Haha I wonder what the anti-choicers will think of this...
I mean... of course abortion can affect you (I say "can" instead of "will" because I don't want to make assumptions). Of course there are mental/emotional implications... but I never got the "abortion is damaging to mental health" argument... SO IS GOING THROUGH THE STRESS AND TERROR OF AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY! jeez

lets not sacrifice the politics of our experiences on the altar of a sanitocracy.

just because the APA says something doesnt make it so.

i'd never believe the APA about what is and isnt good for mental health, only because i dont believe in a human science for the being of being human. especially when that science arises in a patriarchial, oppressive society in the first place.

yea.... because if its patriarchal let's just doubt it in everyway... because there are no female psychologists, no feminist-oriented or related research being done in affiliation with or regards to the APA...

if this were every feminists attitude then feminism would literally never have evolved, because essentially every institution began as a male dominated and patriarchal domain where women and men had to challenge the patriarchy within.

So maybe instead of trashing the APA you could do something to change it. Complaining amounts to nothing but noise pollution.

The human brain is too complex to say that something like abortion can't cause emotional or mental trauma for women across the board. Anything can cause mental illness and just because one person doesn't experience it doesn't mean than another person can't.

Crying babies pose a threat to my mental health, and there's one crying somewhere in my building at this very moment.

The human brain is too complex to say that something like abortion can't cause emotional or mental trauma for women across the board. Anything can cause mental illness and just because one person doesn't experience it doesn't mean than another person can't.

Having said that, I suspect that a significant number of such cases are because society tells women that abortion is horribly traumatic.

As a woman who's had an abortion, I respectfully disagree with those findings. The long-term effects of my abortion (now almost 9 years ago) are still resonating in my life.

You never know when those effects are going to pop up, either. During my experience now with prolonged unexplained infertility, I've agonized over "what if the abortion messed things up somehow? what if there's scar tissue from that preventing pregnancy now?", despite repeated assurances from medical professionals and lots of tests that prove otherwise.

Or when I did manage to get pregnant several years ago and suffered a miscarriage. One of the first things I thought was "that abortion could have been my only chance, and I threw it away". Irrational perhaps...but isn't that a hallmark of abnormal or troubled mental health?

It is far too simplistic to just pound one's gavel and say "It's not a threat to women's mental health! Done! Next question please!" There are probably lots of women that don't dwell on it the way that I do sometimes. There are probably lots of women that are far more affected by it than I am. It's just not fair to suggest otherwise.

As wintermute pointed out, the study implicates that having an abortion causes no more cases of mental trauma than not having an abortion causes. That is different than saying "abortions don't cause mental trauma". Isn't this what we've been saying all along? That abortions are not as "bad" as some people [ie Pro-lifers!] say. That there are even benefits to abortion, should it be chosen?

I don't understand what the debate is about here.... I mean what if some pro-life group did a study that found abortions DO cause mental trauma [since they might, as many of you have pointed out] would you all still be like "ya right on! Abortions have long term effects!" or would you then get all pissed off because who are pro-lifers to say that abortion has a negative effecs, etc.

Just wondering?

First off, mehitabel, I am truly sorry to hear about your suffering.

From what I understand, studies like this are never trying to prove that NO ONE ever suffers from the effect being studied. They are only trying to show an *average* effect over a general population. So this study would support a statement like "when looking at all American women, those who have had an abortion have the same average level of emotional health as those who have not had an abortion". Researchers are almost never trying to say that there are no individual exceptions to the general trend, it's just that there are individual exceptions on BOTH SIDES of the trend. So this study would be saying that for every person like you who was traumatized by an abortion, there is another person whose life was made much easier by an abortion, meaning that the *net* effect of abortion is not detrimental.

If all that was too long too read: One individual's experience says almost nothing about average trends across populations.

Nessa, in response to "the study implicates that having an abortion causes no more cases of mental trauma than not having an abortion causes", I again have to disagree. If I hadn't had the abortion, I wouldn't stop and think "Oh, that baby would be about eight by now. I wonder what he/she would have been like?"

I'll be the first to say I shouldn't have had a baby at that time in my life (then again, I should have taken responsibility for myself and not believed lies about "I had a vasectomy!"). And I'm too soft to have given it up for adoption. I took what I perceived to be my only option. But there are lots of not-so-fun mental aftereffects that I absolutely wouldn't have had if I'd not gone for the abortion. Of course, that would have led to a whole different set of mental traumas, so...

...maybe the lesson here is that life causes mental trauma. Who knew, right?

mehitabel,I'm sorry to hear that you've suffered, and that bears more significance than a study anyway. Hopefully you're doing well today!

I guess my main point was that the study found on average that having an abortion bears no more or less mental trauma than not having an abortion. I'm assuming that with either case, the amount of mental trauma is great, and perhaps a follow-up study should see if the situation be it abortion or not invokes greater mental trauma then not being faced with such a choice. I'm only a scientist in training, but my hypothesis is yes.

I just took this study as a positive swing at those Pro-Life people who insist that having an abortion is an "awful dirty painful wrong shameful omg you will never recover or bounce back and your life will be far more ruined than if you just kept the child because 8 cells are people too" rhetoric.

Life definitely causes mental trauma, and thank god or else my major would be completely pointless :)

Mehitabel, in your last comment, aren't you in a way supporting what Nessa said? Like you said, if you had not had the abortion "that would have led to a whole different set of mental traumas".

It's really terrible that your experience caused you so much pain. But, that is the experience that you had. No one knows what would have happened if you had made a different decision. I would absolutely never question your feelings about what happened in your life. But can anyone who has not raised an unwanted child really understand that experience, either?

...I think we are sort of saying the same thing here. And I also hope you are doing well!

Thanks for the kind wishes. I'm doing well and I love working with OTHER people's children--so maybe I wasn't meant to have my own!

My last statement was tongue-in-cheek, but also sincere, you know? I think if more people understood that there are no easy ways out, acceptance of conflict would be more intuitive. Having an abortion can be hard and lead to mental trauma. Raising children can be hard and lead to mental trauma. Going to college. Not going to college. Being a stay-at-home mom. Being a working mom. Nothing is a failsafe, no-trauma method of living, and I don't think we need any more studies proving that.

Nessa,
I am talking about the specificity of psychology, psychiatry, and its story. I'm saying that there wont ever be a science appropriate for the experiences of humans. And now I will also say that the standing sciences, and even the feminist attempts to rescue them, are also bunk. I am also saying that the standing knowledges on mental health are patriarchal (among a host of other theoretical limitations and poor starting points.)

I'm talking about the experience of the mental health industry and the concurrent experience of the patriarchy within this industry. I'm talking about the people who actually live through it, not some kind of hypothetical noise pollution, and I'm talking about the fact that peoples lives are sacrificed in the pursuit of these knowledges.

I also called into question the APA's authority on such issues, as if they can announce a rule book of experiences, just-like-that.

I also call into question your association of female-ness with feminist, as you do so when you mention that there are female psychologists. What does their existence prove? Their field, their training, the very mode of thinking in psychiatry and psychology is patriarchal. Them being female does not erase that, does it?

It is presumptuous of you to think I wouldnt know about feminist analysis in this field, and your tone is condescending and I didn't warrant that with my comments. Also, you should check your notions of privilege, since your advice comes from a point of view that takes for granted the politics of access to the politics of the APA. Such sage advice, im afraid, comes off as the same bootstrap capitalist philosophies that are so ingrained in the mental health industry and its philosophies.

simply put, you can't invite yourself to the development of a praxis when the philosophy driving the development of this praxis is done behind closed doors.

all what is left is a radical rejection of any of that nonsense, not a feminist incursion into it.

It stands to reason that being pregnant when one does not want to be, whatever results from that, is going to be stressful and may damage a person's mental health.

It also stands to reason that any woman, given a free choice, will choose whichever option best suits her, and thus her mental health.

ChelseaEff, could you elaborate on your questioning of a science appropriate for the experiences of humans? That is exactly the role that psychology is meant to have. There are whole schools of psychology (e.g. phenomenological psychology) that deal with helping a patient by relying *entirely* on that individual's subjective experience of his/her world, so I'm a little confused about where your opinion is coming from.

Of course, just because there is an existing science that is *meant* to have that role, doesn't mean that it is correct. But, could you explain why you don't think that psychology fits that role?

Btw, I am talking about modern psychology here, not any kind of archaic Freudian bunk that has been pretty much dismissed by the current psychological community.

Hi,

Feminist female psychologist here. Yes we do exist. I work in the mental health system in Australia. I think ChelseaEff, you make some often sited generalisations about both psychology/psychiatry and the mental health industry.

I see psychology as an evolving thing, not static and immovable. We as humans learn from our experiences, psychology too learns from experience (I'm speaking in the broadest sense). As we learn more, our theories change. I acknowledge that not all people have had (and continue to have) positive experiences with psychology/psychiatry, but to say its all 'bunk' negates the experiences of those who have found it useful.

I don't doubt that some (many?) of my colleagues do not embrace feminism nor a client oriented approach to their work, but to imply that my very existence is as a tool of the patriarchy is a bit rich.

I'm not sure i understand what you mean by saying the field, training and mode of thinking is patriarchal?

Are you equating the scientific method with patriarchy? Or the way in which psychologists that you know of have related to their clients?

Perhaps googling the consumer movement might provide some illumination regarding patients/clients/consumers participating in and creating change in the mental health system.

I see the notion of evolution in psychology as a dangerous way to downplay the ultimate effect of having a pseudo-science of being imposed upon people.

I think that by writing off criticism of psychology as often-cited is also an often-cited way of getting around wondering what you may be doing to people, and what you may be perpetuating.

You have already proposed a theory of humanity that is naive to me (that we learn from our experiences). The implications of this belief are bound up with the implications of thinking things evolve, none of which is neutral, non-disputed, and all of which are still up for debate, as far as philosophy goes.

The trouble is, psychology takes these debates about humanity, about knowledge, about our will, about responsibility, and about our social environments for granted. It's doing philosophy behind closed doors. Its truth-claims have truth-effects that I worry about.

Consumer advocacy groups are also a point of contention in the creation of the mental health industry. Their existence, is not, as you seem to rely on them as, a necessarily positive or good thing.

The scientific method and patriarchy are not to be equated with each other, they are each other.

The only change I'd like to see in the mental health system is the disappearance of every bit of it as it currently stands.

It is the existence of this debate of humanity as a profession such as psychology or psychiatry that renders it patriarchal. It is the abdication of responsibility by parents because they can (and have the authority to) force their kids to take medication for nonsensical concepts like "oppositional defiance disorder".

Psychiatric power has existed outside but alongside our system of justice and rights; but the psychiatrist/psychologist is the judge, jury, and executioner of peoples experiences of themselves.

When 3/4's of the people diagnosed with depression are women, we are psychiatrizing the experience of patriarchy, but never calling it that.

And if you are still curious as to what i'm talking about, there's a list of essays, books, and survivor testimonies I would recommend for you.

http://feministinguottawa.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/so-try-this-one-on-for-size/

I read your feministinguottawa post. I still am not sure that you are aware of the distinction between psychology as a practice and psychology as a science.

As a practice (i.e., the treatment of patients), yes, psychology works off of certain assumptions, and any kind of assumption is always biased by definition.

But because of your lack of elaboration on the issue, I really get the impression that you have not studied the scientific method that is implemented in psychological research. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. But if you haven't, in fact, studied research methods, I think you would be very surprised to see how many safeguards against bias there are.

The APA is VERY strict about what kind of conclusions you can claim from a study. All studies are dependent on data alone, on saying, 'this is what we measured, and this is how we measured it, and this is what the result was'. Any social implications that are drawn from the results are regarded very skeptically- always. All data and all methods used to retrieve data are published publically, and scrutinized by the entire scientific community, as well as many outsiders, including you, if you care to look over a data set and challenge the numbers or the methods. Studies are disproven by other studies all the time, and this is actively encouraged by the APA. And you don't have to have a PhD in psychology, or be part of the community at all, to publish a challenging paper in an APA journal. Anyone can do it.

So, I'm still just not getting why the scientific method that is used, is the same as patriarchy. Could you explain?

"The scientific method and patriarchy are not to be equated with each other, they are each other."

Oh my word, what is this?! I am sorry, but I thought that such radicalised views were a relic of by-gone (pre-Science Wars?) thought.

I do agree that psychology (both in theory and disciplinary structure) tacitly assumes many of the norms and conventional philosophies of our society - but indeed, what doesn't? Moreover, the fact that many disciplines (philosophy, history and philosophy of science, cultural studies, history to name but a few) take psychology and attitudes towards 'mental health' as classic areas of study surely means that this philosophy is far from 'hidden'. Psychology is also taught in a different way to, for example, physics - where the philosophy (or metaphysics) behind the theory is actually hidden from the student, unless she wants to start her own line of philosophical questioning.

Moreover, this out-and-out dismissal of psychology and, more broadly, science is so dangerous to feminism. If we dismiss it all as a tool of the patriarchy, what are we left with? We can neither gather empirical evidence to make claims (such as women are no less intelligent than men), or to fight the false claims of those that wish to oppress women and their rights (such as abortions cause breast cancer and mental illness).

In any case, I think this is an old and worn-out debate, and we should focus our energies more effectively on weeding out misogyny and androcentric thought in current theory and practice - rather than throwing out "the baby of science along with the bath water of false views about science" (S. Harding, 1991...)

I'm sorry if this has slipped slightly off-topic.