication from] someone who she has never met before about subjects for which she never hears the "other side of the story".

Isn't that the very nature of advice columns?

Well duh!

But people who suffer from mental illness are still a rather stigmatized and vulnerable group... For example, lack of health care coverage, lack of appropriate services, misunderstanding that people with schizophrenia are necessarily violent etc...

It only adds to the huge stigma against mental illness for a widely read internet advice columnist to throw around diagnoses in such a way as to minimise, demonise, stigmatise, or whatever other effect her words have that day. This kind of talk makes it difficult for people (and hear I mean people generally, not you specifically) to seek help for themselves, feel unashamed of having a problem, recognise they have a problem, have compassion for people with mental illness, or understand what mental illness really means. Look at the term "personality disorder": this could be an eating disorder; anxiety; dissociative (split personality); schizophrenia; depression; manic depression; borderline personality; autism spectrum...

If you're going to use the "that's entertainment" excuse, well, some people find racist humour funny - but that doesn't mean we would accept Prudence using that for entertainment. If she said "That woman must be black" in such a dismissive, mean way, you would find that unacceptable - because it's meant in a derogatory way, just the same as if she used the n-word, calling upon negative stereotypes and hatred. To say "that woman must have a personality disorder" calls upon people's prejudices and stereotypes to characterise this woman's behavior as wrong and call this woman nasty: but people with personality disorders are not all nasty, by any means.

With 1 in 4 people suffering depression at some point in their life (and 1 in 10 at any given time), it's time to STOP using these labels as characterisations for bad behaviour and have some compassion for people with mental illness - they may or may not be the step-daughter in question, but they ARE your parents, siblings, children, friends, and maybe even some of you readers.

LaLeonessa:

Look at the term "personality disorder": this could be an eating disorder; anxiety; dissociative (split personality); schizophrenia; depression; manic depression; borderline personality; autism spectrum...

No, actually, it refers to a very specific group of disorders. Autism is a neurological condition; eating disorders are, well, eating disorders.

"Personality disorders are pervasive chronic psychological disorders, which can greatly affect a person's life. ... These disturbances come together to create a pervasive pattern of behavior and inner experience that is quite different from the norms of the individual's culture and that often tend to be expressed in behaviors that appear more dramatic than what society considers usual. Therefore, those with a personality disorder often experience conflicts with other people and vice-versa. There are ten different types of personality disorders that exist, which all have various emphases." <link>

Sounds like she may have pegged it. If you feel that somehow stigmatizes the subject of that letter, well, stigmas happen.

I personally don't find Prudence acceptable in MOST instances. I actually find it interesting that people are getting rankled by this week's article, yet are saying that they USUALLY agree with her. I find her attitude consistent. She throws out inflammatory comments because she is not so much providing advice as providing entertainment for people who clearly want to hear such cruel commentary.

No, she HASN'T pegged it. Take an example of a classical personality disorder, probably the most negative of the bunch - borderline personality disorder. That entails sysmptoms including daily or hourly wild mood swings, attachment problems (such as becoming hysterical when a loved one becomes removed physically or emotionally), emotional manipulation, self-harm, suicidal impulses, extreme anti-social behaviour (and this doesn't mean "oh that wasn't very polite.")

People with this diagnosis have serious problems, and these are often rooted in past traumas. They deserve understanding, patience and empathy, and people who care for BPD patients deserve a bit of understanding about what they go through. Their suffering should not be diminished, and negative stereotypes and experiences do not need to be called upon for Prudence to make her point that she thought the step-daughter's behaviour is rude.

There is also a significant minority of the psychological/psychiatric community who feel these and other "Axis II" (developmental and personality) disorders are inappropriately applied. And that is amongst professionals, not laypeople.

Is Prudence a psychologist? Does she know something about the LW we do not? If turning down an invitation or not getting along with one's family is grounds for a diagnosis, I guess I didn't realise we had progressed out of Victorian times. Bring on Freud and hysterical women.

If I were the step-daughter, I would be offended that my feelings are automatically discounted as unreasonable and therefore in need of professional diagnosis on the basis of someone else's story. So yes, it does stigmatise her. But more than that, it stigmatises other people who have or deal with personality disorders, mental illness etc by bringing the topic into a negative story when there is absolutely no reason to bring it in.

...that some people are Just. Not. Nice. People?

Why doesn't anyone just stop and think for a minute? There are a lot of people in this world that are just mean. They aren't mentally ill, they don't have anything diagnosable, they simply aren't people that anyone wants to be around.

Everything is NOT a pathology, kids! Not everything can be "solved" by therapy! Sometimes behavior is just behavior - there's no real reason behind it, it just is.

This obsession with labelling every person over every little thing is absurd. The only true statement that anyone can make about the daughter, based on the letter is this:

She acted rudely, and was unpleasant to her guests.

It seems like you are confusing two issues that shouldn't be confused.

The first issue is - people with mental illness are what they are and still deserve compassion. I absolutely agree with you there.

But then it seems like you then want to make the argument that people are not really what they are. Saying an antisocial person will often uncaringly hurt another person is a true statement. Is it also a stigmatizing statement? It really rather is. But that doesn't make the statement less true or even in less need of being said.

I think maybe what you are trying to underpin your argument with is that a person can do a horrible thing because of their mental illness and that doesn't necessarily make them a horrible person. I would agree with that. But I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we cannot speak of the horrible things themselves because it 'stigmatizes' mental illness. By sweeping it under the carpet we put ourselves in a situation where we almost minimize what the problem is both within themselves and with the people who have to deal with the person with mental illness.

Sorry to hijack your thread but the temptation is too much. I have missed way too many such opportunities in my life. No more!

"Anyone who has ever read Dear Prudence..."

1. ...has borderline personality disorder.

2. ... has too much time on their hands.

3. ... has a warped sense of humor.

4. ... and takes this stuff seriously needs professional help.

5. ... believes their suggestions are as good as Prudie's.

Prudie's advice usually sucks. As an advice columnist you're rarely if ever going to get both sides of the story, fine. We get that. But she doesn't even try in most cases to read between the line. Is the daughter a jerk? Probably. Does she have some kind of disorder? No way to tell from such a short letter. My question, why does the new wife care so much? If someone doesn't like you, and doesn't want to be around you, avoid them. When that is impossible, interact with them only so much as is absolutely necessary. Problem solved.

Methinks she doth protest too much!

Prudence didn't diagnose anything. She suggested there might be a general problem that caused the stepdaughter to act the way she did.

LaLeonessa:

That entails sysmptoms including daily or hourly wild mood swings, attachment problems (such as becoming hysterical when a loved one becomes removed physically or emotionally), emotional manipulation, self-harm, suicidal impulses, extreme anti-social behaviour (and this doesn't mean "oh that wasn't very polite.")

People with this diagnosis have serious problems, and these are often rooted in past traumas. They deserve understanding, patience and empathy, and people who care for BPD patients deserve a bit of understanding about what they go through. Their suffering should not be diminished, and negative stereotypes and experiences do not need to be called upon for Prudence to make her point that she thought the step-daughter's behaviour is rude.

What about the suffering of all the people who these people hurt? Maybe you should defend them also.

There are so many diagnosable disorders now (have you seen how thick Abnormal Psychology is?) that every person on earth could spend a couple hours with a shrink and come out with at least one or two diagnoses attached to them. Suddenly, they have a disease and no longer have to answer for their unacceptable actions. Medicate everyone so they don't ever have to experience any emotions other than complete euphoria. GIVE ME A BREAK!

The psychologists and psychiatrists have school loans to pay for and children that need an education. They are taking advantage of those same people they say we should have sympathy for.

I am sure there are plenty of people thatdeserve sympathy and understanding for their personality disorders. It doesn't make awful behavior any more acceptable. Society sets the mores and values, Those who don't adhere to those can just expect problems. That is just life. A person is nasty to me for no reason, they can fully expect to be called on it. I don't care if they have an "ism" or an acronym ending in D to explain it away.

chance20_m:

Prudie's advice usually sucks.

I read that here a lot. Not that I disagree, but I can't understand why you/we keep coming back for more. My guess is the opportunity to mock said advice, which isn't afforded in most similar columns.

Why do people slow down for car accidents? That's why we come back for more. Besides, Dan Savages mom died, poor guy, so no "Savage Love" from him this week. Now THAT'S a columnist.

Your cynical attitude about psychologists and psychiatrists proves my point: some behavior is just rude, NOT a sign of mental illness. Therefore it is inappropriate for anyone - esp. a non-doctor who has no business handing out diagnoses but is still read by thousands of people and must command a degree of respect from some of them - to say someone has a personality disorder. Doing so reinforces stereotypes amongst people who don't know any better; contributes to the medicalisation of society; and underplays the suffering that people involved with mental illness actually face (that includes patients' loved ones).

And you know, most of us are actually in it to help people, not to pay off student loans. Psychology isn't as well-renumerated as medicine: you do it for love, not money. So f*ck off.