Women as symbols of nations and terror

Two interesting articles on National Personifications.

The first mostly just discusses those that exist as well as showing some of the interesting artwork involved. The second gets a bit more into the way different elements of society often contest over differing personifications.

The gender issues involved in the country as an idea being almost universally an Athena variant in the west, while the symbol of the common people is almost always a man, are notable.

I also note that the USA seems to be one of the only that has an Uncle Sam figure to represent the government rather than the people. I suspect this has much to do with the idea of the government of the US as being "of the people" in the national myth.

Meanwhile, leaving the realm of the idealized, the Teen and Transgender Comparative Study looks like a really interesting piece.

In the images in White’s series, both figures are blossoming into womanhood, though each along a different path. As observers, however, we have been taught to view the subjects in much the same way: with sheer terror.

Shame it's not where I can see it.

And kinda sorta related if I squint, why Ginny Weasley is awesome. Having never read the books, I can't say much on that, but I can see why the author likes her so much.

No more narcissits?

Wait, I think mzrowan linked to this but I didn't register it: They are removing Narcissistic Personality Disorder from DSM V?

It seems the move is from presenting an archetype that people should match to a designation of "personality disorder" and then you tick the traits someone has.

Jonathan Shedler, a psychologist at the University of Colorado Medical School, said: "Clinicians are accustomed to thinking in terms of syndromes, not deconstructed trait ratings. Researchers think in terms of variables, and there’s just a huge schism." He said the committee was stacked "with a lot of academic researchers who really don’t do a lot of clinical work. We’re seeing yet another manifestation of what’s called in psychology the science-practice schism."

Also, kind of weirdly: Paranoid, Schizoid, Histrionic and Dependent Personality Disorders will be removed, but Schizotypal, Antisocial, Borderline, Avoidant and Obsessive-Compulsive will stay in. If you're switching over to a broad category with a checklist of behaviors, why keep any?

I certainly see the argument in favor of this from the research point of view. When I was writing about PTSD I could see how the breadth of the symptoms that probably associated with trauma didn't necessarily fit into the DSM IV definition, and all manifestations weren't in all people.

I'm curious to see a more detailed breakdown now. I want to know what to call the pathological narcissists I've met with precision. At least I can still call an NPD an NPD until 2013.


(And as long as we're talking pathology, here's an argument that as an invasive species which has outgrown its environmental niche, humans are - on a group level - sociopathic, and so are our institutions.