Single White Female
Chatted with some friends last week about the movie Single White Female, which was made back when you could actually write advertisements for roommates with that kind of title. The implication was that anyone matching that description should be pretty safe as a roommate. Pure prejudice and assumption. Then the movie dismantles your false ideas about race and gender as the single, white female roommate escalates into a bizarre and creepy attachment to the main character. It becomes clear that she is actually dangerous.
When Natalie Harp hit the public consciousness this week, the situation was laughed at. Ms. Harp, an attractive 35-year-old White House staffer, was infatuated with President Trump. The President, in turn, was flattered by her attentions. The whole scenario seemed sad and a little pathetic. The withering commentary about the whole “Natalie” situation was delicious revenge.
Then came the details. Harp was a conduit for foreign leaders to connect with the President of the United States. Harp didn’t even start the security clearance process for a year after working directly with the President. She waltzed around security regulations and had to be giving everyone else in the White House stress migranes with her access and influence. Think of it: you have worked and studied so hard, achieved so much, that you are now a staffer in the White House. Now all the effort means nothing because some woman with a portable printer prints out memes for Trump. And SHE’s the one with the influence. It’s got to be galling.
For sensitive skin, our family tradition of soapmaking for you.
Harp as a Stalker
There’s more to this story, though. She’s a dangerous stalker. Our witticisms are blinding us to the reality of how Harp is acting and what it means. A few decades ago, the popular wisdom was that stalkers are harmless. Now, stalking is considered a homicide in slow motion.
Merriam Webster defines a stalker as “a person who pursues someone obsessively and aggressively to the point of harassment.” Let’s break it down.
A Person Who Pursues Someone Obsessively
Ms. Harp does not take a day off. The White House is a very intense place to work. Most staffers last a few years and then leave. It is exhausting. Yet, Harp never leaves. She works on Sundays. She speaks to the President “late into the night,” implying long hours at work, alone with Trump. Just the volume of working hours leaves no time for anything else in her life, even eating. Her entire life’s focus is President Trump almost every waking moment.
Harp follows the President everywhere. She carries a printer with her as she prints out memes and social media comments from the internet that flatter President Trump. Most people would consider this behavior insufferable, like being prey to a digital wildebeest.
Harp credits him with survivng cancer, which somehow justifies her slavish devotion. Trump approved a program to accelerate new cancer treatments for people with advanced stages of cancer. She was one of those people, and has gone on stage in front of people to thank the President for saving her life.
Aggressively
Harp leaves little notes of admiration for Trump to find, which is more than a little aggressive in terms of method of contact. Even People Magazine has taken notice. She wrote:
“I miss when you used to call during my talk show days, and we’d talk about everything and nothing,” the former One America News Network host reportedly wrote in one of the letters. “I need to reunite my past self with my current into a better version who will make you proud. And please, when I fail, will you tell me?”
“You have the absolute right to cuss me out, if need be, when I deserve it, because no one knows or cares about me more,” she reportedly continued in part. “It is I who is unworthy.”
“I also am sorry if I was an embarrassment walking the course in Scotland” reports the New York Times. The letter goes on to say: “I want things to always be right between us. I also know I’ve been distracted all week (forgetting to eat throughout the days, and even forgetting to sleep, and only catching a couple hours at a time).”
In direct aggression news, Harp allegedly hopped into the trunk of a car to be close to the President when there wasn’t enough room inside of his car. Think about it. She had to talk someone in the Presidential motorcade into popping the trunk while she climbed in there. Surely there was some protest from the Secret Service. No one thought this was normal, even for a guy who feels he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still be elected.
To the Point of Harrassment
Federal law defines stalking harrassment as actions creating a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury. Trump is not afraid of our dear Ms. Harp, but I guarantee other people at the White House are. But “would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person” does apply to Trump. Just because HE isn’t seeing the weirdness of it all, doesn’t negate what a reasonable person would suffer in terms of substantial emotional distress. Because hiding in a trunk to be near your boss is something that would give anyone a reasonable fear for their safety. And more, leaving little notes of slavish devotion would accelerate those fears.
So yes, Hart’s actions are harassment.
Danger!
So many problems in this scenario. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law published “Assess and Managing the Risks in the Stalking Situation” by Paul E. Mullen, Rachel Mackenzie, James R. P. Ogloff, Michele Pathé, Troy McEwan and Rosemary Purcell (2006) 34 (4) 439-450; where it outlined some home truths:
In most stalking situations, except where the target is a public figure, the presence of threats increases the risk of a progression to violence.7,32–34 Even though most stalkers do not carry out their threats, all threats should be taken seriously, as they are distressing in and of themselves, and not enough is known to differentiate the empty threats from harbingers of assault. (emphasis added)
While President Trump is a public figure, in this case he has a personal relationship with Ms. Harp. The article mentions risk factors that don’t apply to her as far as we know, such as substance abuse, history of violence, low education level, but “[c]are must be taken, however, as there is suggestive evidence that, when very serious or fatal violence occurs, it may involve a different pattern of risk factors with no association with either substance abuse or prior convictions.” (emphasis added).
Roughly 10 - 33% of stalking victims are assaulted. See James D, Farnham F: Stalking and serious violence. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31:432–9, 2004; Schwartz-Watts D, Rowell CN: Commentary: update on assessing risk for violence among stalkers. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31:440–3, 2003.
That’s a pretty big chance for an 80-something guy to take.
No comments:
Post a Comment