What Joan and Melissa Rivers Can Teach You About Codependent Behaviors

I said in my response to Candelaria:

On one level I wanted Joan to win as Celebrity Apprentice b/c Annie Dukes is a true Machiavellian, which in many ways is why you should be the CA, but on a common sense level, I think the whole thing was rigged.

To say Dukes is a "true Machiavellian" is not a compliment. Sneaky and manipulative are not geat character traits in my book, but it seems to me Trump has let people who operate that way win his apprentice show before.

I think Melissa was feeling exactly what Annie Dukes was doing, but Joan still needs to let Melissa stand on her own, and while that high drama plays well on TV, nobody appreciates it in real life situations any more than we'd appreciate sneakiness.  Some of us have seen Joan/Melissa-type drama played out at one too many big Christmas dinners and it's not fun.

WOW! You had a lot to say, and I like that. Thank you. :-)  But I'll leave your opinion of West Coast sneaky culture alone and hope somebody from that side of the country comes along to defend it or agree. LOL.

In many ways, Annie was like the stereotype of a Southern Belle, grinning and polite on the surface, devious and manipulative underneath, the consumate Queen Bee.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

It's interesting, because though I can certainly appreciate the extreme drama factor that occurred the night Melissa Rivers was fired from Celebrity Apprentice, I really found Annie Dukes' behavior FAR worse than what was going on with Joan & Melissa simply because it was so insidious.  I mean, Dukes lied, manipulated, pitted people against each other, triangulated, twisted people's words. 

As I recall, Annie Dukes was the one who actually said that Joan Rivers called her a Nazi. If you watch the playback, that's a twist on the words Joan actually said, which were more along the lines of Annie behaving worse than Hitler because of her blatant dishonesty and power/control gaming "technique."  (...please...bad behavior is bad behavior, Ms. Dukes...) 

And let's not forget the fact that Dukes actually did say that Joan deserved to die.  That's pretty ugly, and inherently violent.  It's also morally reprehensible, considering Joan's age.  Personally, though I wouldn't enjoy being called a "whore pit viper," I'd take it far more seriously if someone were to say I deserved to lose my life.  That's one step away from a death threat - and actually could be a death order, depending on who you know and who you say it to. Given the fact that it was common knowledge that Joan Rivers believed Annie Dukes associated with organized criminals, the statement about Joan Rivers deserving to die can also be interpreted as an intentional attempt on Dukes' part to cause fear, intimidation and emotional distress at a far deeper level than your basic school yard name calling.  

Sure - there was definitely something up in the mother-daughter dynamic between Joan & Melissa.  Of course there was.  But in contrast to Annie Dukes' behavior, at least theirs was about sticking together in the face of adversity rather than about dividing and conquering the people around her for the sake of personal gain, with no regard for the emotional impact/consequences to those in her wake, by way of mental exploitation. 

I mean, look at poor Brande - she probably still thinks of Annie Dukes as a "friend," when Annie Dukes sized Brande up as a dumb blonde and played her like a fiddle.  Since that goes against Brande's principles, that makes Annie Dukes very much the opposite of a friend.  

But yes, there was definitely something up between Joan & Melissa.  I'm just not sure it's worth the amount of attention it's getting when the most damaging dysfunction to my eye wasn't coming from them.  For example, Melissa expressed the concern that Annie & Brande were ganging up on her and assassinating her character.  

Well...they were - and they did. And when Melissa confronted the issue face to face with each of them, they lied.  They even attempted to call Melissa's mental integrity into question.  

Now that is also something you just don't do.  

And Annie appeared to enjoy every second of it. 

Bleck! 

So after years of being coached by therapists, groups, self-help books, professors, educators, etc. to articulate it when we see something wrong going down, shouldn't Melissa have been beside herself after experiencing that and being blamed for it?  And didn't Melissa do exactly what mental health professional types have been instructing people to do for decades now -- and is she not now the recipient of the same profession's critique for doing exactly as she's been told? 

Sure, I thought it was a shame that Melissa's firing turned into an adrenaline pumped temper tantrum at the end of the night - but I also found it understandable because Annie's behavior was sooooo far across the line in the first place, and because Annie Dukes got away with behaving in such a way as is consistent with those who pretty much caused the current recession - not to mention the fact that on an emotional level, Annie Dukes burned every bridge in the book.  Honestly, I feel sorry for her children - they'll never know what it's like to think for themselves - but they may never realize that none of their thoughts are actually their own rather than mommy's.  That's an extremely alarming possibility, and it falls very close to the line of actual brainwashing.  

And the worst part is, if you watch Annie Dukes' non-verbal behaviors, it's very clear that she knows she's doing something wrong, she knows she's getting away with it, and she's experiencing some kind of arousal from it.  Just try watching her in the lounge with Joan with the sound off.  You'll see it, too. 

And yes, it was a bit jarring to hear a 75 year old woman speak like a true New Yorker -- but Joan Rivers is a true New Yorker, and culture there is far more accepting of the use of "vulgar" language than it is anywhere else in the United States.  In fact, for a true New Yorker, Joan was not really that vulgar at all.   She was angry, she showed it, she's got a very live personality, and she knew her daughter had been screwed off the show by dishonorable means.  By her cultural standards - meaning by New York City cultural standards - Joan Rivers spoke her mind under no uncertain terms, and everybody knew where she was coming from.  Within New Yorker cultural standards, that's completely acceptable.  

Further, as is also culturally normative in New York City, both Joan and Melissa showed repeatedly that they were able to agree to disagree, to negotiate and to discuss their own perspectives with those of differing perspectives toward common and positive goals - as was the case with the story arc of Clint Black and Joan Rivers.  

On the other hand, Annie Dukes' behavior was sneaky, dishonest, dishonorable, and showed a personal lack of integrity specific to people who find the pain of other amusing and acceptable so long as there is personal gain involved.  That's not acceptable by New York cultural standards.  I find that sort of thing is, however, far more acceptable on the West Coast, and to me, that's disturbing.  

But sure, the dynamic between Joan & Melissa was odd.  On the other hand, they did show camaraderie.   And sure, it would have been more polished had both Joan and Melissa been able to articulate more calmly and less confrontationally.  But Dukes was actually rewarded for dangerously passive aggressive behavior.  To adversely judge direct behavior that was at least well-founded if not (in part) justified while simultaneously overlooking the guile of Dukes' behavior is somewhat of a problem, in my opinion.  

; ) 

--KW

CA is probably, at the least, scripted for conflict and otherwise ego manipulated, but you can't fake genuine family dysfunction. Something's off-center there with Joan & Melissa and I think you're onto something with the father's suicide. That tragedy could have made Joan more protective and now she doesn't see herself or Melissa in true light.

The thing of it is most of us have seen some group or parent and child behave like J&M in real life.

Yes, Joan was rude and basically shouted the other side down, not a good sign.

On one level I wanted Joan to win as Celebrity Apprentice b/c Annie Dukes is a true Machiavellian, which in many ways is why you should be the CA, but on a common sense level, I think the whole thing was rigged. I think Donald Trump had ulterior motives for choosing Joan and not Annie. Perhaps Rivers has the clout he wants to keep in his hand. Plus, what do they do so-called apprentices do for Trump anyhow?

Thank you for commenting, Candelaria. And I'll be dropping by your relationships column at Examiner again. You're very insightful.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE and NOLA Lit Examiner ( http://nola101.com ). Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ).

Graat post.  A couple of thoughts.  I thought Joan was unbelievably vulgar (even for her) and did not allow dialogue.

I think it must be hard to be the daughter of a celebrity especially if you are following in your parent's footsteps and you don't have their talent.  Melissa is a solo child and I think, becuase of her father's suicide some years back, that probably heightened the bond between them.

The job of a parent is to raise independent and productive children - that means not defending or rescuing them much of the time.

I figure so much of The Apprentice is scripted and Trump definitely picks people who are volatile and provacative.  Ch-ching!

http://blog.candelarisilva.com ( http://blog.candelarisilva.com/ )

http://examiner.com/x-2478-Boston-Domestic-Issues_...

Good and plenty!