So let me get this straight…..inconsistencies here

Recently, MIA published a blog by Dr. Lawrence Kelmenson on “Institutionalization.” I’m not going to discuss the particulars of the piece. Let’s just say he got a lot of flack over it. Finally, I got fed up reading it, sick of the bashing. I don’t like reading that stuff. I felt they needed to close it off.

Emily surprised me and told me she never wanted Kelmenson’s blog piece published, but they had gone ahead and published it anyway. She agreed with the commenters and felt that Kelmenson’s piece was “blameful.” “Blaming the victim,” she said.

So it’s okay to publish a piece that they don’t even agree with! Because it’s Kelmenson’s. Because it’s written by an MD! An “expert.” This is just too much.

It’s okay to publish something they find abjectly offensive but they turn me down because I am a survivor and they don’t want anymore of mine.

Most of my pieces are turned down. This is what happens when I submit. I wait and wait, and then, realize my piece was never seen, or never made it to their inboxes…Some excuses get made “Gee, we just never saw that.” So I resend. And then, nudge them. “Did you happen to get a chance to read it?” Seriously, I TRY to be polite about it even though logic tells me it sits there unread unless I nudge them. Of course, this is the way of the world. But I get the feeling it isn’t this way for others. Just some. Not all. You know, elitism.

So I send the ole “Hey, I exist,” email. Then, I get one back saying, “We never received it, can you send again?” email. Or I get a generic,”It was too basic,” email.

I have learned that it’s very easy to answer in that fashion about just about any piece. It’s a generic response. I got that response about a piece a while back that was far from “basic” and I knew it couldn’t possibly have been read since they had no clue what the content was when I inquired. No clue!

This is how a professor can tell if the students have done the reading. Ask. Ask about the reading. Ask about the assigned chapter. Ask about details. This is so obvious, and when I was in college this is how the professors could quickly learn if we had done the assignment. And this is how I knew, very quickly, that MIA editors had not read my piece. I didn’t have some magic way to know if an attachment was opened and I wasn’t being “creepy” as Emmeline accused me of. I simply inquired about particulars and discovered they were totally clueless. The only one who actually admitted to not reading the piece was Whitaker. THANK GOD for honesty.

So my recent piece, they still called “too basic” and “too personal.” I still wonder, though. They seem to have read it. Still, what is wrong with “personal” when all of Sera’s pieces are deeply personal and they publish her stuff over and over? Well…I am not Sera, I’m not famous like her, I’m not EMPLOYED like her, and they don’t like me.

I have tried far too much, far too long…And I need another venue since I have banged on this hopeless door that is stuffed already with elitism and favoritism far too much.

5 thoughts on “So let me get this straight…..inconsistencies here”

  1. Hmm. Now I will have to read the article. I have not canceled my membership, but got too honked off at my latest censoring to read it for the last few weeks.

    Emily announced it was wrong of me to defend myself against a dissident/troll who called me prejudiced. Of course you’re not supposed to feed them. I still think a snarky comment of mine went home. A creepy shrink called “Shawn F.” went around mocking commenters. I remarked–not as a direct reply–that a mainstream psychiatrist who barged in a forum of psychiatric survivors was like a serial rapist showing up at a support group to mock rape victims.

    Shawn F. quit commenting shortly after this. Tsk tsk. What a meany I am–shutting down dialogue, all possibilities for compromise, blah,blah,blah, and all that crap. πŸ˜€

    1. I find that Emily is kind of erratic, inconsistent in what she censors and what she doesn’t. I’m surprised at what stuff of yours she has censored. I’m totally convinced they have different rules for different users. This totally rang true for me when they published Lawrence Kelmenson’s article. I think if it were someone else’s, they wouldn’t have published it. I think also if I sign my articles Sera, they would open them right away, not delay a month (!) and would be far more likely to publish them and would NEVER call them “too personal” since all of Sera’s are personal…geez. Double standards.

  2. I’m not as angry as other commenters, but in his eagerness to prove “free will” Dr. K seems to reach out into Bizarro World, claiming mind altering drugs have no real–at least lasting–effects at all. Even mainstream psychiatrists never make such ridiculous assertions. He offers no research or links to the research of others in making his claim.

    I will not call him cruel–at least not knowingly. But stupid. Mainstream shrinks would probably laugh at his article since even they admit to “side effects” like tardive dyskinesia as a small price for the greater good. (Like financing their new forty foot yacht.)

Feedback and comments welcome!