Archive for the ‘Womens Mental Health’ Category
Ashley Judd: Misogynistic Judgments of Women’s Appearances
Ashley Judd Slaps Media in the Face for Speculation Over Her ‘Puffy’ Appearance
THIS EDITORIAL first appeared at The Daily Beast at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/09/ashley-judd-slaps-media-in-the-face-for-speculation-over-her-puffy-appearance.html
Ashley Judd’s ‘puffy’ appearance sparked a viral media frenzy. But, the actress writes, the conversation is really a misogynistic assault on all women.
The Conversation about women’s bodies exists largely outside of us, while it is also directed at (and marketed to) us, and used to define and control us. The Conversation about women happens everywhere, publicly and privately. We are described and detailed, our faces and bodies analyzed and picked apart, our worth ascertained and ascribed based on the reduction of personhood to simple physical objectification. Our voices, our personhood, our potential, and our accomplishments are regularly minimized and muted.
As an actor and woman who, at times, avails herself of the media, I am painfully aware of the conversation about women’s bodies, and it frequently migrates to my own body. I know this, even though my personal practice is to ignore what is written about me. I do not, for example, read interviews I do with news outlets. I hold that it is none of my business what people think of me. I arrived at this belief after first, when I began working as an actor 18 years ago, reading everything. I evolved into selecting only the “good” pieces to read. Over time, I matured into the understanding that good and bad are equally fanciful interpretations. I do not want to give my power, my self-esteem, or my autonomy, to any person, place, or thing outside myself. I thus abstain from all media about myself. The only thing that matters is how I feel about myself, my personal integrity, and my relationship with my Creator. Of course, it’s wonderful to be held in esteem and fond regard by family, friends, and community, but a central part of my spiritual practice is letting go of otheration. And casting one’s lot with the public is dangerous and self-destructive, and I value myself too much to do that.
However, the recent speculation and accusations in March feel different, and my colleagues and friends encouraged me to know what was being said. Consequently, I choose to address it because the conversation was pointedly nasty, gendered, and misogynistic and embodies what all girls and women in our culture, to a greater or lesser degree, endure every day, in ways both outrageous and subtle. The assault on our body image, the hypersexualization of girls and women and subsequent degradation of our sexuality as we walk through the decades, and the general incessant objectification is what this conversation allegedly about my face is really about.
A brief analysis demonstrates that the following “conclusions” were all made on the exact same day, March 20, about the exact same woman (me), looking the exact same way, based on the exact same television appearance. The following examples are real, and come from a variety of (so-called!) legitimate news outlets (such as HuffPo, MSNBC, etc.), tabloid press, and social media:
One: When I am sick for more than a month and on medication (multiple rounds of steroids), the accusation is that because my face looks puffy, I have “clearly had work done,” with otherwise credible reporters with great bravo “identifying” precisely the procedures I allegedly have had done.
Two: When my skin is nearly flawless, and at age 43, I do not yet have visible wrinkles that can be seen on television, I have had “work done,” with media outlets bolstered by consulting with plastic surgeons I have never met who “conclude” what procedures I have “clearly” had. (Notice that this is a “back-handed compliment,” too—I look so good! It simply cannot possibly be real!)
Three: When my 2012 face looks different than it did when I filmed Double Jeopardy in 1998, I am accused of having “messed up” my face (polite language here, the F word is being used more often), with a passionate lament that “Ashley has lost her familiar beauty audiences loved her for.”
Four: When I have gained weight, going from my usual size two/four to a six/eight after a lazy six months of not exercising, and that weight gain shows in my face and arms, I am a “cow” and a “pig” and I “better watch out” because my husband “is looking for his second wife.” (Did you catch how this one engenders competition and fear between women? How it also suggests that my husband values me based only on my physical appearance? Classic sexism. We won’t even address how extraordinary it is that a size eight would be heckled as “fat.”)
Ashley Judd on her new show “Missing”
Five: In perhaps the coup de grace, when I am acting in a dramatic scene in Missing—the plot stating I am emotionally distressed and have been awake and on the run for days—viewers remarks ranged from “What the f–k did she do to her face?” to cautionary gloating, “Ladies, look at the work!” Footage from “Missing” obviously dates prior to March, and the remarks about how I look while playing a character powerfully illustrate the contagious and vicious nature of the conversation. The accusations and lies, introduced to the public, now apply to me as a woman across space and time; to me as any woman and to me as every woman.
That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.
A case in point is that this conversation was initially promulgated largely by women; a sad and disturbing fact. (That they are professional friends of mine, and know my character and values, is an additional betrayal.)
That the conversation about my face was initially promulgated largely by women is a sad and disturbing fact.
News outlets with whom I do serious work, such as publishing op-eds about preventing HIV, empowering poor youth worldwide, and conflict mineral mining in Democratic Republic of Congo, all ran this “story” without checking with my office first for verification, or offering me the dignity of the opportunity to comment. It’s an indictment of them that they would even consider the content printable, and that they, too, without using time-honored journalistic standards, would perpetuate with un-edifying delight such blatantly gendered, ageist, and mean-spirited content.
Ashley Judd responds to her critics on ‘Nightly News.’
I hope the sharing of my thoughts can generate a new conversation: Why was a puffy face cause for such a conversation in the first place? How, and why, did people participate? If not in the conversation about me, in parallel ones about women in your sphere? What is the gloating about? What is the condemnation about? What is the self-righteous alleged “all knowing” stance of the media about? How does this symbolize constraints on girls and women, and encroach on our right to be simply as we are, at any given moment? How can we as individuals in our private lives make adjustments that support us in shedding unconscious actions, internalized beliefs, and fears about our worthiness, that perpetuate such meanness? What can we do as families, as groups of friends? Is what girls and women can do different from what boys and men can do? What does this have to do with how women are treated in the workplace?
I ask especially how we can leverage strong female-to-female alliances to confront and change that there is no winning here as women. It doesn’t actually matter if we are aging naturally, or resorting to surgical assistance. We experience brutal criticism. The dialogue is constructed so that our bodies are a source of speculation, ridicule, and invalidation, as if they belong to others—and in my case, to the actual public. (I am also aware that inevitably some will comment that because I am a creative person, I have abdicated my right to a distinction between my public and private selves, an additional, albeit related, track of highly distorted thinking that will have to be addressed at another time).
If this conversation about me is going to be had, I will do my part to insist that it is a feminist one, because it has been misogynistic from the start. Who makes the fantastic leap from being sick, or gaining some weight over the winter, to a conclusion of plastic surgery? Our culture, that’s who. The insanity has to stop, because as focused on me as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women. In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood. It affects each and every one of us, in multiple and nefarious ways: our self-image, how we show up in our relationships and at work, our sense of our worth, value, and potential as human beings. Join in—and help change—the Conversation.
- Ashley Judd is a prolific actress, who will next be seen in ABC’s new midseason show, Missing. Judd most recently appeared in Dolphin Tale alongside Morgan Freeman, Harry Connick Jr. and Kris Kristofferson.
- Judd is also on the board of directors for PSI (Population Services International), which she joined in 2004 after serving as Global Ambassador for PSI’s HIV education and prevention program, YouthAIDS since 2002. Judd has visited PSI programs in Thailand, Cambodia, Madagascar, Kenya, South Africa, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, India, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In her work, she witnesses the lives of the exploited and poor to help educated the world about the reality of global poverty and bring solutions to the devastating effects of social injustice and gender inequality.
- Judd was the subject of three award-winning documentaries aired in more than 150 countries worldwide on VH1, The Discovery Channel and The National Geographic Channel. In her role as PSI board member, Judd has graced the covers of countless magazines and been the subject of newspaper and television interviews bringing vital awareness to issues closest to her heart, gender inequality and poverty alleviation.
- Judd has visited legislators on Capitol Hill, addressed the General Assembly of the UN on the scourge human trafficking, spoke at the National Press Club, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the protection of vulnerable women from violence, sexual abuse and HIV and, most recently served as an expert panelist at Clinton Global Initiative to discuss the issue of safe water and the empowerment of girls in the developing world.
- Recently, Judd has come on board as a spokesperson for organizations Defenders for Wildlife and The Sierra Club providing her time and voice to advocate against practices of aerial wolf hunting (Defenders for Wildlife) and mountaintop removal coal mining (The Sierra Club).
- She resides in Tennessee and Scotland with her husband, the international racing star Dario Franchitti. They have 8 beloved pets and enjoy a quiet, rural life.
Eating Disorders Advocate Responds to Dr. Oz and Pro-Ana Movement
This article first appeared in the Bradenton Herald
Lisa S. Kantor: An Open Letter to Dr. Oz
By Lisa S. Kantor
Posted: 7:53pm on Mar 19, 2012; Modified: 7:58pm on Mar 19, 2012
LOS ANGELES, March 19, 2012 — /PRNewswire/ — Along with countless professionals and families dealing with the physical, emotional and financial consequences of eating disorders, I am deeply disturbed by the way your recent program, “Dying to Be Thin: Meet the Skinniest Women in America,” had the unintended effect of glamorizing the deadliest of all mental illnesses. Rather than documenting the tragedy associated with eating disorders and providing encouragement to sufferers to seek help, you perpetuated myths about the disease and provided harmful information to millions. I believe this show did more harm than good. As a physician, you have a responsibility to improve your coverage of eating disorders in future shows.
“Dying to Be Thin,” while tantalizing, serves to perpetuate one of the deadliest misconceptions about eating disorders. People with eating disorders are not necessarily “skinny” or “thin,” and certainly not everyone who dies from an eating disorder is underweight. In fact, many people die at a very normal weight, especially if they have bulimia. You mentioned on your show that the “more acute cases” were the “thinner” women. That myth is also dangerous to disseminate. Those who weigh less than others are not necessarily “more acute” than others at a “healthy weight.” That misconception has long created stigmas associated with eating disorder sufferers and has often led to under-treatment by physicians who think that because a woman is not thin, she is not as acute. Your focus on thinness did a grave disservice by failing to educate your audience scientifically about what eating disorders really look like.
In giving air time to the Pro-Ana movement, you referred to it as “a dangerous new trend that helps women be skinny at any cost.” The Pro-Ana movement is not new. Pro-Ana (and Pro-Mia) sites have been around since the dawn of the Internet. Far from being “trendy,” they are a very dangerous facet of an eating disorder underground that preys on the mentally ill. Had you consulted an eating disorders expert, you would never have offered your audience direct access to the websites and their images. Studies show that doing so causes harm. One study, on college-aged women (none of whom had eating disorders), discovered that after viewing pro-eating disorders websites, 84% reduced their calorie intake by more than 2,000 calories per week. Only 56% of the women realized they were eating less. Results of the study also indicated that the women exposed to the pro-eating disorders website had decreases in self-esteem and perceived attractiveness.
My days are spent in and out of federal courts battling insurance companies that deny benefits for seriously ill women and men who seek adequate treatment for their diseases – even though a federal law and many state laws mandate that insurers provide similar levels of treatment for mental illnesses as they provide for physical illnesses. Shows such as the one you aired trivialize this disease and undermine the progress well-respected groups such as the International Association for Eating Disorders Professionals, the Eating Disorders Coalition, the National Eating Disorders Association, and the Binge Eating Disorder Association have achieved. Still, getting the national media to take eating disorders seriously without parading dangerously thin women across the television screen is about as difficult as getting an insurance company to pay for a therapeutic length of stay at a residential treatment facility.
It is hard for me to believe that either you or your staff did any legitimate research about eating disorders before planning the programs. Were you aware that professionals in the eating disorder field were in touch with producers at your show in recent months offering the benefits of their expertise free of charge should you plan to air segments about eating disorders? Those calls and e-mails appear to have been ignored.
You owe it to your many viewers to correct the harm your recent program caused. First, please remove all material from your website and blog that mentions the Pro-Ana movement. Second, work with some of the many excellent professionals at reputable facilities around the country to plan follow up segments to properly educate your audience about how people can recover from eating disorders and lead productive and fulfilled lives not centered on food. You have an opportunity to teach millions across the country, including other physicians who might watch your show, the real skinny about eating disorders. I hope you will do the right thing.
About Lisa S. Kantor
Lisa S. Kantor, a Los Angeles lawyer and member of the Board of Directors of the Eating Disorders Coalition, is the country’s premier legal advocate for patients with eating disorders who have been denied health insurance benefits for treatment. In 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for her client in Harlick v. Blue Shield, creating one of the most influential decisions ever in mental health parity litigation and paving the way to making treatment and recovery for severe mental illnesses more attainable. For more information, go to www.kantorlaw.net.
SOURCE Lisa S. Kantor
Posted in Advocacy/legislation, Eating Disorders, Safety and Prevention, Womens Mental Health | 
Tags: anorexia, bulimarexia, bulimia, eating disorder | 
No Comments »
Why Parents Kill Their Own Kids
On Jan. 27, Julie Powers, 50, a mother of two in Tampa, drove her 13-year-old son, Beau, home from soccer practice and allegedly shot him in the head “for talking back” to her. Then she went upstairs and shot Calyx, her 16-year-old daughter dead as she sat at her computer doing her homework, according to an arrest affidavit. At the time, her husband was serving in Qatar as an army colonel. Powers said her kids were “mouthy.”
This is an unusual situation, because typically, it is younger children who are more likely to be killed. And usually, if a child is killed for being “mouthy” it is the result of a parent losing their temper, being aggressive, and throwing a child against a wall.
Killing newborns is much more common than killing older children.
As far as death by homicide goes, you’re more likely to be killed on the day you are born than on any other day of your life.
Younger children are much more likely to be killed than teenagers. If a child is killed for being “mouthy,” the remark that came out here, that’s more likely to lead to fatal battering. [Usually, in such cases,] a 3-to-5-year-old is thrown against a wall in an overzealous attempt at discipline and dies — as opposed to [a parent] planning to kill and shooting them with a gun.
Typically, circumstances in which parents kill their children include:
“ALTRUISM”: When a mother plans to take her own life and believes her children are better off in heaven with her.
PSYCHOSIS: The parent is acutely psychotic.
FATAL BATTERING: [as described above].
UNWANTED: such as when a mother has an infant born out of wedlock.
SPOUSAL REVENGE: a parent kills the children to hurt the partner, typically after infidelity or a separation
The case in Florida doesn’t appear to fit into any of these categories, based on the information we currently have. It is likely that there is more to the case than that the children were merely being mouthy.
When parents kill their children, the methodology may depend on the child. Age is one factor: a 3-year-old can be easily strangled or overdosed. Teens are not going to cooperate in being killed so the use of a knife or gun is more necessary. In some cases of fathers who kill teenagers there has been a real standoff and hostility, but that’s not typical for mothers.
Fathers are more likely to murder the whole family. In 95% of those cases in which whole families are killed, the fathers are the killer.
Is there any way to prevent these types of crimes?
There is no easy answer to intervening here. Better access to mental health care may be helpful.
Awareness; a woman who is very depressed and has young children who makes a suicide attempt has a 1-in-20 chance that she will try to take the kid with her. Specific inquiries about thoughts of harm toward children should occur in any evaluation of a seriously depressed mother.
What happens to parents who kill their children?
Most parents who kill their children go to prison rather than mental institutions. According to the FBI, women who kill their children and are not found insane, serve a mean length 17 years in prison. In women who kill newborns, the mean length is 9 years. Of all homicide perpetrators, none have a higher incidence of being found insane than mothers who kill their children.
Mothers who commit infanticide
They are not a general danger to the community. There are infanticide laws in 22 countries, including England, Canada and Australia — instead of women being charged with murder, mothers who kill children that are less than 1 year old are charged with infanticide. In the U.K., the vast majority get probation rather than prison. The recidivism rate is very low. The risk of suicide is substantial, however.
ADHD Adversely Affects Marriages
Does your husband or wife constantly forget chores and lose track of the calendar? Do you sometimes feel that instead of living with a spouse, you’re raising another child? Your marriage may be suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Is ADHD affecting your marriage? Mental health experts note that attention problems can take a toll on adult relationships.
In a marriage, the common symptoms of the disorder — distraction, disorganization, forgetfulness — can easily be misinterpreted as laziness, selfishness, and a lack of love and concern.
It is estimated that at least 4 percent of adults have ADHD; about 10 million U.S. adults, with only about 1.2 million of affected adults in treatment, and with many adults having never received the diagnosis as children.
As many as half of all children with A.D.H.D. do not fully outgrow it and continue to struggle with symptoms as adults.
Symptoms can include trouble with maintaining employment or completing schooling, marital difficulties, financial challenges, repeated driving violations/tickets,
Adults with attention disorders often learn coping skills to help them stay organized and focused at work, but experts say many of them struggle at home, where their tendency to become distracted is a constant source of conflict.
Some research suggests that adults with ADHD are twice as likely to be divorced; another study found high levels of distress in 60 percent of marriages where one spouse had the disorder.
Spouses of adults with ADHD often feel they cannot count on their partner. They may feel that the spouse is not dependable such that the unaffected spouse must take responsibility for everything.
Sometimes the unaffected spouse can become chronically angry, frustrated that they dont help around the house, that they are inconsiderate, or that they cannot count on the spouse to complete simple tasks such as running to the bank, paying bills on time, or picking up the kids. They may feel they have no choice but to constantly nag to make sure things get done.
Spouses with attention deficit, meanwhile, are often unaware of their latest mistake, confused by their partner’s simmering anger. A lengthy to-do list or a messy house feels overwhelming to the A.D.H.D. brain, causing the person to experience paralysis, and they accomplish nothing, which further infuriates their spouse. This does not happen due to laziness or selfishness, it happens due to the difficulty with task planning and organization.
Although treatment often starts with medication, it typically doesn’t solve a couple’s problems. Talk therapy may be needed to unpack years of accumulated resentments.
Behavioral therapy and coping strategies — for both partners — are essential. Long, to-do lists given to the spouse with ADHD will not be productive. instead, asking that one task at a time be targeted is more helpful.
Calls From Mom Relieve Stress
It may surprise many, but for girls 7-12 years old, a call from Mom can relieve –YES, RELIEVE–Stress!
Biological anthropologist Leslie Seltzer of University of Wisconsin-Madison, tested a group of 7- to 12-year-old girls. She had them give an impromptu speech and solve a series of math problems in front of a panel of strangers. These tasks increased two measures of stress; increases in their heart rates and level of cortisol were detected.
Once stressed:
- One-third of the girls were comforted in person by their mothers – specifically with hugs, an arm around the shoulders and the like.
- One-third were left to watch an emotion-neutral 75-minute video.
- The final third spoke to their mothers on the phone.
Whether in person or by phone, the children who interacted with their mothers had the same hormonal responses:
- Oxytocin increased
- Cortisol decreased
Oxytocin, often called the “love hormone” is strongly associated with emotional attachment. This hormone rose significantly in the girls who had physical or over-the-phone contact with their mothers.
The stress-marking hormone, cortisol declined. It can be difficult to find ways to reduce cortisol, and to increase oxytocin. So the fact that a phone call can do this is quite remarkable.
Prior to this study, it was believed that the release of oxytocin in response to social attachment required physical contact. This study demonstrates that just hearing a mother’s voice can have the same effect. The anxiety-relieving qualities of oxytocin persists for several hours afterward, with low levels of cortisol even by the time the children go home.
The findings were published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B , and support hypotheses about how males and females respond differently to stress.
- Confronted with a threat, males may be more likely to choose between fight and flight.
- A female with offspring in tow or slowed by pregnancy, however, may not be able to run, or defend oneself without endangering themselves and their child. Instead, females may use touch, or a soothing voice to deal with stressors. In response to either, oxytocin is released, and stress is reduced in females. This may strengthen the bond between individuals while doing so.
Clinically, this may explain why girls this age frequently call their mothers when their mothers are gone. But can it also explain their propensity to text? Seltzer is now looking at the impact of text messaging on the levels of oxytocin! She also hopes to see other scientists conduct similar studies in other animals.
Acupuncture for Depression in Pregnancy
A randomized controlled trial of acupuncture for depression during pregnancy suggested that symptoms were reduced with a response rate similar to standard depression treatments. Acupuncture may be a viable treatment option for depression during pregnancy.
150 pregnant women who met criteria for major depression were given either acupuncture specific for depression or one of two active controls: control acupuncture or massage. They received 12 sessions during 8 weeks. The acupuncturists who administered treatment were blinded to treatment assignment. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was used to rate severity. 63% of the women who received depression-specific acupuncture reported a significant reduction in symptoms, compared to 44% of women in the other two groups combined.
Many pregnant women with depression stop taking medications when they become pregnant, due to concerns this may harm their unborn babies. Women with depression are at increased risk for preterm births, and are at increased risk for post partum depression, so treatment of depression during pregnancy is important. Post partum depression interferes with a woman’s ability to care for her infant, and can have lasting effects; previous studies suggest that children of mothers with postpartum depression perform more poorly in school, become frustrated more easily, and have poorer problem solving.
Acupuncture may be a good option in treating depression in pregnant women; this treatment appears to be more effective than other tested non-pharmacologic treatments. Depression during pregnancy is common; up to 14% of women may have depression when pregnant.
Acupuncture for depression during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial.
Manber R, Schnyer RN, Lyell D, Chambers AS, Caughey AB, Druzin M, Carlyle E, Celio C, Gress JL, Huang MI, Kalista T, Martin-Okada R, Allen JJ.
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar;115(3):511-20.PMID: 20177281