Thanks to @empowered1 for the thread name.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
This quote tweet/reply to her tweet is so good...I'm a little jealous I didn't come up with it 
Attachments
This annoys me because everything on the slide, people that world in vwag already know all this intuitively or from years of actual experience. As someone said, this is preaching to the choir.
It's insulting that she thinks or is deemed an expert in what WA support workers have always known just because she did a PhD in it.
I can still see it
The challenges in the thread are good to read.
It feels like more people are seeing it.
Another annoyance I have is her various "rules for..." posts...(rules for finding a trauma informed therapist...rules for being trauma informed..)
Rules is an ugly word and the wrong word... A lot of trauma suffers are vulnerable and black and white assertions can feel comforting for us, like if we follow them well be safe.
There are no set rules for being trauma informed, and I think a list of rules about what is or isn't ok risks retruamising victims more.
Ironic also that the lists just reiterate her standing points eg trauma informed means you don't prescribe meds or give diagnoses.
Arguably, it's a lot more nuanced than that and you can give a diagnosis and also recognise trauma. Rare, but totally possible.
Another annoyance I have is her various "rules for..." posts...(rules for finding a trauma informed therapist...rules for being trauma informed..)
Rules is an ugly word and the wrong word... A lot of trauma suffers are vulnerable and black and white assertions can feel comforting for us, like if we follow them well be safe.
There are no set rules for being trauma informed, and I think a list of rules about what is or isn't ok risks retruamising victims more.
Ironic also that the lists just reiterate her standing points eg trauma informed means you don't prescribe meds or give diagnoses.
Arguably, it's a lot more nuanced than that and you can give a diagnosis and also recognise trauma. Rare, but totally possible.
Interested in her ideas about weight and size inclusivity...here she is suggesting that instead of using 'plus size' to describe bigger bodies, we should call skinnier people 'minus size'
This from the women who promoted and chased thinness on Facebook (watching my legs disappear on this diet...).
I know she said that years ago but it's something some of us would still never do, try and encourage disordered eating and taking up less space by being skinny.
Not to boast and we all do say stupid stuff sometime but I just find her attitude to women's body's and size childish and underdeveloped.
I'm a first responder so not qualified to discuss this in any real depth, but her assertion that BPD is trauma/PTSD has never sat well with me because I regularly see women with PDs who've been subject to traumatic experiences because of them.
She's never, as far as I'm aware, discussed any harm reduction practices for women whose diagnoses may result in them engaging in more risk taking behaviour etc.
Jesus how f***ing stupid is she?? I'm sorry but to me it is infinitely more dangerous to attach a 'minus' label in terms of eating disorders, like you say it would literally validate the thinking of taking up less space, and give a target to attain 'minus' status. This post in itself just shows that she is entirely self obsessed---ie to suggest the whole world changes the way it describes a group of people just because she's one of them-- and really not very intelligent or perceptive. Literally nobody refers to size 10, 12, or 14 women as 'plus size'---very rarely 14 comes under it but it's usually size 18+. What a dick...
Interested in her ideas about weight and size inclusivity...here she is suggesting that instead of using 'plus size' to describe bigger bodies, we should call skinnier people 'minus size'
This from the women who promoted and chased thinness on Facebook (watching my legs disappear on this diet...).
I know she said that years ago but it's something some of us would still never do, try and encourage disordered eating and taking up less space by being skinny.
Not to boast and we all do say stupid stuff sometime but I just find her attitude to women's body's and size childish and underdeveloped.
She wouldn't because she would say, to echo her wife's view, that harm reduction strategies---like crime prevention---are 'victim blaming'. She wants women to engage in risk taking behaviour because firstly it enables her to keep banging on about her 'theories' and secondly, it keeps women dependent on her bullshit and therefore a captive audience and customer base for her merchandise and 'courses', and thereby also unwitting participants in her 'research'.
Last edited:
She's definitely not a size 14, no matter how much she tries to imply she is.....I found it quite comical that while she made a big deal of refusing to lose weight for her wedding, her wife made a point of showing off the results from her 'working out for [her] wedding dress'. Was JT's proclamation some sort of put down for Jaimi, belittling her efforts as 'buying into society's disgusting pressure on women'? I think it really was, considering she made a point of including 'change my body' in addition to lose weight, because that is exactly what Jaimi did.....This stinks of coercive control.
' As a side note, I’m also so so proud of myself for not attempting to lose weight or change my body for my wedding day. The pressure to drop pounds before you get married is absolutely disgusting'.
Last edited:
I hereby christen this Slim Poppy Syndrome (seeing as she was banging on about tall poppy syndrome a little while ago).
Also: hello, am unlurking. I've found these threads very helpful. Yet another woman here who has felt like a mug after being quite initially enthusiastic about this abuser and betrayer of women. I did not know I was capable of such contempt. I really think her behaviour is criminal & she belongs behind bars.
I was newly diagnosed as autistic/ADHD & PTSD & in the beginning stages of reporting both recent rape & forced marriage/honour-based violence from years ago. This was around the time she was spouting her anti-psychiatry autism stuff. It really, really affected me at the time, more than it should have & has made the whole process so much worse than it already is. I doubt I'm the only one who it affected.
In sharp contrast, I've learnt so much and been moved many a time by many of the posts on here - so empathetic & knowledgeable. Some of them have also been helpful in a soothing way as well. I feel less alone, a bit more aware, and less desolate, so thank you to all who have shared here.
Also, Sally-Anne is a titanesse of a woman and I admire her more every day for standing up for herself and everyone else so bravely. How disgusting that she's been forced to do so. Utterly unforgivable (as well as everything else).
I wondered the same thing. It's possible Jess feels insecure next to Jaimi and this was her way of trying to put Jaimi in her place, by insinuating that she's not as politically insightful and aware as Jess.
Body positivity is important, but emphasising the average size and talking about plus versus minus size does nothing to encourage it because ultimately you're still focusing on numbers. This is the problem. The focus shouldn't be on numbers on a clothes label, but on good nutrition, healthy and joyful eating (not dieting as some kind of punitive chore), and celebrating your body's capabilities through exercise you enjoy (again, not viewing it as punishment or payment for eating). Trying to normalise a particular dress size is still perpetuating the cycle, even if it's a more commonly worn size than those seen on fashion runways.
I think there is definite insecurity about the way she looks as Jaimi is always posting about how beautiful her (very average looking) wife is. Then again posts like that could just be about Jaimis age and an immature approach to relationships.
The link between developmental trauma (repeated, protracted, beginning in childhood) and the pattern of difficulties known as BPD/EUPD is well documented. It's not controversial to see those difficulties as a manifestation of trauma, which is why Jessica's insistence that she is a radical lone voice is so puzzling. Risk-taking behaviours make a lot of sense in the context of trauma (and not necessarily complex trauma either - studies of military veterans with PTSD show they also exhibit these behaviours). The reasons will vary from person to person and should be explored sensitively with them as part of their therapy, but there are some common patterns. I'm most familiar with risk-taking in young people, which often takes place because the child is used to living in chaotic and often dangerous situations where they are continually on edge, primed to fight or flight. It might seem as though it would be a relief to take them from that environment and put them somewhere safe, but in practice they can find it frightening and overwhelming. When you are in a dangerous situation, all your energy is directed to keeping yourself safe; you don't have time to reflect on what has happened to you. In a calmer environment, when your body and brain can finally relax, the awareness and the memories start to rush in. Risk-taking becomes a paradoxical way of pushing that awareness away - these young people feel safest in situations where there is no time to think or feel, only react. Another common thing is risk-taking driven by self-loathing. In these cases it's often accompanied by self-harm and high levels of suicidality - the child believes they deserve the bad things that have happened to them, that bad things will keep happening to them ad infinitum, and that they are powerless to stop it. Risk-taking becomes part of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The frustrating thing about the high-profile cases of child sexual exploitation was that police were dismissing vulnerable girls as making "lifestyle choices" because they kept going back to their abusers, without any apparent insight into the fact that this can be driven by pure self-hatred and the fact that the child isn't capable of imagining a different reality for themselves. You can only choose to keep yourself safe if you believe safety is an option for you, after all. Finally there is the link between developmental trauma, impulsivity, and insecure attachment, which all lead to increased risk-taking. Growing up with neglect and abuse does take a cognitive toll on the child.
Of course risk-taking can also happen in the absence of trauma (bipolar disorder is the big one - extremely risky behaviour is a common feature of mania) so I'm not saying it always means these things. One of the red flags in Jessica's rants is that she will often talk about trauma in very absolutist terms, as if X behaviour always means Y, when in reality it's not possible to generalise like that. Generalisations also undermine the most basic principles of trauma-informed care, which should involve listening carefully to each person's experience and formulating an understanding of their difficulties in light of their story. Jessica acts as if she's an oracle reading tealeaves - "I see a soggy lump, this tells me there is TRAUMA" - and if she actually had a patient sitting in front of her she wouldn't have the first clue what to say to them. There are only so many times you can rant about psychiatrists and how superior you are to them, after all; ultimately the person is going to expect some real practical tangible help. And that's what she can't provide.
She really does think “peer review” means “ask yer mates” doesn’t she?
Whilst she did get her PhD, she’s quite obviously been blackballed by Academia. They are gossipy fuckers, and UoB is an RG Uni with a wide reach.
Most people I know with a PhD only use the Dr title if they are Professors or working in research elsewhere. A few have jumped ship recently and they’ve removed Dr from their Twitter, and their CVs as they’re not applying for research jobs.
She relies on ignorance of the Dr title - people assume she’s a clinical Dr, and ignorance of the various qualifications and registrations needed. It’s bleeping shocking that Women’s Aid, Netflix etc aren’t doing even the most basic due diligence.
The way she spoke about a woman I went to school with in that Netflix doc (the women killed by their partners/ex’s) really boiled my piss.
Whilst she did get her PhD, she’s quite obviously been blackballed by Academia. They are gossipy fuckers, and UoB is an RG Uni with a wide reach.
Most people I know with a PhD only use the Dr title if they are Professors or working in research elsewhere. A few have jumped ship recently and they’ve removed Dr from their Twitter, and their CVs as they’re not applying for research jobs.
She relies on ignorance of the Dr title - people assume she’s a clinical Dr, and ignorance of the various qualifications and registrations needed. It’s bleeping shocking that Women’s Aid, Netflix etc aren’t doing even the most basic due diligence.
The way she spoke about a woman I went to school with in that Netflix doc (the women killed by their partners/ex’s) really boiled my piss.
I think its funny how her and J are agreessiveabout their title.
Actual medical doctors who have twitter profiles to engage #medtwitter or #psychtwitter don't use Dr but just their first and last name.
To be humble and human on socials.
Then there's the other side of spectrum, people who will fight you if you ever address them without their titles, and people who believe their title makes them smarter, strong, and delusionally even qualified to give advice and their own type of treatment online.
There are some people who really do use their titles to cause harm.
I know Professors who have terrified staff so their first name can never ever be used by anyone with less qualifications, even when working alongside each other, you can't see, go ask Joe...you have to say, please ask the Professor what he thinks...
Actual medical doctors who have twitter profiles to engage #medtwitter or #psychtwitter don't use Dr but just their first and last name.
To be humble and human on socials.
Then there's the other side of spectrum, people who will fight you if you ever address them without their titles, and people who believe their title makes them smarter, strong, and delusionally even qualified to give advice and their own type of treatment online.
There are some people who really do use their titles to cause harm.
I know Professors who have terrified staff so their first name can never ever be used by anyone with less qualifications, even when working alongside each other, you can't see, go ask Joe...you have to say, please ask the Professor what he thinks...
- Status