Archive | Comments RSS feed for this section

Women And Their Bodies

6 May

We were sitting on the tube the other day, and a couple of kids came and sat opposite. A cute little boy about 3, and his even cuter sister about 4. They had big brown eyes, with a sparkle, and she had the most infectious little smile.

Me and the missus pulled faces and smiled back, as you do, getting her to smile more.

Then I turned to her parents. The guys with their long beards and the women covered head to toe in their burqas – only their eyes occasionally showing if you caught them at the right angle.

And I was filled with such sadness that one day that carefree smile will be covered up.

But then I looked across at 4 older girls nearby. Faces covered in make up, hair bleached blond and curled, short skirts and heels so high they could barely walk when they got off the tube. One of them talking about how best to deal with “guys you’ve fucked“.

I wondered to myself about the masks that they wore.

What choices do either group of women feel they have, to be able break the mold?

I got thinking about the pressure teenage girls feel, once they realise they are more often judged on how they look than their capabilities, and thought that maybe I could understand a teenager wanting to avoid all that, with the easy solution of shutting it all out by wearing a burqa.

After all, Dalia Mogahed points out that “a hijab privitises a womans sexuality“, which makes sense when the message we give is “that a woman is only strong if she’s sexy in public“. This is a very poor measure of worth.

But on the other hand, I detest the imposition of these silly coverings on women, and all the subjugation which comes as part of that culture, particularly in countries like Saudi Arabia. It puts forward the idea that women’s bodies are somehow shameful, and that men are uncontrollable lust-filled sex fiends that will rape at the slightest view of a lady’s skin. This is harmful to both sexes.

Of course there is plenty of evidence that men are also judged on their looks – as a man you’re much more likely to get convicted of a crime, and if you get convicted you’ll have a much longer sentence than a woman.

And if you’re taller, you’re much more likely to be given respect, and to be given a more senior role in your organisation.

However it seems to be more pronounced for the ladies. I remember reading about a German orchestra that realised how biased they were when recruiting new musicians. Not so long ago, it was pretty much accepted that a woman could not match the musical abilities of a man. Even nowadays, with awareness of this unfair view, evidence still shows a strong gender bias. If auditions are run blind – the person being interviewed is playing their instrument behind a screen – then the interviewing orchestra is much more likely to accept a female musician than if they see them when they are playing.

So as a result of all this, you might think that wearing a burqa would mean that such biases would be reduced. Though obviously that would require men to wear them too…

What is “Appropriate”?
The amount of flesh that is considered impolite to reveal is completely dependent on the society you’re in. Take Iran: if you show a bit too much ankle then you’ll get a beating from the religious police. However in the UK, you’d have to get your boobs out in public to get yourself arrested for indecent exposure. It’s all rather arbitrary.

I’ve worked in an office where a girl with large breasts used to wear very low cut tops and a super short skirt. She would come and bend over the desks of the guys, giving us an eyeful, to try to get us to do her job for her. Around half of the guys duly complied – it was embarrassing.

However should a manager see what is going on, and ask the woman to wear more appropriate dress, she could complain that it’s a woman’s right to dress as she pleases, and to wave her fun bags about. However I imagine if I took a similar approach for my rather alluring hairy chest I’d pretty quickly get told to cover myself.

Some brave women use this odd prejudice to fantastic effect. Amina Sboui published a picture of her boobs on Facebook to highlight the horrible treatment of women in Tunisia, pointing out that “My body is mine and not the source of anybody’s honour“.

So what’s my conclusion? I’m not too sure. When it comes to how much skin to show things are not clear; there are no absolute rights and wrongs because cultural perspectives differ. However, regardless of which culture you’re from, it’s rather more clear that we need to work on giving people equal respect, regardless of their sex or how much we fancy them.

Je Suis Charlie – All Is Forgiven

13 Jan
Tout est pardonne

All is forgiven

All is forgiven“.


Powerful words.

We don’t feel any hate to them. We know that the struggle is not with them as people, but the struggle is with an ideology.” So said Zineb El Rhazoui today, a surviving columnist at Charlie Hebdo magazine.

And this is a most important distinction here – the criticism of an idea is very different to the criticism of a person. That line must not be blurred in this debate.

Here is a more mundane version of the same issue – it may seem trivial in comparison, but the principles at stake are why Charlie Hebdo continues to satirise islam.

So in another office in my company, a cyclist comes in wearing lycra each morning, switches his computer on, then goes off to have a shower and change into his business clobber.

Now, a few months back a muslim in the office complained because “as a muslim” she found “such dress offensive“.

Management got this guy into a room to ask him to get changed before he came into the office to avoid such offence in the future.

If I found myself in the same situation, I like to think events would have played out like this:

Me: “So Mrs Muslim, where in the Koran does it say you can impose your idea of appropriate dress on a non-muslim? Chapter and verse please.

She splutters “How dare you?! I’m a muslim. It’s offensive to me as a muslim“.

I retort that “this is not an answer. Offence is in the eye of the beholder. I do not give offence. You take offence. The choice to be offended is yours.

At this point the manager, keen to defuse the situation, and fearful of “causing” further offence, appeals to my ego: “as the rationalist in the room, can you not concede, carry your clothes on your bike, and get changed before you come into the office?

I respond “would you say the same to a jew supporting the state of Israel with a small Israeli flag on his desk, when confronted by a Palestinian who finds the flag an insult to him and his countrymen?” (This happened in an office where I used to work.)

The manager, wanting to stick to acceptable norms says “that’s different. Let’s focus on the case at hand. Won’t you, for the sake of peace, adhere to this request?

I then make my stand: “If that’s your position, then this is mine. I find Mrs Muslim’s head scarf offensive. The word islam means submission, and this head scarf represents the submission of women to men. As an egalitarian, this is offensive to my beliefs. It says she should be ashamed of her beauty. Even worse, it promotes the dangerous idea that men do not have control over their urges. I want her to stop wearing this at the office so my beliefs are not offended.

It would be a wonderfully juicy Mexican standoff.

And more to the point, this is what saying Je Suis Charlie really means. Are you willing to stand up to the religious when they try to impose their ideologies on the rest of society? Are you willing to bust a few taboos for the greater good?

The post Rushdie years have seen a steady decline in free speech. It’s time to turn the tide.

And so, coming back to the more serious situation in France, until muslims stop insisting that they have the right to impose their views on others, Charlie Hebdo will continue to publish cartoons of Mohammed.

Who Is Normal, Anyway? Part V

29 Nov

There is always some reason in madness

– Friedrich Nietzsche

V – What Does Work?

There are no simple fix-all cures, but there are techniques and tricks that can help.

Everything you do rewires your brain, alters your brain chemistry. Even making a cup of tea. What really beds in change is regular practice. For example musicians and taxi drivers significantly change their brains due to their practice. Neuroplasticity shows how we can rewire our brains to great advantage – recent research shows that we create thousands of new neurons each day, even into old age.

And so talk therapies can leverage this to get the root of the problem and literally rewire the brain. For example, many therapies can give you tricks to push your mind out of the negative rumination that is at the core of the destructive cycle of depression.

Study after study backs this up. And the evidence is clear that although drugs may reduce some symptoms in the short term as much as these therapies, the relapse rate with drugs is more than double that of these approaches.

Jonah Lehrer said: “patients who escaped depression with the help of anti-depressants, and then stopped taking the drugs, relapsed about 70 percent of the time. The chemical boost was temporary. However, during the 18 month follow-up period, only 28 percent of patients in mindfulness therapy slipped back into the mental illness. What we often forget is that therapy alters the chemical brain, just like a pill. It’s easy to dismiss words as airy nothings and talk therapy as mere talk. Sitting on a couch can seem like such an antiquated form of treatment. But the right kind of talk can fix our broken mind, helping us escape from the recursive loop of stress and negative emotion that’s making us depressed. Changing our thoughts is never easy and, in severe cases, might seem virtually impossible. We live busy lives and therapy requires hours of work and constant practice; our cortex can be so damn stubborn. But the data is clear: If we are seeking a long-lasting cure for depression, then it’s typically our most effective treatment.

In fact, psychotherapy and mindfulness mediation can even alleviate physical conditions, for example gastritis and tinnitus.

There’s a better way to understand people with psychological problems: psychologists and psychiatrists use formulation: “we don’t ask what is wrong with someone, rather we ask what has happened to them.

There are so many different theraputic approaches:

Psychoanalysis looks at childhood, emotional drives, and the unconscious, usually drawing from Freud, Jung and the like.

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy – rather than delving into the past looks at your perceptions, emotions and behaviour in the present.

Systemic Therapy – looks at a person as defined by their relationships with other people.

Body Psychotherapy is pretty cool – using the body to gain a greater awareness of mind. After all the mind would not exist as it is, without the inputs from the body. I’ve tried Focusing and found it effective.

Mindfulness is an approach I’ve been using for a few years and, while I don’t have issues with depression or the like, it has helped me to sleep better, to relax more, to appreciate the moment, and maintain more healthy relationships. Self awareness is what this practice gives you, which is the first and hardest step towards change, as most therapists will agree.

Point is, there are plenty of approaches, so you can choose the style that best suits you and your problems.

Part IV – Psychiatry in the previous post.

Who Is Normal, Anyway? Part IV

15 Nov

Crazy people are considered mad by the rest of the society only because their intelligence isn’t understood

– Weihui Zhou

IV – Psychiatry and the DSM

For someone working to help people deal with these conditions, it is helpful to look at specific symptoms, to classify, and to find common causes, and hence common solutions for these symptoms, if they are problematic for the person.

Systematising in this way is what we do well, and gives us our understanding of the world we have, so I don’t have a problem with it. In fact I fully support it.

However, with the failed biological model, this means that symptoms are given arbitrary disorder names and drugs applied to ‘fix’ them. The mainstream approach is predicated on an often unproven assumption of biological cause which leads to harmful decisions.

It also often means people give up responsibility for their conditions, and even for their actions. While this avoids blame it unfortunately goes further and avoids responsibility, resulting in people giving up and just living with their ‘condition’.

Tom Stafford sayswe know that self-efficacy is one of the best predictors of recovery, so denying people’s role in their own decisions just undermines one of their most important tools for recovery“.

The approach I’m advocating here is that you can take responsibility, and that you can change. It means empowering the individual to change for the better if they want to.

So much has been written on the problems with the DSM and approach of many psychiatrists that I don’t need to detail it here.

One purported disorder is pee-shyness, then there’s “caffeine intoxication disorder” and another is “intermittent explosive disorder“.

As you can see, “having some psychiatric symptoms is part of the human condition and does not by itself indicate the presence of mental disorder. The boundary between the worried well and the psychiatrically ill is fuzzy; arbitrary, and subjective—there is no biological test.

Tom Stafford saysThe fact that the most senior psychiatric researchers in the US are now openly and persistently highlighting that the DSM is not fit for the purpose of advancing science and psychiatric treatment is a damning condemnation of the manual.

Neuroskeptic says that “many people are now being prescribed antidepressants for emotional and personal issues which wouldn’t have been considered medical illnesses until quite recently“. He adds that they don’t work very well either.

We really do have a lot to learn about the brain. It was only 60 years ago that Freeman and Watts went around sticking a rod up people’s eye sockets and wriggling it about to mess up their frontal cortex. The frontal lobotomy certainly made them tractable, but left them in a terrible state, usually mentally and physically retarded and sometimes dead. These guys had sod-all idea of what they were doing. Some may say, ‘ah but today we have such a clear understanding of these issues, science has come so far‘. But some of these drugs are like a blunderbuss to the brain. I think that in another 60 years time many of these drugs will be considered an abhorrent way of treating people.

It’s not a question of whether or not these behaviours exist. It a question of whether the psychiatric approach and classifications are helpful. The disease model is fundamentally flawed. And many psychiatrists recognise this.

Final part – What Does Work in the next post

Part III – Stigma in the previous post.

Who Is Normal, Anyway? Part III

1 Nov

In a mad world, only the mad are sane

– Akira Kurosawa

III – Stigma

When sometime does something that breaches our moral code we try to explain it away by calling them evil, brainwashed and mentally ill, for example Adolf Hitler or Anders Brevik.

It’s more convenient to dehumanise them, as then we don’t have to think about how someone might think it a good idea to do serious harm to other people.

But it’s just lazy, and says more about the person using this as a rationalisation, than the person with the purported behavioural problem.

This kind of labeling is why mental illness can be so stigmatising. Especially when the word ‘mental’ is used, which has so many unhelpful connotations.

Once someone has such a label it can be difficult for them to be socially accepted or professionally trusted. This is wrong.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said “Labels are a lazy way of presuming you know something about someone that you don’t actually know“.

People like labels. It reduces their responsibility for actually thinking about the results of their actions: “oh, sorry I was a twat, but you see that’s because I’ve got Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder“.

It’s worth noting that people with mental conditions are no more likely to hurt another person. Simply having this false attitude can stop people with problems getting better. In fact, the psychiatric times says that “persons with mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than they are to be perpetrators“.

Calling them disorders, or mental illnesses, is technically incorrect, and removes the autonomy of the individual. There’s no evidence that most of the conditions we talk about are illnesses per se, rather they are ways that people react to bad experiences, and fairly predictable ways at that.

We can talk more about these problems these days – there’s more acceptance. Acceptance that depression is something normal, and nothing to be scared of. Things are getting better in this area but there’s still a long way to go.

People can go to a therapist with less stigma, especially in the US. Alain de Botton reckons the day will (or should) come where every high street has a therapist’s office, perhaps in between the chemists and the greengrocer.

Part IV – Psychiatry in the next post

Part II – Drugs in the previous post.

Who Is Normal, Anyway? Part II

18 Oct

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane

 Philip K. Dick

II – The Drugs

One of my most popular posts discusses this area, but it’s worth clarifying some points.

My motive is simple – to get the best possible care for people suffering from sometimes debilitating problems.

The question is what does the evidence say is the best solution?

Drugs may ameliorate some of the symptoms of these conditions, but they do not address the causes.

Much like a pain killer is most welcome when suffering with appendicitis, so some drugs can be beneficial to deal with the worst of the symptoms for some of these conditions. However, to stretch the appendicitis analogy, if you only took the drugs to dull the pain, then the appendix may rupture and the results of that ain’t pretty. Besides pain – while unpleasant – is key to diagnosing the cause of the problem.

Similarly with mental problems, drugs can often mask issues. For example I’ve seen a number of people I know suffering from such issues be subdued with a cocktail of anti-psychotics and anti-depressants. Yes, it reduced their worst symptoms, but it also removed all their emotions, all their motivations and drives. One said to me “I feel like an automaton“, another “I’m just a zombie“. Max movingly saysI don’t know how else to explain them except mental handcuffs“. I’ve heard similar comments from other people. I very much appreciate that this approach took away the worst of their distress and behaviour, but it did not get to the root of their issues and help them deal with the causes of their distress. In fact in some cases I’ve seen, the ‘abnormal’ behaviour was a way of the person working through their underlying emotional problems, and this approach stopped their progress in its tracks.

The problem is, these treatments tend to be predicated on the assumption of a biological cause.

Psychiatrist Dr Joanna Moncrieff says “psychiatric drugs…”work” by producing drug-induced states which suppress or mask emotional problems, which may suppress the symptoms of psychiatric disorders, along with other intellectual and emotional functionsThat sounds good. If your brain is not functioning properly“, however what if these reactions to environmental and psychological triggers are in fact adapted functions of the mind, evolved methods of coping with negative situations?

Professor Peter Kinderman saysPsychiatric diagnoses are not only scientifically invalid, they are harmful too. The language of illness implies that the roots of such emotional distress lie in “chemical imbalances“. This leads us to be blind to the social and psychological causes of distress. More importantly, we tend to prescribe medical solutions – anti-depressants and anti-psychotic medication – despite significant side-effects and poor evidence of their effectiveness. This is wrong.”

Allen Frances says that “Medication should be a last resort used only for the clearest, most impairing, and most persistent disorders. Instead the meds are often prescribed carelessly-almost like candy“.

It should be added that most of these conditions cannot be considered in the same way as physical diseases – the pathologies just aren’t there. They are arbitrary assignations that enable us to understand and treat certain common behaviours and feelings. (And that’s not to deride or belittle them in anyway.)

It is clear also, that positive effects of mind-altering drugs can be brought about through the power of the mind, say through meditation.

People say ‘But, but, look at all these people that call it an illness, that treat it with drugs’ – Appeal To The Crowd.

But this doctor with a white coat prescribed these drugs’ – Appeal To Authority.

But they have been treated this way for decades’ – Appeal To Tradition.

People talk about chemical imbalances: correlation? Yes. Causation? Not necessarily. In fact, such markers should be thought of as the result of difficult life circumstances. This is how the brain responds to external events. Hunger is a chemical imbalance. You don’t take drugs to make the feeling go away, you look to the cause of the hunger. You eat food.

While there is evidence of genetic markers that mean people are more prone to, say, depression than others, it’s still their environment that triggers those reactions. Epigenetics is still in its infancy, but it’s clear that environment can activate and deactivate genes.

The gene blame game makes popular headlines but is not scientifically accurate. It’s a little more subtle than that.

The biological / genetic model is appealing. Its reductionist and simplistic approach makes it easy to understand and to treat. However that doesn’t mean it’s always correct.

So beware the seductive but pernicious idea that medication heals people in all of these situations. The evidence shows it doesn’t. It only manages symptoms. Or worse, is used to make people manageable.

Part III – Stigma in the next post

Part I in the previous post.

Who Is Normal, Anyway?

3 Oct

The Mad Hatter: Have I gone mad?

Alice: I’m afraid so. You’re entirely bonkers. But I’ll tell you a secret: all the best people are.

– Alice In Wonderland

People who have had nasty stuff happen to them are likely to act a bit differently, particularly when placed under stress.

Some people who don’t act normally are called mentally ill, and given labels to say they have this or that disorder.

While there is utility in such arbitrary labels, it is clear that there are also counterproductive results.

It’s a matter of subjective judgement whether certain behaviours are considered abnormal. And that’s often as much down to the way society works as the individual.

For example not so long ago homosexuality was a mental illness, with it’s own symptoms and then it wasn’t. Just like that. Now it’s considered as normal and healthy. Even nostalgia was defined as an illness until recently. Again, whether delusions are considered problematic can be a grey area: “Delusions, in the medical sense, are not simply a case of being mistaken, as the everyday use of the term suggests. They are profound and intensely held beliefs that seem barely swayed by evidence to the contrary – even to the point of believing in the bizarre.” Religion is a great example of this, but we don’t pathologise such behaviour. The thing is, everyone holds some delusional beliefs – it’s part of the human condition.

It seems clear that psychiatry makes some of these judgements based on what is acceptable to society as much as what is unhealthy for the individual. It’s not exactly rigorous science. While there are biological markers for a few states of mind, for the majority there are not, so we resort to classifying behaviour. How do we define what behaviours are the results of “mental illness” and what are normal? One suggestion is defining the behaviour of the majority as the norm, and classifying everyone outside of that average as disordered. The faults with that approach are immediately clear. Another suggestion is whether that behaviour causes self harm. If so smokers, or those with a bad diet, are defined as mentally ill.

So we then look to the perceptions and feelings of the person. Phenomenology, is the best tool for this, but is again subjective and imprecise. We can also look at whether these behaviours affect a person’s ability to lead a normal life, which requires normality within their culture to be defined.

Of course there are many difficult conditions that one would have difficulty arguing against being classified as problematic in any society. I’m acutely aware that severe depression can be debilitating, that psychosis can mean a person is unable to care for themselves. I’ve seen it first hand. Mind says that 1 in 10 adults are experiencing depression at any one time. Over 10% of mothers experience post-natal depression. Around 1% of people experience bipolar symptoms at some point.

However, while these methods will have clearer conclusions at the extremes of behaviour, there are massive grey areas in between.

The conclusion then, is that this is not a simple, easily solvable area. An acceptance that we don’t have black and white definitions is necessary, much as that is not satisfying. And as a result we don’t have panaceas either.

Part II – The Drugs in the next post

%d bloggers like this: