YOUR MOTHER PASSED AWAY. FUNERAL TOMORROW. DEEP SYMPATHY.

[intertribal]

I hate media coverage of the Olympics, and I actually have a lot of problems with the Olympics in general (chiefly, I think that the whole "bringing the nations together" thing is a bunch of tripe), but tonight I think I actually found an instance of the sort of thing I loathe and explain it, instead of resorting to frothy accusations of jingoism.  

It's the women's figure skating long program/freeskate - that is, the big decisive part of the skating competition.  The short program has already concluded several days earlier.  This is for the podium.  The big sob story of the competition is, admittedly, a mega calamity for the skater and her family - Joannie Rochette's mother died two days before the short program of a sudden heart attack.  Rochette is 5th in the world, and Canadian to boot, so she becomes an automatic media hotspot, especially after she cries after her short program.  This continues into the freeskate.  Big close-up shots of Joannie's face, looking heavenward; long shots of her father clapping in the stands.  Before, during, and after her skate the commentators cannot stop mentioning how "courageous" her performance is, what a true "Olympian" she is - it is, by the end, a feat of "superhuman courage."  On the New York Times blog, Todd Eldredge describes the experience thusly: "She had that Olympic experience of winning a medal but she also lived out her personal life, the death of her mother, in front of everyone and with everyone. That’s just really cool for her."  

Actually, Todd Eldredge, living out the experience of her mother dying - in front of everyone or not - was probably not really cool for her.  Maybe what you mean to say is: That's just really cool for me to watch.  And while I can't control the outpouring of rubbernecky-stranger-pathos toward Rochette - although I will say it creeps me out - I do object to the value judgment placed on the way she deals with grief.  Everyone deals with grief differently, and anyone who loses someone close - but especially kids who lose parents - need to be reminded of this all the fucking time.  There's incredible pressure placed on mourners to behave in a "certain" way that is deemed proper to society.  This we know from The Stranger and from Lindy Chamberlain's trial.  When you're told, "oh, you're doing so good," or "you're staying so strong," or the worst of all, "you're being so brave," all you hear is: fuck.  gotta keep this up, whatever I'm doing.  I don't want to disappoint.  I don't want to be bad, or weak, or cowardly.  They're gonna mess me up and steal all my children if I don't pay the ransom.  People get breakdowns because they stop being able to live in this facade.  My grief counselor would say that people would always ask her, "is this normal?" and she would say, "normal is whatever you are."  If Joannie Rochette decided she had to drop out of the Olympics, would that make her a coward?  Of course NBC wouldn't say so, but that is what they're implying.  There needs to be a lot less judgment of other people's grief processes, is what I'm trying to say. 

So I say, leave her alone.  Note the untimely death, send your thoughts psychically to her family if you must, but lay off the drip.  It's psychological mindwarp, it's insincere, and it's false.  There is no way to deal with the shock of death that is fucking courageous.  There is ketabahan, as my mother would say, which basically translates to endurance/the will to live.  See Juliane Köpcke.  That's not this strange thing, "courage," though - it's just the absolute refusal to die.  And you do that however way you have to.  There is no wrong way to endure, because all it means is the heart keeps beating.  You might radio for help or drink your own urine or chop off your own leg.  And guess what - if you can't endure, you can't endure, and I won't judge you for that either.

I didn't root for Joannie Rochette, by the way.  She's not my favorite skater.  I'm sympathetic to her loss, and I hope that she's dealt with it in the way she wants and needs (instead of acting under pressure).  I rooted for Kim Yu-na, who is so brilliant and beautiful to watch that she makes you want to move when she pulls her chin along the line of her arms.  She's like the Roger Federer of women's skating - she's pure fluidity.  The figure skater's figure skater.  When I watch her, my heart aches, and God knows I don't know shit about her personal life.  That's what makes her such an impressive athlete and artist.  She broke her own world record of 210 total points and got 228 total points, including 150 - another world record - for her freeskate.  She won the gold medal by a huge distance, and totally deserved it too. 

Her freeskate isn't up yet on YouTube, obviously, so I present her 2009 World Championship-winning freeskate to Scheherazade. 

Comments

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

At worst, there is some kind of emotional vampirism that goes on, watching other people suffer. At best, I think it's kind of sober tribute to death and loss. Most Americans don't have to deal with death and loss much. When you see it, you stand still and look, because it's big, it's real, it's always there and will be there for everyone one day, and that's a reality that this other person's loss reminds us of. But that very easily can slip into a kind of feeding on the emotion of the situation that creeps me out.

And yeah, when people praise how someone's dealing with grief, you can't help hearing an implicit criticism of other ways of dealing with grief. I hadn't even thought about what it might do to the grief-stricken person him- or herself, but which I know *you* know only too well. ... I remember when my father's best friend died. His wife was what they call "wild with grief." It wasn't the way most people express grief. But that's how she felt. And she felt that way for a LONG time. Does that make her not-courageous? How can we even ask that? But people are quick to judge, if someone's reaction falls out their range of normal. That person is self-indulgent. Or on the other extreme, if someone doesn't express much, then the person gets branded a cold fish, or uncaring. Who has the right to judge that? Why must people even try? I don't know.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I think Olympics coverage - and well, probably a lot of big sporting events that are televised by main networks, and of course news events in general - is all about emotional vampirism, both positive and negative. That's true about the "stand still and look," but there's that "stillness" that's missing in the way the media does it. It turns more into carnival of the macabre.

I really don't know why people try to judge that either, but I guess you gotta ask why people try to judge anything that someone else does (that isn't, of course, being formally judged in a court of law), right?

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

I guess you gotta ask why people try to judge anything that someone else does

Yeah. I suppose sociologically it has to do with setting norms or defining a culture or something, but there are degrees and degrees. I mean, people judging what's an appropriate means of disciplining children is one thing (even that can get carried to silly extremes, but I think it's legitimate for people to be concerned about it), but judging sorrow's another thing. But I guess the judging instinct is something that's hard to turn off.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, I very much agree with your general sentiment, disgust at what becomes of 'media events' and all the false sympathy. I think in particular our culture has an aversion to strong, genuine expressions of emotion I find repugnant--in many, many more aspects than this, from taste in the arts to everyday conversational norms. But I'm going to say a few other things as well:

That doesn't mean everything goes. Grief has the advantage, I suppose, of being mostly a personal issue and so one might take the attitude 'society can just mind its own fucking business' about it. But that still doesn't mean there aren't better or worse ways of dealing with it, however you might define 'better' in such circumstances. It also doesn't mean that society has no stake in the matter--don't pretend for a second that grief only affects the person grieving. It doesn't.

Also, society puts pressure on people for a lot of things. Some people have the will to ignore that pressure, and I think that honestly makes them much stronger than those who stay 'strong' by society's standards. Everybody 'fails' or 'disappoints' sometimes, and I think one has to be rather compulsive about success to demand it (of oneself) even in the face of the deaths of loved ones and other serious misfortunes. Of course, dealing with that as part of one's childhood development is different than as an adult. I wonder, though, where the reaction of "I don't want to disappoint" comes from. Personally, when people say shit like "You're staying so strong" or whatever, all I hear is "I don't care about you and will simply give the appropriate social response instead." It just doesn't make sense to me, and I often have to ask people (e.g. you, my mom, Tara...) what to do when I am required to make an 'appropriate social response' myself. I guess in the end I respond by not showing such types weakness, but why would I want to show much of anything to someone who clearly doesn't care? This is also why I haven't gotten along with counselors (clearly do not care, full of trite advice). And no, normal is not whatever someone is. Normal is normative. Hence the social pressure.

But something really gets to me about saying "There is no wrong way to endure, because all it means is the heart keeps beating." I guess it's that I can't take it as a general principle. Is life really that more important than what's good or just? Is getting by that much more important than being virtuous? It seems like just the sort of attitude that lets 'society' get by judging people. They're just enduring, after all. They're taking the path of least resistance, watching as somebody else takes the lead or gets killed or whatever else.

So even though I agree that it sucks that the media would make such a spectacle of someone's grief or so-called courage or whatever, I have my own weird twinge in reading your post.

And I haven't slept in awhile, so I'm probably less socially aware even than usual.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I think there's better or worse ways of dealing with it, but I think they depend on the person - I don't know if that's what you mean by "however you might define 'better' in such circumstances." I don't think there's any one-size-fits-all better or worse. Even if we accept that the goal is, say, reaching acceptance of the death and your changed life - the road to that goal still differs according to the person. Unless of course you mean somebody goes on a homicidal rampage in response. Because in that case yeah, that's a clear Not Good Response.

I also agree that society has a stake in the matter, but I think it's a creepy productive/non-productive stake that should be eliminated. Like, I don't think society should have a stake in the matter, I guess. And as for grief only affecting the person grieving... yes, but unless you're the president, it's a really teeny sphere of people that's being affected, and I don't think that's a society issue, that's an interpersonal issue.

As to withstanding pressure - yes, some people care about what people think of them, and some people don't. Obviously, the people that don't care won't be as affected by other people's praising of their grief, and other judgments. I would guess that more people care about what other people think of them than don't care (and I don't mean they necessarily care what everyone on the street thinks, more like what their relatives/friends/authority figures think).

I'm not sure if fear of failure or disappointment (in this case) is tied to want of success but to fear of a downward spiral, disintegration, or going down the wrong path. So if you hear "You're staying so strong" - and of course, these are people you put a lot of faith in, as a child - you think, "ah, yes, this is what I'm supposed to be doing," so you make yourself keep doing it even if it hurts to do so. Because if you stop doing that, it means you'll be going down the crazy path. Or maybe that's just me.

I know "normal" is not technically "whatever someone is" - it's more like, whatever's normal for you in grieving is normal for you in grieving. I guess I'm using a non-scientific version of normal, where normal means something more like "being yourself." I don't know. It makes sense to me, but I know what you're saying.

Um, I don't mean that the maintenance of life is the most important thing out there. But I think "just trying to get by" is a common way of dealing with grief, whatever it means to just get by, and I think that's ok. As I said in the post, if you can't get by, then you can't get by, and that's ok too (implying, I guess, that I condone suicide...?). It's part of the whole "do what you need to do" principle. So instead of being courageous, I think it's more likely Joannie Rochette is just trying to deal. I don't mean that getting by is the new courageous. I don't think there's some universally courageous way of dealing with grief. But I definitely don't think there's a virtuous way of dealing with grief either. I think that's... even weirder. On the other hand, I'm not sure what you mean by good, or just, or virtuous. Are we talking personal good or greater good or absolute good? And what do any of these things have to do with grief?

Full-grown galleries

[(Anonymous)]

Without charge shemale photos
http://shemales.xblog.in/?blog.jolie
sex videos freeshemal sex trannysex shomale sex shaemle video