The "Psycho Girlfriend" Trope

[HengshanRoad]

I've always been suspicious of people who talk about "psycho girlfriends" or ex-girlfriends. Most often, their behaviour seems to be a reaction to dickish men. And strangely, since it is more likely to be men that are truly "psycho" (and please note, this is not a word I ever use personally, due to its negative connotations for people with mental health issues), men seem to escape this label, no matter what sort of harm they cause to their girlfriends or wives.

The "psycho girlfriend" seems to be another unjust way of putting women down and making the whole gender seem unhinged. In my experience, it is almost exclusively due to men's lack of bravery when ending a relationship. The accusation was levelled at me on one occasion when I sent a couple of text messages to a guy who had suddenly and inexplicably cut contact. If he had simply had the guts to tell me he didn't want to see me again, I would have let it go.

And why is it that constant phonecalls, gifts, over-attention etc. are hallmarks of the "psycho girlfriend" but also of the romantic, attentive boyfriend?

I think bombay's making a fair point ... what strikes me is that she and her DH don't seem hell-bent on telling this woman she's 'pyscho'. What makes me instantly suspicious of men (or women) is when they insist at every opportunity the person they dumped was mentally ill, and use a term like 'psycho' for it. The fact her husband is saying 'very little' does not seem to me to fit the pattern I have seen/heard about, where a man is very keen for all and sundry to know his ex is mentally unstable, hoping to bias all his friends/relations views of her asap.

I agree, HereBeBolloX, other men may make coo-ing noises when other men say it, but they may not necessarily believe the other guy. I think there is a certain amount of truth in the idea that men don't trust what other men are saying. Men like to compete in conversation, they know that they talk bollocks and exaggerate the truth in order to seem more interesting in other guys' minds -and recognise that other men do it, too.

They smile but inside it's a case of 'you're bullshitting, mate'.

^I agree, HereBeBolloX, other men may make coo-ing noises when other men say it, but they may not necessarily believe the other guy. I think there is a certain amount of truth in the idea that men don't trust what other men are saying. Men like to compete in conversation, they know that they talk bollocks and exaggerate the truth in order to seem more interesting in other guys' minds -and recognise that other men do it, too.

They smile but inside it's a case of 'you're bullshitting, mate'.^

QF fucking T

Having been in the company of some men like that myself

oh fgs how am I supposed to know you're talking about 6 years of experience and not this thread?

FGS.

I can't believe you think that's reasonable. Have just realised who you might be btw.

I think I've finally realised women don't know men at all.

Men talk bollocks in conversations and bullshit each other?
Is that every conversation?

I'm afraid I think that's utter tosh.

Not in every convo. It's more common than you think though

Like the classic "Mate I shagged 3 birds lastnight"

When they didn't

I think that's probably your friends Edd.

And as you seem to be someone who has joined a mainly female website, and post in the Feminist section seemingly with the purpose to wind people up I'm not surprised.

You obviously don't have many friends KeeponTrucking

Or friends who aren't knobs.

I'm a parent, most of my friends are parents, and they don't come out with this sort of stuff. If they did they'd be ridiculed.

I didn't say that all men did this in every conversation. It's just what I've observed in some conversations.
I guess my point is this: this idea that men stick together and automatically believe other men? It's sh*t.
More sexism, perhaps, but I feel that men are led by their testicles in a lot of matters and this idea of male solidarity put about by the media is shit: men crying together over a footie match, male-bonding, I just don't believe in it.
Truth is that a normal, non-abusive heterosexual male will say 'sod it' to his friends if his wife wants it that way (although a woman who makes a man choose is not a very nice person, I'll admit) and put her first. Because he is a man and having a regular, sexual partner is more important to him than buddies.

Bit off-topic. I'll stop there. I say it only to challenge the idea that people (men) automatically accept other guys saying an ex is a psycho, so it is kind of relevant.

The term applies to both sexes and is over used. Inasmuch as this thread refers to ex girlfriends?..a few years ago, a friend of mine ended a relationship with a woman who was prone to violence when she?d had a drink. For nearly 3 months afterwards, aside from abusive texts and letters, she sent take aways and taxis to his house at unearthly hours. One day, he was awoken by the sound of a lorry unloading concrete on his driveway at which point he gave up and phoned the police who cautioned her for harassment. I think she could safely be called a ?psycho ex.?
Anyone who has spent a lot of time in family courts will have come across some seriously unhinged ex partners. Outside of that, it is a throwaway term.
Here is someone who is probably making a tidy sum from the concept:

shrink4men.wordpress.com/

Should raise a few hackles??

Actually I think everyone's talking sense now

The bit about the 3 men talking made me chuckle; it sounds very realistic to me! I reckon the same would happen had they been three women, as well. Women are more likely to pull the complaint apart - but not all that much more. A drink after work isn't usually a forum for intense political or personal debate; we're all more likely to go "Oh, what a shame, never mind, it's your round."

I would have thought it obvious that both men and women are led into "psycho" relationships by lust and delusion. They wouldn't happen otherwise, would they? But I agree that, on the whole, women are more likely to stick at them, believing they "should" have a man, "should" be agreeable, and are unilaterally responsible for the health of their relationships. That, in turn, makes women more likely to act 'emotionally', due to frustration. So it's a feminist issue.

Your point about our collective narrative being from a man's point of view is important, HBX. It's fair to always query the story - to check for bias - although not fair, imo, to always assume the opposite bias. I remember the thread of which you wrote, Bombay, and found the accusations shocking. There was too much pushing of agendas and far too little empathy.

There was another thread - a long time ago - about a child's rape, where respondents apparently succeeded in pushing the OP to a course of action that was unsuitable for her particular circumstances. It ended badly, iirc. Individual stories shouldn't always be treated according to template, especially when the template's being wielded by angry individuals pursuing personal grievances.

You had made it clear you were talking about your experience on the step-parenting board, btw.

I havent caught up with all the crossposts yet, so apologies if I'm repeating one. I don't see any need for English rape laws to be changed, SGM. They are perfectly adequate - good, even - it's the implementation of the law that is lacking. Sexual assault carries the same maximum penalty as rape.

I was just going to mention the Canadian definitions, SGM :) I see no problem in losing the word "rape" from the law, and it might even help those men who are raped by women to be taken seriously. Continuous consent is better wording, but it is covered in our law, too. Prior consent doesn't imply current consent; consent to one sexual act doesn't imply consent to another act or to a repetition.

You're right that the addition of reasonable consent, and reasonable belief in consent, is a very significant improvement. In criminal law, the accused must be shown not only to have done the crime, but also to have had mens rea - criminal intent. The Morgan case was an example of that being used to acquit a rape. Reason is now an objective matter for the court so, even if you're the most entitled arsehole in the world, your belief that rape is okay will not excuse your crime. I believe that, once the police and general public have got their heads around this fact, drunk sex will become less common as drunk driving has done.

WHY WHY WHY??? Why do regular posters on this board engage with people like Edd and Wamster? Both have repeatedly proved themselves, by their shallow, repetitive, unanalytic, and simplistic postings, to have NEVER engaged with feminism outside of this board, and to be familiar only with 'popular perceptions' of feminism. It is like continually talking to A level phislosophy students ON THEIR FIRST DAY of the course. Like, does that chair even really exist, miss??

And, to add to it, they're not even students in good faith. They only post hoping to prove you all wrong. Don't reply to posters who, at base, just sound really thick, and you'll find the level of discourse improves no end.

If this gets deleted, I hope some of you see it first!

charitygirl. outside of this board there is no one I can discuss feminist issues with

I don't mind the level of discourse. If I did, I wouldn't be posting. Thanks, but I probably don't need to be told what to post or to whom.

That probably makes me "really thick". Cheers.

She didn't call you thick GN or anyone who engages with the thickies.

Yes, continuous consent is an excellent concept. Even thickies would get it.