I understand very little of how this works. so I'll do something that I like and you'll judge. then we'll each be on our separate ways happier for the parting. or stay. I have rage laugh episodes
I am Mina, Goddess of Moth. Patron of Stories, written in the throes of hyperfixation. Apostle of Mental-Health. The Lady of Self-Love. The Muse of Mindfulness.
OP, this is genuinely a masterpiece, three poems in one, moving and well crafted. Please tell me you have submitted it to at least some poetry contests, and if not, please do so.
Do me a favour and reblog this with a show you like that was cancelled after only one season. I don't mean shows that were always meant to be miniseries or shows that work perfectly well as a standalone story, or shows that might still get renewed. I mean shows that are and will forever remain unfinished. The more obscure the better.
The eminent gender studies scholar speaks to Eli Cugini ahead of the release of their latest book, Who’s Afraid of Gender?
In this book you focus on the idea of gender as a global ‘phantasm’ – this charged, overdetermined, anxiety- and fear-inducing cluster of fantasies that is being weaponised by the right. How did you go about starting to investigate that?
Judith Butler: When I was burned in effigy in Brazil in 2017, I could see people screaming about gender, and they understood ‘gender’ to mean ‘paedophilia.’ And then I heard people in France describing gender as a Jewish intellectual movement imported from the US. This book started because I had to figure out what gender had become. I was naïve. I was stupid. I had no idea that it had become this flash point for right-wing movements throughout the world. So I started doing the work to reconstruct why I was being called a paedophile, and why that woman in the airport wanted to kill me with the trolley.
I’m not offering a new theory of gender here; I’m tracking this phantasm’s formation and circulation and how it’s linked to emerging authoritarianism, how it stokes fear to expand state powers. Luckily, I was able to contact a lot of people who translated Gender Trouble in different parts of the world, who were often gender activists and scholars in their own right. They told me about what’s happening in Serbia, what’s happening in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Russia. So I became a student of gender again. I’ve been out of the field for a while. I stay relatively literate, of course, but I’ve written on war, on ethics, on violence, on nonviolence, on the pandemic… I’m not in gender studies all the time. I had to do a lot of reading.
There’s a lot of focus in the book on how the anti-gender movement has moved across the world in the past few decades, and how it’s inextricable from Catholic doctrine. It was clarifying for me; domestic anti-trans movements in the UK mostly self-identify as secular.
Judith Butler: In the UK, and even in the US, people don’t realise that this anti-gender ideology movement has been going on for some time in the Americas, in central Europe, to a certain degree in Africa, and that it’s arrived in the US by different routes, but it’s arrived without announcing its history. It became clear to me that a lot of the trans-exclusionary feminists didn’t realise where their discourse was coming from. Some of them do; some people who call themselves feminists are aligned with right-wing positions, and it’s confusing, but there it is.
There’s an uncomfortable history of fascist feminism in movements like British suffragism, for instance.
Judith Butler: Yes, and of racism. But when Putin made clear that he agreed with JK Rowling, she was probably surprised, and she rightly said, ‘no, I don’t want your alliance’, but it was an occasion for her to think about who she’s allying herself with, unwittingly or not. The anti-gender movement was first and foremost a defence of Biblical scripture, and of the idea that God created man and woman, and that the human form exists only in this duality and that without it, the human is destroyed – God’s creation is destroyed. So that morphed, as the Vatican’s doctrine moved into Latin America, into the idea that people who advocate ‘gender’ are forces of destruction who seek to destroy man, woman, the human, civilisation and culture.
I imagine Judith Butler talks about this in the book but Janice Raymond the author of the transphobic and doxing manifesto "The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male" was a catholic nun. The connection isn't just mere coincidence.
just like, if there's a history at your institution of disabled kids not being able to make it you realise that's your fault right. like why don't you fucking do something about it. i guess they tried to do something about it with me and it failed so they let me go. crazy. nice work. why should we try to do any better.
only 5% of people with adhd who go to college finish a degree. FUCKING. FIVE!!! PERCENT!!!!!!!!!!!
that should disgust and enrage you.
if any other demographic of students had a 95% failure rate, we would be demanding reform and studies to understand why that’s happening
when i was at my first university, trying to get accommodations for my ADHD, they just kept asking me what accommodations i wanted, and refused to answer when i would ask what was available to me. how the Hell am i supposed to know what i can have? what’s available???? also, i don’t know!!!! i’m an adhd sufferer, not a fucking disability expert for the fucking college, unlike you, DISABILITY EXPERT WHO WORKS FOR THE COLLEGE.
but because the us is OBSESSED with making sure no one gets anything “”for free””, she literally would not tell me what my options were until i broke down in tears and asked her why she was refusing to help me. and then she did a big sigh, like i was fucking up her entire career by *checks notes* asking the disability center in my university to help me, a disabled student
at the second uni i went to, i tried to explain to a dean that i was literally two gen eds that had nothing to do with my degree away from graduating and that i was burnt out and broke and exhausted and suicidal and i just needed to be able to finish my degree without the gen eds. and this. fucking. guy. looked me right in my face and said in the most patronizing tone he could muster “if you can’t handle it, then maybe college just isn’t for you.” keep in mind that up until that semester, i had been an honor student who made Dean’s List every semester and didn’t get below Bs. if it hadn’t been for my mental breakdown, i would have graduated cum laude, maybe even summa cum laude.
but this dean of students looked a disabled person right in the face and said well i guess you just can’t do it, short bus
Pulled these from a couple articles really quick but yeah the statistics are not kind. I remember writing a scathing essay about my issues with ADHD and college as part of an assignment for academic probation. I got back an email calling me entitled and lazy. Somehow, this thread helps me feel a lot better. I still have about a semester of school unfinished that I’m unsure if I’ll finish but… yeah. Makes me feel better to know it’s not just me.
I saw this statistic and immediately reared back like a horse confronted with a flappy plastic bag. It seems absurd so I checked it out a bit.
this is what the first Google result is for searching "adhd graduation rates". I went to the article from the J Postsecond Educ Disabil. and found the quote
but I wanted to look a little deeper, considering "Predictors and Trajectories of Educational Functioning in College Students With and Without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder" by DuPaul et. al in the Journal of Postsecondary Disabilities, the study in the link, had actually published these conclusions:
Basically, students with ADHD terminated enrollment at a rate of 9.1% compared to 3.3% for non-ADHD peers in the study. This is a far cry from the 95% statistic in the citation! I decided to look into the citations from Hetchman.
The first one was a book! I found the table of contents, and I can't buy the whole book at the moment, but I went to check the second citation for that statistic from the same author, and I had access to the paper! Here's the graph showing the actual educational stats:
and the explanatory paragraph:
This data reports that of the children they followed in the study (starting at around age 9), those diagnosed with ADHD or ODD whose symptoms desisted (stopped) had a 17.8% chance of achieving a bachelor's degree, and those with persistent symptoms had an 8% chance. This is compared to the control non-ADHD group of whom 37.1% obtained their bachelor's degree. These statistics are still less than amazing odds, but it's not five percent! That's only one out of every twenty people with ADHD getting a degree!
This study also doesn't look at drop-out rates of people who actually attended college, just looked at a population and asked which students obtained a degree. This statistic counts every person in the trades or who decided to do something else with their lives to be part of the group that did not obtain their degree- because they didn't start college!
A lot of people I know with ADHD didn't like school and decided not to pursue a career that would feel like more schoolwork. I myself have ADHD and I am decidedly still in school pursuing my degree- so it's not all of us who hated school, but the point still stands that some people just didn't care for college.
I decided to take a second look at the author of the first paper, Dr. DuPaul, and found another publication with a similar premise had published this:
The statistic from this study indicates that 54% of medicated and 49% of unmedicated ADHD students persisted through college, only slightly lower than the 59% of their non-ADHD counterparts.
That's two papers from the first author and one by the cited author that indicate much higher graduation rates than the post seemed to indicate- so what happened here?
I looked around for why this statistic may be so popular, after all the way it's presented in Google takes precedence over accurate information. The 5% figure seems to be pulled from a study that reported higher numbers by mistake, or from an entirely different non-scholarly source (more on that later), and the study that misattributed that data as background came to a much less dire conclusion about ADHD college completion rates!
The first google result under the banner is a post on r/Today I Learned (spaces added for clarity) and it links to the article "For ADHD students, transition to college is tough" posted in the WCF courier.
The article itself has the statistic quoted like this " Just 5 percent of college students with ADHD will graduate, versus 41 percent of their nondisabled peers, according to a 2008 report in the The Journal of Learning." which doesn't tell me a lot about finding the paper sourced, but I do give them credit for their closing statements about the necessity of accommodations.
I searched for this fabled 2008 study in the "Journal of Learning" for a while, and found this article in the Journal of Learning Disabilities that shows up like this (below) on Google Scholar and decided to give it a go. It doesn't have any relevant information, but I had already spent enough time looking for a journal that didn't exist so I was done.
With that route leading to a wall I didn't feel like climbing over, I went to the second result on the page- passing over quora because that website is a cesspit and I am tired. I found this question on skeptics:
The Medscape article is now under a login wall with an "activity has expired" error message (see below), but I did find a response to the original post that had read the actual article (see even further below)
(sorry for the quality lol) Basically, it seems like the medscape article was playing fast and loose with their statistics and only checking with one source about where to pull each number from.
SO what's the conclusion here? The scary 95% don't graduate statistic is HIGHLY SUSPECT and most likely pulled from one source. It looked correct because a paper was citing it, but (it's later we're talking about it) the paper may have read the medline article and misremembered that statistic as being from Hetchman's study, or just looked at the medline article and pulled the info from there with a citation from a scholarly source to make the paper look legitimate. I personally would like to think it was just a mistake, so that's what I'm going with.
The world of academic papers and statistical analysis is scary and intimidating, but when you don't want to explore it and you just trust the skim of a source, you can be whipped into a frenzy by data based on one statistic based on a mistake.
This isn't to taunt the people who had dogshit experiences with university accommodations (I have my own tales and tales and tales to tell about my uni), but to reassure people that NO! it is NOT THAT BAD! You'll do great in a supportive university, but even in a bad one, you can make it through (or transfer). I love school (as evidenced by this whole... thing) and I want everyone to feel like they can succeed.
Scary, misleading, statistics don't lift the community up- they put us down. Please double-check the information that you see online, especially when it seems too good or too bad to be true.
TL:DR- This claim is not supported by the current literature- it was most likely pulled from a non-scholarly source and accidentally passed off as legitimate by its inclusion in a legitimate paper reporting differing results. Plenty of people with ADHD do graduate college, and accommodations are key to academic equality. PLEASE CHECK CRAZY CLAIMS BEFORE SPREADING THEM! thanks and have a good one.
cited sources under cut
Papers
DuPau GJ, Franklin MK, Pollack BL, Stack KS, Jaffe AR, Gormley MJ, AnastopouIos AD, Weyandt LL. Predictors and Trajectories of Educational Functioning in College Students With and Without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2018 Summer;31(2):161-178. PMID: 31225528; PMCID: PMC6586431.
DuPaul, G. J., Gormley, M. J., Anastopoulos, A. D., Weyandt, L. L., Labban, J., Sass, A. J., … Postler, K. B. (2021). Academic Trajectories of College Students with and without ADHD: Predictors of Four-Year Outcomes. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 50(6), 828–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2020.1867990
Hechtman L, Swanson JM, Sibley MH, Stehli A, Owens EB, Mitchell JT, Arnold LE, Molina BS, Hinshaw SP, Jensen PS, Abikoff HB, Perez Algorta G, Howard AL, Hoza B, Etcovitch J, Houssais S, Lakes KD, Nichols JQ; MTA Cooperative Group. Functional Adult Outcomes 16 Years After Childhood Diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: MTA Results. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016 Nov;55(11):945-952.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.07.774. Epub 2016 Sep 2. Erratum in: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Jul;56(7):628. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2017.05.006. Erratum in: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018 Mar;57(3):225. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2018.01.007. PMID: 27806862; PMCID: PMC5113724.
McNamara, J., Vervaeke, S.-L., & Willoughby, T. (2008). Learning Disabilities and Risk-Taking Behavior in Adolescents: A Comparison of Those With and Without Comorbid Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(6), 561-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326096
This claim is pulled from existing literature, but in a truly stupid way that is absolutely misleading.
The cited work is Hechtman 2017, which is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Adult Outcome and Its Predictors, edited by Lily Hechtman, and published in 2017. (Which I just so happen to have!) The section referenced is below, alt text in image:
(This is from the Summary at the end, page 272.)
Chapter 2 of the book dives deep into what this study actually was, and it's important to note that this was a study of children (90% male) who had severe enough hyperactivity to be referred to the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the Montreal Children’s Hospital in the early 1960s. This was a 15-year follow-up of those kids, who were now 21-32 in 1980.
That doesn't seem like a result that's extendable to USA bachelor's rates in 2024, for a lot of reasons!
Is it bad for us ADHD-ers out there in US colleges and universities? Yes. Is it so bad that late-diagnosed, post-9/11 kids who have already started undergrad need to fret more than they already are? Probably not!
fun fact: I didn't get diagnosed with adhd until near the end of my graduate degree specifically *because* all my adhd coping mechanisms had been built around managing a structured school environment (e.g. using the adrenaline of deadlines to get things done in a hyperfocused panic)
when the structure started going away at the end of my PhD and all my previously established coping mechanisms went up in flames, THAT was when I could finally look back at 20 something years of evidence and be like "ohhhhh." and, on the plus side, having that diagnosis as context was really helpful to figuring out more workable longterm life strategies.
anyways, just find it interesting because the way this data was collected I would absolutely not have been accurately reflected in it
I've been side eyeing that statistic ever since I saw it, speaking as someone who was obviously hyperactive enough as a little girl that my teachers forced the issue of my diagnosis in 1997... and who has been working around academics with ADHD (or AuDHD) pretty much my entire career. My last three undergrads, my lab manager, and at least two of the grad students in my lab have ADHD diagnoses. That's... not unusual for anyone mid thirties and younger these days. ADHD is common, and graduation rates that low for such a common condition would be a temptingly easy target to tackle for student retention stats.
I'm so grateful for @aurorasulphur and @eldest-of-katts 's hard work digging down the roots of this citation, because it's a great example of fact checking and assessment. Much appreciated.
As someone who worked on a longitudinal research study of child development that measured academic performance and lots of other things, including ADHD symptoms, I see so many many holes in this.
First of all, this is based on one study. Never trust anything based on one study. Secondly, it's over 40 years old, from a time when not only the understanding of ADHD and the treatment was wildly different, but when the entire role of a college education in society was very different.
But also, the study divides the subjects into two groups: children diagnosed with ADHD whose symptoms stop before they are 18 and those whose symptoms persisted. So, sniff test, ADHD havers, do you feel like your symptoms are likely to just go away before you ever get to college? Or are lots of people diagnosed in college for the first time.
This goes back to the 1980s era understanding of the disorder, which was that it was something kids have and it goes away before adulthood. We now know that's pretty much just wrong.
Also, the next question is what do they mean by these kids "still having symptoms past 18." Which symptoms do they mean? Because they didn't recognize a lot of the modern symptoms at the time as significant.
The way we tested adhd in kids on the study I worked on, which was designed in the 90s, was we sat the child in front of a computer screen on which white letters flashed and told them to hit a key when they saw the right letter come up. It was several minutes of just white letters over and over on a black background. Literally painfully mindnumbing stuff.
And that was it, the only test. So I'm just saying, if it was the study I was on (which was a very reputable NIH funded study by a major researcher) to not show symptoms anymore a kid would just have to be good at this computer game. Or have learned how to do it. But it literally only measured one aspect of ADHD, how much a kid spaced out.
So anyway, the kids who still have problems on their tests, whatever they were, were the ones said to still have ADHD, and THOSE are the kids who had a 9.1% rate of graduating from college. (Mostly because they didn't try to go, is a safe bet.) The kids who are good at the tests but were diagnosed with ADHD had 17.5% rate of college graduation, about half the modern percentage of all Americans.
If there's one thing to know about science it's never trust what an article or webpage tells you unless you're reading the study itself. Because sometimes like the above they just straight up make up numbers.
I also like Dan Carlin's latest common sense episode in which he explains that this level of power available to the president today comes from a many decades long erosion of the powers that are supposed to keep it in check and balanced.
"When efficiency comes with upward wealth redistribution, our recommendations frequently become little more than a license for plunder." -Angus Deaton
He talks about the ways that modern capitalism is lacking: not focusing on power and the ways it should shape well being, a complete omission of ethics, and the over focus on efficiency leading to inequity in wealth redistribution (rich getting all the benefits)
He also touches on immigration and how it's a short term solution but leads to inequality of classes as history demonstrates.
origamiaround
baratheonpilled
ellievsbear
gummygunk
prguitarman
turnnoffyourmind
pixelskylines
