Episodes
-
Recently, on social media, I have noticed that more and more conversations of mental health and social issues are being had, which is amazing. However, I have also noticed that these conversations - or the information shared - are being had by people who may not have the professional expertise to put across their points. Which, whether intentionally or not, can cause harm. Therefore, I have put together a bit of a rationale for why content creators, such as myself and others like me, are likely more trustworthy sources of information relating to psychology and mental health. You may disagree, but please let me know if you do and why.
You can read the full transcript, which includes references, here.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Itâs the start of Menâs Health Month and Menâs Health Week (10-16 June). In this episode, I briefly cover the origins and rationale for the week's development, and within that context, I offer a review of âMaybe I Donât Belong Hereâ by David Harewood (OBE), a book about racism, mental illness, and recovery.
You can read the full transcript, which includes references, here.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Episodes manquant?
-
If you are like most human beings, you will likely have made a fair few New Year's resolutions in your life... and like everyone else, you may not have been able to stick to them as much as you would have liked. Personally, I am not one for resolutions or the whole "new year, new me" idea. But if you are, here are some reasons why you may not have stuck to your resolutions in the past. And (more importantly) how to make sure you can keep them... and just in time for New Year's Eve. It's like I planned this or something.
Sources
· The top 3 reasons New Year's resolutions fail and how yours can succeed (Caprino, 2019);
· A psychotherapist says there are 3 common reasons so many people's New Year's resolutions end in failure (Abadi, 2019);
· 10 Reasons Why New Year's Resolutions Fail (Wallen, 2020);
· The Transtheoretical Model of Change Prochaska & DiClemente (1983)
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Sources
The Sun: âElon Musk vs Mark Zuckerberg fight updatesâ
Sportsmanor: âElon Musk vs Mark Zuckerberg â Height and Weight Differences Between the Two Rivalsâ
Journal Article: âPrecarious Manhood and Its Links to Action and Aggressionâ
Pubity: âZuckerberg Withdraws from Fight with Muskâ
Music
* Opening: âChilled Ambient Minimalâ
* Closing: âUnexpected" - David Bulla
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Last weekend some text messages were released by Sarah Brady, a surfer, model, and the former girlfriend of Jonah Hill. The messages were released on Bradyâs Instagram stories. They quickly went viral, most notably for highlighting what Brady inferred to be controlling and demands requests made by Hill, which he described as his âboundariesâ for their relationship. The release of these messages sparked some heated debate across social media with some polarizing views.
In this discussion, Dr Bekah Shallcross joins me in a rambling conversation that covers the nuances of what boundaries are, what they are not, how boundaries are upheld and agreed to between men and women In a patriarchal society, and what can be done to change this.
As always, please get in touch to let me or Dr Shallcross know your thoughts. And if you think anyone would benefit from hearing this episode, please do share it with them. Also, if you could leave a rating or a comment to let others know this show isnât a bag of shite, that would be wonderful too.
All the best,
Nice-ish.
Music
* Opening: âChilled Ambient Minimalâ
* Closing: âSevenâ - Tobu
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
I have the utmost pleasure of being joined once more by Dr Martha - a clinical psychologist who specialises in working with young people - in a fascinating and winding discussion about shame. Shame has received a lot of attention on social media, for good reason. But, as with anything, I was keen to take a closer look at this particularly aversive and unpleasant emotion. And who better to talk to than another psychologist, and one that specialises in how shame might serve a purpose?
Dr Martha and I discuss the prevalence of shame discussion on social media, the purposes of shame, how it helps to shape social connections and behaviours, and how it can potentially be a force for good for social change.
As always, it was a thoroughly enjoyable and through-provoking discussion and hopefully, it is for you too. If you enjoyed the episode, please do share it widely on social media (tag me in it if you do), or with someone close to you who you think might enjoy it (or benefit from it).
And if you can, please leave a rating or comment. It all goes towards letting others know how good (or totally shit) this podcast is.
Thanks as always,
Nice-ish.
Resources
* Why Shame Is Good
* Why Shame and Guilt Are Functional For Mental Health
* The Positive Side of Shame
* Is Shame Necessary?: New Uses for an Old Tool
Music
* Opening: âChilled Ambient Minimalâ
* Closing: âUnexpected" - David Bulla
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
In todayâs episode, I am joined by Pierre Azzam, a psychiatrist-turned-menâs coach, in which we discuss an aspect of menâs mental health that is often not thought about or considered all that much. It was an engaging and fascinating chat, which I am glad I got to have with Pierre again (we had previously recorded this episode, but the recording software malfunctioned). Hopefully, you find similar value in what Pierre shared with me.
As always, if you liked this episode and think that someone else may benefit from hearing it, please do share. And if you have the time, please leave a rating and a comment (if you can). It does go a long way to let others know if the show is helpful or a bag of shit.
All the best,
Nice-ish.
Music
* Opening: âChilled Ambient Minimalâ
* Closing: âUnexpected" - David Bulla
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Hello and welcome to The Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast with me the Nice-ish Psychologist where today I am putting a bit more of a forensic spin on the episode.
For those of you who donât know, I am a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, and in my actual life outside of this social media world, I sometimes get asked what kind of work I do with those in the forensic population. And how I go about trying to help these individuals turn things around for themselves. Not going to lie, itâs quite a hard question to answer. Mostly because itâs not straightforward. I mean, itâs relatively straightforward in my head, but thatâs because I know what Iâm doing (allegedly).
But the full answer is quite lengthy. So, I thought it could make for a good podcast episode. And so here we are, to think about how prison rehabilitation work ideally. I say ideally because human beings are complex and not straightforward. And even though we can theorise how best to help and work with individuals in the forensic population, itâs not straightforward. Weâll explore some of those reasons as we go along.
But before we get into it, as always, if at the end of this episode, you think âBloody hell that was interesting, I bet all my friends and family would enjoy hearing this,â then please do share this episode with them. And if you could rate or leave a comment, too, that would be very much appreciated. I must admit, I found this an interesting episode to make, so hopefully you find it interesting, too. Also, I would say that if there is anything that piques your interest further and you want to know more about, do get in touch, and ask a question. I might be able to answer it then and there, or I might do a further podcast episode about it.
Now that thatâs out the way and before we think about what ideal rehabilitation should look like, I thought it might be worth taking a very quick historical trip to learn about how the prison system came about. Itâs a summary of three different sources, which I have included in the transcript. So, if you want to know more about something or I donât cover something in as much detail as youâd like, do look for the relevant hyperlinks in the transcript.
So, not going to lie, the history of the prison system is a long and complex one, with roots dating back to ancient civilisations. From the dungeons of medieval Europe to the modern-day prison industrial complex, how society has dealt with crime and punishment has evolved significantly over time. In the 18th century, however, the concept of imprisonment as a form of punishment became increasingly popular. In an interview about the invention of incarceration, Ashley Rubin, a sociologist specialising in the history of prisons in America noted that there is a difference between the existence of jails and the development of prisons.
Apparently, prisons have not always been used as a punishment or deterrent for criminal behaviour, but rather as a means of keeping the perpetrator of a crime detained until the actual punishment could be carried out. Before the introduction of prisons, people were punished either through capital punishment (what we know as the death penalty and â according to good old Wikipedia â was formerly called judicial homicideâ) or corporal punishment. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the sanctions for criminal behaviour were public events that were designed to shame and deter, including the ducking stool (which is a contraption that had a long arm with a seat on the end of it and was used to dunk those convicted of offences into the water and were later used to identify witches), a pillory (which is effectively a stock in which a personâs head and hands were locked in a frame at the end of a long post), whipping, branding, and stocks (which, unlike a pillory, were used to restrain a personâs feet).
Further along in the interview, in response to a question about people being locked up long before the 18th century, Rubin notes: âYes, but those were jails, not prisons. There were, for example, workhouses in England and the Netherlands in the 16th century that held a big mix of people, including vagrants, debtors and prostitutes. Even orphans in some cases. People who had done minor things or hadnât necessarily been convicted of a crime, or were being held awaiting trial, or until they paid a fine or for other administrative purposes. Some scholars have argued that those were the first prisons, but in my view, they were more similar to what we would call a jail today. Jail is basically a short-term holding cell, not a place of punishment, and weâve had that throughout history.â So, initially, prisons tended to be a place where people were held before their trial or while awaiting punishment. It was very rarely used as a punishment in its own right.
In 1777, John Howard, the first penal reformer, called for reforms to the prison system, which included paid staff, proper diet, and outside inspection (which only goes to show what the conditions of this confinement would have been like before any of these things were implemented). The existing punishments of capital and corporal punishment were deemed inhumane, and they were not seen as effective in deterring crime. This led to a movement to reform the jail system, which was considered terrible, grotesque, and a hot spot for disease. The desire for a new type of punishment and the need to reform the jails paved the way for prisons as we know them.
The first prisons in the world were developed in America. The Massachusetts state prison, which opened in 1785, was the first actual prison, followed by Connecticut in 1790 and Pennsylvania in 1794. In 1791, in the UK, Jeremy Bentham designed the âpanopticonâ â a prison design that allowed a centrally placed observer to survey all the prisoners, as prison wings radiated out from this central position â which became the model for prison building for the next half-century. If you canât conceptualise that, I would go have a look at the link, it is quite a fascinating design.
So, in summary, historically the prison system was designed to punish criminals and deter others from committing crimes. But over time, it has become clear that incarceration alone is not enough to prevent individuals from re-offending. This has led to a shift in focus towards rehabilitation and reintegration programs within the prison system. However, the effectiveness of the prison system has been a topic of debate for many years (over 200 years, apparently).
Then, fast forward to America in 1974, when we meet criminologist Robert Martinson who takes it upon himself to review all evaluations of offender treatment programmes available at the time. In summary, this leads him to conclude that âwe haven't the faintest idea about how to rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism [which in case I have not mentioned it before is a fancy word for re-offending]â, which lead to the now famous question of âDoes Nothing Work?â in terms of prisoner rehabilitation. Just to add, the question is famous in Forensic circles. You would be forgiven for not knowing what I am talking about. Itâs no âto be or not to beâ, and youâre not going to be using it in pub quizzes any time soon.
However, in response to Martinsonâs review and despair, a group of Canadian psychologists proceeded to review all the literature available in the 1980s related to offending to then find out âWhat Works?â From this review, Donald Andrews and James Bonta developed the Psychology of Criminal Conduct (PCC), which has been around for fucking ages and is now in its 6th edition published in 2016.
The PCC highlighted that (surprise, surprise) there were in fact individual factors as to why people offended, which comprised of social, biological, and individual influences. From this, Andrews and Bonta developed the Risk-Need-Responsivity (R-N-R) model, a model of offending that stood in stark contrast to the previous attitudes of correction that relied heavily on punishment (not going to lie, I feel like the prison system is still pretty punitive these days; but anyway, itâs what the literature says...) Seemingly for the first time a model existed that forensic practitioners could use as a framework to understand the causes of criminal behaviour but also aid in reducing re-offending.
The first âRâ of the R-N-R model is the risk principle, which has two key components. Firstly, it involves predicting the level of risk posed by those who have committed offences, which is not fortune-telling but is based on a combination of statistical likelihood and structured clinical judgment. To achieve this, a thorough assessment of the offenderâs static risk factors (which are historical and unchangeable) and dynamic risk factors (which are potentially changeable) is required. Secondly, the risk principle involves matching the individual to an appropriate level of treatment based on their level of risk. In this way, it is proposed that present as a higher-risk should receive higher-intensity interventions, whereas those who present with a lower-risk should receive less intensive or no intervention (there have also been arguments that even those in the low-risk category should receive intervention regardless of being low-risk). But overall, this approach enables correctional institutions to direct resources to those who pose a greater risk and require a greater level of rehabilitation.
The âNâ part of the R-N-R model is the need principle, which is a key factor in reducing reoffending rates through targeted interventions. To achieve this, it is suggested that interventions should focus on the dynamic risk factors, also known as âcriminogenic needs.â The reason for the focus on dynamic risk factors is that, as noted above, static risk factors are historical and canât be changed. An example of a static risk factor is something like a history of violence or previous offending. These are considered risk factors in the sense that often the predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and if someone has a long history of violent behaviour then there is a higher chance that person may engage in violent behaviour in the future. And a history of violence or previous offending is not something that can be changed or undone. However, static factors arenât necessarily an absolute guarantee of future behaviour as static risk factors are influenced by dynamic risk factors (or criminogenic needs), which are changeable and can be focused on as an area of intervention. There are eight identified criminogenic needs that include a history of antisocial behaviour (itâs worth noting here that all offending can be considered antisocial behaviour, but that not all antisocial behaviour is offending â just think about people who talk loudly or on their phone when you go to the cinema; itâs certainly antisocial but no oneâs going to prison for being a dick while you watch the latest Marvel instalment). Other dynamic risk factors are an antisocial personality pattern, antisocial cognitions and attitudes, antisocial associates, problematic home or work circumstances, having few positive leisure activities, and substance abuse. So, for example, through interventions that challenge attitudes and beliefs that are supportive of criminal behaviour, these attitudes and beliefs can be modified, theoretically then leading to a reduction in re-offending.
The second âRâ principle is that of responsivity â or a personâs responsiveness to an intervention â which is a crucial aspect of effective rehabilitative treatments. The idea behind the responsivity principle is that itâs all well and good to identify the level of risk, and what an intervention should target, but if a person is not responsive to treatment, then things are very unlikely to change. The responsivity principle has two main components: the general and the specific components. The general component emphasizes the use of cognitive behavioural approaches to effectively reduce reoffending rates. Basically, this is linked to trying to challenge and modify beliefs and attitudes towards offending. Meanwhile, the specific component considers individual factors that may hinder successful rehabilitation, such as low motivation, personality, and, intellectual ability, and gender (having said that out loud, I am not quite sure why gender is considered an individual factor that might hinder rehabilitation. I might look into that). The theory is, that, that by addressing these individual factors, the responsivity principle increases the likelihood that rehabilitative treatments can be delivered effectively to those who have committed crimes.
That all sounds, lovely right. Think about the level of risk, figure out what dynamic risk factors need to be intervened with, and then think about how to make sure someone can engage with an intervention to address those dynamic risk factors. Pretty cut and dried. WellâŠ
Even though the R-N-R Model is the âgold standardâ by which prisoner rehabilitation is conducted (and it certainly has the breadth of empirical evidence to support this claim) the R-N-R model has come under significant criticism in the last 20 years. The primary criticism comes from Tony Ward and Claire Stewart in the early 2000s who note that in practice â so in real world, practical terms â the R-N-R model neglects the responsivity principle. And so, because of this, the R-N-R model runs the risk of reducing someone who has offended to a set of risk factors without any sense that those individuals are human beings that have basic needs that they were possibly trying to meet through their offending behaviour. From this, they developed the Good Lives Model (although, when looking at the Good Lives website, I think it was Tony Wardâs brainchild).
So, as human beings, we all have basic needs, and we all go about achieving these needs in different ways. The GLM describes eleven âgoodsâ that we seek to achieve/obtain throughout our lives in order to live âa good lifeâ. These are as follows: life (wanting to live a âgood lifeâ which includes healthy living and functioning); knowledge (wanting to know more about the world); excellence in work (being good at /having a job); excellence in play (having leisure time); excellence in agency (having choice about what we do, having autonomy, power, and self-directedness); inner peace (being content and free from emotional turmoil); relatedness (having good relationships, both intimate and non-intimate); community (feeling a part of/connected to something); spirituality (either through religion or spiritual connectedness and having meaning and purpose in life); pleasure (which means feeling good in the here and the now); and creativity (being able to express oneself). It has been conceptualised that âcriminogenic needsâ serve as indicators that an offender has had difficulty in seeking these human âgoodsâ and has gone about trying to achieve/obtain these goods through antisocial means, either through lack of life skills (which may not have been acquired for a variety of reason) or challenging life circumstances.
An example I like to use to illustrate this is that of a parent stealing nappies for their young child because they canât afford to buy them. You could view the parent as having antisocial tendencies and a lack of regard for the rules of society. Or, you could understand that this parent, given their financial constraints and potential limitations in being able to acquire nappies in a prosocial way, was pursuing the âgoodâ of âlifeâ in that they were trying to provide their child with a basic, functional need that every parent strives to fulfil for their children. While both choices are criminal, the second framing humanises the parent as someone doing the best they can within the limitations of their circumstances, and what that parent needs are opportunities to do what they need to for their children in a way that does not involve offending. Now, I can appreciate that this is perhaps an easy example to digest as the circumstances can convey a certain level of sympathy and possibly empathy. Something that might not be possible for you, good listener, to do for those who have committed crimes along the higher end of severity and harm. And thatâs OK â thatâs why there are folks like me doing the job we do so that you donât have to.
The main claim behind the (GLM) is that to simply focus treatment on âcriminogenic needâ is to suggest that there is something wrong with a person who has committed an offence and that a more humanistic approach would be to find out what these individuals need to live a different, more prosocial life. Therefore, by finding out what âgoodsâ a person was trying to obtain through their offending and framing. these are treatment needs, or approach goals (i.e., how best to achieve their goals), which may serve to motivate them to engage in rehabilitative strategies more effectively.
So, in summary, in forensic settings if we can a) work out the kind of âgoodsâ a person was trying to obtain at the time of their offending, b) find out why that âgoodâ is important to them, c) help them learn more prosocial/healthy/helpful ways of obtaining that good in the future we will then be able to reduce that personâs risk of trying to obtain those âgoodsâ through antisocial means in the future (i.e., reduce risk of reoffending). Of course, in reality, things don't work out so neatly, and this is not to say that if a personâs goods are identified and addressed then things just fall neatly into place. There is a lot of work that goes into rehabilitation and a lot of barriers which can impede rehabilitation. But the GLM offers a framework to follow and offers a principle that positions those who have committed offences as human beings who have committed offences for specific reasons that relate to things that a non-offending population â so people like you and me â also strive for.
And there we go. Thatâs it for todayâs episode. Hopefully, it has been informative in some way and has given you something to think about. As I have noted throughout, this is just a theoretical underpinning, but often times things are not as clear-cut as I have outlined here. But this is the framework that should underpin rehabilitation in forensic settings. Whether that is or isnât done is beyond my capacity to know.
Like I said earlier, if you liked this episode, please rate, share, and leave a comment if you can. It all goes towards letting others know if this is a good show or a bag of shite.
As always, thanks for your time.
And I hope you have a good day. Or not. No pressure.
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
This is part two of a broader conversation about mental health professionals in the UK. It used to have a transcript, but due to some copyright issues I had to edit the episode, and that cause some chaos with the epside descriton. I will endeavour to update this, soon. But for now, please listen and I hope you enjoy it.
EDITING ERROR: There is a part in the introduction where I had to put a new word in - and it sounds ridiculous⊠I am sorry about that. I meant to say âpeople have confused what I do with what a psychiatrist doesâ but ended up saying âwhat a psychotherapist doesâ, so needed to replace that word. Doh!
Nice-ish.
Music
* Opening: âChilled Ambient Minimalâ
* Closing: âUnexpected" - David Bulla
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
In this episode, returning guests Dan Osman and Calum Stronach, both involved in the world of fitness, join me for a fascinating discussion about menâs body image and masculinity. Menâs body image is something that is possibly not considered as much as it could be, and so the three of us have a go at trying to unpick what body image issues in men might look like and how this ties to contemporary ideals of masculinity.
It was an insightful and fun chat to have, and I am always grateful to have Dan and Calum share their insights with me. Hopefully this is something you learn from, too.
As always, please come share your thoughts on the episode if you have any. And, if you like it, please give me a follow or a rating on whatever platform you listen to your podcasts on. And f you think anyone else may benefit from hearing the episode, please do share it with them.
All the best and thanks for listening.
Nice-ish.
Music
* Opening: âChilled Ambient Minimalâ
* Closing: âSevenâ - Tobu
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Hello and welcome to The Nice-ish Ramblings podcast with me, the Nice-ish Psychologist, where today I am going to be discussing the first half of a two-part series focusing on the different types of mental health professionals that exist in the United Kingdom.
So, initially I wanted to focus on the differences between psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, and counsellors. For two reasons. Firstly, I am forever bemused by the number of times someone asks me â as a psychologist â if I can prescribe medication (and right at the start I want to clarify that I cannot); and I think this is because sometimes people confuse what I do with what a psychiatrist does. So, I thought it might be helpful to clarify that. And secondly, there have been times when even I am like, well, what is the difference between what I do versus what a psychotherapist does versus what a counsellor does. And I figured that if I sometimes find myself asking these questions, then itâs possible that members of the general public must be asking these questions, too.
So, that was going to be the initial podcast. However, when I shared a blurb of this episode on social media (you know, to generate that ever important hype) several followers got in touch to request that their professions be also be acknowledged within the realm of mental health professionals. Which I think is fair.
And so, along with wanting to discuss the differences between psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, and counsellors, I was also going touch on mental health nursing, occupational therapy, and social work within the realms of the mental health field; additionally, under the section on psychologists I was also going to include the other sub-roles within psychology (like trainee and assistant psychologists). Then, while researching and writing this episode, all of that started to get too big, too long, and too in-depth. And seeing as I had already missed a podcast deadline last week, I decided rather than half-arsing the whole thing, it would make sense to split the episode into two parts. With this first part focusing on the professions that I would consider focus on psychiatric care. This distinction is pretty arbitrary and stems mostly from my experiences of working in psychiatric inpatient settings. For this reason, I am going to spend some time talking you through the roles of psychiatrists, mental health nurses and support workers, occupational therapists, and social workers within the field of mental health. And in the next episode I will focus more on what could be considered the âtalking therapiesâ; namely, psychology, psychotherapy and counselling.
It might be worth noting that while Iâve put these episodes together because I thought it might be helpful for the general public to have an overview of some of the professions involved in the field of mental health in the UK, this is exactly that: an overview. The information I have put into this episode was gathered from as many sources as I could find relating to the numerous professions discussed; but I am conscious that I might not capture all the specifics of the professions quite right. Therefore, if there are any mistakes â or for any listeners who may be part of some of the professions listed, if I do not get the nuances of your job quite right â I am sorry.
Anyway, on with the showâŠ
First off, weâll start with psychiatrists, mostly because this is the profession which is most unlike that of a psychologist, psychotherapist, or counsellor (as far as I can tell anyway and is one of the main reasons why I started writing this podcast episode). So, according to the NHS website, âpsychiatry is a medical field concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental health conditionsâ and âa doctor who works in psychiatry is called a psychiatrist.â Psychiatrists are medical doctors who specialise in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental illness and emotional disorders.
According to the website of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP, the medical body responsible for regulating and supporting psychiatrists throughout their career) a psychiatrist will have spent five to six years training to be a doctor. They will then have worked as a doctor in general medicine and surgery for at least a year, before then undertaking at least six years of further training in helping people with psychological problems. So, all in all, it takes about 12 to 13 years for a psychiatrist to get to the very end of their training.
Now, I am aware that there are different levels of doctoring. For example, before you become a consultant, there are six different levels of being a junior doctor, such as FY1 and FY2 (which are known as foundation year doctors), moving up to speciality trainee (or ST) doctors, which I think is where doctors start to specialise in different areas of medicine such as psychiatry. The specifics of progressing through the junior doctor level up to consultant are beyond the scope of my understanding, but the end result is that if someone is a consultant psychiatrist, they have pretty been doing the gig for at least a decade.
Because of this, psychiatrists have a range of specialist skills when it comes to mental health. For example, and according to the RCP website, psychiatrists can assess a personâs mental state, diagnose mental illness, and prescribe a range of medications to manage symptoms of mental illness. At this point, I am aware that some listeners might have strong views of psychiatrists and the prescribing of psychiatric medications. Or the idea of diagnosis in general. Indeed, if anyone has read up about the Power Threat Meaning Framework, itâs possible you may disagree with diagnosis and medication altogether. This is something that I would like to address and talk about in another episode in the future â but if you have any views of queries about this particular area let me know. Also, if you havenât heard of the Power Threat Meaning Framework, have a read of it.
Right, back to psychiatrists. So, on top of these âcore skillsâ as it were, psychiatrists will develop skills in working with specific difficulties that affect specific populations. For example, the skills and knowledge needed to work within general adult mental health will differ to those needed to work with children, and again will differ when working with a forensic population. Additionally, and whilst this is not necessarily typical (as far as I am aware, and I am always open to being wrong) some psychiatrists will train to become a psychotherapist, too; and as part of their psychiatric practice will offer therapy. This is something we I will focus on a bit more in the next episode when we look at psychotherapy.
Psychiatrists will often work in mental health settings such as community mental health centres or psychiatric hospitals, and they will often work with a breadth of other mental health disciplines such as mental health nurses and support workers (otherwise known as healthcare assistants), occupational therapists, and social workers. All of which we will now look at (and this is why I have included these professions within the distinction of those who work in psychiatric care).
Registered mental health nurses (RMNs) and support workers (also known as health care assistants or HCAs) are nursing staff who provide the day-to-day care to those experiencing mental illness either in hospital or in the community. They may work across various settings within hospitals such as psychiatric wards, outpatient clinics, psychiatric intensive care units, or specialist units such as eating disorders units or forensic psychiatric hospitals. In the community you may find nursing staff in GPs, prisons, community mental health centres, residential care, or even visiting clients in their home.
RMNs jobs and responsibilities are different from those of HCAs. RMNs will ensure that the psychiatric treatment plan outlined by the psychiatrists is carried out. They will write care plans, administer medications, monitor health conditions, take charge of shifts (especially in psychiatric wards), oversee the maintenance of notes, and make sure the legal documentation required to detain someone in hospital is above board (by this I mean paperwork required to section individuals under the Mental Health Act). HCAs duties are related to assisting the RMNs in carrying out their duties and there is some overlap. The main difference being that that nurses usually have overall responsibility and accountability for making sure that the things needed to be done in relation to patient care get done. In the UK, RMNs are regulated by the NMC, the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
So, HCAs may assist with doing the hourly observations of their service users, assist with escorting them on their leave, assisting with meals, and along with the nursing staff ensuring that the day-to-day care for those within hospital or psychiatric settings are carried out. Some further examples listed on a job application website note that HCAs are responsible for supervising service users to make sure they are safe. Now, safety could relate to safety to the service users themselves or safety from others, and health care assistants may, in collaboration with registered nursing staff, make day-to-day or moment-to-moment risk assessments to help make sure that service users do things safely or that they arenât endangering themselves or others, which can happen.
HCAs also give practical support to service users and their families, such as with household tasks, personal care or managing their money and financial paperwork. And it is not uncommon for HCAs to provide emotional support and reassurance to service users and their families, and sometimes â again, in conjunction with registered nursing staff â educate service users and their relatives about the sorts of mental health difficulties the service users might have. So thatâs nursing staff.
Another important job that is found within the realm of mental health professionals is that of the occupational therapist (OTs). The Royal College of Occupational Therapists (RCOT) notes that occupational therapy helps individuals live their best life at home at work â and everywhere else. OTs who work in mental health are concerned with helping people who are struggling with their mental health to engage in meaningful activities, which can help to improve their well-being and quality of life. Once more, according to the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, âoccupational therapy in mental health is about enabling people to do the activities that matter to them, regardless of their mental health conditionâ. Some examples of activities that occupational therapists might help people to engage in include self-care tasks (such as washing and dressing), household tasks (such as cooking and cleaning), work-related activities, leisure activities, and social activities. The aim is to help people to develop the skills and confidence they need to manage their mental health condition and live as independently as possible. OTs use a range of different interventions to help people, which can be done on an individual or group basis.
Some examples of specific interventions that OTs might use include the use of graded exposure, which is an approach that involves gradually exposing people to situations or activities that they find anxiety-provoking, in order to help them to overcome their fears. OTs might provide practical life skills training and support to help people develop skills in areas such as time management, budgeting, and cooking. OTs can assist people who have sensory processing difficulties, which can be a symptom of certain mental health conditions or neurodevelopmental conditions (such as autism, for example). This kind of work would involve assessing what sensory difficulties service users have, and then using sensory experiences (such as touch, movement, and sound, for example) to help people to regulate their emotions and feel calmer and more relaxed. In the UK, OTs who work in mental health are regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC).
The final role within the sort of psychiatric care side of mental health is that of mental health social workers. Now, unlike the rest of the roles discussed above, it a was a little more challenging to pin down the specifics of the social worker role in within mental health services. And so, this section is made up from some bits that I sourced from seemingly relevant webpages about social work within mental health, while some bits are from what I remember during my training.
So, according to the global definition of social work provided by the International Federation of Social Workers, social work is a practise-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility, and respect for diversity are central to social work.
In relation to mental health specifically, and according to a document written by the College of Social Work in 2014, social workers have a âcrucial part to play in improving mental health services and mental health outcomes for citizensâ. Social workers are trained to work in partnership with people using services, their families and carers, to optimise involvement and collaborative solutions (so, making sure that the voice and needs of psychiatric service users are heard and respected and advocated for). It the document also notes that âsocial workers...manage some of the most challenging and complex risks for individuals and society and take decisions with and on behalf of people within complicated legal frameworks, balancing and protecting the rights of different parties. The NHS website also goes on to say that as part of their job roles, social workers protect vulnerable people from harm or abuse. And I guess this in one of my main anecdotal understandings of the roles of social workers within the mental health field, is that they were really good at holding in mind the rights and privileges of those who were receiving psychiatric care. They were also a vital link, particularly in impatient settings, between service users and their families. I am pretty sure there are lots of things that mental health social workers do that I have not captured here. But, if you would like to hear more about this role (or any of the roles discussed in fact), then let me know and I can try see if anyone would like to come on and talk about their job in a bit more detail.
Now, before I end, Iâm not quite able to do justice â with words â to the job that these professions do within psychiatric care. I am aware that there are criticisms that people have of psychiatric services, and it is not my place to change your views about that. But what I will say, from both my time as an HCA on psychiatric wards and through numerous inpatient placements while completing my doctoral training, the work these professionals do is tough. They are really tough and demanding job that I think often go unrecognised and underappreciated when thinking about mental health professionals. So, with that in mind, I hope this has been a helpful episode. Additionally, whenever Iâve referred to websites or documents I've read, you can always go and check them out within the transcript Iâve written to this episode (and most of my other episodes, in fact). I always put hyperlinks in the relevant sections where I talk about references. So, if I said something that piques interest please do go back and have a look through the transcripts and you will find what I'm talking about linked there.
And finally, if you have got to the end of this episode and you think, âfucking hell, that was some interesting shitâ why not give it a rating, share it, or recommend it to your friends. Itâs always appreciated. And as always, please do come say hi on my Instagram page. Let me know your thoughts, good or bad. I am always happy to talk further about these things. So, until next time. Hope you have a great day. Or not. No pressure!
Music
* Opening: âChilled Ambient Minimalâ
* Closing: âSevenâ - Tobu
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Hello and welcome to The Nice-ish Rambling Podcast with me, The Nice-ish Psychologist, where today I'm going to be broaching the topic of dads needing dad friends. Now, while I can appreciate that most of what I am about to discuss can be viewed from a motherâs perspective, too â and indeed while researching this topic I found an Guardian article that discusses a similar topic from a motherâs perspective (or even a birthing personâs perspective to use gender neutral terms) â at the same time I am not too sure how often this kind of thing is discussed in terms of fathers. Also, this particular episode was inspired by recent events in my life, which was a kind of epiphany moment and so I thought I would talk about it and see if could be beneficial to any other dads. But like I said, there is a high likelihood that everything discussed in this episode can be experienced by all parents. And perhaps for some listening there might be some âno shit Sherlockâ responses. Which would be fair. Also, as you may have noted, I referred to gender-neutral parenting earlier. While this episode is focused mostly on the experiences of fathers, where relevant and necessary I will endeavour to use gender neutral terms, too. Also, also, if you find any value in todayâs episode, please do rate it, share it, or leave a comment where you can. It all goes a long way to letting others know if this is a podcast worth listening to, or if it a bag of shit.
So, I guess this particular episode begins a bit further back than the last few weeks, because while reflecting on this episode I remembered listening to an amazing audiobook version of My Child and other Mistakes, written by comedian Ellie Taylor. My partner had read the book and recommended it to me because, in her words: âShe [Ellie Taylor] has the same view of parenting as you do, so you might appreciate it.â And she wasnât wrong. My Child and other Mistakes is what I would call a very realistic parenting guide. As well as being funny, it highlights a rather brutal reality of parenting that is perhaps left out of the usual narrative of having children and becoming a parent; which in a nutshell is that parenting is usually this magical, wonderful, time where you help small human beings that you created with your partner, grow and develop, and itâs all cute and sweet and fun⊠which, for some it is. But for others, like Ellie Taylor and myself, itâs not necessarily our reality. I wonât spoil the book, but for anyone who, like me, has asked themselves what they fuck is going on in terms of being a parent, then My Child and other Mistakes is an utterly validating book.
Having said that, while I connected with a lot of what Ellie Taylor wrote about, there was obviously a lot I could not connect with. One of the more obviously aspects is the fact that Ellie Taylor is a biological female and much of her parenting experience involved all the ups and down that go hand-in-hand with being the person who grows and then gives birth to a child. Which I, being a biological male, canât - and therefore did not - have that experience and therefore could not relate to. All of that was fine. The thing that did really hit me in the face, though, was when Ellie Taylor talked about the support she received as a mother. Especially when she talked about social media groups that she was a part of with other new mothers, which is something recommended by antenatal classes as a way to maintain a support network in the early years of parenting. When my partner and I joined one such antenatal group, a group was set up for the mothers by the mothers and one was set up for the father by the fathers (it was called, âDadsDadsDadsâ, which I must admit is a great name). The thing is, and this is what was reflected in Ellie Taylorâs book, is that my partner is still connected to some of our original antenatal group through social media , while I on occasion will wave to one of the fathers from that group if I see him locally and perhaps have a brief âHowâs life?â chat in the local Tesco car park if we happen to be leaving and arriving at the same time (which has happened once or twice).
In the early months and years, my partner was connected to the other mothers, seeking and giving advice, sharing stories, getting and sharing milestone updates, being invited to birthday parties and all that jazz; while we fathers maybe met up once or twice for a curry and a beer, and pretty much kept making promises to see more of each other, all of which has fizzled out. And I couldnât even tell you if anyone is still in that social media group because I have not received a message in it for years and I have also not bothered to check it. And I didnât really mind this at the time, because I didnât see them as a support network. I am not particularly proud of this, but I saw these people - these other men - as random strangers that although I had a shared experience with did not necessarily want to be friends with because I likely would not have chosen to be their friends, or made plans to go out with them socially, if we hadnât all been having children within the same six month window. Additionally, although I have loads of male friends, I have always found making friends with other men a bit awkward. Men like to talk about sport a lot and I do not like talking about sport at all. A very grand generalisation, but something I have experienced a fair bit in my life. And itâs not just sports-talk that has generally put me off making friends with men. Thatâs rooted in historical experiences or going to an all-boys school and the less than pleasant way in which boys can relate to each other.
However, fast forward another year or so and I am listening to Ellie Taylorâs book, and I am connecting with her struggles and feeling fully validated by the conflicting feelings that can come with being a parent, which can flick from full-on undiluted love and adoration to near blinding rage in what seems like an instant. And Iâm thinking, âFinally, someone gets it, and someone is putting how I feel into words and fuck does it feel good to be acknowledged.â And then she goes on to talk about how she managed to get through a lot of what she experienced through sharing her struggles with other mothers that were going through it too. And I felt a gut-punch. I remember sitting in that same Tesco car park where I on occasion had passing commentary exchanges with one of the dads from my antenatal class and feeling like such a twat. Because I has had a similar opportunity to have a support base, and I had essentially rejected the idea, based on a silly notion of not wanting to have to make friends with other men I did not know. And since then, had pretty much felt like I was the only person struggling in the way that I was.
OK, that sounds slightly dramatic, and is not quite true because my partner and I have had many conversations about my struggles as a parent, and we have often had conversation about how I have a view that some people are just more naturally inclined towards being parents (which is the camp I believe my partner falls into), and then there are others â like me â who I think struggle more and for whom parenting maybe doesnât come quite as naturally. I know this is a very broad and simplistic view of things, but I have had a few conversations with other parents about this and, although not robust enough to stand up to academic scrutiny, the theory seems to be shared by them too. But despite being able to talk to my partner about my struggles with parenting, and the fact that my brother-in-law is also a father, I still felt quite isolated as a father. Now, for me, my circumstances are pretty unique in that I live quite far away from my own family and that my friendship network is scattered not only across the county, but also across the world. So, while I do have male friends and a loving and supportive family, they are not very local. But I am also not one to help myself, because, along with not wanting to make friends with antenatal dads as mentioned earlier, I believe I am of an age where I just canât be arsed to make new friends â and, as a parent who struggles with parenting â I donât really have a lot of energy to want to socialise with new people anyway. So, I havenât done myself any favours.
However, despite my own circumstances, research suggests that it is not uncommon for new fathers to feel isolated. The Movember Foundation â a charity aimed at improving awareness, research, and funding for mental physical and mental health for men, commissioned a piece of research published in 2019 called âFatherhood and Social Connectionsâ. The research was based on a survey conducted on 4,000 men between the ages of 18 to 75 from the UK, the USA, Canada and Australia (so, 1,000 men per country), 45% of whom were fathers. The survey found the following data. 23% of men stated that they felt isolated when they first became a father, leading them to conclude that becoming a father can be an isolating experience. Interestingly, and sadly, 20% of fathers reported that the number of close friends they had decreased in the 12 months after becoming a father. Which, if you think about the first statistic, may contribute to why fatherhood could be an isolating experience. Which, again, if you think about it, makes sense. If you are someone that doesnât have kids, and your mate now has a kid, there is a high probability that the new father might spend a lot of time talking about their kid â I know this is a generalisation, but still. And people who donât have kids donât really get â or necessarily care, for understandable reasons â why people talk about their kids as much as they do. And maybe itâs just me, but I tend to talk about my kids a lot â both about the good and the tough stuff. But thatâs because at this point in my life they are pretty much occupying all of my time. Which is another reason why friendships might fade. It would make sense that in terms of going out and socialising that there might be less times for new fathers to go out and socialise with their friends. Especially within the first few years of a childâs life. Then if someone has more than on child that gets extended for another few years. And itâs very possible that friends might then give up asking new dads to socialise, cos whatâs the point, right? So, it would make sense that some new fathers might feel their friendship group diminish over time.
Something else to think about is that the Movember research found that men and fathers donât always recognise the importance of friendships. When asked to list three important aspects of their lives, less than a fifth of men (18% to be exact) listed having close friends as important. And coupled with this it was noted that over half of the men survey (51%) reported that even if they were satisfied with the quality of their friendships, they felt they could not talk to their friends about their problems. Then potentially linked to that, it was reported that fathers without close friends reported that their stress levels increased a lot. Which is significant, because in general 70% of men reported that their stress level increased a lot within the first 12 months of becoming a father. The report also goes on to highlight that in general, 1 in 10 new fathers experience depression after the birth of their child, and that fathers with perinatal mental health problems are 47 times more likely to be considered a risk of suicide than at any other point in their lives. All of which is important to note, because there is tonnes of literature out there to support the fact that a personâs psychological well-being is determined by the quality of their social connections and that having mutually supportive friendships can serve as a protective factor against anxiety and depression.
So, as you can see, my feelings of isolation, while specific to my own context and situation, is not something uncommon amongst new fathers. And clearly social connection is important. None of which I knew or thought about when I was rejecting the notion of getting to know the dads from my antenatal class. Something that I first came to regret when listening to Ellie Taylor talk about how helpful social connection was in her book, and the importance of which has become more abundantly clean more recently.
And yes, I was very much a psychologist at this time in my life and I still managed to have this blind spot.
The back story to this epiphany happened a few weeks ago at a soft play birthday party. Yes, a soft play birthday party. One of those surreal arenas of organised chaos where you kind of get to relax because your kids are in an enclosed area with padded climbing frames and slides, where theoretically they should be able to knacker themselves out with their friends, but there is the slim chance (as is with me) that your kids might come crying to you because they have somehow managed to injure themselves (or someone else) with over enthusiastic playing.
The birthday party was for an old nursery school friend, and I was there with my partner. A few other dads who I knew from the nursery school days had come with their wives and partners, too. And we got to chatting a bit as we sometimes do, which I always found awkward for the reasons already listed above. But these guys are always nice and I like being polite. So there we were. When all of a sudden, one of them turns to me and says âWe were planning on going for a beer on Wednesday night. Do you fancy a pint?â And I was a little stumped for words. I had never been asked this in a soft play. On a Sunday. And it had been a long, looong, time since I had been asked out for a cheeky beverage on a weekday⊠a fucking weekday. At 8 oâclock on a weekday. Usually at 8 oâclock on a weekday I am recovering from bath and bed time on the sofa and then I myself am off to bed by about 9:30.
It took me a while to answer, because while my partner and I arenât massively sociable at this time of our lives, there are occasions when will have some fries or family over. Or my partner might go to a yoga class. So, I mentally checked out calendar for the week, and after a bit of an awkward pause â which could have been construed as me looking for a reason to say no â I agreed.
And Iâm not going to lie, because of all the reasons listed earlier in this episode, I was pretty apprehensive about it. Mostly about the 8 oâclock start time. Come the Wednesday night after my partner and I had done the bedtime routine I complained that I had to now go out and have a beer. Socially. With people I donât know that well! Anyway, I got over that, hopped into the car and went to go meet these men. And do you know what â it was great. It really was.
Firstly, it was one of the most validating experiences I have had as a father in a long time. As you might have gathered, parenthood has been a bit of a struggle for me, and due to not really being around any other fathers I felt that I was the only one struggling in the way that I was. Now, I guess you might be wondering if there havenât been any other parents around that I could have spoken to and who could have validated my experiences? And you would not be wrong â however, they were mostly mothers and those who had given birth to their children. I canât say for definite, but I think it is a very different experience being the non-birthing parent â in this case a father. There is a whole host of research that focuses on the experiences that occur between a child and a mother or birthing parent, like the focus on attachment and the importance of this. While I am unaware of there being as much of a focus on non-birthing parents and what thatâs like. And while the overall experience of parenting can be very similar for both the birthing and non-birthing parents, there are subtle and quite powerful differences that have, in my experience, the capacity to shape how one feels as a parent.
One of these experiences was shared with this new dad crew of mine, and that is the idea of what I call being the âbad parentâ. Now thereâs possibly a lot of attachment stuff that could relate to this, but from a parental perspective and trying not to think about with too much of a psychological mind, what I mean by the âbad parentâ is the one who is not able to offer support or comfort to a child when they are distressed. And that child only being soothed or comforted by the other parent, who for the sake of this experience could be thought of as the âgood parentâ. Again, from an attachment perspective it makes sense that children are more likely to be comforted by one particular parent â in my case it is my partner, a mother. And while I donât definitely know this for a fact, I would argue that it is the mother or the birthing parent that is more often than not in the position to comfort and sooth. Now, while I can appreciate that this might be a burden in some way, it can challenge the non-birthing parentâs perception of themselves as a âgood parentâ, or a competent parent. Or a parent that is loved by their child. Now, I know that cognitively I can tell myself that I am loved by my children as much as they love my partner, but it does take its toll to be screamed at and told to go away and that they only want mommy when they are upset. It can make you feel pretty crap and make you judge yourself as shit, incompetent, and useless.
But, low and behold, I was not the only father to experience this amongst my new posse of dad pals. And that felt like such a relief. I was also relieved to find out that I was not the only one that shared the view or felt like they were not a natural parent. One dad described it as having to âwork hard every day to be a good parentâ.
It wasnât just the similarities that were validating, but the differences, too. There were stories, which I wonât share here as they are of a more private nature, that highlighted that while I thought my life had been massively impacted by becoming a parent, othersâ lives were impacted in other ways, and in some instances in more challenging ways that I could not imagine for myself and my family. But I also learned that my child was not the only one potentially experiencing bullying, or falling out with friends, or getting into relationships. I know it sounds really stupid to say it out loud, but it was just so bizarre to find out how much I had in common with these men and that I was not, as it were, the only father going through some seriously confusing, challenging, and tiring shit with trying to raise children. I was not alone in my struggles. And that was, I am not going to lie, such a weight of my shoulder.
And so, to conclude, this one experience of going out with other dads has taught me that dads definitely need dad friends. Itâs validating. Itâs cathartic. Itâs makes you feel less alone. And, if you are like me, you might find another dad that is even more grumpy than you are.
And just to end. While I know this episode is about dads needing dad friends, it is clear that social connections and good quality friends are super important for fathers, especially new ones. Therefore, at the same time it makes sense for fathers to have friends who arenât parents, because actually it is probably very helpful for parents and fathers to go out and do stuff and talk about stuff that doesnât relate to being a parent. So, I guess, again while this is about dads needing dad friends, maybe this podcast is also for men who may have friends who are fathers, or who are soon to be fathers, or who may one day be fathers â even if you donât have kids of our own, your friendship and connection will be really valuable and helpful to you dad friend.
Anyway, thatâs it from me for now. As I said at the start, if you found any value in this episode of know of anyone who may benefit from it, please share it with them. As always, the invitation is there for you to come find me on social media and say hello. You know where to find me by now, Iâm sure.
As always, hope you have a great day. Or not. No pressure.
Music
* Opening: âChilled Ambient Minimalâ
* Closing: âSevenâ - Tobu
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
In this episode, I discuss the idea of the "sigma male". Yup, you read that right. Not sure what it is, have a listen and hopefully I have made enough sense of it to enlighten you.
Music
* Opening: âChilled Ambient Minimalâ
* Closing: âEnexpected" - David Bulla
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
In todayâs episode I look at the question of whether, in fact, all emotions are valid. Itâs a big statement thatâs often seen on social media, but I sometimes wonder if the specifics of the statement are fully understood. Therefore, in an effort to shed some light on this snapshot of emotional awareness I discuss what emotions are, why we have them, and the difference between validity and accuracy of emotions. I also discuss some tips on how to determine the validity of our emotional responses using the Dialectal Behaviour Therapy (DBT) skill of âCheck the Factsâ (itâs a bit messy, so see the resources below for some clearer explanations).
If you found this episode helpful, useful, or not a complete waste of time, please consider sharing it with someone else. Please also consider rating it, following the show, or where possible leaving a comment. It all helps others decide if my show is a a bag of shit or not.
Thanks as always. And hope you have a great day! (Or not, no pressure!)
Resources
DBT Skills: Checking the Facts Worksheet
Check the Facts Example (YouTube) - Lewis Psychology
Music
* Opening: âChilled Ambient Minimalâ
* Closing: âUnexpectedâ - David Bulla
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Iâm really pleased to bring you this episode with Calum Stronach, nutritionist and disordered eating specialist, and (more importantly) host of the #NotAllMen Podcast. A podcast that seeks to challenge the #notallmen hashtag and (as Calum likes to say) hold up a mirror to masculinity as it currently stands. The idea being that there are often many ways that the current framework of masculinity limits or negatively impacts men and those around them. And this podcast seeks to explore how that occurs in many different aspects of life.
I speak to Calum about some of these things, but more interestingly (at least to me) I discuss what impact hosting the podcast has had on him.
I really enjoyed having Calum on and enjoyed exploring his insight and developments with him. Hopefully you enjoy it, too.
As always, if you did like this, please share it with others, rate and subscribe to the podcast, or leave a review. Every bit of feedback helps.
Have a great day (or donât, no pressure!)
Nice-ish.
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
In the realms of social media itâs not uncommon these days to see âTIâ or âtrauma-informedâ in the bios of those who run mental health, therapy, or psychological social media accounts. But what doe that mean? Does it mean that those who state they are âtrauma-informedâ understand trauma? Know how to spot it in their clients? Does it mean theyâve read The Body Keeps the Score (great book, by the way) and love Gabor Mate? Or does it mean they are able to work with and help alleviate symptoms of and process trauma?
Well, in this episode I am once more joined by Health Psychologist, Jo Rodriguez (otherwise known as @straightforwardpsychology) to discuss what being trauma-informed actually means, how that might apply in social media spaces, and (most importantly) what it is not.
I always enjoy chatting to Jo and value her insights and experience (and her love of f-bombs). Hopefully you enjoy hearing us waffle on (constructively). If you have any thoughts, questions, or challenges to what we have to say, please let us know.
As always, if you liked the episode and think someone else might like it, too, please share. Also subscribe, rate, and leave a comment - it always helps to let others know how good (or bad) the podcast is.
All the best,
Nice-ish.
Resources
* (Mis)understanding trauma-informed approaches in mental health by Angela Sweeney (2018).
* Trauma-informed mental healthcare in the UK by Sweeney, Clement, Filson, & Kennedy (2016).
Music
* Opening: âChilled Ambient Minimalâ
* Closing: âSevenâ - Tobu
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Was the rise of Andrew Tate due in part to a lack of positive male role models? This is what some recent media analysis has suggested. In this episode I am once more joined by Alex Holmes, author, mental health advocate, and psychotherapist, to discuss this potentially contentious point.
Alex works with and has a passion for menâs well-being, so he was a natural choice in broaching this subject. As always, Alexâs research and insights into masculinity and manhood does not disappoint and provides a solid basis for what I feel is an in-depth and nuanced discussion around this issue. Hopefully you think so, too (and let me and Alex know what you do think - even if you think anything we say is far off the mark).
If, after listening, you think that someone else would benefit from hearing this discussion, please share it with them. Also, please do like, subscribe and leave a comment (if you listen on Apple Podcasts - I mean, you could always leave a comment there even if you donât. Unless you have an Android phone, in which case none of this applies to you!)
Thanks for listening, your patience with putting up with my continued bullshit and letting me fill up your inbox is greatly appreciated.
All the best,
Nice-ish.
Music:
* Ending: âUnexpectedâ by David Bulla (NCS Release)
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
In this episode I try and answer the massive question of âwhat is the best way to prevent people from becoming murderers?â And while it is a big question, I did have some ideas. These related to understanding how murder relates to aggression, who may benefit understanding the nature of aggression, are human beings inherently aggressive, and what role trauma might play in everything.
Hopefully it provides some food for thought. It might not be the perfect answer, but as always, the aim of what I talk about is to generate some wider perspective thinking. If you have any thoughts you would like to share or some views you would like to challenge, please feel free to get in touch.
If you think anyone else would enjoy hearing about this, please do like, share, and leave a comment. It is all greatly appreciated.
Thanks again.
Nice-ish.
Resources:
* âAggression and Violence: Definitions and Distinctionsâ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323784533_Aggression_and_Violence_Definitions_and_Distinctions
* âReactive and Proactive Aggression among Children and Adolescents: A Latent Profile Analysis and Latent Transition Analysisâ https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/9/11/1733/pdf
* âAppetitive aggressionâ: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327231548_Appetitive_aggression
* âAre humans evil?â
* âIs Humankind Inherently Selfish? Reconsidering the Veneer Theory in Humanitiesâ: https://martinschmidtinasia.wordpress.com/2020/12/18/is-humankind-inherently-selfish-reconsidering-the-veneer-theory-in-humanities-i-in-action/
* âHumankindâ by Rutger Bregman
* âThe Myth of Normalâ by Gabor Mate
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Hello and welcome to the Nice-ish Ramblings podcast with me, The Nice-ish Psychologist. Todayâs episode is the second half of a longer discussion about menâs mental health and whether anyone cares about it. But briefly and for context, these episodes developed after some discussion I had on my Instagram page following some statements made by UFC fighter, Paddy âThe Baddyâ Pimblett, a few days after a friend of his took his own life. These are the sound bites played at the start of the episode.
The statement about there being no funding for menâs mental health and that no one cares about menâs mental health struck me as odd, so I put a question about this to my followers to get a wider perspective of views. These were essentially broken down into two camps â some noted that there were internal barriers to men seeking help for their mental health while the other noted more external barriers. The internal barriers were discussed in part of one this discussion (which is episode 14 if you want to go and listen), while the external barriers will be discussed here. And hopefully there will be some conclusion as to whether there is a lack of mental health provision for men, and if in fact no-one cares about menâs mental health.
This section, this discussion around external barriers to men seeking mental health support, I found really fascinating â mostly because some of the things discussed from this side of things I had not really considered before, and some I am a bit like, âYeah, I see where youâre coming from, but youâve not really convinced me.â
But before I continue, it might be worth noting that this section will contain reference to the categories of primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare. And seeing as I, someone who works in NHS healthcare, have not always understood the difference between the three I thought it might be helpful to quickly explain the differences. According to the Mind Charity website, primary healthcare is often the first point of contact when someone has any healthcare needs. This is covered by professions like GPs, dentists, and pharmacists. Secondary healthcare are services which will generally require referrals from a GP. In terms of mental health services, this would be things like psychiatric hospitals, psychological wellbeing services (such as IAPT services â which stands for Improving Access to Psychological Therapies), as well as community mental health teams (CMHTs), and Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Teams (CRHTs). Tertiary care is healthcare that is considered specialised treatment, and in the case of mental healthcare this would be considered something like secure forensic mental health services. Huh! Turns out I work in tertiary healthcare. Who knew!
Also, this episode is not meant to diminish anyoneâs mental health struggle. I am very aware the mental health services in the UK are stretched, underfunded, and generally not accessible for these reasons. There are long waiting lists, burnt out staff, and there remains a general persistence in terms of the stigma and lack of understanding about mental health that generally makes it more difficult for everyone to get the help they need. Also, as I noted in the previous podcast, I am not taking aim at Paddy Pimblett and the intention of his initial messages. In fact, there has recently been something in the news about someone saying that Paddy Pimblettâs words saved his life. Which is amazing. The aim of this podcast, rather, is to look at the accuracy of some statements made, which by and large appear to be an accepted narrative around menâs mental health. So, with that in mind I hope you can listen to to this episode with an open mind.
Anyway, external barriers.
So, one of the areas that I can understand where people are coming from, but I also donât buy it wholly, is the idea that therapy is âfeminisedâ. Yes, you heard me correctly: therapy is feminised.
The premises of this particular barrier appear to be two-fold. Firstly, therapy and therapists, and in fact the field of mental health and psychology in general, is a female dominated field. Secondly, alongside this is the idea that most therapies are emotions-focused and require talking about feelings. Again, these things are not wrong, which is why I can appreciate the idea that therapy is feminised: lots of women in the field and the primary modality of therapy is something that has been classed as feminine â that being talking â and that the main focus is on emotions â again, as aspect of being human that is associated with femininity.
Therefore, the issue that supposedly arises is that men might be less likely to engage with and discuss their difficulties with women. And that talking about their emotions is something men generally struggle with, so a focus on talking about emotions may dissuade them from accessing therapy because supposedly men are more solution-focused and prefer doing rather than talking.
OK, so there are a few things to point out that highlight that this is a somewhat strange, if not flawed argument.
The first thing that I find interesting or wonder about this idea of therapy being considered feminine by virtue of the fact that woman primarily work in this field: does the same concern apply to the area of general healthcare? Is general healthcare considered feminine, too? Because there is a strong gender bias of women working in the caring professions, but I wouldnât consider general healthcare feminine. I wonder if this is because despite women making up 77% of the NHS workforce they still make up the minority of senior positions, so maybe there is less consideration of general healthcare being thought of as feminine because those in more senior, perhaps more visible positions are men. But still if the worry is that mental healthcare is female dominant, why does the same worry not exist for general healthcare. Not sure any men are refusing to go to the general hospital because there are too many female NHS staff there.
Perhaps it does have to do with the fact that most senior positions are filled by men. So, by that logic you would imagine that if more visible positions within general healthcare are filled by men, that on the whole men would be OK with visiting primary healthcare services like a GP, which up until 2017 was primarily dominated by men. (Some of you may be interested to know in that year in the UK 54% of GPs were women). However, thatâs not the case â in an article by The Guardian written in 2102 (so five years before women occupied just over half of all GP positions) men were still only likely to visit the GP four times a year, while women would visit their GP on average six times a year (so, 50 percent more). Similarly, men were likely to visit a pharmacy four times a year compared to womenâs average of 18 times a year. The same article highlighted that nine in ten men did not want to trouble a doctor or pharmacist unless they had a serious problem, leading the article to conclude that âmen arenât taking full advantage of the support to maintain good health which is available free of charge on their doorstep.â
Also, I donât know about you, but I only really realised how female dominated the field of psychology and mental health was once I entered it. I might be wrong, and being an imperfect human there is usually a high chance that I am wrong about this, but I think the predominant perceived gender of therapists and psychologists is still largely masculine and male, based on those who are considered to have pioneered the development of psychology. Like Freud, Jung, Beck, Rogers, and so on and so forth. I am not sure that the average Joe would know that most therapists or psychologists are women. In fact, there was an Australian study done in 2003 (which is over 20 years ago, I admit, but the results are still intriguing to me) where adults were asked to draw images of what they thought a typical psychologist looked like. Based on 119 drawings, it was found that psychologists were largely perceived as middle-aged men.
But the shift in psychology becoming female dominated is relatively recent. In a 2011 article examining the shift in gender in psychology (which I wonât lie, if you read the article it feels a bit like a panicked âwhat are we going to do now that all these females are entering psychologyâ piece), it was noted that âthe percentage of psychology PhDs awarded to men [had] fallen from nearly 70 percent in 1975 to less than 30 percent in 2008.â But whilst this shift might be noticeable to those in the field, I do wonder how much this is picked up on in the general public. But again, I am potentially wrong about that as this shift has been occurring for like the last 20 years. But if anyone wants to do a follow-up to the 2003 Australian study to see if the perception of psychologists and therapist has change, go for it.
Something else that I found interesting was the apparent inference that men would have difficulty opening up to a female therapist. One of the things about the current state of masculine culture is about not looking weak in front of or admitting ones weaknesses to other men. So, the question I ask is would a man feel OK with opening up to another man more than a woman? Because, if we are agreeing with this gendered stereotype of how therapy is viewed, surely if men are looking for someone to listen to them who stereotypically would be able to understand and empathise and would not be judgmental of their experiences would they not want that to be (again, stereotypically) a woman? I mean, this is all rhetorical because while I do believe that the gender of a therapist can influence a therapeutic relationship and has its barriers (as a male psychologist working in a womenâs prison I am acutely aware of this particular therapeutic barrier), it can also serve as a facilitator. Itâs possible some men might find it tough to talk to a women therapist, equally, some men might find it more reassuring and containing.
And my final thought on therapy being feminised is this: so what? If it is feminised, and it is something that is considered more feminine, why is that so bad? While delving into this topic, there has been a further inference that men are potentially a âhard to reachâ target population and therefore therapy and mental health intervention should be tailored to be male-friendly. There is literature out there to suggest that in order to make therapy more accessible to men it should be masculinised. How should this be done? Well, in their textbook Perspectives in Male Psychology , John Barry and Louise Liddon suggest eleven ways in which to make therapy more male friendly; relating to the therapist, the type of therapy, and techniques.
In relation to the therapist, considerations suggested are: being empathetic, client-centred, value masculine norms, utilising a clientâs characteristics (the example here is to use sport as a metaphor for recovery if a male client likes sport - which, again, sure but also metaphors are common practice to help clients understand concepts, etc. Also, women understand sport metaphors, too), considering demographics (like age, ethnicity, education level, and the sex of the therapist, which I have touched on already and might be something important to consider.
In relation to the therapy, it is suggested that maleâs might prefer an indirect approach (the example given here is that men might try solve a problem rather than want to focus on their emotions), and that all male groups should be offered alongside individual therapy.
While in relation to therapeutic techniques, it is suggested that therapists consider the language they use, might think about using non-verbal communication (like avoiding direct eye contact which could make men feel uncomfortable), and last but not least, therapist should try use banter.
I suppose whatâs interesting is that apart from two things mentioned (that being valuing masculine norms and the interesting suggestion to avoid eye contact, which⊠yeah, not sure what to make of that one), everything else is pretty much exactly the same as how I, and any other therapists I know, would work with clients⊠While I am not saying that all of this wonât be helpful, my query is why is it necessary, especially when there is loads of research to suggest that the current therapy modalities work for both men and women. In a 2014 editorial review of research looking into the differences in outcome of the treatment of depression between men and women, the editorial concludes that âpatient-centered treatment using medication and/or psychotherapy that explores the psychosocial context of depression is likely to give the best chance of patient compliance and satisfaction, regardless of gender.â Basically, if the person seeking therapy is the focus of the intervention and their mental illness is formulated in a way that is specific to that person, and takes into account all the things about that person (one of which can be their gender) then the intervention should work. Therefore, there is no specific need to masculinise therapy because if a man seeks therapy he will already be masculinised by virtue of the fact that the therapist will focus on and deal with things specific to that man and his circumstances.
Okay, so I seem to have said a lot more about therapy being feminised that I intended, my bad. Moving onâŠ
The second external barrier highlighted from my online discussion was that of the responses of services to men who seek mental health support. So, this was one of the more interesting points that I had not considered. In a very brief discussion with one follower â a fellow psychologist in the south of the country â they noted that their community mental health team saw an equal number of men and women referred to the service, but that men were sometimes deemed too risky to work with for reasons of verbal and physical aggression. As a consequence, these men were often signposted to local charities to receive support for their mental health. Which is an interesting response. And it has made me think two things.
The first is the fact that the men who have mental health issues are not the only ones that hold onto ideals of masculinity. It is very possible that those who work in the services that men access may also hold onto those views, as with the example of turning men away because men are automatically assumed to be more violent than women, which may be further exacerbated when coupled with the potential unpredictability of how some men present when mentally unwell (I would like to caveat this by highlighting that not everyone who is mentally ill can become violent or aggressive, but in this instance it seems to be noteworthy).
But at the same time there is also some evidence to the contrary because at the level of CMHT referral and above (so here we are talking about secondary and tertiary mental healthcare) there is a lot more provision for men than women. Let me explainâŠ
So, in general, there are less psychiatric beds for women than there are men. In terms of psychiatric provision, everything is always measured in the number of beds - but across the UK, there are far more psychiatric beds available for men than there are women, and this only gets more concentrated when you move into forensic psychiatry too. I canât find like an official document that evidences this, but I know from my years working on psychiatric wards this to be the case (at lease anecdotally). Again, someone let me know if I am wrong. Along side this, there is relatively recent literature to suggest that even when admitted to psychiatric services, womenâs needs have not been fully met, and here I quote from an executive summary of a 2018 report commissioned by the UK Department of Health and Social Care: â[mental health services] have been designed, whether consciously or unconsciously, around the needs of men.â The executive summary also goes on to say that womenâs roles as motherâs and cares were not considered in terms of the support they received, and that the relationship between gender based violence, trauma, and poor mental health was overlooked. At the same time, I would argue that the impact of trauma should be considered in relation to mental illness regardless of gender.
So, there seems to be a bit of a paradox in terms of responses to men by services. On the one hand, services may be influenced in some way by underlying assumptions and biases about men when they are mentally unwell; but at the same time there appears to be lot more resource provision when they do become acutely or chronically unwell and their needs may be more automatically catered for while in these services.
One of the final points that was made in the overall discussion about this was that there was no promotion for men or reaching out to men to access mental health support. As noted earlier, some would consider men a âhard to reach populationâ. Now, this is somewhat tricky because I would agree and disagree with this: I would argue that some men might be a harder to reach than others, and this would depend on which type of men we are talking about. I would argue that men that fall into any number of intersectional categories could potentially be harder to reach than others.
As part of their effort to try and reduce health inequalities, the NHS has looked into where different health inequalities exist, and they have identified that often, health inequalities - and in this instance mental health inequalities - exist in relation to sexual orientation and gender, ethnicity, which would also include race and potentially migrant status, disability, and accommodation type. So, men who fall into these categories I would argue are probably the ones who could be considered hard to reach. In an interview for the Metro for an article about male suicide in the Black community, Alex Holmes, therapist and author of the book A Time to Talk (great book by the way, you should definitely get it) â had this to says: âThe specific intersection of what it means to be a Black man, a Black trans and, or, queer man, or a Black differently-abled man, at this time is definitely impacting our mental health. The systems are not in place to support us, and there are still many cultural stigmas (both intra-culturally and inter-culturally) that impact how we show up to the world.â
At the same time, I also am stumped by the assertion that there is no effort to engage men in mental health discussions or create awareness. I purposefully held back on releasing this podcast episode in November 2022 because it is also the month of Movember, and entire month dedicated to raising awareness about menâ physical and mental health. And I didnât want this episode to be received at a time when the focus should be on further creating awareness around menâs mental health â I think the irony might have offended some. Not only that, but there is also Menâs Health Week in June, which is also used to raise awareness about menâs mental health issues.
Alongside this, there are a number of charity organisations that are explicitly aimed at fostering environments for men to open up more about their struggles. For example, âMan Downâ in Cornwall, a non-profit charity that offers peer-support groups for men; then there is âAndyâs Manâs Clubâ, a menâs suicide charity that similarly offers peer-support groups in various locations across the UK; HUMEN, currently offers non-judgemental online support groups every Monday for men who may be struggling with their mental health and thoughts of suicide, and may be moving towards in person support groups. Then there is The Changing Room, supported by the Scottish Association for Mental Health (SAMH), an initiative providing a 12-week programme using football to bring men together to discuss mental health. And those are just some examples. These organisations are linked in the show notes, but they come from quite simple Google searches. I know this is not a competition, but just to give some context there is not necessarily the dearth of mental health support charities and groups for women.
The other interesting thing to think about is that it is commonly understood that there is a gap in male health across the world. According to the website Manual, a website that offers advice of menâs health issues - anything from hair loss, to sexual health, and also mental health - they define a health gap as âdifferences in the prevalence of disease, health outcomes (both physical and mental), or access to healthcare across different groupsâ. And the menâs health gap is defined as âa male health gap is when women are generally healthier across their lives than men.â The top ten countries that have male health gaps largely fall within the region of Eastern Europe, with Georgia ranking as the country with the worst male health gap followed by Belarus, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Mauritania, and Slovakia. And because mental health falls under over all health provision, one would imagine that countries that had male health gaps would also then have male mental health gaps, right? So, if the UK does indeed provide poorly for menâs mental health and it is something not considered then you might expect the UK to have a male health gap, too. Right?
Interestingly though, the UK is not one of the countries without a male health gap. In fact, in the UK it is quite the opposite. According to the same website, the UK ranks 12th in the top countries that have female health gaps. So, just to be clear, overall in the UK health outcomes are worse for women than they are men; and again, this would include mental health outcomes.
So, I guess this seems like a good point to try and answer the overall question of this exploration into menâs mental health provision, that being: âIn the UK does no one care about menâs mental health?â And I guess I might cop on this one a bit and let you make up your own mind. I think for me to come to an absolute conclusion would be somewhat arrogant as I am not someone who is potentially affected by difficulties with their mental health. To say one way or the other is potentially invalidating for anyone listening. But, the one thing that I have learned from doing these two episodes to thinking about barriers to men accessing menâs mental health is that there are a lot of things to consider. Some of them are internal, and there do appear to be a few external barriers. How insurmountable are they? Well, I guess it depends on the colour of your skin or who you fall in love with, and whether you think something being considered feminine is more of an issue than your mental health needs. There also appears to be quite a lot of available support and efforts to promote menâs mental health - something that does not seem to be equally championed for other genders. I hope, though, at the very least I have provided some evidence to make you think about the question and come to a conclusion for yourself.
If you are a man who is struggling with their mental health, please do consider getting in touch with your GP. Alternatively please look up any of the charities mentioned in this podcast and find a group of lads who will listen. There is also the option, if it is possible, to talk to our friends and family. I know this makes it sound a lot easier than it might actually be, but if there is anything I have learned in my time working with men, and even my own hesitancy and resistance to admitting when things are tough, itâs that we can sometimes be our own worst enemy.
Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to this ramble. As always if you think someone somewhere would find this episode interesting or may benefit from listening to it, please share it. Please also like, share, rate and leave a comment. It helps so much with letting others know about the show. Until next time - take care.
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Hello and welcome to todayâs episode of The Nice-ish Rambling Podcast, with me the Nice-ish Psychologist where today I am going to be discussing the cheery subject of the âwar on menâ. I say cheery with a sense of irony because in looking into some information for this episode, I have come across some quite intense information â some intense statistics that, if you are a woman, might be a bit heavy to hear. So, if you are a woman listening to this and things become a bit heavy, please do look after yourself and take a break if you need to, or just put this episode to rest. I guess this episode is more food for thought for any men that might be listening.
The reason I want to talk about this, and the reason I want men to pay attention, is because there is a growing narrative that exists online that â and as the title of this episode suggests â there is a âwar on menâ. It is a narrative that has long been held by what could be considered Menâs Rights Activists, a movement that essentially exists in opposition to feminism. MRAs would argue that they are egalitarians, seeking to ensure equality for all, specifically for men, and will do this by highlighting specific populations of men or areas of society in which men experience hardships. Common themes are that of unemployment, high suicide rates among men, boyâs falling behind in education, men having to go to war, supposed lack of custody rights for fathers and parental alienation, and the claim that men experience domestic abuse as frequently as women.
Now it is not the intent of this podcast episode to go through all the issues highlighted by MRAs and discuss them in detail â there is a lot of subtlety and nuance to these issues, which are very real and do exist to some extent. However, MRAs will often use these as examples to highlight how feminism, or the pursuit of equal rights for marginalised groups in general, has left men the forgotten victims of society. Laura Bates discusses Menâs Rights Activist in a lot more detail in her book Men Who Hate Women, which I would highly suggest you read if any of this is of interest to you â and so I wonât get into this right now. But what I will say is that I feel like the âwar on menâ narrative is fed by the MRA ideology and beliefs about society having âgone too farâ with respect to feminism. But in some way, I now feel that the âwar on menâ narrative is weaponizing masculinity as part of its repertoire, too, suggesting that masculinity is in crisis. And the more this âwar on menâ narrative - which has its roots in what is known as the manosphere (Laura Bates talks about this in her book, too) - the more this narrative is starting to spread, the more it is starting to make its way into mainstream online arenas such as Instagram and Twitter.
The inspiration for this podcast episode comes from an Instagram post that was shared on the account of Lalalaletmeexplain â if you donât know who Lalalaletmeexplain is I would highly suggest you follow her. She is a former social worker, author, and I guess she is a dating advice guru (her book is called Block, Delete, Move On), but she is also a very straight-talking feminist voice who I have learned a lot from. A lot of her content is rooted in highlighting sexist and misogynistic behaviour in the dating world, but also branches out into areas of domestic and sexual violence, and calling out general bullshit by men â as is the case with the Instagram post in question. I am not going to disclose who the post was by in this episode, but I have selected some choice passages from the caption to focus on.
The Instagram post in question has a picture of the owner of the account, a man, looking at the camera, smiling quite genially, with the title: âThe War on Menâ and the caption opens with these first few lines:
âThereâs a war going on at the moment that a small group of people can see but the majority canât (yet)âŠ.ââItâs a war on men designed to demonise, oppress and make men weakâŠâ
So, I guess when I read this kind of stuff, I am always curious as to who this war is being declared by. Who is declaring this war? Usually in a war there is an aggressor and a victim I suppose; the person or people declared war upon.
Now, I donât want to seem like Iâm making things a competition, but I guess it would be helpful to point out what a war (that is, acts of aggression and violence) declared a specific gender would look like. And here I would like to declare that I have once more taken inspiration from the stories of Lalalaletmeexplain (I actually have very little of my own original ideas). But in order to do this discussion justice it might be helpful you think about three âwarsâ against women that are currently being perpetrated in different parts of the world. And just a warning, this is where shit gets a bit heavy.
The first example, on a war on women is that earlier this year in America, a supposed âfirst worldâ or âdevelopedâ country, the Supreme Court of the United States unleashed what was described as an âunprecedented attack on women, girls, and people of reproductive capacityâ. The Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, a law that had provided 50 years of established constitutional protection for abortion, and has now made abortion illegal in America - which in some states also includes abortions related to miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. And if you think about it, 50 years is not all that long for a law like this to have existed. People have grandparents older than this law. Thatâs absolutely bonkers if you think about it. But whatâs even more bonkers is the fact that this law, a right for those who are able to give birth to choose whether they give both or not, to have autonomy over their body, has been taken away. Just like that. It actually blows my mind and I still cannot fathom how, in this day and age a personâs right to live their life how they choose have just been stripped away. Itâs fucking nuts.
The second example is that in September in Iran, a 22-year-old women named Mahsa Amini died while being detained in custody. Her crime? In the capital city Tehrans, Masha Amini was not wearing a hijab in accordance with compulsory Islamic hijab laws - turns out she was wearing a hijab, but she was wearing it loosely. And so she was arrested by the morality police, taken into custody, where she later died having allegedly been beaten in a police truck on her way to being detained. I say allegedly as Iranian authorities claim no violence was used against Masha Amini, but rather that she collapsed from a heart attack.
Her death has sparked âunprecedented protestsâ in the country, with women defying the governments laws and cutting their hair in solidarity, and joined by men who support these women and wish to change the laws that treat the women of Iran as second class citizens, alongside other grievances of how the Iranian government treats its citizens in general. Seemingly though, these protest are nothing new - there were protests in the late 70s and 80s when the new form of government took over in 1979 and started making plans to restricted the rights and privileges of women, supposedly in line with the faith of Islam. The protests were held for the same reasons they are today, but despite the protests, new restrictions on womenâs clothes, became law in 1983 - thatâs just under 40 years ago. Again, thatâs mad. Additionally, the death of Masha Amini is not the first time violence has been used against women by the so called morality police, not necessarily resulting in death, in the way that Masha Amini was treated (although I could be wrong about this). But it has been reported that women in Iran are continually harassed by the morality police, and if having been found to contravene the hijab laws are made to attend âeducational classesâ (and who knows that education looks like). This is all apparently a common occurrence.
Then, in South Africa, there is what been referred to in some news sources as a âpandemicâ of femicide. The term femicide was seemingly first used in 1801, in a book called A Satirical View of London at the Commencement of the Nineteenth Century, by John Corry, where it was used to refer to the killing of a woman. However, in 1976, it was reintroduced by a feminist pioneer, Diana Russel, at the International Tribunal of Crimes Against Women in order to bring attention to violence against women, and has seen two definitions. The first from 1976 defined femicide as: âthe murder of women by men motivated by hatred, contempt, pleasure, or a sense of ownership of womenâ. While the second definition - updated for the United Nations Symposium on Femicide in 2012, and defined once more by Diana Russel - notes that femicide is âthe killing of one or more females by one or more males because they are femaleâ.
In South Africa, the number of women killed is staggering, and the country is included in the top 25 countries in the world for the highest rates of women killed - along with other countries like El Salvador, which ranks number one. But according to the website, Africa Check, in 2020/21, a total of 2,655 women were murdered in South Africa, with an additional 898 women killed in the last quarter of 2021. To put those numbers into context, a BBC article from this year noted that, by comparison, the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate that between April 2020 and March 2021 (so the same time frame that the figures from South Africa were taken), 177 women were murdered in England and Wales, compared to 416 men. 177 women in the UK compared to 2,655 women in South Africa. However, whilst the UK numbers might not be as high as those in South Africa, the UK is still facing its own femicide issue. The same article notes that of the 177 women killed, 109 were killed by a man and 10 by a woman, and in 58 cases there was no known suspect. This means that - where the suspect was known - 92% of women were killed by men in the year ending March 2021.
There is a UK Femicide Census that analyses the murders of women in the United Kingdom. Some of the findings of the 2020 census note that 110 women were killed by men in 2020. 111 men were implicated in those murders, but at the time of publication only 79 had been found responsible for killing a woman - that means roughly a third of perpetrators had not been held accountable. Further stats highlight that 52% of women were killed by a former or current partner, 13% were killed by their son, and only 8% were killed by a stranger. 77% of killings took in the home, in 48% of cases there was a known history of violence and abuse by the perpetrator against the victim, and 53% of perpetrators were know to have previous histories of violence against women.
So, what is the point I am trying to make with all of these horrific stats? I guess itâs that when we talk about a war perpetrated against a gender, there is more evidence - more tangible evidence that can be pointed to, seen, noted down - of who the aggressors might be when it comes to violence perpetrated against women. However, there does not seem to be either a) the same level of violence perpetrated against males and men based on sex or gender or b) an obvious perpetrator. Like I said, I am not trying to say who has it worse, but I guess I am trying to highlight how this narrative of a âwar on menâ is vague. Although the author does go on to say this:
âBecause no one is easier to control then a passive, docile, domesticated doormat that is unsure of himself and feeling a sense of shame for being a manâŠ..â
âDespite what is unconsciously getting fed, we need STRONG men and despite the popular narrative (from the âwokeâ numpties) there is a shit ton of people that LOVE seeing men step into their (healthy) masculine powerâŠâ
âIf these c*nts in positions of power thought every single bloke was just going to roll over and become a passive passenger they were wrong.â
See, this is interesting - while the use of âcuntsâ might be generic, I canât help but think that he is talking about women and feminism - I might be wrong. But even if I am wrong, there is also an allusion to them being in âpositions of powerâ. Like, who? Who are these people, and why canât they be named? Is that because there are no real people in positions of power trying to make men docile, passive, and domesticated. But keeping it vague helps it make it seem like itâs a bit of a conspiracy, that there are dark forces at play. Or is it the âwoke numptiesâ who are doing this.
Also, what is it that these âcuntsâ and âwoke numptiesâ are asking. Last time I checked no one was asking men to be weak or docile; I think youâll find that men are being asked to not be stoic and emotionless, to get in touch with a wider range of emotions and increase their emotional intelligence - this does not mean weak. Also, weâre being asked to be less reliant of physical violence (or even the threat or capability of violence that Jordan Peterson likes to talk about) and deal with conflict more healthily. And as I said earlier, this does not seem to relate to any of the real world issues facing men, like unemployment, high rates of suicide, things like this. This seems to be a concern about the re-evaluation of masculinity or what it means to be a man.
Because again, the idea that there is something wrong with being weak and docile highlights that there is a particular way of being a man. Even thought the author of this Instagram post and caption talks about men stepping into healthy masculinity, there is still some delineation that one type of way of being a man is better. Like, I always struggle with the word weak when it comes to men - like, what do men like man who made this post mean when they denigrate weak men. Are they talking about physicality and physical strength? Or are they talking about like mental fortitude? Or resiliency in the face of adversity? Or how to stand you ground and be assertive? Because weak can mean so many things. But then, at the same time, there is sometimes a narrative that seems to imply that weak men are the ones who are dangerous - like, how and in what way? Are they weak because even when talking about healthy masculinity there is an element of strength needed to be a man, and with strength comes power? And so are those who denigrate weak men saying that weak men will go to dangerous lengths to obtain power? Well, probably, yeah - because if you make it that you canât be seen as a man - even a healthy man by this particular individuals construction of masculinity - without any kind of power, then you create power as something to be coveted.
No idea if any of this makes sense - but I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that all of this - this âwar on menâ rhetoric - appears to be a push back against the idea that the current rule of thumb of masculinity might no longer be up to scratch. And there is something quite insidious about calling it a âwarâ, because if youâre calling it a war - and this might be me taking my interpretation of this a bit too melodramatically far, but still - if youâre gonna call it a war then youâre likely looking to recruit soldier in the âbattleâ to push back. Which might sound, as I said, a bit melodramatic, but when coupled with another segment of the caption under question doesnât feel all that far off:
âHereâs the thing - if men wake up to what is unfolding and step into their power, theyâre a lot less likely to roll over it and just take it from those in positions of power. They become a threat to the regime. So gents RISE.â
Which, I am not going to lie, sounds just a teeny bit propaganda-esuqe. It sounds a little bit like a mobilisation, a call to action, which is somewhat concerning more and more, current research is starting to highlight that younger men are buying into this narrative and this rhetoric, one might even use the term radicalised in this way, or even groomed into believing that there is a unknown force out there trying to diminish men. In a 2021 article discussing this (which also features commentary by Laura Bates), research by Dr Joshua Roose notes that one in three men under the age of 35 believe that womenâs right have gone too far. And while I am not saying that the specific post in question in ad of itself is adding to this kind of belief, but I would certainly venture that it is part of the difficulty and the concern. And the fact that it is being disseminated online in a popular social media platform like Instagram, and no longer quarantined to the more clandestine, murkier, and lesser known message boards of the internet is what gives me pause.
_
Thank you for taking the time to read this (or if you have listened to it as a podcast). If you have found this interesting please do share, subscribe, or leave a rating or comment. Also, please do come share your thoughts on the topic with me on my Instagram page.
Thanks,
Nice-ish.
Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
- Montre plus
