The most common explanation is predicated upon the biomedical model that currently dominates our understanding of psychiatric – and physiological – illness. These theories explain that the different hormones and neurochemicals distributed between the sexes make women more vulnerable to depression.

It is hard to deny the fact that depression itself has a chemical and biological basis. A better understanding of the way deficiencies or excesses of certain neurochemicals can affect behaviour has led to a widespread understanding of mental illness as something that people cannot control on their own.

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that bodies are constantly affected by the social environment with which they interact. Repeated findings have shown that sociodemographic attributes – such as race, class, and gender – all play a strong role in shaping both our physical and mental health. A 2003 Statistics Canada study stated that living in poverty affects a person’s health more than smoking or lack of exercise. Being a person of colour, a woman, non-binary, an immigrant … Basically, anything other than a white heterosexual man of good socioeconomic standing, can negatively affect mental health.

It is thus important to examine exactly why being a woman increases the likelihood of becoming depressed. There needs to be a shift in the way women’s depression is viewed. Rather than relying on a supposed inherent predisposal to mental illness, depression in women needs to be understood as an interaction between the biological roots and the social structures in which women experience their lives.

Jane Ussher, a psychology professor at the University of Western Sydney, argues that there is greater emphasis on women living up to an idea of femininity, which emphasizes the role of a woman in taking care of others. In an attempt to fulfill these expectations, she believes that women may ignore their individual needs, leading to depression. Others have argued that the feeling of a lack of control is greater in the lives of women, as they are less likely to have high-position jobs, salaries, or other benefits that are often received through the privileges of being a man. Jill Chonody, professor of social work at the University of South Australia, argues that the differences of power in society greatly affect women’s experiences. These differences can be internalized, creating feelings of self-esteem or autonomy.

Feelings of helplessness, lack of control, and low self-esteem are often seen as predictors of depression. If these feelings are being created simply by occupying the role of womanhood, it would make sense that depression rates are higher.

In looking at a mental illness such as depression, it is necessary to discuss the structural and social conditions in which they exist in order to be able to gain a fuller understanding. This necessity applies to both women and men; examining ideas of masculinity and femininity can help us be aware of different manifestations of depression. While the biomedical model remains highly significant, it is important not to forget how we can also be affected by society’s structures.

The post Ain’t no sunshine when she’s gone appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In Texas, a man is currently serving 35 years in prison for spitting on a policeman. His HIV-positive status allowed his saliva to be categorized as a “deadly weapon” – even though it is impossible for HIV to be spread through saliva.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1998 that not disclosing an HIV-positive status can be seen as fraud, thus invalidating any consent given by the partner. According to the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, people living with HIV in Canada can be prosecuted and charged for not disclosing their status before engaging in what is considered “an activity of significant risk” for viral transmission. However, the definition of an “activity of significant risk” is still unclear. While the punishments for HIV/AIDS non-disclosure are often more severe in the United States, Canada is known to be one of the most stalwart in criminalizing people who are HIV-positive. Criminal prosecutions here have ranged from charges of assault and criminal negligence, to a charge of first-degree murder.

As HIV/AIDS became more prevalent in Canada, the legal system struggled to keep up with the complicated implications of the disease. In 1998, an appeal was brought to the supreme court over the case of R v. Cuerrier, whereby a BC Court of Appeals judge ruled that sexual activity which puts a partner at risk of HIV could not be considered assault. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that by having unprotected intercourse while HIV positive, a person can be considered guilty of assault. To establish guilt, Justice Peter Cory stipulated three conditions: that the accused’s acts endanger[ed] the life of the complainant, that he intentionally applied force without the consent of the complainant, and that the complainant would not have engaged in intercourse had they known the person was infected.

The changing legal attitudes towards HIV/AIDS and assault force us to wonder whether or not non-disclosure should be punished so severely, if at all. If one agrees with this criminalization, do they also agree that other common sexually transmitted diseases and infections, such as hepatitis or syphilis, should be prosecuted to the same extent as the widely publicized AIDS cases?

One of the main arguments in support of this criminalization has been that it could help deter “risky” behaviour and transmission of the virus. Yet there has been almost no evidence found to support this stance – in fact, it seems that this could only be counterintuitive to public health goals. Researchers from the Canadian HIV/AIDs Legal Network and UNAIDS have stated that these laws could deter HIV testing – and thus diagnoses – due to the fact that these laws are supposed to be used in situations where a person is knowingly HIV-positive. The lack of knowledge can thus protect a person from being convicted as a criminal. If someone who has taken the initiative to get tested and, potentially, treated, is then prosecuted for a crime, it seems that they are being punished for doing what public health officials tend to encourage. In addition, it’s been found that approximately half of new transmissions occur during periods of early infection, when people are not likely to even be aware of their own status. As an alternative to the criminalization of HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS has advocated positive prevention programs to reduce transmission and to empower people living with HIV.

Criminal ramifications of a person’s choice to not disclose their status imply that the person who is HIV-positive has the sole  responsibility toward ensuring the health of their sexual partner. The onus on ensuring sexual practices are safe should rest on all individuals involved. Suggesting otherwise undermines the idea that safe sex should be practiced by all, and not just by at-risk groups. Furthermore, if safe techniques are being used, then there should be no “significant” risk for transmission.

Criminalizing HIV transmission also increases the fear and stigma associated with the virus. The media coverage of these cases has already shown how persons who are HIV positive are sensationalized and become the “other” – headlines such as “HIV Monster” from UK paper The Sun, or “Evil Beast” in Scotland’s The Daily Record are prevalent. Sean Strub, a filmmaker whose documentary “HIV is Not a Crime” discusses these issues, refers to the creation of a “viral underclass,” in which people with HIV are then seen as a threat to public health and society in general.

Of course, intent and motivation should play a role in any potential legal rulings. If a person was malicious in their intent to knowingly spread the virus, then there is  justification for legal prosecution. However, it is important to note that these cases are rare. While most people may believe that there is an ethical requirement for an individual to disclose their status, the increased role played by the judicial system in determining the culpability of an HIV-positive person is troubling. The tendency to marginalize those who suffer from AIDS is all too common, and this recent criminalization must stop in order to be able to address and prevent further HIV transmission.

The post R v. HIV appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This notion is clearly shown in a recently-published children’s book titled Maggie Goes on a Diet, which tells the story of Maggie, a young girl whose life is “transformed” after she goes on a diet and loses weight. She becomes more confident, gains more friends, and attracts more attention from boys. Nowhere in the story is there mention of being happy, secure, and healthy while overweight. According to this account, being thin, or “average sized,” by society’s standards, is what we need to strive for.

This past September, American Apparel held a campaign looking for the “next BIG thing.” The company, which has a history of objectifying women in its ad campaigns, was now attempting to address a plus-sized audience through a competition looking to find a “curvaceous” model. But the contest backfired. The winner was Nancy Upton, a young woman who parodied the contest by posing sexually with stereotypically fatty foods (one image shows her in a bra covered in ranch dressing). Although she won by a large margin through an online vote, the company decided to award the prize to another woman who, in their words, was more able to “exemplify the idea of beauty inside and out.” This woman fit their ideal of a plus-sized woman who was willing to work within the company’s standards. By poking fun at American Apparel’s approach towards plus-sized women, Upton did not fit this ideal.

As shown by the two examples above, being overweight is often demonized and shamed by the media. One of the main ways this portrayal is justified is the idea that being overweight implies poor health. However, this is often not the case. Health involves remaining active and eating nutritious foods, and being overweight does not preclude these habits. For example, a 2008 study done at Beth Israel Medical Center in Harvard looked at the effects of physical activity as well as BMI (body mass index) on coronary heart disease. They found that women who were overweight, but were walking more than four hours a week, had a lower risk of heart disease than those who didn’t exercise, regardless of their weight. Thus, the amount of exercise was shown to be more important than weight. It is also important to note that being thin does not necessarily imply good health.

The Fat Acceptance movement strives to change these ideas by showing that weight is not the problem. One of the main tenets of this movement is the idea of “Health at Every Size.” This paradigm places emphasis on exercising and eating nutritious food, acknowledging that overweight people can be just as healthy (or healthier) than those who are “average” sized. Further importance is given to the idea that promoting weight loss – in particular, constant dieting – can have negative effects in the long run.

In addition, much of the science used to claim that obesity is linked to morbidity does not have a strong cause and effect basis. New research from the University of Alberta used a tool called the Edmonton Obesity Staging System to rank overweight people in four stages according to their underlying health, not weight. The team, led by Dr. Arya Sharma, found that up to 80 per cent of the patients classified as overweight or obese had a score of one or two – meaning that they had no apparent “obesity-related” health risks, such as blood pressure or cholesterol problems.

Due to the weight bias that exists in a culture where fat shaming is prevalent, negative repercussions can occur from doctors having preconceived negative notions about overweight patients, which leads to misdiagnoses and maltreatment. According to a study published in 2010 by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, overweight women were at a higher risk of being misdiagnosed, less likely to have cancer detected early on, and were less able to find fertility doctors willing to treat them. It’s clear that doctors are not exempt from the attitudes towards weight that exist in our society. This existing stigma can also further deter overweight people from even seeking medical care.

Perhaps, if people are looking to science to support their fat-phobic ideas, they should instead be directed to the previously-mentioned research, and the multitude of other studies which have shown similar results. Or perhaps, we should remember that a person’s appearance does not provide a full nor accurate picture of his or her overall health.

The post The skinny on fatphobia appeared first on The McGill Daily.

I overheard this conversation earlier this week. The conclusion that an awkward acquaintance must have Asperger’s syndrome – a disorder on the autism spectrum characterized by social difficulties – is too common and somewhat troubling.

As a psych major, I’ve seen this before. You take one abnormal psych class and, next thing you know, you think you’re a clinical psychologist. You start telling people how they fit the new, arbitrary criteria you’ve just read about. Your roommate’s been moping around feeling tired? She must be depressed. But wait, she seemed cheerful yesterday? She’s probably bipolar.

From the casual nature of these exchanges, it is clear that the language used to describe mental illness has made its way into our everyday conversations, yet, somehow, mental illness remains taboo.

According to the Canadian Medical Association, only half of Canadians would tell a friend that a family member has a mental illness. Although one in five Canadians are dealing with a mental illness, the topic is rarely brought up.

In Susan Sontag’s Illness as Metaphor, she argues that misusing the language that describes illness only furthers feelings of shame in patients. She talks about how the term cancer has become a synonym of death and, in other cases, a social metaphor; something being described as “a cancer on society” is now commonplace. While she writes mainly about terms used to describe physical illnesses, her ideas also apply to language regarding mental health.

While we refuse to discuss the real issue of mental health, words used to describe people with mental illnesses are often thrown around. My friend once described herself as “super OCD” because she’s organized and likes to keep her room clean. According to Dr. Arun Chopra’s research in 2007 at Nottingham University that looked at the usage of term “schizophrenia” in UK newspapers, up to 30 per cent of references to this illness in the media were metaphorical. Some usages included “the government’s schizophrenic attitude” or “a person’s schizophrenic style.” While these may be thoughtless statements, this language can further the stigmatization of mental illness.

Earlier this year, a young man named Jared Loughner murdered six and injured thirteen in a shooting in Tucson, Arizona. Many reports in the media pointed to his mental health as the main cause of the tragedy, as if giving the explanation of schizophrenia would be enough to explain his actions. This clearly shows how the term schizophrenic has come to be synonymous with images of violence and irrationality, with someone who has become “unhinged” from society.

In reality, there very little correlation between schizophrenia and violence. One study by Oxford researcher Dr. Seena Fazel showed that, while alcohol consumption and drug usage can lead to an increased risk of violence, the same cannot be said for schizophrenia. Although Loughner may have been suffering from paranoid delusions, this case is in no way a representation of all people with schizophrenia. Nevertheless, the media chose to latch onto the public’s fear of mental illness, equating it with the image of insanity depicted in pop culture.

This representation is due to a misunderstanding of what mental illness is. When a disease isn’t understood, it becomes feared, and people begin to create myths, which, in turn, leads to stigmatization.

It’s important to discuss mental illness and to raise awareness about its impact. It is also important to examine the ways in which we talk about it. By using these terms flippantly and attributing inaccurate meanings to them, we are stigmatizing those who suffer from a mental illness. To reduce this stigma, perhaps the first step is to strip these illnesses of all metaphorical meaning, in order to establish a greater public understanding of the realities of mental illness.

The post Illness intrudes on our everyday language appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Yet that first slogan, emblazoned on the shirts of a young group present at the race, is part of a widespread message in the marketing of breast cancer awareness – one that I find completely distasteful. An organization called “Save The Ta-Tas” sells t-shirts and products such as a lotion called “Boob Lube,” which is promoted as something women should use to enhance their self-examination experience. Additionally, Facebook campaigns tell women to write their bra colour in their statuses. I remember a commercial from several years ago consisting of a young, conventionally attractive woman in a bikini that called for us to “Save the Boobs!” The camera focused on her breasts and the men looking at them. Not one aspect of this commercial told us anything about any of the issues relating to cancer. Instead, we were simply told to care about breast cancer in order to save the breasts – never once mentioning how the woman who is suffering from cancer may be affected.

Breast cancer is one of the most common types of cancer amongst women. According to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, an average of 445 Canadian women will be diagnosed each week. Although it can occur at any age, the majority of those afflicted are diagnosed between the ages of 35 and 60 – not exactly the age of the youthful women shown in most advertisements. While I fully support raising awareness and money for research, I do not support the constant objectification of women’s bodies and the sexualization of a disease as a means to do so. These messages trivialize the reality of living with such an illness – a reality which can consist of unpleasant rounds of chemo, surgeries, and pain.

Breast cancer research is not about keeping boobs alive – it’s about keeping people alive. By focusing solely on breasts, we are taking attention away from the people who live with the illness. This message furthers the idea that a woman’s breasts are what make her worthy of attention, and that losing them is equivalent to (or maybe worse than) losing her life. Now, imagine how a woman who has just undergone a mastectomy feels when she is constantly being told that her breasts are what made her attractive as a woman. In addition, using images of traditional femininity devalues the experience of those who suffer from breast cancer but do not identify as female.

There are, in fact, ways in which these issues can be addressed without sexualizing the problem. The SCAR Project is one that can be seen online, in which photographer David Jay takes photos of young breast cancer survivors, showcasing their scars and imprints of the disease. These images are powerful, and demonstrate how breast cancer should be addressed by making the cancer patients themselves the focus of the issue.

Some may argue that, as long as this crude commercialization raises awareness, the ends will justify the means. But, while those who began these campaigns must have had good intentions, I don’t believe awareness through demeaning women is justifiable. We are not becoming any more aware of what it’s like to live with breast cancer. Instead, we are merely continuing the objectification of women in the name of a good cause.

The post Looking beyond boobs appeared first on The McGill Daily.

While male contraception exists, no option has proven itself to be better than the female birth control pill. Condoms are often less reliable and not as safe, with a failure rate of two per cent with perfect use. Vasectomies, on the other hand, are an invasive surgical procedure – one that many men do not want. The lack of male contraceptive options perpetuate the view that contraception is still a woman’s responsibility. According to the U.S. Centre for Disease Control, rates of female sterilization and hormonal methods are still higher than condom usage (34 per cent versus 10 per cent of women who use condoms in the U.S.). However, in recent years, there has been a resurgence in research to try to develop a male alternative to hormonal birth control.

Though there is currently no male equivalent of the birth control pill, potential methods are being explored. One researcher has developed a pill that interrupts sperm maturation, leading to the production of “nonfunctioning” sperm; another method involves applying a testosterone gel to block sperm production. According to an article published in the New York Times, several of these hormonal methods have, in fact, been effective with a large majority of men. Side effects such as changes in skin, weight, mood, and sex drive have been found, but none of these differ largely from what many women are already dealing with. While none of these methods have been fully developed, the impetus is now there to try to find a method that will work. However, the question still remains: why has it taken so long to begin looking for a male equivalent of the birth control pill?

One of the key issues seems to be the general lack of interest from the public – as well as the pharmaceutical industry – in the development of these options. Although a survey by the International Male Contraception Coalition showed that roughly 40 per cent of American men would be interested in a pill, there are still many who argue that men would be unwilling to take any form of hormonal contraception. Side effects are often stated as a concern – another survey found that 20 per cent of men believed taking a pill would “decrease their masculinity”. This isn’t really surprising, especially when looking at the current state of sexual education. A recent study based on the US National Survey of Family Growth found that female teenagers were far more likely to have received instruction regarding birth control and safer sex methods in high school than their male counterparts. They were also more likely to have discussed these options with their parents and peers. Although the topic of sex and birth control may be discussed with young boys, it is clear there is much more emphasis placed on girls regarding being responsible for one’s actions.

Despite numerous medical advances, many believe there is little chance of a male birth control pill being approved any time soon. It seems that to even begin thinking about such an option, we have to change the way sexual responsibility is approached. There needs to be a shift in the current paradigm of sexual education to teach males to take a more active role in the contraception process. Of course, it’s impossible to predict how a male alternative would be received, but, hopefully, if these issues start being discussed, the development of a male birth control pill will be warmly welcomed.

The post Whipping male hormones into a frenzy appeared first on The McGill Daily.