My two cents, slightly reworked based on a fresh correspondence pertaining the upshot of the “borderline” psychiatric label — as having rectified the hermeneutical injustice (too lazy to re-write into a proper item):
Same with Schizoid which seems to not have been evidently associated with the “nature” aspect of upbringing but nevertheless not as insulting or controversial (whereas with Bipolar, Schizophrenia, or Sociopathy people suspect the “genetic” components.. although it makes equal sense for someone being raised in a household with mood disorder or paranoia to show the same patterns of behaviour – it would be quite unusual for them not to).
But the concern still revolves around the built-in bias towards women as “borderline” and men as “sociopathic” (would be good if we can watch Soering vs Haysom on Netflix together because I think Haysom is a sociopath misdiagnosed as borderline, but does share “borderline” traits insofar as it was more acceptable for her as a woman, esp. in the 1980s: manipulation, risky behaviour, pathological lying, callous promiscuity, complete lack of empathy – including the fact that she is much more scheming and detached than emotional and impulsive, manipulates in a deliberate and systematic manner demonstrating long-term planning, displays no neurosis, no anxiety, no weak identity, and overall was in total control of the situations, so it was a bit baffling to me that the well-respected psychiatrist working with the Scotland Yard who diagnosed them both refused to say outright that she manipulated him as that would suggest a formidable and overpowering and careful agency that she could not have possessed, but that she was borderline and he was subjected to folie a deux – a curious fact-bending interpretation that to me seems asinine) or even simply owing to gender stereotypes not being labelled as a disorder at all, but simply e.g. leading a “rockstar” lifestyle, being a “gangbanger”, or a destructive bum and a violent druggie or a deranged roué or a hurtful philanderer, as not being on a spectrum but part of a repertoire of normalised social behaviours for men. With Schizoid, there is not much gender stereotype being involved. Histrionic is more often diagnosed in women of course (can men even be “attention-seeking” in the cultural understanding of the term)? It will seem less problematic if the psychiatrists start diagnosing more women as sociopathic and men as borderline. The issue isn’t so much the labelling itself (or the cataloguing of symptoms) but the subjective, gender-norm-influencing perception involved in this process of labelling (interpreting certain behaviours as symptoms/problematic). ADHD and Autism are vastly underdiagnosed in women as well. It would be easy to say on the former that this is simply due to women “masking” them, rather than them being women as understood by society i.e. “scatter-brained” or “incompetent.” Interestingly more and more women are being diagnosed as having ADHD and even Autism post-partum (‘never knew I had it my whole life until my shrink told me because I’m sensorily overstimulated, etc.’). But the whole post-partum genre is another topic entirely and problematic in itself.
While I don’t condone the usage of this inherently biased label, a certain risible fictional character, the alleged feminist icon of the last fin de siècle in quite a clever and saucy third-wave social satire, does warrant a perfunctory cussing and a red-hot expletive tending in that particular direction. Good grief tricenarians and beyond. You embarrass me. There is no place for glamorising the twisted and exploitative situationship between a predatory sociopath (Mr. Big) and a mentally unstable borderline (Carrie Bradshaw). There I said it. I don’t condone it. I can stomach the nauseating juvenile skits revolving around an emotionally stunted celebutante and her failed romantic overtures which made me want to self-enucleate, but not ones which normalise clear behavioural pathology and demonstrate a lack of genuine good sense (whereas our modern male anti-heros who are much beloved possess redeeming qualities, for which they are endeared or at least tolerated, however few). I happily pulled the cord when the mise-en-scène was crafted in a shifty way as to forebode an intent to breach that trust of fidelity, rectitude, and decorum that would have condoned or excused or justified wrecking the lives of others in needy pursuit of nonchalant self-absorption or malicious narcissism. One indeed feels a certain malignancy, a lurking infestation of cynicism and callousness that aims to demoralise the viewers. Every routine is an attempt at sounding the depth of emptiness, as if the writers, though spinning fabulous yarns, vicariously recreate a lived simulacrum of their own lives, being hollow at heart that nothing matters and being muddled in the head that nothing makes sense. This type of performance is at its core absurdist hyperrealism disguised as profundity. It lacks more than intelligence — it lacks sense and conviction as well as heart and humanity. This coming from someone who detests feel-good movies and whose list of notables overwhelmingly features a very harrowing ending e.g. The Divide (2011), Blue Jasmine (2013), Up in the Air (2009), 3:10 To Yuma (2007), Cube Trilogy (1997 – 2004).
Note: here is an interesting nail to gnaw on and possibly hammer in: the so-called low-functioning psychopaths that inhabit the dingy cells of state prisons in marked opposition to the high-functioning psychopaths that hobnob in federal prisons: how many of the former are actually misdiagnosed male borderlines?
Salisa lohavittayavikant 