#cw psych abuse | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mangora · 1 month

Text

So I haven’t been fulfilling my obligations as resident Scike enjoyer recently and I finally have a night with no coursework due, so here’s a meta analysis post about my interpretations of Scott and Mike’s characters, primarily as told through their relationship with one another. This isn’t necessarily accurate, some of these are definitely reaches or headcanons with little basis in reality, it’s not like a serious essay; this is just for fun since I find their relationship (or I guess, my idea of their relationship) fascinating 👍

So, naturally we start with episode one, where we’re introduced to Scott and Mike as well as the other generation two characters. Scott, off the bat, is unfriendly and untrusting; even before Jo says anything, he eyes her with malcontent. Scott looks at Mike with a seemingly annoyed expression when he’s introduced next. Mike, in contrast to Scott, is smiling and taking in the view. Scott notices immediately when Zoey nudges him and stares at her arm; I don’t think this demonstrates any sort of feelings for Mike on Scott’s part, yet at least, but rather it seems to display his social awareness. He’s already trying to gauge both Mike and Zoey’s personalities and dynamic— he could also be judging them, or a mix of that and the aforementioned gauging. Regardless, Scott’s already shown to be suspicious of others.

Meanwhile, Mike’s shown to form an attachment right away, specifically to Zoey. Their very minor interaction causes him to smile and espouse that the view is beautiful, though he’s obviously regarding her. This causes him to let his guard down, along with Zoey, which leaves both susceptible to being shoved out of the way by Lightning. Take note of this, as Mike’s desire to form stable relationships becomes a hallmark of his character. The dichotomy between Scott being untrusting when he should be and Mike being trusting when he shouldn’t be will become a running theme as well.

The next time we see them both is after the intro, when Scott refuses to help Cameron and calls him a “spaz”. This is contrasted with Mike being too kind with Zoey when they should be helping Staci out of the water, which causes him to be pulled underwater by her and could have led to them both drowning. This not only aligns with our theme of trust vs lack thereof, but also Mike’s goodwill vs Scott’s lack thereof again. It seems that what Scott needs, Mike supplies to a harmful excess; however, as we will touch on later, both of these incidents with Mike only occurred when there was another person there (Zoey) who he sought to impress or bond with. Right now all of these exist in an unjoined microcosm, but once again, scenes like this repeat throughout the season.

Another scene worth noting is Mike’s confessional directly after. Mike’s already attached himself to Zoey, admiring her kindness and immediately jumping to the idea of a relationship with her. We’ve already established that Mike wants human connection, but here we also see the added element of insecurity; he already fears rejection for his “quirk”, which we will later discover is his DID (called “Multiple Personality Disorder” in the show; I am not fucking calling it that). He doesn’t state it to the audience yet, showing that maybe he’s not as trusting with people who he can’t directly connect with; even though he probably knows that he will inevitably be outed to them, for lack of a better term. Since he’s insecure about this, and because he says he hopes his “condition doesn’t ruin anything for [him] again”, we can draw the reasonable conclusion that Mike’s probably been rejected for his DID before, whether by potential romantic interests or by his peers more generally (with the added context of season five this could also be referring to how Mal got the system sent to jail, but honestly I’m not sure if the writers planned that far in advance so we’re not really gonna talk about it). It could also be possible that one of Mike’s motives for joining the show, besides the money, was to make friends or find a partner in a new group of people who didn’t know this detail of his life, and to do that by hiding his DID. Once again, this will seem like less of a reach as we continue to see this pattern unfold; it’s good to establish now the idea that Mike is heavily concerned with interpersonal relationships and self-image so we can continue compounding on that thesis as we go on.

Next time we see either Mike or Scott is on the beach. Staci is talking about her family and Mike is obviously ignoring her in favor of looking at Zoey. This shows that while Mike is nice, he might not view everyone as an equal opportunity for human connection; he gets attached to Zoey instantly and regards her above everyone else, quick to establish a clear-cut and intense relationship in his mind with someone he barely knows. When Zoey even implies that they could become friends, he appears overjoyed. He’s so excited, and for what? Put a pin in this.

Our focus shifts back to Scott briefly in the team formation scene before the first challenge. Scott and Lightning smile at each other (or maybe generally? It’s unclear if Scott’s looking at him) as they’re put on the same team. His smile fades when Brick shouts “Sir, yes sir!”, but rather than looking maybe annoyed or angry, he looks uncharacteristically concerned. His smile returns when B shoves Brick, then changes to annoyance when B’s put on his team. There are two major explanations for this. The first and most likely is that Scott’s scoping out his teammates and competition; he’s happy that Lightning’s on his team because he’s not very smart, then concerned and happy again when Brick’s put on the other team because he’s loyal and physically capable, and then he’s upset that B’s on his team because B’s intelligent and looks (is?) strong/fast. However, on the other hand, Scott’s expressions seem oddly earnest, especially considering how he behaves throughout the rest of the series. Maybe he’s secretly glad that Lightning’s here because he enjoys his company. Something that really caught my eye was Scott’s concern for Brick. Brick’s obviously military (likely due to family circumstances), and in season five, we learn that Scott’s dad is ex-military. Scott might be slightly worried because he knows what the military is like, or what military parents are like. We’ll talk more about Scott’s potential home situation later, but I dunno, something about him in this scene seems weirdly tame considering how he is normally; he seems oddly worried and not about the right people, like all things considered it would be best for his plan if his team was weak but he seems constantly annoyed by the additions of people like Dakota and Sam.

Skipping over more of Scott being annoyed at people and Mike being anxious, when the teams get their names, Mike is the first to ask about the references to chemical waste. Though he’s very likely one of many to notice this, the fact he asked first and without hesitation shows that he’s both worried and quick to observe things. He continues to appear concerned by the growling of the “monster”, but seems to hold back from showing this, staying still with a worried expression. He might be trying to keep it cool to protect his image; or, maybe he’s trying to keep others from worrying as well, considering that Cameron’s already freaking out. When it gets closer, he holds Zoey in his arms. He has an urge to protect those he cares about, even if he has little reason to care about them yet.

Later, during the actual challenge, while Jo and Anne Maria are outwardly annoyed by Brick, Mike tries to politely state that this isn’t working. This is the point at which Chester fronts; we learn later that Chester most commonly fronts to deal with frustrating situations. Mike himself cannot express frustration for whatever reason, likely because he’s afraid to. Meanwhile, Scott does his first confessional, where he states that he has a plan that’s sure to take down B (and implied to take down everyone else as well). Scott’s overly confident and expresses frustration with the gleeful notion that all will be handled eventually. Shortly after, Scott smiles as he and the other Toxic Rats overtake the Mutant Maggots; this is odd, as we will later find out that Scott wants his team to lose. This could be an example of him trying not to play his cards too early, but later it becomes apparent that Scott’s quick to snap when he’s upset. Was he perhaps earnestly excited to win as a team and had trouble masking that as well? Perchance (I can just say perchance, because it’s my meta post, and I do what I want).

It’s worth mentioning now that we’ve covered episode one that Mike and Scott have somewhat inconsistent characterizations; as the series goes on, Mike is more prone to show annoyance or outbursts of fear, while Scott rarely shows genuine happiness when his plans aren’t working out. This could be a result of changing writers, a lack of ideas for one or both of them, or simply them changing and adapting to the game. Make of that what you will; I’ll try to explain things to the best of my ability and puzzle them together in a cohesive analysis, but shit’s a bit wonky.

In episode two, we finally hear Scott’s plan: he’s intent on making his team lose the challenges to “lull the other team into a false sense of security, then pick them off one by one”. This is an interesting concept, considering how fucking stupid it is: if Scott loses most or all of his team and the Maggots continue working together, that security will become real, they will dominate him and any allies he might form (which he does not seem intent to do), and he will lose near immediately unless he’s already planning on how to split them up, assuming any of them would fall for his tricks. However, Scott himself is a little dumb, so this is fitting. He’s so unwilling to work with other people that he seems to have tricked himself into thinking that he can do anything by himself and manipulate people with no outside help. This is unrealistic, and gives the viewer a perfect insight into Scott’s antisocial and bleak worldview. He’s so unwilling to trust people that he hasn’t even figured out how to fake a relationship with any of them for his own benefit.

In the scene where the teams are walking to the Bay of Dismay, Zoey and Mike have their first proper conversation, and it is approximately thirteen seconds long. Zoey brings up Total Warriors Two, and Mike is pleased that she knows about it. He states that if she likes kickboxing as well, he might have to marry her. First of all, film-enjoyer and kickboxer Mike real as fuck; but more importantly, this is another example of Mike attaching himself to Zoey incredibly quickly and incredibly closely. He’s desperate to be liked by her, desperate to be inseparable from her even. Unlike Scott who’s pushing everyone away without a plan, he’s seemingly nudging closer to someone without a plan or a concern for her actual, well, personality. I don’t think this is manipulative or weird at all, to be clear; and Zoey was likely trying to relate to him because he also clearly enjoys his company. It’s just endlessly intriguing how he’s already endeared herself to her.

Once the game actually begins and the Maggots are asked which one of them wet their pants, Mike’s the one to pipe up with surprise, almost making fun of the person in question. Knowing that Mike’s afraid of his own secrets being revealed in this challenge, this clues us in that, while Mike might not have bad intentions, he does partake in judging (and depending on how you interpret his words, shaming) people for their own secrets. He might, to a degree, lack social knowledge (“this might make the person uncomfortable” etc.), empathy, or both. In this right, he’s somewhat selfish. Throughout the season, actually, he continues to show inklings of selfishness, even if they aren’t born out of malice.

After this, the Rats are dunked into the water. Scott’s bitten and dragged out of the stands by Fang, and his team does nothing to rescue him. This upsets Scott, who then refuses to do the rest of the challenge. While this might be part of his plan to lose, it seems that Scott was genuinely upset and offended; he expected his team to help him when he would never do the same for them. More selfishness. Anne Maria seconds Scott, and Mike’s quick to join her since he’s worried about his own secrets being discovered— something that he insists to them isn’t true. I don’t have to explain this, I don’t think; Mike and Scott are alike in their selfish desires for preservation. The thing is that Mike backs down after Jo becomes upset with him, while Scott carries on. So Mike does care about avoiding conflict and being invulnerable to his whole team, but with Zoey specifically, he needs to be liked; not just regarded with neutrality, which appears to be his goal with other people; and he is afraid of being judged, or seen in a negative light.

During the challenge, Scott attempts sabotage for the first time, which fails. He tries to keep the rat from B, and is outwardly antagonistic towards him, which could have easily been used against him. This is another action that Scott seems to take strategically, but barely considers the consequences of. He just needs to be mean, apparently; he can’t control the urge to sabotage or insult, even when it would hurt him.

In the same challenge, Cameron catches Svetlana fronting, and asks Mike about it, which he denies entirely. The Maggots win, which Scott, again, seems genuinely upset about. This is where I’m laying out my theory officially that Scott takes these losses personally but is convincing himself that they’re sacrifices, rather than him genuinely not caring because it’s part of his plan. Maybe he knows that he could be on the chopping block every time and is bracing himself; maybe he enjoys winning each individual challenge for a sense of glory but won’t admit it to himself because it doesn’t work with this bullshit Lone Wolf plan he has. Either way, this brings us to episode three.

In episode three, Sam flings his breakfast into Scott’s face. Instead of pretending it’s okay, Scott throws a spoon at Sam. He then calls him a wimp for complaining about his food. Aside from this being another example of Scott being unable to mask his feelings for the greater good, this leads into the point of Scott’s home life. Total Drama as a series is full of bits that are normal in its cartoon universe, but are disturbing or terrifying taken in a real-world context; look no further than the season’s baseline concept of “we put teenagers on a nuclear island”. Scott living on a dirt farm is one of these things; having to eat dirt is bad in a literal context, and worse when adding the idea of it being a metaphor for not having food to eat. Scott is, quite literally, dirt poor; we’ll talk more about his audition tape later, but in it, we also see that Scott’s house is infested with rats and in a state of complete disarray. In season five, we learn that his father is ex-military and his mother’s a waitress; and since they own a farm, they did or do have two jobs. Scott’s also generally a country boy stereotype, and country folk aren’t exactly known for being well-off. We can almost guarantee that he grew up in a rough economic situation, and has ways of coping with or appreciating it while still working fervently to escape it. Take that for what you will.

Following this scene, Mike admits to the audience that he has DID with a shameful tone. He rushes to explain that he tries to control his alters, as if he needs to or should, but that they don’t listen to him. Mike not only lacks control, but is also attempting to control genuine other people, all for them inconveniencing him and making him worry about being judged. This is another point at which we must acknowledge that Mike is selfish, but also selfish with a sympathetic purpose; he doesn’t want to be judged, and doesn’t want to be alone. When confronted by Jo about Svetlana, he lies and says she’s a character, but fails to actually mimic Svetlana. He’s either a bad actor, doesn’t know Svetlana that well, or both.

During the first half of the challenge, Scott shouts at Lightning to shut his mouth, once again showing how hard it is for him to hide his true feelings. Meanwhile, Mike helps Zoey up a ledge instead of helping himself, showing that he knows when to actually be selfless as long as it benefits someone he cares about. Once again, we go back to Scott as the Rats win the challenge; and Scott is visibly and audibly upset. He doesn’t bother hiding it now, so why would he before? Another point for the “Scott is genuinely excited to win/mad about losing” theory. When his team is mad at him for picking the bad snow fort, Scott acknowledges that this is bad, but rationalizes that it’s part of the plan. Dude, he has no fucking idea how this plan is going to work, does he?

Now we get to the point where Mike finally acknowledges Scott, and tells Zoey to watch out because Mike thinks he’s “psycho”. Mike is the first person to bring up how Scott’s acting irrationally or untrustworthy verbally; and considering they aren’t on the same team, that means Mike must have been, at some point, watching him. As we mentioned earlier, he’s observant, and will bring something up either if he feels it’ll be uncontroversial or if he’s very concerned. Before Scott’s other team caught onto him, Mike did, and before they became cautious or seriously concerned, Mike did. Why? Does Mike have experience picking out these types of people? Was Mike, for some reason, interested in Scott either out of fear or admiration, and therefore paid closer attention to him than anybody else? Mike’s not a very strategic person in the game, but he is a bit strategic and wary socially, especially if he’s afraid of the other person not liking him. Did Mike view Scott as a threat? Maybe something more? Why? Did he recognize Scott’s selfish or secretive behaviors, maybe in himself? These are all, certainly, questions. Perchance.

In his scene with Dawn in the snow fort, Scott argues with her about how he’s not going to listen to the snowball, and says he’s full of negative energy; this causes a snowball to explode in his face. Scott’s unwilling to listen to others, even if it spells his own downfall. After this, Dawn claims that Scott wasn’t held enough as a child, which he stops to think about and is shown to be greatly uncomfortable with in the confessional. Dawn has previously been accurate about the home lives of other players (Zoey and Dakota), so we can assume she’s right. In which case, this is “Scott has a bad home life: part two”. Scott’s parents, at some point, did not meet his emotional needs; whether this was just in early childhood or whether it stayed consistent is unclear, but it’s likely that some of his behavioral issues would have been addressed earlier if his parents were attentive following his most formative years. Because his parents didn’t show him enough affection, he likely turned to either methods of garnering attention elsewhere or through other means, diverted that attention towards desiring victory and/or control for his own self satisfaction divorced from the opinions of other people, and/or a mix of both. We can also reasonably assume that Scott’s poor home life could go beyond simply emotional unfulfillment, since Scott seems worried at the notion of her knowing that, and likely wouldn’t be as concerned if he had nothing else to hide.

Dawn later seems to compliment Scott, calling him a “beetle whisperer”. He turns up his nose and leaves. This could be because he finds the notion of beetle whispering ridiculous, but I just like to think that Scott’s not used to getting compliments and doesn’t know how to react. Just because that’s kinda more wholesome and Dott’s kinda baller.

At this point, B melts the Maggots’ fort, and Jo asks Mike to do the “Svetlana thing”. Under pressure, Mike begins to panic a bit, unsure of how to escape the lie he’s found himself in, almost confessing; Cameron helps Svetlana front, saving him from this situation, and Jo regards Svetlana positively. This is just important to me divorced from Scike because not enough of you talk about Jolana. Moving on, Scott notices B melting the Maggots’ fort and momentarily panics, before melting the Rats’ fort instead and blaming B; while Scott has committed sabotage and swayed the team vote before, this is the first time his sabotage has actively caused the team to lose. You’d figure he’d be celebrating, but we don’t see that. After the loss, Mike goes to the confessional and worries about Vito showing up; we can assume that Vito is the hardest to control and/or would lend the most to affecting Mike’s social life, hence why he states that the situation has gotten worse and seems so on-edge. Scott’s finally gaining control in the game, while Mike appears to be losing it. Scott convinces his team to vote for B, and lies without a problem; Scott, it seems, is good at lying through his words, but has a hard time controlling how he emotes physically. Mike is the same; when he lies or hides information, his voice and face/actions don’t seem to mirror the stories he puts together on the fly. Mike’s not a malicious liar, he in fact has every reason to lie about his condition, if you consider lies of omission to be lies at all; but if you do, he is, in fact, a liar, and it takes one to know one. My Mutual Understanding clownery is all coming together.

In episode four, we mostly see extra examples of previous behavior from Scott: annoyance at his teammates (mainly Sam), selfishness and a lack of consideration for others (not helping Sam up and not caring when his teammates go missing), and being oddly happy over success when he shouldn’t be (excited to find the key). At this point, I began considering the possibility that Scott only likes losing when he’s in control of the loss. To fail when he’s trying to succeed obviously frustrates him, but to fail when he’s trying to fail is a success at failing. In less words, it's the need for power and control, again. Maybe he likes to win sometimes for entertainment, or a sense of accomplishment; he might just do it because he can sometimes. In which case, Scott’s a bit more unpredictable than first thought; he does things largely with one goal in mind, but can push that goal off or come up with other shorter term objectives whenever he feels like it. He’s consistently driven, but the thing he’s driving towards is subject to fluctuate when he gets bored or competitive or wants to feel in control.

On the Maggot side, Mike and company are obviously unhappy with and wary of Jo, but none of them say anything. Mike does, however, tell Cameron that he did a good job. It’s possible that after the last episode, when the two worked together along with Zoey to get up the hill, Mike has started seeing Cameron as another potential friend, as he rarely interacted with Cameron before, and we know they will continue to interact more in future episodes. Zoey says he’s “always encouraging Cameron”, implying that he does this off-screen as well, since (correct me if I’m wrong) this is the first time Mike has directly encouraged Cameron specifically. Mike says that Zoey’s all he thinks about when he’s in control, then laughs nervously, as if he’s afraid this joke is too personal or unrelatable or odd. When Zoey goes missing, Mike notices immediately, and begins to panic; the person he’s most attached to here, his only real friend right now, has just left him alone, and the anxiety is all-consuming. He’s worried about her, and probably also scared of being left alone with the rest of the team, who he’s not as close to. I’m going to draw the line here and say that I think Mike might have social anxiety, just in my personal opinion as someone who also has social anxiety. He’s hyper-aware, afraid of what others think of him, and heavily attached with one or two people. He’s also, apparently, very loyal and protective. He abandons the rest of the group to find Zoey despite the challenge, and is relentless when looking for her in a way that no one else in the challenge has been or will be later.

When Brick goes missing, Mike is concerned for him, as are Cameron and Anne Maria; it’s unclear whether this is because they care for him, they’re scared of missing as well, or a mixture of the two. When Anne Maria stands up to Jo for having a bad attitude, Mike also finds the courage to join her. Having someone who’ll agree with him or make the first move once again gives him a sense of confidence to voice his opinion and, assuming he had Brick in mind like Anne Maria, defend the people he (possibly) cares about without as much fear. Shortly after, he injures himself looking for Zoey; once again, he puts those he cares about above himself, but himself over the layman.

After Vito fronts for a while, Mike suddenly takes over when he hears Zoey cry out for help and attempts to save her instead of winning. His care for others (Zoey specifically but he could generally be concerned for everyone considering the state of affairs [big spider]) triumphs his need for victory, which again lends credence to the theory that he’s on Total Drama for social reasons more so than monetary ones. In the meantime, Scott’s unabashedly upset about winning the challenge, but again, appears concerned for Brick when he begins crying. When Brick’s switched to the Toxic Rats, Mike, Cameron, and Anne Maria are visibly shocked and upset, showing that they probably did genuinely care for him, making it more possible that loyalty to Brick factored into him standing up to Jo earlier.

In episode five, we start with Scott having a nightmare about a shark (Fang). He’s soon woken up by Brick’s alarm clock, though he’s not grateful for this; in fact, he begins punching the alarm clock as a demonstration of what he’s going to do to Brick later. Is it possible, then, that Scott would rather live in a nightmare, a place of strife and fear, than in a reality where he’s experienced a harmless transgression? Per freaking chance. Shortly after, Scott begins stealing from other players to frame Brick. It’s unclear whether this is because he’s mad at Brick for the alarm clock incident, or whether he recognizes Brick as a weak link on the team. Either way, this is probably the most premeditation we’ve seen from Scott, as his plan continues to develop throughout the episode, versus how he normally takes an action right after coming up with it to immediate success or failure.

During the challenge, Scott tells Brick to prove his loyalty to the team. There are many reasons he might have done this. One is because it’s simply fun to him; he might like seeing Brick squirm. Another is to gauge his actual loyalty and scope out his strengths/weaknesses to exploit them later. Once again, this could be a combination of the two; Scott doesn’t think highly of Brick, but he seems amused by him being a “doofus”. And after this, we see another instance of Scott ragging on someone (Sam) for being bad at the game despite that working to his advantage. It’s probably another instance of hubris: something along the lines of “I could do better than that; I won’t, but I could”.

Back to Mike, we see an example of him outright lying. Once again, I don’t blame him or necessarily think this makes him a bad person, but he is outwardly dishonest with Zoey when he claims that he just “gets so deep into character that he [doesn’t] know what [he’s doing]”. He promises to stop playing characters if Zoey wants him to, even though he can’t do that, and tells her she’s the most amazing girl in the world. His love for Zoey triumphs over his logic and planning for the future. He’s so desperate to be loved by her that he doesn’t even consider how to make that happen. This is similar to how Scott’s hatred for people or situations trumps his ability to consider consequences, as seen in episode three especially but also throughout the series. Both of them, despite trying to remain calculated and in control, are often so blinded by their emotions that they act or speak on a whim.

It’s at this point that I must inform you that I forgot that Scott accused Brick of stealing while he was underwater, making that his motivation for sending Brick down there. However, I do stand by the point that Scott’s also a bit of a sadistic little freak and just likes being mean, because he is. Sailing along, I also find it interesting how Scott has to whittle when he starts getting bored; another addition to the point that he’s impulsive at times. And returning to Mike, Dawn claims that Mike “likes her a lot” and “it’s all over his aura”. And now it’s at this point that I am becoming increasingly aware that Mike’s kind of just Zoey’s plus-one in terms of characterization and this post is pointless in that right, but I’ll be damned if I don’t stretch his actions thin enough to give him an actual personality, and then do the same for Scott, and then make them yaoi out. Mike’s a person that cares so deeply for people that it permeates his aura, the very essence of his being; his priority is to love people (Zoey) and be loved by people (Zoey).

When Scott finds out that his team got the better boat, despite wanting to lose, he doesn’t miss the opportunity to call them “suckers”. Once again, Scott’s goal is glossed over in favor of being a huge bitch to others. This reminded me of how, similar to how Mike’s a lover and wants to be loved, Scott’s a hater, and I think he might want to be hated. When you think about it, Scott hasn’t done a single kind thing to anyone on the island. He’s never upset when people dislike him, and takes every opportunity to be mean or sarcastic. When he does display a positive emotion, he never tells anyone or joins them in expressing it. Scott seemingly detests having positive relationships, perhaps because he’s simply annoyed and inconvenienced by them, but also perhaps because he’s afraid of losing them or feeling like he’s at the whims of another person’s emotions and wills. And in the end, as we know, Scott’s negative relationships will be his downfall, just like how Mike’s unwillingness to break his positive relationships will be his (as well as, y’know, Scott meddling). While it’s probably unintentional, they’re pretty decent foils for one another.

We get another Scott lore drop when he says that he’s been shooting kitchen rats with his Pappy since he was six. I’m not sure what to make of this really, I just think it’s kind of fucked up to have your kid shoot rats but like I also didn’t grow up in a hunting area so maybe that’s normal and not psychologically damaging. Later, Dawn tells Scott not to fire anymore goals, and he does anyways, to her annoyance. Scott has to know Dawn is suspicious of him, but he can’t resist pissing her off. See, he needs to make people mad; maybe he does this often, maybe he just wants to be on someone’s mind even if it's negative. He eventually tries to get smart about it and he does get her voted off later, but like, hello. This fucking guy. Even though Scott dislikes Dawn, however, he stops Jo and Anne Maria from hurting her after he frames her for stealing. Either he revels in her misery, or he secretly cares about her a bit; this is supported by the fact that she was the only person he didn’t talk about voting off his team in episode four. Anyways, back to Scott being stupid, he openly brags about his knock-off idols as well, when that’s super suspicious; like he really needed to rub salt in the wound that badly. Dawn even refers to him as soulless and sociopathic, and she’s not wrong. He’s so unconcerned with the wellbeing of others, as well as himself. It seems that nothing truly matters to him in the long term, so long as he continues meeting his short term victories in pursuit of what I believe to be an excuse rather than an actual reason. I think that rather than calculating his actions beforehand, Scott acts and creates a justification later, or a justification he can routinely add to. It seems that Scott might’ve picked the Rats because they were close and therefore easy targets. It would make more sense than his actual “plan”. He hurts people and tries to convince himself that he knows why when he probably doesn’t, which is awful but also somewhat tragic. He might not have a real sense of priorities or identity, but tricks himself into thinking otherwise to, once again, give himself more control. Does this make sense? Whatever, we’re like 5763 words in, it doesn't matter anymore.

Back to party sciking, in episode six, we see the formation of Team Men with Scott, Brick, and Lightning (and later, Sam). Scott’s finally making allies, and he doesn’t seem too upset about it. I think this might clue us into the idea that Scott does want positive relationships, but maybe doesn’t consciously understand that. He doesn’t fight Brick or Lightning on this when he normally would. Later, before the challenge, Mike tries to compliment Zoey, and in the confessional, she tells him to pick a side. And I feel like if you twist that enough we can get into bisexual territory, but I digress. Mike’s upset at his alters for ruining his relationship with Zoey, and while that’s true, he totally forgets to take into account that his alters are also people who also deserve access to the body. It’s more important to Mike that he gets what he wants rather than his alters get what they want, and above all, it's important that he maintains a firm grasp on his life with little to no interference. But he doesn’t seem aware of the fact that his alters are people. It’s almost like the personhood of someone can be diminished in service of his goals, and that he can cognitively distance himself from his actions if they become too (for lack of a better word) scary for him. This might sound familiar because it’s kind of what Scott does as well. They both hurt people in order to get what they want, it’s just that Mike’s unaware that he hurts people but aware of what he wants while Scott’s aware that he hurts people but unaware of exactly what he wants.

Zoey talks to Mike again, excited to dress a model, and despite the fact that he’s never shown an interest in fashion, Mike smiles. This is because Zoey’s giving him positive attention again. Mf is a bit of a lapdog to be honest. Scott would probably like someone like that, who’s loyal to a fault. The vision is visioning. Anyways, Mike catches a frog, not much to add but he does do that. Fang tries to catch Scott, and Scott notices and catches him with his own trap. He’s observant. Like Mike. They observe each other. Gay style. Scott also grins when Brick proposes a plan and creates an explosive. While Scott’s probably excited to see it blow up in his face, I like to think Scott also admires him a bit, adding to the idea that he secretly likes some aspects of his peers and just won’t express it. Mike tells Anne Maria that the maggot looks bad, which is slightly uncharacteristic of him but okay. He and Anne Maria were friendly before; maybe he’s trying to pull back in service of making Zoey feel better. He’s kind of destroying this sort-of friendship because he likes Zoey so much. Adding to this, he appears excited when Zoey says she wants to dress the maggot. He appears nervous when Jo argues with Anne Maria as well; whether this is because he still cares about Anne Maria despite everything or because he’s afraid of conflict/Jo is unclear.

It’s at this point that Scott begins manipulating Zoey. Just put a pin in that. Scott and Mike stand next to each other, if that’s anything? They also move similarly, like they’re subconsciously mimicking each other. Do you understand how difficult it is to write about Scike when it's episode six and the most they’ve actually interacted is standing near each other and looking in the same direction? Scott’s impressed by Sam, which is nice; he actually admires something about someone. I think being around people who he subconsciously wants to be friends with is making him slightly more willing to play the game and be nice to people in his own way. He even looks concerned when the yeti throws Sam, and again when the Maggots lose, like he doesn’t want to vote anyone out.

IT’S FREAKING TEAM SWAP TIME BABY THEY’RE ON THE SAME TEAM WAHOO!! Mike is immediately concerned, the most concerned out of the maggots. This is in part due to him approaching Zoey, but don’t forget, Mike thinks Scott’s off, he notices the things that he does and the way he behaves. Oh BABY he needs to save his friends from this guy, I smell a hero complex brewing.

In episode seven, the teams go into the mines. About eight minutes in, Mike finds a hat and excitedly explains that he’s always wanted one, to which Scott makes fun of him for being a “hat loving loser”. This is an uncharacteristically lame insult, which makes me think that Scott already has a distaste for Mike and is looking for any reason to insult him; this is probably because he knows that Mike’s onto him, and he doesn’t enjoy the mortifying ideal of being known. And it’ll ruin his plan or whatever. Later in the challenge, when Manitoba and Cameron are separated from Anne Maria, Zoey, and Scott, Scott tries to pin the split on Mike to get him booted. We can assume that Scott sees Mike as the biggest threat on his new team.

Later, Mike carries Cameron on his back to safety, and says that he hopes Zoey’s okay, despite him also being exposed to radiation. He thanks Cameron for coming back from him and calls him a friend. He’s just, so loyal to them, I don’t think I can say that enough. His friends mean so much to him. And I think Scott could see that and relate to it a bit, because instead of continuing to badger him, he suggests they lose the packs and find Anne Maria. The two of them, along with Zoey and Cameron, all look annoyed at Chris for not helping them, and Scott follows Mike as he leads the team to Anne Maria. I think it’s interesting that Scott stays with them even as the situation becomes life-threatening, and he even shares their surprise when the other team grabs their statue. The two of them run together to grab the statue and they both look happy to find it, even though Scott supposedly wants to lose. Maybe in this life threatening situation, they found an odd sort of comfort in and appreciation for one another, just for a brief moment. And despite knowing what Scott’s like, Mike trusts him with the statue as he runs off to save Zoey and Cameron, putting his own life in danger. This was obviously a mistake, as Scott throws it out, but for a second, it seemed like Scott was happy for him, when it was just him and Mike.

So Mike starts literally fucking dying defending his friends. Away from Scike, back to Mike prime, he’s about to be killed by the moles, has every chance to run for himself, and his radiation poisoning is getting worse by the second. But he still stayed behind to defend them. The situation got so dangerous that he even tried to tell Zoey about his DID, before Brick saved them. And that’s just??? SO fucking bananas holy shit. He cares about them so much, I dunno what to say. That’s his defining character trait and his fatal flaw, defending others; and it works even better juxtaposed with Scott, who’s defining trait and fatal flaw is only caring about himself. Foaming at the freaking MOUTH dude. He’s got issues, sure, but man he’s so sweet, love him. After this he’s the first person to confront Chris about this not being about the statues, but rather the mine; he’s more than likely upset that Chris put his friends in danger, especially for these ulterior motives. He’s so upset on their behalf, not even his own, that he stands up to the man who almost got him killed.

After this ordeal, Cameron confronts Mike about having DID. In his fear, Mike’s quick to ask who told him that. He’s afraid, first and foremost, that other people know and are talking about him; afraid that this has made him somehow unlikable or unlovable. At the mention of being able to control it, he’s overjoyed, and immediately agrees to help get rid of Scott. Scott’s the first person outside of Mike’s system who he’s been willing to genuinely disadvantage for his own goals. So Mike does not like Scott. But I feel like it’s an oddly intimate dislike. He dislikes him so personally, understands him so thoroughly with such disdain, for such little personal transgressions, that he’s willing to throw him under the bus to regain control over his situation. That’s special in a way, Scott’s the only person Mike would do that to. And considering how Scott treats everyone with hate as a way to cover his actual wants for human connection, and he hates Mike more than anyone else on the team, I feel like it’s safe to say they have strong mutual negative feelings in a way neither of them have experienced before. In a weird way, right now, with Mike having a sway over the team, he’s kind of more in control than he’s ever been. I can’t explain it, but the way they hurt each other goes beyond average contempt to me. In real life, yes, you shouldn’t hate someone that you have romantic feelings for; but I think something like this in fiction blurs the lines with intensity in regard for one another. It’s a blending of concepts. Lois it insists upon itself, but in a fun and intriguing way. I love when characters hate each other with the intensity and obsession that other characters love each other with.

It’s 2:40 AM and I just hit my pen so I could really lock in for these last two episodes before Mike’s eliminated but idk if it’s going to work.

In episode eight, we start off with the teams on the rafts. Scott comes up looking anxious about getting eaten by a shark, and Mike returns the expression, and says that the shark will never find them. This could be Mike comforting himself or comforting Zoey and Cameron, but do you know what it could also be? Comforting Scott. The person he’s responding to. Mike and Scott don’t like each other, but Scott still came to Mike first, and Mike still had it in him not to shame or ignore him. Am I making a big deal out of nothing? Absolutely.

At this point, Cameron explains to the audience what causes each of Mike’s alters to front: Vito fronts when the body is shirtless, Svetlana fronts when there’s a physical challenge, Chester fronts when frustrated, and Manitoba fronts when the body’s wearing a hat. I’m not sure what to make of Manitoba’s trigger(?), but the others make it apparent that Mike isn’t able to handle or is rarely able to handle physical challenges, frustration, or being shirtless by himself. And this is where I should talk about Mike’s trauma, probably. I’m not going to get too into things here because I’m not an expert on DID and also it could be mildly upsetting, but DID develops due to repeated early childhood trauma and different alters may be better equipped to handle certain feelings, tasks, relationships, or memories than others. Mike had to have experienced this repeated trauma and it likely had some sort of physical component, considering Vito’s triggered by the removal of the shirt and he mentions in his character bio that he doesn’t have any good childhood memories besides maybe riding his bike. This, as well as the rejection we discussed earlier, explains a lot about Mike’s personality unfortunately. He’s used to being hurt, and seeks control, stability, and love for that reason. He’s loyal and quick to form attachments because he probably didn’t/doesn’t have any at home. And he’s self-preserving and protective and aware of his surroundings because of this as well, because he has to be. We don’t know exactly what happened in Mike’s life, though there is an “Uncle Vinny” in his character bio (mentioned by Vito) and it is possible that Chester is an introject of an older relative. Regardless, it doesn’t matter. I would like to return to Scott for a moment, and renew the topic of his home life. We’ve discussed how Scott’s family probably isn’t well off, doesn’t show him enough affection, and likely never disciplined him in a way that stuck considering how he behaves. And his father encouraging him to kill rats for him doesn’t sound great either. Like Mike, it would make sense for Scott to have an unstable/unhealthy home life, and for that to translate in his characters. He also needs power over other people, he pushes away people and refuses to make friends, he has patterns of violence, and he’s fast to learn what makes people tick.

Back to the scene, Zoey starts by complimenting Mike, which he’s excited about (need for approval, ok). However, he becomes nervous when she says it feels like he’s hiding from her. Then when Dakota starts mutating, Mike is the first to diffuse the situation by stating that her hair is growing back. He also leads the charge in pulling the sign out of the raft. After Dakota throws out the sign, Mike also says that they have to get in the water instead. When Scott reminds him about the shark and tries to refuse, Mike shoves him into the water, annoyed. It’s sort of fascinating how much more dominating Mike is in this episode compared to others. Maybe almost dying (or rather, almost losing his friends) in the mine changed him. Or maybe he has more confidence now that he’s the strongest person in his friend group and he doesn’t care what Scott thinks of him, evident by him forcing Scott into the water when he never would’ve done that to someone else. Mike, again, tells the team to stay quiet to avoid provoking the kraken. Man is going off this episode. He’s instantly annoyed when Scott starts freaking out over the shark, he’s so done dealing with this man that he can’t handle it and Chester takes over. Dude they’re soooo in hate. <3 After this, Scott is irate over his team winning, more than he’s ever been before. His feelings are so strong that he’s focusing extra hard on this faux-goal to destroy his own team. Mike’s also upset because the challenge is dangerous, “even by [Chris’] standards”, probably because the last challenge was also ridiculously dangerous and he’s worried about a repeat.

While Mike and Cameron go ahead to win the challenge at Mike’s behest, Scott talks to Zoey. He knows that Mike has a secret just by watching them, and lets Zoey in on this to manipulate her. After this, Mike and Cameron tell Zoey that Scott’s bad news in return, and she claims that he still has a heart. Mike is saddened by the fact that Zoey trusts Scott more than him, and I just think that’s such a…thing to happen. In trying to keep Zoey close by hiding his DID, he just pushed her away more, towards someone who’s so similar to him yet so different as well. We find out from Cameron that Mike fronts when Zoey’s in danger, because he cares about her that much. Scott also steals the team’s compass from Mike and frames him for losing it, blaming him if they come in last, but he fails when Dakota clears the forest of thorns. Scott keeps losing to someone who should be so easy to beat and who represents everything that he hates: kindness, loyalty, and people who stand up to him. Meanwhile, Mike’s alters are becoming increasingly hard to control, and he’s still unwilling to admit to having DID, afraid this will dissolve the relationship that’s already crumbling due to him not revealing it; he’s stuck in an Ouroboros of fear. Scott, immediately after this, seems to be mocking Mike, loudly saying to Zoey, “Would I lie to you?” Scott just knows how to push this guy’s buttons in the perfect way to piss him off.

When Scott loses the challenge for them, Mike’s probably the most upset we’ve ever heard him, at least in my opinion. He doesn’t hesitate to let Scott know that he fucked up and that Mike thinks he’s full of shit. Mike tries to get Zoey to vote for Scott, done with this charade; Scott feels the same about playing around like this, and gets Cameron to admit that Mike has DID— but he doesn’t want Mike out yet, he wants to toy with him some more. You can see the horror in his face when Scott pulls out the idol. In order for Dakota to go home, it couldn’t have just been Zoey to vote for her, and Mike and Cameron voted for Scott, and Dakota probably didn’t vote for herself. Scott had to have either voted with her, or voted for himself for fun; but irregardless, he didn’t vote for Mike, even though he’s clearly Scott’s biggest target. He doesn’t just want Mike out, but wants to use him first, something we haven’t seen before. And yes, this is because Scott’s a bad person, and taking advantage of his weaknesses; but having his weaknesses known and used by someone would be a sort of ideal scenario for Mike, despite also being his literal nightmare. He doesn’t have to hide from Scott at all, Scott’s probably the only person that Mike can fully be mad at and confront about that anger. Which is very fucked up, but also oddly close, I guess. It’s a unique relationship, it’s interesting to me. The mortifying yet somewhat comforting ideal of being known going both ways. Toxic yaoi. Hate as an allegory for love. Y’know, the usual.

The toxic yaoi continues in episode nine baby, we freaking made it. The first line that catches my eye (or ear I guess) is “Multiple Mike thinks he’s a ladies man, what a loser”. First of all, reeks of gay thoughts and unaware jealousy; but second of all, notice how Scott and Mike continuously get more and more openly aggressive with one another. They’re falling into a routine with it, almost.

This is where Scott introduces the deal— AKA, starts blackmailing Mike to help him win the challenge. Mike’s incredibly upset, and even considers telling Zoey about his DID, but is ultimately still too afraid. He’d rather be used than be abandoned. During the challenge, Mike tries to quip back at Scott for telling him to look in the broom closet, but retracts it when Scott threatens to tell Zoey. He tries to look tough to Scott, but fails. And when Zoey’s in trouble, Scott refuses to let him help her, in favor of making him go through the trash. Like with everyone, Scott likes to see Mike squirm, but I think he’s best at it with Mike, and the most enthusiastic about it too.

I’d also like to mention here that Mike just kind of gives up and lets Scott pick him up and carry him. Just saying idk you know when you just pick up some guy who you hate instead of making him actually fight for you or run in front of you or whatever. Mike also snarks Scott when his car doesn’t work, which, ok, go off King. Mike finally stands up for himself to help Zoey, the desire to protect her stronger than his fear, but Scott remembers how to trigger Vito to front and uses this to his advantage.

So, at this point, Vito gets clobbered and Mike has the fight with his alters, and it’s soooo bad, it’s so bad dude. They’re all fighting for control as if the moral isn’t that they should work together, it’s ridiculous, but I guess it also makes sense for Mike to be pushed to this considering everything? Glossing over this, anyways, Mike finally comes clean to Zoey and explains that he didn’t want Zoey to think badly of him. And I know everyone hates this scene, I hate this scene, “multiples just means there’s more Mike to —” yeah yeah yeah yeah fuck off idc that’s not how it works. But at least I think it does help draw a final parallel between Mike’s relationships with Zoey and Scott along with Scott eliminating him. Mike’s able to pursue his loving relationship with Zoey through her finding out about his closest secret, and Mike and Scott similarly are able to freely insult each other and develop this toxic almost-codependent-but-Scott’s-way-worse relationship because they also know each other, they know they’re hiding something and they’re familiar with each other’s personalities because hate drives them to look so deeply into each other. Mike gains Zoey and loses his dynamic with Scott, and vice versa, back and forth. These relationships can’t coexist, both because they’re so polarizing but also so similar in their intensity.

I didn’t watch the entirety of episodes ten through thirteen because it’s 4 AM and this is a Scike post, a 9274 word Scike post. But I did scrub through them and I would like to throw out there the Icarus imagery in episode ten when Zoey burns Scott for what he did to Mike, like Scott got too close to the sun or too in over his head, and Mike was his ultimate downfall. I’m also just going to skitter on past the “Mike makes fun of Scott while he’s in the trauma chair” because what the fuck. What was that.

The relationship between Mike and Scott in canon is, admittedly, less significant in canon than it is in my head, and less well-written and intriguing than I pretend it is, and it’s not healthy, and no matter how I spin it they never actually made up or understood each other in a major tangible way. But I think they should have. I think having them be characters who begrudgingly understand each other and care for each other in a way they don’t acknowledge or even recognize would give them some much-needed depth and maybe consistency. Scott in canon has no close relationships, and the two that Mike has weren’t necessarily great throughout the season even though I like to think that they are. It would be good for them. Adding a few more layers to each of them would explain a lot about their goals, their mannerisms, the contradictions in their personalities; it would make them both more sympathetic and relatable, into some maladjusted teenagers looking for an outlet rather than just a good guy and a bad guy who hate each other.

In conclusion, this post didn’t make much sense, and it was kind of a waste of time. But it was fun to think about these guys, and I could fix them, and also they’re more toxic in canon than first thought but I’m not necessarily complaining, because what’s a character without conflict and what’s a story without a theme? I didn’t edit or organize it, this was more or less my notes from rewatching the first nine episodes of ROTI. I’m aware it was super repetitive and rambly but I don’t have the time or energy to clean it up so, make of them what you will. Maybe this gave you a new perspective on Mike and Scott, maybe it didn’t, I dunno, I’m indifferent now, perchance. Like and subscribe for more Party Sciking. I need them to hold hands and wear the get along shirt and go to therapy. This ended up being more or less 9,738 words. Hope everything’s right in this, let me know your thoughts but please don’t tell me if you hate it. Goodnight Miami.

#alex’s td rambles #total drama #td scike #throws this to you. i don't remember half of what i wrote here #take a shot every time i say control or trust or power or annoy or smile or love or #cw abuse mentions #just in case #also i hope i got the psych stuff right i promise i did research #cw toxic relationship

11 notes · View notes

disabledunitypunk · 4 months

Text

I want to revisit exactly why we founded this blog in the first place.

I was viscerally reminded of it while scrolling an entirely different liberation tag. I found a post that I liked and went to the blog to see if I might like to follow them. The second recent post on their blog was this, which as I was reading I found myself relating to.

Warning for uncensored references to slurs. This is done for readability in the context of talking about them, and the slurs are neither being aimed at anyone nor reclaimed in this context, even where reclaimable.

You know how you look back at past shitty connections, friends, family dynamics, and relationships and you're like "I can't believe I let them treat me that way"? I think it hits differently with disability because when you're disabled you don't always even know that you're being mistreated and/ or abused in regards to it.

I know statistically disabled people are more likely to be abused but sometimes there's an additional type of abuse that's hard to identify even in hindsight because no one tells you how abusive it is.

But ableist abuse relating to your disability can look like:

Pushing you to do things beyond your limitations despite their awareness of them.

Blaming you for the "inconveniences" brought on by things beyond your control (ex: missing a movie because you had to wait for your pain meds to kick in).

Not allowing you to take breaks or antagonizing you when you do.

Bullying or making fun of things you can't help like gait, a lisp, an embarrassing symptom.

Trying to "cure" or "fix" you, often framing it as "helping" you. Sometimes they look similar and you might be able to tell by their reaction towards lack of improvement.

Holding over you the things they have to do for you (cooking, cleaning, driving, working, etc).

Giving ultimatums that demand things of you that you can't do (getting a job, keeping up with multiple chores).

Using insulting terms, language, and/or slurs that you have not permitted them to or in a context where there is intent to harm you.

Interrogating you about your disability or trying to find discrepancies between your experiences and what they've heard/read/seen about it.

Implying or saying anything along the lines of you faking, being lazy, or exaggerating.

Reducing you to a hypochondriac, saying you enjoy being disabled because you seem to like having things done for you, or that you're lazy or abusing them by depending on them for things.

Asking you about it not to learn more, but to use it against you in some way.

Having a martyr complex, acting as if they're a hero for giving you the support you deserve.

Calling you a burden, implying you to be one, or treating you like one.

Acting like you owe them a debt, sometimes even demanding some kind of repayment. Keeping track of money they spend on you that you won't be able to pay back, feeling entitled to things like control, sex, a portion of government benefits, etc.

Self victimizing. They act like you being disabled causes more suffering to themselves than you.

Accusing you of being addicted to your medication. If you genuinely develop an addiction a normal response is concern not rage, finger pointing, etc. if you don't have one baseless claims are very harmful

Trying to force you to stop "depending" on things you need like medication and disability aids

Comparing you to others that are doing "better" than you. Maybe showing you inspiration porn of someone with no legs for example doing incredible things- which is great for them but the "I don't let my disability stop me so you can do anything" shit is harmful. Some of us will get very unwell if we try, and some just can't.

Trying to make others also see you as dramatic, faking, or lazy. Often embarrassing and mocking you as well.

Withholding things you need like medication or disability aids as a punishment

Saying your disability is karma or something inflicted by a divine entity/religious figure. Maybe as punishment for not praying, being queer, or something else they disagree with.

Saying that it's a result of being "promiscuous"/ LGBT. For instance if you have HIV or ME/ CFS that was a result of something like mononucleosis ("kissing disease")

Shaming you for things related to your disability beyond your control or expressing embarrassment over these things. including but not limited to: appearance (general but also things like say a lupus butterfly rash or weight gain/loss), having to lay down in public (ex: with POTS), inability to keep up with hygiene, etc.

Lacking boundaries and acting as if they are entitled to information or intrusion of your space/belongings due to the power they hold over you and assistance they may provide.

Implying/saying you're living an extended vacation. Maybe one they say they wish they had because they have to do x y z while you "sit around"

Abandoning you solely for your disability (ex: because you can't hang out, they don't want a disabled partner, think you're faking, etc)

Note that someone doing one or two of these things a few times doesn't always mean they're abusing you (also depends on which). It's about the patterns and frequency of this behavior as well as refusal to improve once aware that they're hurting you. People who care about you don't want to hurt you and the normal response is to do their best not to repeat the action that negatively affected you

There are more examples and you can feel free to list some

Except it was then, at the very bottom, followed by:

✨This is about physical illnesses and disabilities, please don't derail✨

So let's go point by point, shall we?

Pushing you to do things beyond your limitations despite their awareness of them.

This is universal to all forms of disability, and in fact neurodisabled people are often pushed beyond their limitations by people aware of them precisely because those people think neurodivergence can't be profoundly disabling, rather than thinking a specific individual's physical disability isn't so in their specific case or based on their specific diagnosis.

Blaming you for the "inconveniences" brought on by things beyond your control (ex: missing a movie because you had to wait for your pain meds to kick in).

While this one is universal to abuse in general, I have no problem with a post about ableism focusing on ableist abuse. There is in fact a unique manifestation of this kind of abuse with ableism, where the things that are beyond your control specifically are also causing significant distress to you, as opposed to another aspect of your life like a physical feature or care breaking down or something that is either neutral or external.

However, it is in fact not only not exclusive to physical disability, but in fact one of the primary ways neuroableism manifests, because neuroableism relies on blaming individuals for things beyond their control by pushing the narrative that it would be in our control if we just "tried harder". This is not unique to neuroableism, either; corpoableism very much does this too, precisely because it relies on the sanist ideology that physically disabled folks are not intellectually capable of knowing our own disabilities and limits.

Erasing either type from the narrative would be wrong and lead to a reductive and facile understanding of ableism.

Not allowing you to take breaks or antagonizing you when you do.

Once again universal. Not being allowed to take breaks for neurodisabled people can lead to burnout, PTSD, self-injury, brain damage, traumagenically triggered development of chronic pain disorders and chronic illness, and more.

Bullying or making fun of things you can't help like gait, a lisp, an embarrassing symptom.

Once again universal, and I'd like to point out that gait can be and lisps usually are neurological in nature. They are very much physical manifestations of what are often or even primarily neurological conditions, and are in those cases considered forms of neurodivergence.

Trying to "cure" or "fix" you, often framing it as "helping" you. Sometimes they look similar and you might be able to tell by their reaction towards lack of improvement.

Autism S/peaks exists for this exact reason. "Curing" divergences in functional neurology is the entire basis of sanism and therefore fighting it is a fundamental part of the very foundation of mad liberation. This is actually a form of ableism more prevalent against neurodivergence, especially unpalatable neurodivergence, than physical disability. It is even present against nondisabling neurodivergence (that which causes neither distress nor dysfunction), which is an important facet to consider in understanding how ableism functions - even solely against people who ARE disabled.

Holding over you the things they have to do for you (cooking, cleaning, driving, working, etc).

Yet again universal. Somehow I wonder if this person thinks neurodisabilities aren't actually, well, disabling. Neurodisabilities can make you unable to cook, clean, drive, work, make appointments and access care, do paperwork required to receive the "benefits" you need to survive, and more, just as physical disabilities can.

Giving ultimatums that demand things of you that you can't do (getting a job, keeping up with multiple chores).

Again, neurodisabilities are disabling.

Using insulting terms, language, and/or slurs that you have not permitted them to or in a context where there is intent to harm you.

Retard. Stupid. Crazy. Idiot. Insane. Dumb. Sociopath. Bipolar. Narcissist. Psychopath. Schizo. Antisocial.

Just because you refuse to recognize many of these as slurs doesn't make them not slurs, and they are certainly "insulting terms and language". The ones mentioned are specifically often weaponized against neurodisabled people based on various aspects of their neurodisabilities, and not always based on the exact definitional meaning or common usage of the slur. For example, a person with ADHD might be called "insane" for finding their ADHD profoundly disabling, despite ADHD not typically being considered under the umbrella of disorders/neurodivergencies most impacted by sanism.

Interrogating you about your disability or trying to find discrepancies between your experiences and what they've heard/read/seen about it.

Refusing to recognize autism outside of "Rain Man" stereotypes. Refusing to recognize inattentive and mixed subtypes of ADHD. Refusing to recognize cluster B disorders if a person seems "nice". Refusing to recognize OCD outside of excessive cleaning. Refusing to recognize complex dissociative disorders outside of a very narrow definition that excludes medically recorded and accepted presentations of CDDs. Refusing to recognize psychosis and schizospec disorders in anyone who is able to express themselves.

Those are just some of the many extremes that we have personal experience with - never mind the more subtle and insidious forms of this kind of abuse that don't involve outright fakeclaiming and barred access from treatment/support.

Implying or saying anything along the lines of you faking, being lazy, or exaggerating.

Not only is this a primary manifestation of neuroableism, but it is in fact the one that is most prevalent in disabled community infighting and discourse, most typically weaponized against neurodisabled people. This one is particularly ironic for that reason - physically disabled neurodisabled people are called abled or told we are pretending or want to be more disabled than we actually are the instant we dare to talk about how our disabling neurodivergence profoundly disables us; let alone that we AND "physically abled" neurodisabled people do not in fact gain access to abled privilege.

Reducing you to a hypochondriac, saying you enjoy being disabled because you seem to like having things done for you, or that you're lazy or abusing them by depending on them for things.

*Stares directly at pretend camera like I'm on The Office*.

Another one at least as equally prevalent against neurodisabled people, though for this one I hesitate to claim more so. I've found that our experiences with chronic pain and executive dysfunction are near-identical in this respect.

Asking you about it not to learn more, but to use it against you in some way.

Having a martyr complex, acting as if they're a hero for giving you the support you deserve.

Calling you a burden, implying you to be one, or treating you like one.

Self victimizing. They act like you being disabled causes more suffering to themselves than you.

Doing these all together because they're all related.

Autism warrior moms are the most visible example of this, but people who act in any sort of caretaker role to disabled people, related or not, do this all the time. They do this regardless of specific disability. Parents of disabled children and partners of disabled people (and friends and other relations) are all "heroes" in societies eyes, and often not only don't challenge that, but wield it against their children/partners/friend/etc.

Also, the entire concept of "narcissistic abuse" is just this.

Trying to force you to stop "depending" on things you need like medication and disability aids

Withholding things you need like medication or disability aids as a punishment

Grouping these together a bit out of order because they're also related. The addiction narrative is especially common with antidepressants, anti anxiety meds, and especially ADHD meds. My own abusive parent tried to get me off my meds for this reason.

This is also the reason meds like ADHD meds are systemically refused and withheld - the anti-addict narratives, fear of "dependence" and withholding meds as a "punishment" for challenging the narrative that disabled people can't know their own disabilities or that a psychiatric professional might know less or be wrong about them.

Accessibility aids that are necessary for preventing meltdowns and/or shutdowns such as stim toys, light-sensitivity glasses, noise-canceling headphones, and such, are also often withheld because they don't want you to "depend" on them or as punishment.

Yes, and Albert Einstein was autistic. Vincent Van Gogh was suicidally depressed and schizophrenic - and the fact he did some of his best art while actively being treated for these is erased. Edgar Allen Poe, among other things, likely had a seizure disorder - which is a form of neurodivergence as much as a physical disability. There's dozens of examples of this for just about any given neurodisability, whether with someone famous or simply another family member with the same diagnosis, just as there is for a given physical disability.

Saying your disability is karma or something inflicted by a divine entity/religious figure. Maybe as punishment for not praying, being queer, or something else they disagree with.

Another universal one, but especially applies to depression, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.

Saying that it's a result of being "promiscuous"/ LGBT. For instance if you have HIV or ME/ CFS that was a result of something like mononucleosis ("kissing disease")

This is so far, the first one I've seen that primarily affects people who are physically chronically ill (though ME/CFS actually specifically causes neurodivergence in the form of profound cognitive disability - an example of how systemic physical conditions are often partially neurodivergent in nature due to the simple physical organ responsible for consciousness being affected).

While there are outliers, such as trauma disorders resulting from abuse occurring in a queer relationship that you have less recourse and resources for in a queermisic society, I think it's at least possible to have a conversation about this one centered on physical disabilities without excluding a group just as severely and commonly effected.

However, it is neither distracting from a conversation nor decentering the most effected to simply acknowledge that even this is not wholly exclusive to physical disability, and it in fact enriches the conversation and makes measures which fight it more effective to analyze the totality of how this form of ableist abuse is used against people.

That's... kinda the whole basis of the theory of intersectionality.

I'm not sure if this is just a more specific repeat of the second point or a similar but different manifestation of it, but as someone with physical disabilities that come with flushing and rashes, with POTS, and whose inability to keep up with hygiene is as related to their neurodivergence as their physical disabilities: this I would say is more common in terms of appearance with physical disabilities but equally as common in terms of hygiene with neurodisabilities.

Some exceptions include Down Syndrome, FASD, and even some disabling intersex variations in specific contexts for appearance; and it's worth noting that hygiene is slightly more commonly weaponized against those with invisible disabilities than those with very visible ones in either case, though cases of significant acne and other skin conditions are a large exception to this as well.

Lacking boundaries and acting as if they are entitled to information or intrusion of your space/belongings due to the power they hold over you and assistance they may provide.

Once again a very basic form of abuse, but made worse by the inherent hierarchical power imbalance of being abled while you are disabled (or in some cases, being disabled but a parent or disabled but having financial power over you in any relationship). This is actually one of the single most prevalent types of child abuse specifically, but especially against both neurodisabled and physically disabled children.

Implying/saying you're living an extended vacation. Maybe one they say they wish they had because they have to do x y z while you "sit around"

Hm, I wonder if neurodisabled people ever have the distressing and disabling aspects of their neurodisabilities erased while people act like they are on vacation while being profoundly disabled by their brain to the point of being unable to work. /sarcasm

Abandoning you solely for your disability (ex: because you can't hang out, they don't want a disabled partner, think you're faking, etc)

Is your disability disabling? Then this in fact likely applies to you! I don't know a single neurodivergent or physically disabled person who hasn't experienced this, even amongst neurodivergent people that are in their own words not very disabled by their neurodivergence.

So out of 27 examples, exactly one is primarily experienced by physically disabled people.

Somehow I fail to see how it is "derailing" to acknowledge forms of ableism as experienced equally by neurodisabled people, but I do find conversations of ableism actually derailed by insisting on not letting a significant portion of the disabled community (including what is a significant portion if not a majority of the physically disabled community) talk about the full extent of their experiences with ableism.

Or, to put it more simply, it is derailing discussions of ableism to insist that they are exclusive to physically disabled people when they are not, and especially to accuse other physically disabled people of derailing if they talk about how their experiences with ableism are intersectional with and even inseparable from their neurodivergence.

I have an example to add to this list after all: DARVO, an acronym which stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and offender. When you deny that neurodisabled people face this ableism (or that they face it at similar rates, to the same extent, etc), attack them for bringing that up, and act like they are being ableist while you erase disabled people's experiences with ableism, you are guilty of this.

This is the whole reason we coined unitypunk and made this account - to address lateral ableism within the community and erasure of both corpoableism from neurodisabled folks and neuroableism from physically disabled folks. The community has been more successfully fractured by this discourse than any fed psy-op could ever have done or even hoped for, and part of fighting that is refusing to tolerate ableism in our spaces and reminding people that we have a common goal - total liberation for ALL disabled people.

When you perpetuate ableism against one part of the community, you reaffirm the structures that oppress us all.

There are in fact conversations to be had about variances in oppression that cause unique forms of abuse towards physically disabled people - such as how the slightest of slopes or uneven surfaces can make a "walkable" city utterly inaccessible to mobility aid users, or even the microaggression of the term for a city that is supposed to be more accessible specifically focusing on those who can walk, a language choice which often shapes the inattention towards accessibility needs when planning these spaces. Another fundamentally interrelated example of this is lack of masking and social distancing during the ongoing pandemic - in another way effectively shutting disabled people out of public spaces.

There's also conversations to be had about the unique forms of ableism that affect neurodisabled people - such as the carceral institutionalization of neurodivergent people for anything from refusing to medicate psychosis whether or not it is causing distress or dysfunction, to being plural, to being suicidal, to being autistic and a hacker, and all the forms of violence and especially suppression of neurodivergent identity that come with that.

I want it to be clear: I chose two examples I am directly affected by that I consider equally serious precisely to illustrate how important both of those conversations are. The utter erasure and apathy towards making even the most tiny of steps that are inconsequential for abled people towards accessibility in public spaces that make them completely inaccessible for us as physically disabled people, and the incarceration of neurodisabled people and forced "correction" of our neurodivergence are massive forms of structural ableism that massively impact us as disabled people on a daily level.

The narratives used to justify these forms of oppression often rely on one another to function, and that's a really important part of the conversation! Disabled people are "crazy" for demanding we be taken into consideration when planning accessibility because either "we already are" (except it's ramps that are utterly unusable or similar that is just an elaborate display allowing abled people to get away with patting themselves on the back for doing less than nothing) or because "the pandemic is over" or similar.

Disabled people need to be locked up "for our own good" to cure us of the sickness ravaging our brains until we are compliant - and mental illness diagnoses are weaponized against physically disabled people and we are enforced to endure CBT for chronic pain and illness as a form of medical gaslighting because really, our disabilities and the ableism we face are just "thought distortions".

This is again, basic intersectional theory. Conversations about transphobia are enriched by discussing where transandromisia, transmisogyny, and exorsexism overlap and interact, as well as how these all rely heavily on and perpetuate intersexism. Conversations about the unique ways pluralmisia manifests based on perceived and actual origin and disordered status and how much of pluralmisia relies on sanism and oppression of mad and especially psychotic people benefit from acknowledging all of that, while also acknowledging that aspects of pluralmisia exist independently of sanism and manifest uniquely for nondisordered and endogenic plurals, as well as for plural non-systems.

At the same time, there are conversations to be had centered on the unique forms of oppression within a marginalized group. In my experience, conversations about exorsexism and ceteromisia in particular need a space to focus on the marginalization of those who aren't binary or binary-adjacent, despite exorsexism overlapping significantly with binary forms of transphobia and gender essentialism and bioessentialism based in those false binaries.

Another example that I can speak less to, but want to acknowledge, is the variations in anti-black, anti-indigenous, anti-AAPI, and other forms of racism. Racism as a rule doesn't map in a lot of ways to other forms of oppression and so comparing them as such is often clumsy at best and actively racist at worst.

Given how much eugenics and white supremacism and colonialism rely on and inform ableism in turn, though, I think it's important to bring up. Examples such as schizophrenia being recategorized to diagnose black civil rights activists as violent crazy people so their imprisonment and experimentation on could be "justified" to white society - where it was previously considered a disorder of white housewives; black asylum prisoners being the primary victims of lobotomies and other experimentation; the overdiagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder and other conduct disorders in (typically autistic) black children are some of the ones I'm most aware of.

I am aware however that my knowledge on the subject is sorely lacking and welcome all people of color to add to this part of the conversation.

All this to say - I started this blog to try and open these conversations up. I have definitely been guilty of being reactive myself (and speaking for other headmates as well) in response to ableism and cruelty. I don't mean to tone-police myself or anyone else, but I do want to acknowledge that we personally want to move away from that and feel that doing so will make us specifically more effective as facilitators in this conversation.

Every time we add a related perspective to a conversation and someone says "oh, yes, and also this", it reminds us that the goal of unitypunk in addressing ableism as it affects all disabled people and rejecting ableism within our communities is possible. Every time someone has the courage to add a perspective we did not consider to our posts, we are grateful that they took the time and effort to foster solidarity and educate us and others on it.

We always wanted to create a supportive community and movement that welcomes diverse experiences and perspectives, and allows the valuable insight of different people to enrich our conversations about and activism against ableism. We've been far from perfect in doing so, but even where we've disagreed on matters that specifically affect us and our specific disability, we have no end of appreciation for every participant who has recognized our humanity and disability.

If you agree that at the end of the day, organizing with the ultimate goal of liberation matters most, and that fighting ableism wherever it occurs is the most important thing, you are embodying unitypunk. It's a movement that refuses to handwave ableism as "disagreements", but also refuses to let true disagreements stand in the way of standinf unified against ableism.

We hope that going forward, we can continue to create a safe and accepting space where all disabled people can have both these focused and general conversations about ableism, while specifically making sure to include everyone affected by said ableism.

#unitypunk #ableism #sanism #neuroableism #corpoableism #neurodivergence #physical disability #cw brief mention of suicidality #cw brief mention of self-harm #cw psych abuse #cw psych hospitalization #cw brief mention of 'narc abuse' (in context of it being ableist)#racism #transphobia #intersectionality

25 notes · View notes

icannotgetoverbirds · 1 month

Text

Severe fucking content warning

Content warning for literal fucking torture and abuse. everything else should be tagged. If I miss any content warnings please for the love of all that is holy tell me so I can fix it.

Psychological torture. Those are the words bouncing around my head this morning.

Did you know that sleep deprivation and social isolation are often considered to be tied for the worst tortures known to humankind?

Let me give you some more context. When I left mormonism, I lost everything in regards to my social safety net. Mormonism and my mormon friends and family were all I had.

It's by design, too; how is someone supposed to leave if their only safety net disappears when they do? Why would they even consider leaving if that safety net holds them perfectly because they can conform?

But when you can't conform, you fall through the cracks. As I did.

I didn't just lose everything, though. I didn't stop there. I also gained a neighborhood full of watchdogs who I was sure would herd me back to the cult at the first opportunity.

Going outside on foot was no longer an option - if any of my many mormon neighbors saw me, they would have Questions. If I gave any worrying answers, there was bound to be Visits. I wasn't strong enough to handle that.

Besides, I lived in suburban hell. Fifteen minutes just to get out of the neighborhood on foot, another fifteen to get to the nearest gas station. My depressed, broke self wasn't about to spend an hour walking for a round trip to the fucking gas station when I could barely handle doing my own laundry.

So I was trapped inside the house unless my parents or someone else with a car deigned to bring me with them on a trip. But it was fine at first, because I had an internet connection and multiple online friends; plus, I'd managed to forge one irl friendship with someone between deconverting and graduating high school.

My parents weren't happy about this for some reason (I have a working theory as to why and I'll get to it later). Their justification was that it was just generally bad for me to be spending as much time online as I was.

Of course, I wasn't doing great mentally, but they refused to believe that they could be at fault for that with their "mild" transphobia. Surely refusing to accept my newfangled, sinful identity on the basis of a false moral high ground couldn't possibly be the most significant source of my suffering; surely deadnaming and misgendering me couldn't be doing that much damage.

Surely refusing to assist the transitioning process in any way shape or form couldn't be a good enough reason for suicidal ideation. Surely I was just an undermedicated psycho for considering lighting myself on fire just to get them to understand my pain enough to... help me with the process of buying a binder with my own money.

Surely I just needed to get my act together and get over myself.

So, ever since that psych ward visit that treated me better than they did, they decided that I could only have internet access if I did enough of my chores around the house.

Doesn't sound too unreasonable until you remember that 99% of my friends were online. I tried telling them this, and their response was to encourage me to get back in touch with my old ward member friends. You know, from the cult I had just escaped. That, granted, my parents were still very much a part of.

(Remember that theory I was telling you about? That little tidbit is an important piece of evidence.)

So I was cut off from the world with significant regularity, having nothing but a flip phone to contact the one supportive friend whose phone number I had. That friend kept me alive and sane enough to stay that way for nearly a year as this hell dragged on.

At some point, my brother and his girlfriend moved back in with us. I guess they weren't a fan of all the sinning I was doing, because my parents had multiple talks with me about how I needed to give them more space (aka stop existing in the same room as them).

So, eventually, I was all but confined to my bedroom, since I could never sit them down to have a conversation about what times I was allowed to be downstairs and what times they would be occupying that space.

This all built up to the breaking point. I had just developed a new medical condition that left me basically bedbound in pain. I was forced out of bed anyways, because nobody was going to take care of me (probably due to the nature of the condition being considered 'sinful'). I did what I could as I could, as I always have.

There had been a misunderstanding about chores. My brother and his girlfriend were in charge of one bathroom, i was in charge of the other. Except I thought I was in charge of the wrong one. So while the downstairs bathroom stayed clean (despite me not doing much to maintain it), the upstairs bathroom became absolutely filthy.

It all came to a head when my brother yelled at me to take care of my responsibility. I finally figured out what had happened and explained to him why I hadn't been doing it, as well as why I wasn't about to start until I could actually, you know, stay standing for any significant amount of time. He yelled at me more and threatened to tell our mom.

I told him to go ahead, as any rational person would take one look at the situation and agree that I needed to rest. My only mistake was assuming that my mom retained any rationality for me.

So she called me and attempted to chew me out. mind you, i was ill and in debilitating pain already, so I put my foot down and asked her to save it for later. But I knew what was coming when she said we were going to "have a conversation" when she got home. She was going to take away my flip phone to force me to do as I was told.

My flip phone, 99% of the use for which was to call my one and only friend that i could access. My one and only friend who was the sole support in my life. The only person, the only thing keeping me sane.

That was going to be it for me. If she did that (and she'd done it before, so there was precedent), I was going to fucking kill myself.

So I locked her out of my room that night and tried to get a good night's rest in preparation for what would have to happen in order for me to survive.

At about 4 in the morning the next day, I packed up everything that i could carry and i walked out the door.

Every single thing I have been through since that day has been worth it to get out of that hell. I am still homeless over a year later and the only thing I wish I did different was to leave sooner and prepare better. Maybe get a nice duffel bag and do my laundry first instead of hauling all my dirty clothes in trash bags. I could've saved myself a lot of trouble by getting my documents together beforehand.

anyways. Befoer I came out as trans and not a mormon, my mother seemed fully supportive - or at least, like she was supporting me as much as she was capable of doing.

Afterwards? She never looked at me the same way again.

And so I have to wonder how two changes to my identity and lifestyle could wrench her away from kindness like that. How they could possibly cause such a significant change in how she treated me.

Here's the working theory.

Mormons prey on vulnerable people. Their missionaries are literally told to seek out the meek and weary and poor to "give them rest." This is also how they bring people back - they find out which inactive members are struggling without their safety net (which they often remove for the sin of inactivity/deconversion/etc) and those are the ones that they grasp at to try and bring back. Those are the ones that they reach out to, that they check in on.

So, how better to take advantage of someone's vulnerability than to make them vulnerable yourself? How better to make them vulnerable than to take away all of their safety nets? How better to tear them from their sin than to tear their sinful friends from them?

How better to break an apostate than to back them into a corner and bring in the walls? How better to turn someone towards your god than to give them no other choice except to be crushed?

And if they'd rather die than return to Jesus, well, then, at least you're sending them straight to the afterlife. Then they'll HAVE to see the truth. Then they'll HAVE to repent.

After all, all my mother needs to do to keep our family together forever is to keep me righteous. She already gave me a body. What loss is the rest of my life compared to the rest of eternity?

Better to die young than to live in sin. Better to be forced to come to Jesus than to choose to live free of him.

She wasn't a bumbling fool incapable of listening to me when I told her she was hurting me. She knew exactly what she was doing.

She abused me, TORTURED me, entirely on purpose. Entirely for the purpose of bringing me back to her god.

I have been tortured. I have experienced psychological torture. I probably have fucking brain damage from said psychological torture.

https://solitarywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SW-Fact-Sheet-5-Neurological-Effects-v230613.pdf

So, all that said, is it any wonder that I thought the streets would be better? Is it any wonder that I never want to see her again unless it's to use her grave as a gender neutral bathroom?

She nearly killed me. I think that was an acceptable outcome to her, too.

Certainly, the last thing she expected was for me to put my back to one wall and my feet to another and clamber out of that trap she made. Should've put a roof on it, I guess.

Anyways. If it seems like I've been less online/chipper than usual, it's because I've spent the past week coming to terms with this shit.

I love you all so, so much. Thanks for being there for me. Here's to staying alive; to escaping the trap; to finding our own families and leaving our abusers behind in the dust.

Here's to all of you. Y'all were worth the trouble of being homeless, easily.

#byrd chirps #byrd's business #cw abuse #cw torture #cw captivity #cw isolation #cw cults #cw cult abuse #cw religion #cw religious trauma #exmo #exmormon #byrd is an exmo #cw ableist language #cw self harm mention #cw suicidal ideation #cw psych ward #okay to rb #cw homelessness #oh and this isn't even mentioning that they pulled the money card after that psych ward visit #literally they were like #'okay sweetie we're gonna pay for it this time but Next Time this happens you need to Show Some Responsibility and pay for it yourself'#which was the tipping point for me realizing that me not making it out of there alive was a perfectly acceptable option to them #because i know them and they may be stupid #but they're not stupid enough to believe that forcing me to pay for my psych ward visits would keep me from needing the psych ward #mind you these people are affording rent on a very nice 4 bedroom suburban house #and they keep fucking guilting me about how much money i'm costing them?#anyways. it was fucked up.#the worst part is i honestly think the lack of acceptance was more painful than the social isolation #if they hadn't isolated me i still don't know if i would've been able to tolerate their transphobia

5 notes · View notes