Hannah Spier: Why CPS needs to protect her children from her
The following are my takes on a number of excerpts from Hannah's article, which you can find here.
“She was not responding to danger so much as experimenting with a social move, shifting into vulnerability, redirecting attention, and casting herself as the endangered girl for whom adults must intervene. Her father, being very sensitive to fake displays of emotion, recognised it immediately and shut it down calmly but firmly.”
This is a textbook case of emotional abuse.
Hannah determined that the emotions of her young daughter were fake and intended to manipulate. Children are born as a clean slate and completely innocent. They aren’t born as manipulators.
Hannah and her husband are the emotionally abusive ones, because they are the ones who predetermined that their daughter's emotions were fake and shut them down, instead of doing the right thing, which would've been to allow their child to express and communicate its emotions.
“What moments like this reveal is how quickly even a naturally agreeable girl can discover that emotion may be used instrumentally when it alters the behaviour of others.”
Hannah using the words “naturally agreeable girl” to describle her child is disgusting, because it implies that she sees her child as naturally obedient (agreeable to parents).
This further implies that Hannah wants her child to be obedient, and she describes in her article how SHE uses emotional manipulation (shutting down her daughter’s emotions) to keep her obedient.
“The familiar symptoms listed under Borderline, or wider Cluster B pathology, are often best understood as the behavioural expression of a trait constellation located at the extremes of normal personality traits (in this case high neuroticism, low agreeableness and low conscientiousness,) rather than as isolated mysteries appearing from nowhere. “
Hannah states here that she has no clue how emotions work and where they come from, and turns to the few dozen individuals who author the DSM (essentially psychiatry’s spiritual leaders) for guidance on understanding emotions.
Furthermore, HOW THE FUCK is “low agreeableness” a symptom of a disorder? Is it a disorder to disagree with someone? Is it a disorder to disagree with everyone? Is it a disorder to see the world differently than others? I guess it is to people who want to control the world, such as psychiatrists like Hannah.
Hannah appears to see her child as her patient. Fortunately for Hannah's daughter, at least lobotomies have been outlawed.
“Low agreeableness prioritises the self over cooperation”
Forced selflessness is perhaps the #1 dumbest things ever. If you don’t put yourself first and take care of yourself first, who does? If you don’t put yourself first, you force others to take care of you for you, which is idiotic, because no one knows you as well as you do, and so no one can take care of you as well as you can. This is BASIC logic.
I covered this in more detail in Chapter 5 on Self-Love of my post To Every Human Being.
“norm-breaking”
Hannah talks about norm-breaking as if it’s a bad thing. It’s actually a GREAT thing to break norms. If no one broke “norms”, things would never progress. If no one ever thought anything new, no one would ever discover anything.
If no one ever broke norms, there’d probably still be nothing but single-celled organisms on Earth.
“Already at the display of extreme neuroticism, many parents begin to lose ground”
Hannah appears to see her relationships with her children as wars.
Child Protective Services, for the love of Hannah’s children, PLEASE step in.
“because sustained emotional intensity creates doubt in the adults around the child”
Hannah has not only stated that she is uncomfortable with intense emotions of children, she is under the delusion that every parent is uncomfortable with intense emotions.
WHY THE FUCK did this monster choose to have children if she doesn't want to deal with intense emotions?
“In reality, the strength of the reaction is telling you the boundary is placed precisely where it was needed.”
Hannah has stated that her child’s strong negative reaction towards her boundary reinforces within her that the boundary is correct.
Aside from the fact that placing boundaries on others is a form of hatred, Hannah has LITERALLY stated that she gets satisfaction out of subjecting her children to strict rules, by stating that it makes her feel like she's doing the right thing.
Hannah has hereby stated that she gets satisfaction out of molding her children as she sees fit, out of turning her children into whom she wants them to be, and thereby even out of hating her children.
Child Protective Services, PLEASE DO SOMETHING!!!
“This is why I prefer the term emotional stabilisation”
Hannah talks about stabilising the emotions of her children. She is talking about emotionally numbing her children through rules and punishments.
THIS IS EMOTIONAL ABUSE FOR FUCK'S SAKE. Hannah's children may enjoy experiencing emotions rather than being emotional numbed to the point where Hannah deems their emotions are no longer unstable.
Don't forget, what is stable and unstable is a subjective judgment made by each individual. I have a gut feeling that if her children were joyful or happy, that Hannah would find that emotionally unstable and punish her child for it.
“They’re oriented more toward what gets the desired outcome than keeping things smooth”
Hannah talks about children being goal-oriented and putting their own desires before keeping “the peace” as if they're bad things. These are GREAT THINGS!
Everyone should put their desires ahead of “the peace”. If you want something, SPEAK UP! Don’t be silent to cater to the emotions of people like Hannah.
““No whining” means “no whining” every single time”
Hannah states that children aren’t allowed to complain, essentially implying that parents are perfect and beyond questioning.
It’s a really fucking dumb idea to never question authority, because then authority will become absolute, and will become an echo-chamber of “yes-people”.
“rewarding what the home has limited time to restrain”
Hannah is talking about (emotionally) restraining children for fuck’s sake. Someone please call CPS on her. This is hatred, not love.
“with children placed into peer-heavy settings too early and for too long through daycare and large groups.”
Oh yeah, it’s really bad to place children among their peers. They might actually form connections and not be totally reliant on their parents. That’d be super bad, because parents would no longer have full control over their children.
Hannah is advocating for controling the relationships of children. Which is beyond fucked up. Freedom to form your own relationships NEEDS to be a fundamental human right, and the fact that I can't say "is a fundamental human right", is saying something about how disgusting the human species really is.
“For difficult temperaments this instinct is exactly wrong, because such children are pushed into social adaptation before they possess emotional stabilisation, learning status management, impression control, strategic behaviour, and sensitivity to peer hierarchy before steadiness, restraint, and conscience have even formed.”
Hannah is essentially saying that she doesn’t want her children to be influenced by others, until after she’s established full control over her children. She wants her children to be 100% her own.
Why? It’s because once her children form a connection with anyone who actually gives a shit about them, they will understand what a ball of hatred Hannah is, turn on her, and in all likelihood never talk to her ever again.
Hannah is too incapable of love and caring to have anyone want to have an emotional connection with her other than through control and abuse.
“they acted as external regulators that gave parents much-needed support in shaping difficult temperaments.”
For fuck’s sake, Hannah. Let your children discover themselves and be their own persons, rather than you “shaping” them exactly how you want them to turn out. They’re not your goddamn fucking toys.
“boundaries must often begin externally”
Once again, putting boundaries on others is a form of HATRED!
“Moreover, strongly felt feelings not appropriate to the insult were penalised “cry-baby”, “hot head” and “drama queen.””
Hannah is in favor of bullying and gang-ing up on individuals who experience strong feelings that she determines to be inappropriate. Appropriateness is subjective.
“When Boundaries Became Oppression”
Putting bounadries on others have always been oppression you dumb bitch. It’s just that people woke up to this fact.
“Female behaviour was no longer something to be evaluated, but something to be validated.”
Is Hannah really stating that female behaviour should be evaluated rather than validated? And why is she singling out female behaviour? Double standard much?
“It recast traditional guardrails like modesty, reputational vetting, social shame and behavioural judgment, as oppression.”
Hannah supports social shaming, you guys! She supports group-bullying of individuals the group doesn’t like!
Maybe Hannah can talk to someone after she dies and ask to be re-incarnated in Ancient Egypt or something.
“Fatherlessness and weakened authority reliably correlate with greater conduct problems and antisocial traits in boys, because without structure, those tendencies are more likely to come out in aggressive behaviour.”
Hannah has just proven herself to not be a scientist, and therefore not a doctor, because she believes that correlations imply causations. She draws a conclusion from a correlation that simply cannot be drawn from it.
All psychiatrists do this btw. If psychiatry abided by the fundamental scientific principle of “Correlation does not imply Causation”, nothing would be left of psychiatry.
“What remains now, is a system in which the only universally illegitimate response is constraint itself.”
That’s because putting boundaries on others is illegal you dumb whore. It’s legal to stop yourself from breathing, but it’s not legal to stop someone else from breathing.
If you hate yourself so much, maybe you should “train” yourself instead of “training” your children.
“For the temperament in question, this is not liberation. It is incubation; like leaving an egg salad out uncovered. These girls are left to the mercy of their worst impulses.”
Hannah calls the emotions and feelings of girls “their worst impulses”..... I’m speechless.
“Take a 12-year-old girl who is bright, emotionally intense, and already aware that she gets attention. She comes downstairs dressed in a way that is slightly too mature for her age. Not extreme, just enough to signal something.
The father says no: “That’s not appropriate. Go change.”
She doesn’t argue, instead, she becomes sweet. “Why are you being so strict? All the other girls dress like this.” If that sways him, that lesson is archived for future endeavours. If not, there’s an emotional shift: “You don’t trust me. I love this outfit, it’s so me, it makes me feel confident and you know I have struggled lately!” Then escalation: tears, withdrawal, the familiar “door-slam.””
A 12-year old acting like this, is a sign that she’s emotionally repressed by parents like Hannah. If you continue to suppress, suppress, and “stabilize” the emotions of your children, at some point they’re going to have to come out some way, which may be dressing in a way that you find inappropriate.
“because the parents would be a united force for the long-term good”
wtf is this phrase... the question here is for WHOSE long-term good!
“And they would be supported by the broader norm backing it.”
... Hannah wants all of society to assist her in forcing her boundaries and control upon her children, making the power-balance even more severe.
“The parent hesitates, because they’re wrong, but because they doubt their right to enforce it.”
Hannah has stated that parents have the right to control their children and turn them into who they want them to be. Which equals to stating that parents have the right to hate their children.
Turning someone into who you want it to be is DEEP HATRED. Empowering someone to become who it wants to be is LOVE.
FUCK YOU, Hannah! Seriously, from the bottom of my heart, FUCK YOU!
“Take the same girl, now on social media. She posts a slightly provocative photo. Nothing extreme, but she gets attention and validation.”
Why do you think she went to social media to get validation, you dumb shitwhore?
It’s because you refuse to give her any fucking validation. You are going to be in prison, either a human prison, or some other form of prison after your death.
“Once that lesson is deeply learned, it is not easily undone. What emerges is not merely a difficult child, but an effective operator in an environment that no longer contains her.”
Hannah has stated that it’s a bad thing if children grow up and learn to be effective in the world.
She’s also implying here that she wishes this could be easily undone. She wishes she could delete children who have grown up and turn them back into new-borns that are once again dependent on their parents.
Hannah is an EVIL BITCH.
“Parents cannot easily cultivate restraint while culture glamorises impulsivity, nor teach modesty while social media rewards exhibitionism. Temperament is shaped by the total environment.”
Hannah wants to be in full control, blablabla. She wants everyone to employ the same values as she does like:
-Modesty over self-expression
-Restraint over freedom
-etc.
Again, maybe she ought to ask to be re-incarnated into Ancient Egypt or something.
“At the family level, structure must be reasserted through boundaries that do not move under pressure.”
Parents need to hate their children? Do so at your own risk.
“The father’s role as a stabilising authority should be recognised as functional, not embarrassing.”
Father = God? Ok, Hannah...
“Families themselves become weaker when marriage is an easily abandoned institution”
People should stay in relationships they don’t want to be in? I’m sure that’s going to do wonders for the world, especially for the children of such couples.
“At the cultural level, reward structures matter enormously.”
Rewards = emotional manipulation to get people to do what you want them to do.
“At the mental-health level, a reversal is also needed. The field has pursued de-stigmatisation at all costs, yet for some temperaments the removal of stigma removes one of the few remaining external brakes on destructive behaviour.”
So everyone should hate people who have been labeled with certain diagnoses by people in your profession?
Woow... you’re a real charmer, eh Hannah? How did you ever find a husband?
“Furthermore, the field’s ideological alignment with postmodern non-judgmentalism and feminism has them deliberately funnelling destructive female behaviour into trauma language and other unsuitable disorder categories like bipolarity and autism.”
So we should judge more people?
So you want to be in charge of who gets “funnelled” into which “disorder categories”? And you’ve determined that “trauma”, “bipolarity” and “autism” are unsuitable?
What else do you want to be in charge of, Hannah?
Do you think there could possibly be a universe in which there may possibly be a remote possibility of these “destructive female behaviors” you refer to being in some way, shape, or form connected to your perhaps slightly less-than-perfect parenting?
You're a fucking snowflake, Hannah.
“Psychiatrists and psychologists want to seem compassionate above all”
HANNAH!!! PLEASE!!!
Don’t ruin psychiatry and psychology all in 1 day. At least allow people to believe for a little while longer that psychiatrists and psychologists want to BE compassionate.
You just told the world that they want to SEEM compassionate above all.
You just stated that you and your evil colleagues care most about how the world sees you...
Okay, guys. Can we now finally officially call forth the end of psychiatry, the Most Evil Hoax in the History of Mankind?
“Abuse and neglect can, of course, be among the reasons for that failure.”
Hannah wants parents to not have to take any responsibility for the hurt of the people they raised. Psychiatry has countless labels for parents to choose from to label their children at fault for what was done to them.
These children are sick after all. All parents are beyond perfect. No parent is ever at any fault whatsoever for the hurt experienced by its children. The love of a parent is more absolute than anything.
“Containment Is Not Oppression”
Containment is Imprisonment
Comments
Post a Comment