No. of Recommendations: 1
This site does take a bit of a "total anti drugs it is all for money for the drug companies" position, but it brings up interesting ideas about our culture.

http://www.alternet.org/how-america-breeds-mental-illness-bi...



joycets
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
While the author has a couple of good points, there's so much wrong with it, I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with the isolation begins at birth thing.

He talks about scheduled c-sections, being encouraged to formula feed, not letting mom bond with baby. . .

Is the author stuck in the 60s?

Since the 80s, there's been a rise in home births, there are more mid-wives and doulas than there used to be. Often now, even in a C-section, the mom is awake and encouraged to bond with baby immediately, placing baby on the stomach or chest before being whisked away to be cleaned and tested. Breastfeeding is very much encouraged, so much so that woman who can't or choose not to breastfeed are made to feel that they are inadequate parents. Breastfeeding consultants visit you in the hospital to encourage it.

And isolation?

The author sounds like an extrovert brought up in a world of introverts when the opposite is more often the case.

It's hard to find time and space where there is quiet and time to be alone.

Group work, group think, "collaboration" is becoming so common that in some places office workers don't even have their own cubicles any more, much less offices. They either all work in one large room or they are sharing cubicles.

And in schools, teachers are being told that group projects, "pair share" and other forms of "collaborative learning" is the way to go. If a student wants to work alone, it's seen as a bad thing.

Ishtar
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Some of that team stuff in school can be a PITA. I didn't get too much of it till my second time around at college - but there's nothing like being assigned a project to do and being teamed up with a couple of slackers (or two slackers and a family man who is stretching himself thin in order to get to an evening class at all.)

On the other hand, sharing a big cubicle with two or three people can be all right.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10456

Cesarean section on the rise.

The national U.S. cesarean section rate was 4.5% and near this optimal range in 1965 when it was first measured (Taffel et al. 1987). Since then, large groups of healthy, low-risk American women who have received care that enhanced their bodies' innate capacity for giving birth have achieved 4% cesarean section rates and good overall birth outcomes (Johnson and Daviss 2005, Rooks et al. 1989). However, the national cesarean section rate is much higher. After steeply increasing over more than a decade, it leveled off at 32.8% in 2010 and 2011 (Hamilton et al. 2012). So, about one mother in three now gives birth by cesarean section.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
thanks, because I didn't realize that.

I guess I'm just so hippy-granola it never even occurred to me that other women weren't trying to do natural if at all possible.

In fact, even in the military, my docs and midwife only used c-section as a last resort, recommended natural.

Ishtar
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I didn't realize it either until a few years ago when I saw a book review on C-span book notes. I had four children and it was all natural so I agree with you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So much wrong with this author, Ms. Belén Fernández, and article. I looked her up and it seems she's a frequent contributor on alternet.org. I've read good stuff from alternet before, but this is not one of them. Normally I wouldn't put much thought into an article like this, but since it has generated some responses here, I'll jump in.

Most of her article, she goes on with deliberately incendiary language, assumptions, and leaps (and lapses) of logic. I could barely read past the middle, but kept on to see if she had anything worth reading.

A few specific excerpts that I found both incendiary and telling about her perspectives:

To be sure, neoliberal policies dependent on the obstruction of communal solidarity facilitate a mass alienation from human reality and deprive individuals of psychological support networks enjoyed in certain other cultures.

Huh? Really?

My own personal experience with mental health issues in the US includes a prolonged panic attack I suffered in high school in the late 90s. ...
After later living abroad for many years in locations less estranged from reality, I concluded that the attacks had been hypochondriac fallout of extreme anxiety over the possibility of stigmatisation by society for exhibiting any indication of physical or psychological weakness - such as anxiety itself. ...
however, the position of the US as global superpower means that its acute unhinging from humanity contains worldwide ramifications.


Other than revealing where the roots of some of her hostility towards prescriptions and mental health may have come from, all just sounds so much like our society is out to get her (or anybody else).

which is reinforced by schizophrenic electronic multi-tasking

A specific instance of hypocritical name-calling. This whole article derides over pathologizing people (and allegedly "creating" mental illness conditions or inducing environments), but she will easily use a term like "schizophrenic" herself.

Sad to say, but reading (or trying to read) her article, it is in some ways a 'symptom' of her being vindictive, petty, paranoid, resentful, and just generally disturbed and unhealthy. But she is not the first - or last - person who may have health issues of her own while also saying that she's not the sick one, everyone else is.

Throughout her article, she seems to swing sharply political from right to left and back again, though looking her up separately online, she is not a big fan of Thomas Friedman (New York Times journalist and columnist), she seems to go from being extreme right to left, and back again.

Also a big part of her entire article, the "societal diagnostics" section as she calls it. Some of the basic premises in her article about social interactions and definitions are at least disturbing, or just wrong.
a cultural insistence on individual triumph and competition over collaboration likely contributes to such manifestations of emotional insecurity as the institutionalised practice of bullying at US schools.

I am no social scientist, but clearly the author isn't one even though she seems to try and write as if she was.

Bullying, in some form or other, happens everywhere. An example: Japan is known for extremes of bullying (and violence) the which is tolerated to a degree that has hasn't been recognized in this country, at least on a wide scale. And if there's any society that seems to contrast with the U.S. in terms of social conformity and compliance, this is a good one.

So many other things wrong about her social diagnostics, but hopefully others will pick on those issues.

While the author has a couple of good points, there's so much wrong with it, I don't know where to begin,

In my opinion, Ishtar, the only good point in her article is the reference to Prof. Peter Kinderman's recent article, "Grief and anxiety are not mental illnesses."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20986796
I suggest somebody read the above Kinderman article directly as I think it makes a much better argument about the expanding diagnoses of mental illnesses. He's well-reasoned, rational, and doesn't go running around using inflammatory language.

ST
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think I will read the article. It does seem to be a contradiction. Just because you're hurting doesn't mean you're crazy, but I'd think that talking with someone who has some wisdom and a little distance on it might still be helpful.
But the way things are set up, I can't tell if there's any privacy at all going through the health insurance, because the process of getting referred to anyone means telling my entire story to several totally unqualified people. It's also a question of how someone might get labeled if the only way anyone gets paid is if there is some sort of diagnosis.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Glad to see that last link. I posted the original because some of the points were good even though it got weird, and the other link is much more useful and coherent.

Currently trying to determine if going back on medication useful or not.
Should go to bed also, now, maybe.

jts
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I read the other link - the one that didn't "get weird". Thanks.
I should get to bed soon. Stopped in here before turning the computer off.
It's a little goofed-up here. I have been going on not enough sleep. I sometimes have trouble getting to sleep, and right now my legs hurt because of some old injuries.
Was planning to go to a meeting about a proposed change in the county government, but stayed home because when I came home from work I noticed that someone had broken the back window of the (vacant) house next door. I called the phone number on the sign in the window (got voicemail) and the police (if they called back, it must have been on the land line and I didn't hear it. If they came by, I didn't see them.) So, I settled down on the couch after dinner - and fell asleep.
Hope you're doing all right.
Print the post Back To Top