Dictionary definition of stigma:
1. A mark of disgrace or infamy; as on one reputation.
Medical:
2. A mental or physical mark that is characteristic or a defect or disease.
Disgrace, infamy, is that what we think of when referring to mental illness being "stigmatized"? No, rather it is presented in the form of "ignorance". "Mental illness is stigmatized because people are ignorant of it's forms and symptoms".
The word "stigma" in it's current usage is actually a euphemism for "shame". We (the general feeling) feel SHAME for anyone with mental illness, but don't have the courage to say it as such.
In fact, the current use of the word "stigma" even subtly suggests that the "stigmatized" (IE. Mentally Ill person) is at fault. "Others don't understand you, but you're the one who needs change". What about these "others who don't understand" educating themselves!
I don't understand what diabetics, or cancer patients go through on a daily basis, does that make them "stigmatized", or me ignorant? The same applies to mental illness, when someone does not understand it, the sufferer is not "stigmatized", the first person is simply ignorant. So just as it is up to me to educate myself about diabetes and cancer, it is up to them to educate themselves about mental illness.
Reality is that mental illness is still seen as shameful. Like most everything else in today's world, people have come up with softer terms (in this case "stigma") in order to make unacceptable beliefs acceptable.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Adaptation
Adapting to one's environment is a sign of mental health. In the 21st century western world, that suggests working 35-40 hours a week in order to earn enough to pay one's housing, food, clothing, and transportation.
When someone of working capacity (by outward looks) doesn't or doesn't manage to pay their way, they're somehow wrong.
The simplistic idea that "That's just the way it is so it's right" is very rarely questioned.
Compared to humanity of 2, 000+ years ago, have we truly progressed as a species?
Working to get lodging, feed one self (and family), wear the clothing, and use the transport of the time. That's what was expected of people. Not very different.
Intellectually we do know more than we did back then. Due in part to history itself (IE. There IS more to know), and communication, which is more accessible.
Technologically we are way more advanced (IE. Just reading this blog proves that).
But as a species are we more advanced? Our so-called intelligence hasn't prevented us from being at war constantly.
We "know" that a healthy life (on all levels) requires much more than simply functioning, yet as long as one is functioning, we are satisfied. "You have a job, pay your bills, what do you have to worry or complain about?"
Funny thing is when oneself is simply functioning it's far from enough. We "know" that functioning is not enough for us, but don't have the presence of mind to inquire about others.
Functioning isn't enough for me, what about you?
When someone of working capacity (by outward looks) doesn't or doesn't manage to pay their way, they're somehow wrong.
The simplistic idea that "That's just the way it is so it's right" is very rarely questioned.
Compared to humanity of 2, 000+ years ago, have we truly progressed as a species?
Working to get lodging, feed one self (and family), wear the clothing, and use the transport of the time. That's what was expected of people. Not very different.
Intellectually we do know more than we did back then. Due in part to history itself (IE. There IS more to know), and communication, which is more accessible.
Technologically we are way more advanced (IE. Just reading this blog proves that).
But as a species are we more advanced? Our so-called intelligence hasn't prevented us from being at war constantly.
We "know" that a healthy life (on all levels) requires much more than simply functioning, yet as long as one is functioning, we are satisfied. "You have a job, pay your bills, what do you have to worry or complain about?"
Funny thing is when oneself is simply functioning it's far from enough. We "know" that functioning is not enough for us, but don't have the presence of mind to inquire about others.
Functioning isn't enough for me, what about you?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Privacy
Recently in Canada an insurance company stopped making disability payments to a woman who was on long-term disability due to depression. The reason they (ManuLife Financial) stopped the payments; they went to her Facebook page and saw pictures of her at a party and diagnosed her to be no longer depressed.
A few things caught my attention about this case.
Firstly, why are ManuLife Financial looking up people's Facebook profiles?
Secondly, where will this "search" end? What if they had seen party picture of said woman on someone else's Facebook profile? Would that have been enough to cancel her payments?
Thirdly, and most importantly when someone is chronically depressed, going out, meeting people, socializing, and having fun is a main component of their recovery.
I don't know whether this woman had recovered from her depression, but i do know that ManuLife Financial dropped the ball.
A few things caught my attention about this case.
Firstly, why are ManuLife Financial looking up people's Facebook profiles?
Secondly, where will this "search" end? What if they had seen party picture of said woman on someone else's Facebook profile? Would that have been enough to cancel her payments?
Thirdly, and most importantly when someone is chronically depressed, going out, meeting people, socializing, and having fun is a main component of their recovery.
I don't know whether this woman had recovered from her depression, but i do know that ManuLife Financial dropped the ball.
Ignorance
As a depression sufferer I have too often heard "I've never had it so I don't know".
When a situation occurs and a person recognizes they are ignorant about a topic, usually the person will educate themselves about said topic. Except (of course) if it has to do with mental illness.
For some reason, sufferers of mental illness are mandated to educate the rest of the world about their plight.
The worse part of it all is that in today's communication age, there's no reason to justify ignorance about ANYTHING. Anyone claiming ignorance over any other topic (than mental illness) would not be taken seriously, they would be told to inform themselves.
The responsibility of education lies on the ignorant.
When a situation occurs and a person recognizes they are ignorant about a topic, usually the person will educate themselves about said topic. Except (of course) if it has to do with mental illness.
For some reason, sufferers of mental illness are mandated to educate the rest of the world about their plight.
The worse part of it all is that in today's communication age, there's no reason to justify ignorance about ANYTHING. Anyone claiming ignorance over any other topic (than mental illness) would not be taken seriously, they would be told to inform themselves.
The responsibility of education lies on the ignorant.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Helping oneself or not doing it alone?
One of the biggest obstacles I've encountered during my years of depression and struggling trying to get better, is the commonly heard (mixed) message which tells the depressed person that on one hand they have to "Help Themselves", while at the same time "Don't Try Doing It On Your Own".
Well which is it?
As is with most things, both have some validity, and both have their limits. Some things the person will achieve on their own, others (accomplishments) with outside help.
The problem with telling someone they have to "Help Themselves" is that it literally leaves them out in the cold to do what (until now) they've not been very successful at(!)
Being specific about what they can do for/by themselves is key or they won't know where to start.
As for "Don't Try Doing It On Your Own", that is too often pseudo-sympathy. I was often told to "Not Try By Myself", but the same people who professed those words never offered help or even suggestions.
Unfortunately for those struggling with depression, our disease has often isolated us from others.
Ideally, you do have people close to you, who are trustworthy, caring, and courageous enough to help you through the struggles of the first steps out of depression.
For those who don't, and yes IT IS THE MAJORITY, there is hope. YOU have the courage and strength to make the first step ON YOUR OWN. Call your local mental health center, call or see a doctor, confide in a friend, read up on depression, write in a journal, go for a walk.
It may seem too simple, even useless at the time, but if you do something SPECIFICALLY TO COMBAT YOUR DEPRESSION, you are helping yourself.
Depression is never totally beaten, it always lurks in our minds and bodies. It takes weeks, months, usually years to get a grasp of how to cope with it, each one of us has unique ways of doing so.
So next time someone tells you you need to "Help Yourself", or to "Not Go At It Alone", take it for what it (probably) is; They sympathize, but are not interested in getting involved. And when someone offers help (even if it's just shooting the shit over a cup of coffee), accept graciously.
Well which is it?
As is with most things, both have some validity, and both have their limits. Some things the person will achieve on their own, others (accomplishments) with outside help.
The problem with telling someone they have to "Help Themselves" is that it literally leaves them out in the cold to do what (until now) they've not been very successful at(!)
Being specific about what they can do for/by themselves is key or they won't know where to start.
As for "Don't Try Doing It On Your Own", that is too often pseudo-sympathy. I was often told to "Not Try By Myself", but the same people who professed those words never offered help or even suggestions.
Unfortunately for those struggling with depression, our disease has often isolated us from others.
Ideally, you do have people close to you, who are trustworthy, caring, and courageous enough to help you through the struggles of the first steps out of depression.
For those who don't, and yes IT IS THE MAJORITY, there is hope. YOU have the courage and strength to make the first step ON YOUR OWN. Call your local mental health center, call or see a doctor, confide in a friend, read up on depression, write in a journal, go for a walk.
It may seem too simple, even useless at the time, but if you do something SPECIFICALLY TO COMBAT YOUR DEPRESSION, you are helping yourself.
Depression is never totally beaten, it always lurks in our minds and bodies. It takes weeks, months, usually years to get a grasp of how to cope with it, each one of us has unique ways of doing so.
So next time someone tells you you need to "Help Yourself", or to "Not Go At It Alone", take it for what it (probably) is; They sympathize, but are not interested in getting involved. And when someone offers help (even if it's just shooting the shit over a cup of coffee), accept graciously.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Ignorance is not humility
I saw an interview recently with a retired politician who was being asked about current political issues, specifically the environment and what could be done about it at the government level. He answered (in an un-politician way) "I don't know". One of the panelists congratulated him for his humility, saying that we too rarely hear active politicians admit ignorance.
In this sense,"ignorance" (IE. Ignoring something) and "Humility" (IE. Openly acknowledging one's ignorance) are related.
I'm referring to a more sinister use of language in which people prefer ignoring a situation, and present this ignorance as humility.
It is said over and over again about mental illness that "I haven't had it, so I don't know", when in reality the person is saying "I don't want to know".
Presenting one's ignorance about mental illness as a sign of humility makes it much more acceptable, but truth is they are choosing to remain ignorant, which is anything but humble, it's lazy.
The truly humble person (like the former politician) is one who seeks to educate themselves on what they are ignorant about.
If I ignore what diabetes is all about, how it develops, who's at risk, what it's like to live with and so on. Even admit that ignorance publicly, that doesn't make me humble, it simply makes me ignorant.
The person who educates themselves about the disease is the one showing humility.
In this sense,"ignorance" (IE. Ignoring something) and "Humility" (IE. Openly acknowledging one's ignorance) are related.
I'm referring to a more sinister use of language in which people prefer ignoring a situation, and present this ignorance as humility.
It is said over and over again about mental illness that "I haven't had it, so I don't know", when in reality the person is saying "I don't want to know".
Presenting one's ignorance about mental illness as a sign of humility makes it much more acceptable, but truth is they are choosing to remain ignorant, which is anything but humble, it's lazy.
The truly humble person (like the former politician) is one who seeks to educate themselves on what they are ignorant about.
If I ignore what diabetes is all about, how it develops, who's at risk, what it's like to live with and so on. Even admit that ignorance publicly, that doesn't make me humble, it simply makes me ignorant.
The person who educates themselves about the disease is the one showing humility.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Reality? Not mine.
I've been reading recently different articles and opinions on why "reality television" is as popular as it is.
To my surprise, all writers claim that people watch "reality" shows because they either relate to the participants (think Susan Boyle), see "common people"s troubles magnified (Jon & Kate Plus Eight), or (and this is the most convoluted) enjoy watching celebrities make morons of themselves (Simple Life).
Why this culture is so fascinated with celebrity is still a bit of a mystery to me, but anyone who gets a chuckle out of Paris Hilton ewwwwwwwwwww'ing at the sight of cow manure, or Jose Canseco cage fighting is the being being laughed at.
These celebrity shows and events are targeted at making the audience believe that acting like a jackass equals stardom. They conveniently omit to say that these celebrities became celebrities despite this behaviour, not because of it.
So when I read and hear that viewers feel better about themselves because of these celebrities failures, I can't help but think that's exactly what they (the celebrities) want.
The viewer who watches a "Reality" show where someone makes a total idiot of themselves may be tricked in believing they are "better". But the next day, at the office discussing the show with the colleagues, not knowing if they'll be employed next year, next month, or next week, having to make sure the mortgage is paid, the fridge is full, and the kids are well taken care of, that is REALITY.
That same following day, the celebrities get limousine-driven across town, get wined and dined BY OTHERS, and nanny takes care of the kids. THAT is their reality.
To my surprise, all writers claim that people watch "reality" shows because they either relate to the participants (think Susan Boyle), see "common people"s troubles magnified (Jon & Kate Plus Eight), or (and this is the most convoluted) enjoy watching celebrities make morons of themselves (Simple Life).
Why this culture is so fascinated with celebrity is still a bit of a mystery to me, but anyone who gets a chuckle out of Paris Hilton ewwwwwwwwwww'ing at the sight of cow manure, or Jose Canseco cage fighting is the being being laughed at.
These celebrity shows and events are targeted at making the audience believe that acting like a jackass equals stardom. They conveniently omit to say that these celebrities became celebrities despite this behaviour, not because of it.
So when I read and hear that viewers feel better about themselves because of these celebrities failures, I can't help but think that's exactly what they (the celebrities) want.
The viewer who watches a "Reality" show where someone makes a total idiot of themselves may be tricked in believing they are "better". But the next day, at the office discussing the show with the colleagues, not knowing if they'll be employed next year, next month, or next week, having to make sure the mortgage is paid, the fridge is full, and the kids are well taken care of, that is REALITY.
That same following day, the celebrities get limousine-driven across town, get wined and dined BY OTHERS, and nanny takes care of the kids. THAT is their reality.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The blues
We all utilize the word "blues" to define a depressed mood, and music known as "the blues" is known for it's melancholic nature and awesome musicianship with is often produced by solo artists.
One of my favorite musicians is Eric Clapton, I always appreciated his guitar playing, melancholic lyrics (who doesn't get choked up by "Tears In Heaven"?), and related to some of the difficulties he has overcome (substance abuse, depression, broken relationships). Too bad I never became a rock star!!!
Clapton has always made his blues influence known in song and when discussing music. Several of his hits are remakes of classic blues tunes from such notables as Robert Johnson, J.J. Cale, Buddy Guy, and B.B. King.
While You Tubing earlier, I listened to "San Francisco Bay Blues", a song Clapton used on his 1992 album "Unplugged". I knew it was a remake of an old blues tune, but never took the time to research it's origin until today.You Tube offered a "Peter, Paul, & Mary" version of "San Francisco Bay Blues", and I decided to put it on to see how different it would be than Clapton's.
Peter, Paul, & Mary offer a brief intro to the song which is a lovely tribute to Jesse Fuller who originally wrote the song.
The reason I explain all this is that the introduction to Jesse Fuller, a blues man, is one of the most accurate definitions of depression I've ever heard, yet it was not intended as such at all.
Jesse Fuller is presented as a "One man show" who wrote excruciating sad lyrics, but didn't want to sadden people so he put them to beautiful catchy melodies.
Depression for me has always felt like a "One man show", it's "MY" depression, it makes me brutally sad on the inside, but not wanting to sadden others, I put my sadness to a "beautiful melody". "Yes I feel like this, but....", "It's sad now, but..."
I don't know if Jesse Fuller was depressed, but a "one man show" (loneliness, isolation), sad lyrics (emotions, feelings), sharing his feelings with the public in an "acceptable" way that won't make others uncomfortable. That sounds familiar.
As mentioned earlier, blues music is known for it's melancholic mood, and people often refer to that music as one they listen to when sad. Maybe there's more to why that is than some commonly accepted belief.
Here's the link to the Peter, Paul, & Mary version of "San Francisco Bay Blues"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i59pvOVcwXw&feature=related
One of my favorite musicians is Eric Clapton, I always appreciated his guitar playing, melancholic lyrics (who doesn't get choked up by "Tears In Heaven"?), and related to some of the difficulties he has overcome (substance abuse, depression, broken relationships). Too bad I never became a rock star!!!
Clapton has always made his blues influence known in song and when discussing music. Several of his hits are remakes of classic blues tunes from such notables as Robert Johnson, J.J. Cale, Buddy Guy, and B.B. King.
While You Tubing earlier, I listened to "San Francisco Bay Blues", a song Clapton used on his 1992 album "Unplugged". I knew it was a remake of an old blues tune, but never took the time to research it's origin until today.You Tube offered a "Peter, Paul, & Mary" version of "San Francisco Bay Blues", and I decided to put it on to see how different it would be than Clapton's.
Peter, Paul, & Mary offer a brief intro to the song which is a lovely tribute to Jesse Fuller who originally wrote the song.
The reason I explain all this is that the introduction to Jesse Fuller, a blues man, is one of the most accurate definitions of depression I've ever heard, yet it was not intended as such at all.
Jesse Fuller is presented as a "One man show" who wrote excruciating sad lyrics, but didn't want to sadden people so he put them to beautiful catchy melodies.
Depression for me has always felt like a "One man show", it's "MY" depression, it makes me brutally sad on the inside, but not wanting to sadden others, I put my sadness to a "beautiful melody". "Yes I feel like this, but....", "It's sad now, but..."
I don't know if Jesse Fuller was depressed, but a "one man show" (loneliness, isolation), sad lyrics (emotions, feelings), sharing his feelings with the public in an "acceptable" way that won't make others uncomfortable. That sounds familiar.
As mentioned earlier, blues music is known for it's melancholic mood, and people often refer to that music as one they listen to when sad. Maybe there's more to why that is than some commonly accepted belief.
Here's the link to the Peter, Paul, & Mary version of "San Francisco Bay Blues"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i59pvOVcwXw&feature=related
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Don't tell me I'm smart, dumb, self-aware, ignorant...
A common misconception about depression is that people who have it, or at least while they're going through it are just not intelligent (even if for that period).
In some of my deepest moments of depression, I have been told "oh you're smarter than that". Because I had lost a job, broken a relationship, or just acted "strangely", I was simply "being stupid" or "acting out".
In one of my most recent deep depressive episodes, I was in a counselor's office and told her bluntly "don't tell me I'm smart or self-aware, because if I were so f***ing smart and self-aware, I wouldn't be here!!"
One of the beefs I've had with people's take on depression is that they ignore (purposely or not is debatable) the fact that depression is an illness just like diabetes and epilepsy. The conversation often turns to the person's intelligence, self-awareness, or laziness.
The person going through a depressive episode is not any dumber nor smarter than before, their self-awareness hasn't magically disappeared or appeared. They may have less energy, but they are not any lazier than they might have been previously.
Having suffered several depressive episodes of different magnitude, including one very recently, I'm not smarter now for having overcome it, just like I wasn't stupid while it was happening.
My intelligence, self-awareness, work ethic have nothing to do with my depression. My depression is an illness that can affect several aspects of my life which may lead to behaviours which are not smart, lead to actions I do not think out enough before doing, may sap energy from me. But that is the depression.
Do I have responsibility regarding those actions and behaviours, of course I do. The depression didn't act inappropriately, I did. So the responsibility lies on me.
But the responsibility of understanding what lead to those behaviours lies on the shoulders of everyone else.
Either we treat depressed people as sometimes intelligent and sometimes dumb, or we look ourselves in the mirror and recognize that ignorance is never intelligent.
In some of my deepest moments of depression, I have been told "oh you're smarter than that". Because I had lost a job, broken a relationship, or just acted "strangely", I was simply "being stupid" or "acting out".
In one of my most recent deep depressive episodes, I was in a counselor's office and told her bluntly "don't tell me I'm smart or self-aware, because if I were so f***ing smart and self-aware, I wouldn't be here!!"
One of the beefs I've had with people's take on depression is that they ignore (purposely or not is debatable) the fact that depression is an illness just like diabetes and epilepsy. The conversation often turns to the person's intelligence, self-awareness, or laziness.
The person going through a depressive episode is not any dumber nor smarter than before, their self-awareness hasn't magically disappeared or appeared. They may have less energy, but they are not any lazier than they might have been previously.
Having suffered several depressive episodes of different magnitude, including one very recently, I'm not smarter now for having overcome it, just like I wasn't stupid while it was happening.
My intelligence, self-awareness, work ethic have nothing to do with my depression. My depression is an illness that can affect several aspects of my life which may lead to behaviours which are not smart, lead to actions I do not think out enough before doing, may sap energy from me. But that is the depression.
Do I have responsibility regarding those actions and behaviours, of course I do. The depression didn't act inappropriately, I did. So the responsibility lies on me.
But the responsibility of understanding what lead to those behaviours lies on the shoulders of everyone else.
Either we treat depressed people as sometimes intelligent and sometimes dumb, or we look ourselves in the mirror and recognize that ignorance is never intelligent.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Men and disclosure
I hit on this a bit yesterday, but I feel I need to clear a few things up.
Traditional gender-role defines men as protectors and providers, so men seeking help for psychological distress is counter intuitive.
Our modern world has made positive strides in un-stereotyping gender-roles, but the idea of the male as being strong, healthy, and self-reliant still remains.
Males disclose less (than women) because it goes against our nature, and society does not truly embrace it. At best it is tolerated.
On a deeper level, as a species can we accept our defenders and protectors being prone to psychological impairment?
Traditional gender-role defines men as protectors and providers, so men seeking help for psychological distress is counter intuitive.
Our modern world has made positive strides in un-stereotyping gender-roles, but the idea of the male as being strong, healthy, and self-reliant still remains.
Males disclose less (than women) because it goes against our nature, and society does not truly embrace it. At best it is tolerated.
On a deeper level, as a species can we accept our defenders and protectors being prone to psychological impairment?
Sunday, November 1, 2009
In the mind of the depressive
I am often asked what does it feel to be depressed, how does a depressed person think, what is it like in the mind of the depressive.
Here's a sample of how depression acts in my mind.
Hearing about the "successes" of people who have had depression (or other mental illnesses) such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, or (mathematician) John Nash does not help. The depressed person wants to know how to cope with their depression, not what they haven't (and more than likely never will!!!) achieved.
Telling the depressed person not to wait until it's "too late" is (to the depressed person) totally selfish. "Too late" for who exactly? Just because a person hasn't attempted or threatened anything drastic doesn't mean it's not "too late" in their mind.
In my deepest depressive moments, when I'd hear "don't wait until it's too late", I'd reply (in my mind) "why the F*** are YOU waiting until it's too late?"
The depressed mind can be angry, but also very wise and logical.
Specifically regarding men, the man doesn't want to hear the broken record (because that's what it is) of "you never say anything", he wants to hear "I'm listening".
Still in reference to men, they are often criticized for not disclosing ailments, especially psychological. Before criticizing men for lack of disclosure, do we ever question ourselves as to whether we would be comfortable with men openly suffering? Isn't the disclosure of psychological weakness by a male a show of strength precisely because it is the exception? Are we truly proud of those who disclose? Think of the families who have more than one male with mental illness, do we revere them for openness, or rather pity them, and in worse case scenarios mock them?
Several of these thoughts / beliefs are bleak, and uncomfortable to read. Unfortunately they are true in the mind of the depressed person.
Only by understanding and accepting these cognitive differences can we slowly eliminate the stigma.
Here's a sample of how depression acts in my mind.
Hearing about the "successes" of people who have had depression (or other mental illnesses) such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, or (mathematician) John Nash does not help. The depressed person wants to know how to cope with their depression, not what they haven't (and more than likely never will!!!) achieved.
Telling the depressed person not to wait until it's "too late" is (to the depressed person) totally selfish. "Too late" for who exactly? Just because a person hasn't attempted or threatened anything drastic doesn't mean it's not "too late" in their mind.
In my deepest depressive moments, when I'd hear "don't wait until it's too late", I'd reply (in my mind) "why the F*** are YOU waiting until it's too late?"
The depressed mind can be angry, but also very wise and logical.
Specifically regarding men, the man doesn't want to hear the broken record (because that's what it is) of "you never say anything", he wants to hear "I'm listening".
Still in reference to men, they are often criticized for not disclosing ailments, especially psychological. Before criticizing men for lack of disclosure, do we ever question ourselves as to whether we would be comfortable with men openly suffering? Isn't the disclosure of psychological weakness by a male a show of strength precisely because it is the exception? Are we truly proud of those who disclose? Think of the families who have more than one male with mental illness, do we revere them for openness, or rather pity them, and in worse case scenarios mock them?
Several of these thoughts / beliefs are bleak, and uncomfortable to read. Unfortunately they are true in the mind of the depressed person.
Only by understanding and accepting these cognitive differences can we slowly eliminate the stigma.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
I'm ashamed
Canada is advertised as one of the best countries to live in. Health care, stable government, stable and diverse economy, open to immigration, and safe. Those are some undeniable truths about my homeland.
Unfortunately, Canada remains much too passive in regards to mental health, substance abuse, and poverty.
Canadians accept having people with mental illness and substance abuse problems roam the streets while getting themselves and others in all sorts of trouble even though these same people are so disabled they do not have the capacity to get necessary treatment on their own.
Recently, a friend of mine passed away. Alone, drinking being the last and only thing which kept her going is ironically what killed her.
In Canada, a life such as that is seen as fine. Not healthy, and not what most what want for themselves, but since she was quiet, paid her rent, and wasn't a nuisance to others, that was plenty.
In Vancouver alone, thousands live on the street. What do they get? Ignored, either by soulless individuals who consider the homeless lazy, or by the truly ignorant who (choose to not know) by convincing themselves and others that they "don't know what to do".
Thousands more live empty lives, lonely, doing what is expected regardless of how they feel about it. When they express their disenchantment, they get rewarded with criticism of how they are "ungrateful".
Canada is a country of abundance. A country rich in fresh water, beautiful forests, mountains, bordering three oceans. Yet when it comes to people, Canadians settle for their fellow neighbours to basically survive. If they are happy or not, healthy or not is irrelevant. As long as one pays the bills and isn't a nuisance they're a good citizen.
This attitude of simply settling and having no genuine interest in the improvement in the lives of society's people is shameful.
Unfortunately, Canada remains much too passive in regards to mental health, substance abuse, and poverty.
Canadians accept having people with mental illness and substance abuse problems roam the streets while getting themselves and others in all sorts of trouble even though these same people are so disabled they do not have the capacity to get necessary treatment on their own.
Recently, a friend of mine passed away. Alone, drinking being the last and only thing which kept her going is ironically what killed her.
In Canada, a life such as that is seen as fine. Not healthy, and not what most what want for themselves, but since she was quiet, paid her rent, and wasn't a nuisance to others, that was plenty.
In Vancouver alone, thousands live on the street. What do they get? Ignored, either by soulless individuals who consider the homeless lazy, or by the truly ignorant who (choose to not know) by convincing themselves and others that they "don't know what to do".
Thousands more live empty lives, lonely, doing what is expected regardless of how they feel about it. When they express their disenchantment, they get rewarded with criticism of how they are "ungrateful".
Canada is a country of abundance. A country rich in fresh water, beautiful forests, mountains, bordering three oceans. Yet when it comes to people, Canadians settle for their fellow neighbours to basically survive. If they are happy or not, healthy or not is irrelevant. As long as one pays the bills and isn't a nuisance they're a good citizen.
This attitude of simply settling and having no genuine interest in the improvement in the lives of society's people is shameful.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Theoren Fleury
Theoren Fleury was an NHL star in the late 80's and through the 90's. He was known as one of the feistiest and hardest working players. Being only 5'5", he was the smallest player in a league known for it's physicality and violence.
On the ice he was regularly seen antagonizing opponents with his relentless play, but also with his mouth, "yapping" at others.
Off the ice, he had a reputation as a bad boy who drank a lot and rumours of drugs followed him.
In 1997, Graham James, Fleury's former coach at the junior level was convicted of more than 350 incidents of sexual abuse involving at least two former Swift Current players and served three years in prison.
Fleury never came forward as being a player James molested until now.
Fleury's autobiography "Playing with fire" is coming out next week. In it he talks openly and graphically about the abuse James inflicted on him and how it has affected him to this day.
Why am I talking about this? Am I pimping Fleury's book? No, Theo's story is just all too common.
Not necessarily the the sexual abuse (although that is rampant is all spheres of society), but rather how he was left to himself, and no one was interested in his reality.
I'm just as guilty as anyone else, as a hockey fan, I loved his enthusiasm on the ice, and learning of his off ice indiscretions was always funny.
There's nothing funny about Theo Fleury's life, and having gone through depression, I share the pain, emptiness, and loneliness he lives. Circumstances are very different, but the feelings of uselessness are wearily similar.
People loved Theo for his on-ice prowess, for his "manliness" of partying, but when he crossed the line (by the same others definition), they bailed on him. We fans, his team, the league gave up on the trouble-making Theo.
Now he's clean, sober, and freeing himself (very publicly) of horrors he's carried for over 20 years, and we love him (personally, I find that rather hypocritical since we weren't there when he truly needed help).
Theo, you're an absolute hero, not for trying a come back this year (he tried out unsuccessfully with his old team the Calgary Flames), not for writing a book, not even for "coming out".
Theo, you're a hero for being clean, sober and healthy again.
Excerpt from Fleury's book:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/postedsports/archive/2009/10/10/book-excerpt-fleury-s-playing-with-fire.aspx
On the ice he was regularly seen antagonizing opponents with his relentless play, but also with his mouth, "yapping" at others.
Off the ice, he had a reputation as a bad boy who drank a lot and rumours of drugs followed him.
In 1997, Graham James, Fleury's former coach at the junior level was convicted of more than 350 incidents of sexual abuse involving at least two former Swift Current players and served three years in prison.
Fleury never came forward as being a player James molested until now.
Fleury's autobiography "Playing with fire" is coming out next week. In it he talks openly and graphically about the abuse James inflicted on him and how it has affected him to this day.
Why am I talking about this? Am I pimping Fleury's book? No, Theo's story is just all too common.
Not necessarily the the sexual abuse (although that is rampant is all spheres of society), but rather how he was left to himself, and no one was interested in his reality.
I'm just as guilty as anyone else, as a hockey fan, I loved his enthusiasm on the ice, and learning of his off ice indiscretions was always funny.
There's nothing funny about Theo Fleury's life, and having gone through depression, I share the pain, emptiness, and loneliness he lives. Circumstances are very different, but the feelings of uselessness are wearily similar.
People loved Theo for his on-ice prowess, for his "manliness" of partying, but when he crossed the line (by the same others definition), they bailed on him. We fans, his team, the league gave up on the trouble-making Theo.
Now he's clean, sober, and freeing himself (very publicly) of horrors he's carried for over 20 years, and we love him (personally, I find that rather hypocritical since we weren't there when he truly needed help).
Theo, you're an absolute hero, not for trying a come back this year (he tried out unsuccessfully with his old team the Calgary Flames), not for writing a book, not even for "coming out".
Theo, you're a hero for being clean, sober and healthy again.
Excerpt from Fleury's book:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/postedsports/archive/2009/10/10/book-excerpt-fleury-s-playing-with-fire.aspx
Monday, September 21, 2009
Maybe I am normal after all
a big part of my recovery has been to established what I wanted out of life. Professionally, relationship-wise, socially, economically.
At first glance, those things seemed boring to me. Just "get a job", "settle down", "raise a family", and.....well, die.
After months of fighting it, I have come to understand that work (as in contributing to societ) is an important part of a person's life. Not to mention that we spend 40+ hours a week at it. At the same time, a profession or vocation need not be a burden, and in fact can be fulfilling.
As for relationships, humans are a social animal for whom human interaction is not only important, but necessary. Relationships comport several different types; romantic, friendships, family (of origin as well as extended), colleagues...
When it comes to socio-economic status, that is one I still somewhat struggle with (albeit a lot less) because of the outdated class structure which still prevails.
I have though come to terms with what I want to do professionally (work in mental health), even though it will require years of schooling, the fact i have a specific goal that *I* set makes it all worthwhile.
Relationship wise, I've been blessed with a small, but incredible group of lovely friends, and the person who has had the most positive impact on my life ever, Jessica.
Socially and economically I'm doing much better than previously, but still not as good as others my age (for those who want to compare), but I don't worry about that any more. I'm not into comparisons, I'm happy and content with my life and where it's going.
Although my life seems somewhat "normal", is it so bad? I don't think so.
At first glance, those things seemed boring to me. Just "get a job", "settle down", "raise a family", and.....well, die.
After months of fighting it, I have come to understand that work (as in contributing to societ) is an important part of a person's life. Not to mention that we spend 40+ hours a week at it. At the same time, a profession or vocation need not be a burden, and in fact can be fulfilling.
As for relationships, humans are a social animal for whom human interaction is not only important, but necessary. Relationships comport several different types; romantic, friendships, family (of origin as well as extended), colleagues...
When it comes to socio-economic status, that is one I still somewhat struggle with (albeit a lot less) because of the outdated class structure which still prevails.
I have though come to terms with what I want to do professionally (work in mental health), even though it will require years of schooling, the fact i have a specific goal that *I* set makes it all worthwhile.
Relationship wise, I've been blessed with a small, but incredible group of lovely friends, and the person who has had the most positive impact on my life ever, Jessica.
Socially and economically I'm doing much better than previously, but still not as good as others my age (for those who want to compare), but I don't worry about that any more. I'm not into comparisons, I'm happy and content with my life and where it's going.
Although my life seems somewhat "normal", is it so bad? I don't think so.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
I've become the man I've always been
The past 12-18 months have been the most fulfilling in my entire adult life so far. As poetic as this sounds, it has not been a joyride.
After losing a job for the humpteenth time, breaking up friendships, lacking any direction and meaning in my life, I "decided" (brackets because the options were rather slim) to get help. Getting help for mental health issues in British Columbia in 2008-2009 is excruciatingly difficult. Considering the person is already crippled by mental illness, the hoops one has to jump through in order to get help (medical, therapeutic, counseling, financial...) are unacceptable. I'm digressing as I will elaborate on this at a later date.
As I (very slowly) got help for different aspects of my life (medical, counseling, career counseling...), one main theme kept coming back. Most of what I've always beliefs and values, as well as what I wanted were not only true and possible, but part of who I am.
I believed in wanting to make the world a better and fairer place, I believed that just because things "are" the way they are doesn't necessarily make it right. I valued helping those in need WHEN THEY ARE IN NEED (IE. Not congratulating them (indirectly ourselves retroactively). The less agreeable part of me believed people to be hypocritical by sharing/taking credit for successes, but never accepting any responsibility for failures. For purposely avoiding sensitive situations (IE. (Potential) Mental illness) on account of "lack of knowledge" yet having strong opinions on the same topics when not directly involved.
The greatest thing I have gotten in the past 18 months is my health, 2nd is Jessica, and thirdly I would have to say is myself!!
I've come not only to accept that my beliefs, values, goals, ambitions are part of who I am. Granted, I don't always do things the conventional way, I may be "a dreamer", that doesn't make it wrong (or right for that matter!!), it just is who I am, and I can now say that I LOVE that.
I've become the man I've always been.
After losing a job for the humpteenth time, breaking up friendships, lacking any direction and meaning in my life, I "decided" (brackets because the options were rather slim) to get help. Getting help for mental health issues in British Columbia in 2008-2009 is excruciatingly difficult. Considering the person is already crippled by mental illness, the hoops one has to jump through in order to get help (medical, therapeutic, counseling, financial...) are unacceptable. I'm digressing as I will elaborate on this at a later date.
As I (very slowly) got help for different aspects of my life (medical, counseling, career counseling...), one main theme kept coming back. Most of what I've always beliefs and values, as well as what I wanted were not only true and possible, but part of who I am.
I believed in wanting to make the world a better and fairer place, I believed that just because things "are" the way they are doesn't necessarily make it right. I valued helping those in need WHEN THEY ARE IN NEED (IE. Not congratulating them (indirectly ourselves retroactively). The less agreeable part of me believed people to be hypocritical by sharing/taking credit for successes, but never accepting any responsibility for failures. For purposely avoiding sensitive situations (IE. (Potential) Mental illness) on account of "lack of knowledge" yet having strong opinions on the same topics when not directly involved.
The greatest thing I have gotten in the past 18 months is my health, 2nd is Jessica, and thirdly I would have to say is myself!!
I've come not only to accept that my beliefs, values, goals, ambitions are part of who I am. Granted, I don't always do things the conventional way, I may be "a dreamer", that doesn't make it wrong (or right for that matter!!), it just is who I am, and I can now say that I LOVE that.
I've become the man I've always been.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
I knew myself more than I thought
I written about this previously, but I still get reminders of how I really knew my beliefs and values, as well as what i truly wanted from life, but let other people influence may away from that.
I have been described as "idealistic", and in the past I would silently get angry at that label, thinking that if we want to achieve an ideal, we have to believe in it first. I also saw hypocrisy in that label as I'd think "how come people are so complimentary of people like Mother Teresa, Jean Vanier, Emmett Johns, yet when I "dream" of something, it's "unrealistic"".
I was also bothered by "secrets" (especially family secrets which were elephants in the room). For the longest time I believed things were not talked about on purpose, we practically just talked about the weather.
Venturing into a topic like "I have not been feeling well recently" was subtly discouraged; "you feel ok right now", "look at what you do have".... To me that sounded empty, avoidance.
I see now how that WAS avoidance, no malice intended, just that our society does not view talking about difficulties as a good thing. We are taught very young to "just talk about positive things", to "not bother others with your troubles, they have their own". Somehow ALL "troubles" are to be solved alone.
Coming back to the beginning of this post, I knew (subconsciously) that there was something wrong with the entire premise of "Just say positive things and keep your problems to yourself". At the time I wasn't versed enough to call it DENIAL.
In the same way, we are "proud" of a person AFTER they've achieved something, or recovered.
Why weren't we proud when they were trying to achieve, or sick and on they way to recovery?
Perhaps I'm unconventional, but I truly believe that education about mental illness involves talking about it, and getting involved (whether with a family member, friend, colleague...)
Avoidance of (talking about) the issue only confirms the long standing fallacy that mental illness is "bad" and unworthy of attention.
I have been described as "idealistic", and in the past I would silently get angry at that label, thinking that if we want to achieve an ideal, we have to believe in it first. I also saw hypocrisy in that label as I'd think "how come people are so complimentary of people like Mother Teresa, Jean Vanier, Emmett Johns, yet when I "dream" of something, it's "unrealistic"".
I was also bothered by "secrets" (especially family secrets which were elephants in the room). For the longest time I believed things were not talked about on purpose, we practically just talked about the weather.
Venturing into a topic like "I have not been feeling well recently" was subtly discouraged; "you feel ok right now", "look at what you do have".... To me that sounded empty, avoidance.
I see now how that WAS avoidance, no malice intended, just that our society does not view talking about difficulties as a good thing. We are taught very young to "just talk about positive things", to "not bother others with your troubles, they have their own". Somehow ALL "troubles" are to be solved alone.
Coming back to the beginning of this post, I knew (subconsciously) that there was something wrong with the entire premise of "Just say positive things and keep your problems to yourself". At the time I wasn't versed enough to call it DENIAL.
In the same way, we are "proud" of a person AFTER they've achieved something, or recovered.
Why weren't we proud when they were trying to achieve, or sick and on they way to recovery?
Perhaps I'm unconventional, but I truly believe that education about mental illness involves talking about it, and getting involved (whether with a family member, friend, colleague...)
Avoidance of (talking about) the issue only confirms the long standing fallacy that mental illness is "bad" and unworthy of attention.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Education and early detection
Article on CBC.ca http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/08/28/preschooler-depression.html
At first glance I felt sadness at children going through the most misunderstood and ridiculed disease in our (so-called advanced) society, but re-reading the article gives me hope that some people are looking for early signs of depression.
It is common knowledge that early detection of any disease is the best remedy. That the more educated one is about a disease, the better they will be prepared to fight it, and that same education is what will eradicate any stigmas.
There obviously remains a lot of work to be done, medically and socially (look at some of the ignorant posts on that story for example).
But seeing studies like this being published and reported is a step in the right direction. The results might be somewhat disconcerting, but it's reporting a problem we can learn more about, and tackle from a position of knowledge.
At first glance I felt sadness at children going through the most misunderstood and ridiculed disease in our (so-called advanced) society, but re-reading the article gives me hope that some people are looking for early signs of depression.
It is common knowledge that early detection of any disease is the best remedy. That the more educated one is about a disease, the better they will be prepared to fight it, and that same education is what will eradicate any stigmas.
There obviously remains a lot of work to be done, medically and socially (look at some of the ignorant posts on that story for example).
But seeing studies like this being published and reported is a step in the right direction. The results might be somewhat disconcerting, but it's reporting a problem we can learn more about, and tackle from a position of knowledge.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Am I better?
Having gone through the most painful recovery process of my life in the past 2.5 years has not (in my mind) made me a better person, but rather a more aware, honest, and humble person.
Obviously awareness, honesty, and humility are good qualities, but did I go from not having them to suddenly having them? I think not.
Being told I'm a "better" person is (in my view) telling me I wasn't a very good person in the past. Now, I have done things I'm not proud of, that were hurtful to others, but the whole "you're a better person now" idea comes off as patronizing to me.
It comes back to my main point about mental illness, depression, and how those who do not have it have a responsibility to educate themselves about it, and get involved.
While the (depressed / sick) person is ill is precisely when they need help and support.
Patting the back of those who have fought their way out of depression is lame, as it is too easy.
Lame excuses like "I don't know what to do", or "he'll just say no" (without trying), and then turning around and congratulating him when he's "better" is hypocritical at best, a blatant lie at worse.
Acceptance of these mediocre excuses reinforces the stigma of mental illness.
Go help your brother, cousin, or colleague who's been down in the dumps lately. The one who's been isolating. Give him a phone call, offer to go to coffee, a movie, golf, dinner, anything. He might say no (highly likely actually), but you know what, when he does get better HE WILL REMEMBER THAT YOU TRIED.
Obviously awareness, honesty, and humility are good qualities, but did I go from not having them to suddenly having them? I think not.
Being told I'm a "better" person is (in my view) telling me I wasn't a very good person in the past. Now, I have done things I'm not proud of, that were hurtful to others, but the whole "you're a better person now" idea comes off as patronizing to me.
It comes back to my main point about mental illness, depression, and how those who do not have it have a responsibility to educate themselves about it, and get involved.
While the (depressed / sick) person is ill is precisely when they need help and support.
Patting the back of those who have fought their way out of depression is lame, as it is too easy.
Lame excuses like "I don't know what to do", or "he'll just say no" (without trying), and then turning around and congratulating him when he's "better" is hypocritical at best, a blatant lie at worse.
Acceptance of these mediocre excuses reinforces the stigma of mental illness.
Go help your brother, cousin, or colleague who's been down in the dumps lately. The one who's been isolating. Give him a phone call, offer to go to coffee, a movie, golf, dinner, anything. He might say no (highly likely actually), but you know what, when he does get better HE WILL REMEMBER THAT YOU TRIED.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Maybe it is the destination after all
We often hear how life's "a journey, not a destination" (even Aerosmith used those lyrics!!), but if we see happiness as a destination, then the journey IS secondary.
People, groups, and organizations such as religions, political parties, even businesses do not promote their beliefs in order for people to be happier, or even better off. All they want is more membership, more promotion of their beliefs / ideas, and more goods or services being consumed.
They blind the public with the idea that by feeling better temporarily (during prayer, when in office, when consuming such a product...), it will lead to longer term happiness, but that never occurs (which, by the way, they knew all along!!)
They will also create a false impression of community, by pushing the idea of "Do like us, we're smart, popular, you want to be like us".
That last part is one of the biggest problems, most people DO NOT want to be LIKE others, we want our own uniqueness to shine. We all want and NEED to be with others, but remain unique within the group.
In order to achieve happiness, people take numerous different paths. Everything from social groups, religion, politics, activism...
The paths are infinite, the destination is unique.
People, groups, and organizations such as religions, political parties, even businesses do not promote their beliefs in order for people to be happier, or even better off. All they want is more membership, more promotion of their beliefs / ideas, and more goods or services being consumed.
They blind the public with the idea that by feeling better temporarily (during prayer, when in office, when consuming such a product...), it will lead to longer term happiness, but that never occurs (which, by the way, they knew all along!!)
They will also create a false impression of community, by pushing the idea of "Do like us, we're smart, popular, you want to be like us".
That last part is one of the biggest problems, most people DO NOT want to be LIKE others, we want our own uniqueness to shine. We all want and NEED to be with others, but remain unique within the group.
In order to achieve happiness, people take numerous different paths. Everything from social groups, religion, politics, activism...
The paths are infinite, the destination is unique.
Monday, August 17, 2009
How much of your life is chosen?
We live in a society which emphasizes autonomy, independence, fending for one self. When a person finds themselves in a predicament, we often hear that they "made a wrong choice".
But how much choice do we truly have? Nobody chose to be born when and where they were. To the parents they had. We definitely do not chose our physiology, or how it operates. Our breathing, the blood flowing through our veins, the thousands of synapses in our brain every minute are not of our choosing.
Even large parts of our social lives are not chosen. We are a social species, we didn't chose that. We only have minimal choice in our friends. We live in such a neighbourhood through where and how our parents brought us up. We go to school because (although it is a positive thing) we pretty much have to (it could be argued that we "chose" education as a society). So we choose our friends within a limited sample.
Work wise, most people "choose" a job that happens to be available, one which offers benefits we like (choosing the benefits over the job!!), or one within our chosen profession, but we are still confined to the location, rules, and operating procedures of said job.
Would we say the person with diabetes, cancer or heart disease "chose" that? Of course not.
So in the same way, when we hear about or see a person with depression or another mental illness which perhaps incapacitates them to the point of living on the street, lets not flatter ourselves by seeing them as having made "poor choices", rather that they didn't have the opportunity to chose.
But how much choice do we truly have? Nobody chose to be born when and where they were. To the parents they had. We definitely do not chose our physiology, or how it operates. Our breathing, the blood flowing through our veins, the thousands of synapses in our brain every minute are not of our choosing.
Even large parts of our social lives are not chosen. We are a social species, we didn't chose that. We only have minimal choice in our friends. We live in such a neighbourhood through where and how our parents brought us up. We go to school because (although it is a positive thing) we pretty much have to (it could be argued that we "chose" education as a society). So we choose our friends within a limited sample.
Work wise, most people "choose" a job that happens to be available, one which offers benefits we like (choosing the benefits over the job!!), or one within our chosen profession, but we are still confined to the location, rules, and operating procedures of said job.
Would we say the person with diabetes, cancer or heart disease "chose" that? Of course not.
So in the same way, when we hear about or see a person with depression or another mental illness which perhaps incapacitates them to the point of living on the street, lets not flatter ourselves by seeing them as having made "poor choices", rather that they didn't have the opportunity to chose.
Monday, August 10, 2009
I didn't wake up one day and feel better
Too often I have heard and read statements about people who just "woke up one day and decided to feel better" and their depression was gone. I hate to break it to you, but that's not how it works.
I can point to specific dates and times which were determining in my recovery (like October 11th 2007 when I FINALLY called the local Mental Health Authority and began the process).
But I also remember tonnes of times when I'd tell myself "Ok, this is it I'm just going to feel better", it didn't work and I felt WORSE.
Recovery is a process, an on-going process at that. I'm not cured, I have achieved a good level of stability which I want to keep, and involves several things including medication, regular exercise, proper diet.
If you're looking to get better, slowly getting there, or even unsure, remember that it's ongoing.
I have days were I remind myself of where I was, how I felt, how I never want that ever again, and that I've gotten what I have through consistent self-discipline, and constant work. Not some magical idea that I'll "will it away".
I can point to specific dates and times which were determining in my recovery (like October 11th 2007 when I FINALLY called the local Mental Health Authority and began the process).
But I also remember tonnes of times when I'd tell myself "Ok, this is it I'm just going to feel better", it didn't work and I felt WORSE.
Recovery is a process, an on-going process at that. I'm not cured, I have achieved a good level of stability which I want to keep, and involves several things including medication, regular exercise, proper diet.
If you're looking to get better, slowly getting there, or even unsure, remember that it's ongoing.
I have days were I remind myself of where I was, how I felt, how I never want that ever again, and that I've gotten what I have through consistent self-discipline, and constant work. Not some magical idea that I'll "will it away".
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Do what you truly enjoy
I have often felt guilty of wanting to do (work wise) what I like. As if I was asking for some sort of privilege. Until recently, I have thought of a person's profession as nothing more than an obligation. Work - lodge, feed, clothe yourself - pay you bills. After that (whatever time is left), do what you enjoy.
As if wanting a metier which involves one's likes is being finicky.
I also believed that those who (allegedly) enjoy what they do are exceptions such as athletes and entertainers. That only prodigies can achieve this because of their exceptional talent(s).
That "average Joe Schmo" can only hope for potential fun/happiness during "off hours".
No wonder people are depressed. If all we have to look forward to is a potential 45 minutes of our favorite activity tomorrow (assuming all goes well at work, and bills are all paid up).
Fortunately, more people are seeing the correlation between working in a job one enjoys and improved mental health!!
Don't let false "obligations" (IE. Socio-economic status) get in the way of following your passions.
Better to live a more humble lifestyle and be healthy than rich and miserable.
As if wanting a metier which involves one's likes is being finicky.
I also believed that those who (allegedly) enjoy what they do are exceptions such as athletes and entertainers. That only prodigies can achieve this because of their exceptional talent(s).
That "average Joe Schmo" can only hope for potential fun/happiness during "off hours".
No wonder people are depressed. If all we have to look forward to is a potential 45 minutes of our favorite activity tomorrow (assuming all goes well at work, and bills are all paid up).
Fortunately, more people are seeing the correlation between working in a job one enjoys and improved mental health!!
Don't let false "obligations" (IE. Socio-economic status) get in the way of following your passions.
Better to live a more humble lifestyle and be healthy than rich and miserable.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
What is normal?
I have just completed a class entitled "Abnormal Psychology" in which we studied psychological ailments / diseases.
I understand the word "abnormal" in this context, but still feel it contributes to the marginalization of mentally ill people, and the stigma attached to mental illness.
So what exactly is normal? Dictionary.com defines "Normal" as:
The first definition is rather common, the second applies to psychological disorders, but I am intrigued by the 3rd one "Free from any infection or other form of disease". Linguistically I agree that someone who is dis-eased is not "normal", but would we ever dare call someone with diabetes or cancer "abnormal"?
Coming back to the first definition, "conforming to a standard type....natural, regular", there's an aspect of conformity, that somehow originality would not be normal.
I believe the common understanding of what a normal person is simply "Someone who's not a burden". After all it's not "normal" to not fend for oneself (work and pay one's bills), to not be able to overcome difficulties (we congratulate people 's successes, we don't get involved when they suffer).
The normal person is the one who works, pays their taxes, doesn't break the law, and isn't a nuisance to others.
By that (common) definition, maybe we can see why those who's mental disease incapacitates their functioning at work, interferes with their economic capacity, and makes them NEED THE HELP of others actually don't seek help.....it's not normal.
I understand the word "abnormal" in this context, but still feel it contributes to the marginalization of mentally ill people, and the stigma attached to mental illness.
So what exactly is normal? Dictionary.com defines "Normal" as:
| 1. | conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. |
| 2. | serving to establish a standard. |
| 3. | Psychology.
|
| 4. | Biology, Medicine/Medical.
|
The first definition is rather common, the second applies to psychological disorders, but I am intrigued by the 3rd one "Free from any infection or other form of disease". Linguistically I agree that someone who is dis-eased is not "normal", but would we ever dare call someone with diabetes or cancer "abnormal"?
Coming back to the first definition, "conforming to a standard type....natural, regular", there's an aspect of conformity, that somehow originality would not be normal.
I believe the common understanding of what a normal person is simply "Someone who's not a burden". After all it's not "normal" to not fend for oneself (work and pay one's bills), to not be able to overcome difficulties (we congratulate people 's successes, we don't get involved when they suffer).
The normal person is the one who works, pays their taxes, doesn't break the law, and isn't a nuisance to others.
By that (common) definition, maybe we can see why those who's mental disease incapacitates their functioning at work, interferes with their economic capacity, and makes them NEED THE HELP of others actually don't seek help.....it's not normal.
Monday, August 3, 2009
It's a matter of trust
It is said that people suffering Depression, addiction and other mental illnesses often have difficulty trusting others while getting better.
There's a very valid reason for this; the very people requiring trust are the very people the person suffering could not trust when they were ill.
To the depressive who is getting better, the people asking (directly or not) to be trusted including family, friends, colleagues, even medical professionals are the same people who "let them down" when they (the depressive) were going through their worse times, those people (often) were not there. Either they literally were not present, they "didn't know what to do", repeated platitudes such as "snap out of it", or (as to often is the case) pretended like everything was ok.
This is a large reason why depressives are (justifiably) angry.
The Catch-22 here is that as untrustworthy as people are when dealing with others' mental illness, the best way to health is by letting people (back) into our lives.
The doctor who prescribes medication "X" can be trusted to the extent that he knows what he's doing. The family member, friend or colleague who invites you out, or accepts your invitation can be trusted for that event (and other similar things), but it does not mean they suddenly "know what to do", or that their previous behaviour was appropriate.
How much we trust people is always tricky, but more so after having gone through depression and feeling like we were left on our own.
Accepting others ignorance has actually helped me in that I see it as an opportunity for me to advocate for people with depression, and educate those without.
There's a very valid reason for this; the very people requiring trust are the very people the person suffering could not trust when they were ill.
To the depressive who is getting better, the people asking (directly or not) to be trusted including family, friends, colleagues, even medical professionals are the same people who "let them down" when they (the depressive) were going through their worse times, those people (often) were not there. Either they literally were not present, they "didn't know what to do", repeated platitudes such as "snap out of it", or (as to often is the case) pretended like everything was ok.
This is a large reason why depressives are (justifiably) angry.
The Catch-22 here is that as untrustworthy as people are when dealing with others' mental illness, the best way to health is by letting people (back) into our lives.
The doctor who prescribes medication "X" can be trusted to the extent that he knows what he's doing. The family member, friend or colleague who invites you out, or accepts your invitation can be trusted for that event (and other similar things), but it does not mean they suddenly "know what to do", or that their previous behaviour was appropriate.
How much we trust people is always tricky, but more so after having gone through depression and feeling like we were left on our own.
Accepting others ignorance has actually helped me in that I see it as an opportunity for me to advocate for people with depression, and educate those without.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Love / Hate / Indifference
It is said that the opposite of love is not hate, but rather indifference. If you hate someone, you are still acknowledging them, whereas by being indifferent, it's as if they don't even exist.
Now imagine suffering from mental illness and having people indifferent to it. They "don't know what to do", they "don't want to interfere", basically they are just full of excuses to not do anything.
A large part of mental illness is feelings of loneliness, of being "misunderstood", of not "fitting in", and when others are indifferent to it, it amplifies those symptoms.
Now imagine suffering from mental illness and having people indifferent to it. They "don't know what to do", they "don't want to interfere", basically they are just full of excuses to not do anything.
A large part of mental illness is feelings of loneliness, of being "misunderstood", of not "fitting in", and when others are indifferent to it, it amplifies those symptoms.
Ideas I've been writing
Just because "that's the way it goes" doesn't make it right. I rather question, be skeptical, be accused of being "a dreamer" or "idealistic", even it it means being criticized, even ridiculed. I even prefer question something and be proven wrong than to not have questioned and simply accepted.
Ever notice it's never "one of us". whenever we hear of some mass murder, it was "a nut job". When someone ("only") takes their own life (IE. Kurt Cobain), they were "troubled". How come we recognize their "trouble" only AFTER they're dead? Also, what is so scary about looking at their similarities? Isn't how they "express" those similarities the only difference?
We separate ourselves from social outcasts (IE. homeless, mentally ill...), while attaching convenient tags to ourselves. When someone with the same tag as us commits a condemnable act, a truly humble person feels sympathy for the victim(s), and (some) shame that "someone like them" would do such a thing. The insecure, self-indulgent, and arrogant person simply separates themselves ("Oh, he's one of those"). Guess where the vast majority fit in.
Michael Phelps was photographed smoking dope and admitted to it. He has been "forgiven" in the court of public opinion. Would it be so if instead of being an Olympic champion, and a strong "revenue generator" for several sponsors, he were some "ordinary schmuck", or a homeless person?
I feel sympathy for Phelps as everything he does is scrutinized with a magnifying glass which isn't fair (even for someone of his celebrity). Those I have no sympathy for are those sponsors who were so glad the "sponsor" him when everything was going well, but as soon as things go bad they walk away. They never wanted him to "succeed", all they wanted is for him to make money for them.
Funny how these "sponsors" would be the first ones to whine for help if things don't work out for them (even if they create their own demise through their selfish greed), but when things don't go as planned for the guy they "sponsor", they just walk away.
Ever notice it's never "one of us". whenever we hear of some mass murder, it was "a nut job". When someone ("only") takes their own life (IE. Kurt Cobain), they were "troubled". How come we recognize their "trouble" only AFTER they're dead? Also, what is so scary about looking at their similarities? Isn't how they "express" those similarities the only difference?
We separate ourselves from social outcasts (IE. homeless, mentally ill...), while attaching convenient tags to ourselves. When someone with the same tag as us commits a condemnable act, a truly humble person feels sympathy for the victim(s), and (some) shame that "someone like them" would do such a thing. The insecure, self-indulgent, and arrogant person simply separates themselves ("Oh, he's one of those"). Guess where the vast majority fit in.
Michael Phelps was photographed smoking dope and admitted to it. He has been "forgiven" in the court of public opinion. Would it be so if instead of being an Olympic champion, and a strong "revenue generator" for several sponsors, he were some "ordinary schmuck", or a homeless person?
I feel sympathy for Phelps as everything he does is scrutinized with a magnifying glass which isn't fair (even for someone of his celebrity). Those I have no sympathy for are those sponsors who were so glad the "sponsor" him when everything was going well, but as soon as things go bad they walk away. They never wanted him to "succeed", all they wanted is for him to make money for them.
Funny how these "sponsors" would be the first ones to whine for help if things don't work out for them (even if they create their own demise through their selfish greed), but when things don't go as planned for the guy they "sponsor", they just walk away.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
I'm back
Haven't posted in way too long. Life got in the way, I also let it. It's just good to be back.
When does "Live and let live / Not interfere" become ignorance? As I've said before, I believe it's better to have tried "something" and fail than nothing and fail. They say we don't regret what we did as much as what we didn't do. But can people genuinely care and choose to do nothing? If so, is their decision regrettable (assuming a negative outcome), or are they simply sad of the result?
People are imperfect. Individuals, groups, organizations must be judged in their entirety, not simply in those areas which confirm our bias. I often hear that politicians are 'hypocritical' when spinning events to their advantage (or disadvantage of their opponent), but don't most of us do the same? It is called 'partisan politics', what is called when it happens in everyday life?
I am fascinated how beliefs, and values I had 20 years ago were 'right', and how I let their 'unorthodoxy' drive me away from myself. I believed in bettering the world, in helping, in co-operation. I knew it was 'idealistic', but what's wrong with that? I let pedestrian banalities like "That's not how it works" influence me into believing I was wrong!!! How fucked up is that!!! Someone wants to improve the world, make people co-operate, but since it's not "common" they're the troubled one.
I also used to loathe the idea and even the word *work*. To me it sounded like legalized and accepted slavery; put in 40 hours a week, get a paycheque with which you have to pay for lodging, food, and other "obligations" (IE. Bills) which were created by our society and that too few even questioned. And the topper for me was 'If you enjoy what you do, that's a bonus'. How ass-fucking-backwards is that.
I still don't particularly enjoy the obligatory aspect of 'Participating in society', but realize that in order to change things (as minute as that change is likely to be), it's better to do what we want to change in order to put ourselves in a better position to challenge it (IE. 'I've been there, I know what's wrong with it'.)
I missed blogging.
When does "Live and let live / Not interfere" become ignorance? As I've said before, I believe it's better to have tried "something" and fail than nothing and fail. They say we don't regret what we did as much as what we didn't do. But can people genuinely care and choose to do nothing? If so, is their decision regrettable (assuming a negative outcome), or are they simply sad of the result?
People are imperfect. Individuals, groups, organizations must be judged in their entirety, not simply in those areas which confirm our bias. I often hear that politicians are 'hypocritical' when spinning events to their advantage (or disadvantage of their opponent), but don't most of us do the same? It is called 'partisan politics', what is called when it happens in everyday life?
I am fascinated how beliefs, and values I had 20 years ago were 'right', and how I let their 'unorthodoxy' drive me away from myself. I believed in bettering the world, in helping, in co-operation. I knew it was 'idealistic', but what's wrong with that? I let pedestrian banalities like "That's not how it works" influence me into believing I was wrong!!! How fucked up is that!!! Someone wants to improve the world, make people co-operate, but since it's not "common" they're the troubled one.
I also used to loathe the idea and even the word *work*. To me it sounded like legalized and accepted slavery; put in 40 hours a week, get a paycheque with which you have to pay for lodging, food, and other "obligations" (IE. Bills) which were created by our society and that too few even questioned. And the topper for me was 'If you enjoy what you do, that's a bonus'. How ass-fucking-backwards is that.
I still don't particularly enjoy the obligatory aspect of 'Participating in society', but realize that in order to change things (as minute as that change is likely to be), it's better to do what we want to change in order to put ourselves in a better position to challenge it (IE. 'I've been there, I know what's wrong with it'.)
I missed blogging.
Friday, January 30, 2009
It’s never just one thing
We all know that, but how often do we fall for the exaggerated and misleading promises of individual therapeutic aids.
Here’s a list of what I need to do in order to feel better:
- Stay sober
- Take my medication rigorously
- Socialize / Interact with friends, family, colleagues.
- Exercise
- Read / Educate myself about Depression
- Work at achieving my long-term goals (Right now for me that means studying)
- Eat healthy
- Have regular sleep pattern
- Take time to do something I enjoy but is just a pastime (For me that’s comedy)
- Share my story, ideas, beliefs with others (through this blog!!)
Some of these probably apply to many people, some perhaps to no one. The important thing to remember is that doing 1,2 or 5 of these will only have limited effect (and in fact, NOT DOING some or many of these make nullify those which we do. That’s just how the Depressed mind thinks).
Here’s a list of what I need to do in order to feel better:
- Stay sober
- Take my medication rigorously
- Socialize / Interact with friends, family, colleagues.
- Exercise
- Read / Educate myself about Depression
- Work at achieving my long-term goals (Right now for me that means studying)
- Eat healthy
- Have regular sleep pattern
- Take time to do something I enjoy but is just a pastime (For me that’s comedy)
- Share my story, ideas, beliefs with others (through this blog!!)
Some of these probably apply to many people, some perhaps to no one. The important thing to remember is that doing 1,2 or 5 of these will only have limited effect (and in fact, NOT DOING some or many of these make nullify those which we do. That’s just how the Depressed mind thinks).
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Priorities
Organizing, prioritizing, and making lists seems somewhat easy; establish what takes up the most time and put those in your Day-timer in order.
Doing that allowed me to complete tasks, and get things done, but never felt I achieved anything.
When I review my priorities in terms of what is important TO ME, things are rather different.
At this point, here is what is important to me in order:
- My Recovery / Health
- Finding / Keeping work / Getting my finances in order
- My studies and education
- Fitness
- Blogging
- Comedy
Here’s how I can do each:
-Recovery / Health: Take my medication, improve my self-discipline, read about recovery, socialize / build relationships, eat healthy, make my cause be known.
- Work / Finances: Apply / Interview / discipline myself to tolerate what I dislike by remembering I am more than my job / Save money / Pay debts.
- Studies / Education: Apply myself to daily studying, reading and reviewing.
- Fitness: Discipline myself to a regular workout schedule, eat healthy, participate in races.
- Blogging: Educate myself on blogging techniques, blog every day.
- Comedy: Write / Rehearse every day.
When I look at it this way, things seem much more worthwhile. The #1 thing in my life is my health and recovery. I can not let that slip at all, because without health, I can not do the rest and anything I would do without being healthy would be useless to me.
The other 5 are strictly based on where I am in my life right now. They are totally flexible. When I’m looking for work, work and finances do take priority, but when that part of my life stabilizes, perhaps another will supplant it as “second”.
Doing that allowed me to complete tasks, and get things done, but never felt I achieved anything.
When I review my priorities in terms of what is important TO ME, things are rather different.
At this point, here is what is important to me in order:
- My Recovery / Health
- Finding / Keeping work / Getting my finances in order
- My studies and education
- Fitness
- Blogging
- Comedy
Here’s how I can do each:
-Recovery / Health: Take my medication, improve my self-discipline, read about recovery, socialize / build relationships, eat healthy, make my cause be known.
- Work / Finances: Apply / Interview / discipline myself to tolerate what I dislike by remembering I am more than my job / Save money / Pay debts.
- Studies / Education: Apply myself to daily studying, reading and reviewing.
- Fitness: Discipline myself to a regular workout schedule, eat healthy, participate in races.
- Blogging: Educate myself on blogging techniques, blog every day.
- Comedy: Write / Rehearse every day.
When I look at it this way, things seem much more worthwhile. The #1 thing in my life is my health and recovery. I can not let that slip at all, because without health, I can not do the rest and anything I would do without being healthy would be useless to me.
The other 5 are strictly based on where I am in my life right now. They are totally flexible. When I’m looking for work, work and finances do take priority, but when that part of my life stabilizes, perhaps another will supplant it as “second”.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Questions and opinions
Would the fear / misunderstanding / stigma of mental illness be an in-born biological and physiological defence mechanism? A defence that tells us “None of our species (especially not our providers / protectors (MEN) ) can be disabled to the point of having difficulty coping / adjusting / adapting, because if that is so, our entire species is at risk!!” ?
Do we really like the underdog, or do we just root from the sidelines and feel good after he succeeds?
We love stories of overcoming obstacles and redemption, but do we love these same people BEFORE they “succeed” ?
We sugar-coat (even avoid talking about) Depression by sticking to what the person did “right”. We avoid the discomfort of discussing Depression. Not very tough / generous / helpful / useful / humanistic / thoughtful / humble / loving is that now!!!
And how educational is it to avoid learning about something?
Justifications such as “we don’t know” and “we’ve haven’t had it” only confirms ignorance and weakness.
Do we really like the underdog, or do we just root from the sidelines and feel good after he succeeds?
We love stories of overcoming obstacles and redemption, but do we love these same people BEFORE they “succeed” ?
We sugar-coat (even avoid talking about) Depression by sticking to what the person did “right”. We avoid the discomfort of discussing Depression. Not very tough / generous / helpful / useful / humanistic / thoughtful / humble / loving is that now!!!
And how educational is it to avoid learning about something?
Justifications such as “we don’t know” and “we’ve haven’t had it” only confirms ignorance and weakness.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Choices
We often hear (even within the mental health fraternity and medical community) that a large part of recovery from mental illness is a matter of “choice”. That when the person “chooses” to no longer be depressed, recovery will follow.
How come we never hear that people who don’t have mental illness are CHOOSING not to educate themselves? Choosing to “not know what to do”? That they choose to do nothing instead of getting involved?
Why is it the mentally ill and substance abusers who are making “bad choices”? Isn’t it a “bad choice” to remain ignorant about scientifically proven illnesses?
We all know that mental illness is stigmatized, what is never said is that stigmatization = intolerance.
Isn’t it a “bad choice” to stigmatize a group of people?
Mental illness is the only scientifically proven medical type of condition for which ignorance is accepted, even promoted.
How come we never hear that people who don’t have mental illness are CHOOSING not to educate themselves? Choosing to “not know what to do”? That they choose to do nothing instead of getting involved?
Why is it the mentally ill and substance abusers who are making “bad choices”? Isn’t it a “bad choice” to remain ignorant about scientifically proven illnesses?
We all know that mental illness is stigmatized, what is never said is that stigmatization = intolerance.
Isn’t it a “bad choice” to stigmatize a group of people?
Mental illness is the only scientifically proven medical type of condition for which ignorance is accepted, even promoted.
What are WE afraid of?
“No matter how you may have redeemed yourself - no matter how many good deeds you have stacked up to counterbalance what you once did - the shame of it is still scorching hot. The better a man you’ve become, the more godawful it sounds hearing what you once did. Once it’s out, you’d like to do nothing but crawl under a rock. Shame has dragged many a life right back down. For this season, most men run from their shame and run from anything that might remind them of it.” - Po Bronson (Why Do I Love These People)
That is one of the best description of why men “don’t talk about it” I’ve ever heard. Talking about it (in our minds) simply reminds us of how fucked up we have been / are.
When you add to that the social stigma (IE. Shame), “talking about it” is doubly shameful.
What is rarely (if ever) mentioned is how people WHO DON’T HAVE depression are afraid of talking about it. Especially (once again) when it involves men.
Bronson, in the same book seems to avoid using the “d-word” when describing depressive symptoms in men he interviewed, whereas it is utilized about women with the same symptoms. Descriptions of some men include “ alcohol/drug abuse, excessive anger, loss of enjoyment in previously enjoyable activities”. Even his own story includes low self-esteem, isolation. These are all symptoms of depression, in the DSM-IV no less. Never is the d-word used though. Yet, in very similar descriptions of women going through the same symptoms, the d-word is regularly dropped.
Beyond the “they were not diagnosed as depressed” reasoning / excuse, one could easily add “these are typical symptoms of depression”. In fact, if people show symptoms of other diseases, we don’t hesitate to say “it could be…”, “it sounds like…” . Obviously not only are people with depression the only ones who “don’t talk about it”.
That is one of the best description of why men “don’t talk about it” I’ve ever heard. Talking about it (in our minds) simply reminds us of how fucked up we have been / are.
When you add to that the social stigma (IE. Shame), “talking about it” is doubly shameful.
What is rarely (if ever) mentioned is how people WHO DON’T HAVE depression are afraid of talking about it. Especially (once again) when it involves men.
Bronson, in the same book seems to avoid using the “d-word” when describing depressive symptoms in men he interviewed, whereas it is utilized about women with the same symptoms. Descriptions of some men include “ alcohol/drug abuse, excessive anger, loss of enjoyment in previously enjoyable activities”. Even his own story includes low self-esteem, isolation. These are all symptoms of depression, in the DSM-IV no less. Never is the d-word used though. Yet, in very similar descriptions of women going through the same symptoms, the d-word is regularly dropped.
Beyond the “they were not diagnosed as depressed” reasoning / excuse, one could easily add “these are typical symptoms of depression”. In fact, if people show symptoms of other diseases, we don’t hesitate to say “it could be…”, “it sounds like…” . Obviously not only are people with depression the only ones who “don’t talk about it”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
