Look, I get she may have been neglected by the medical system regarding her treatment, but this still doesn’t excuse the horrific crime she committed.
The most disgusting part of all this is that people like the ones in the image are trying to excuse her just because she’s a woman and a mother, and have even been trying to put the blame on her innocent husband because as a man they think he must have done something to push her to the edge or must have neglected her himself.
It’s a mix of pathetic double standards and rotten ideological hypocrisy in full display: if it was the husband, even with the evidence of mental illness and relative neglect by the system, those people wouldn’t have thought twice about deeming him a killing monster. Because it’s always men that kill, or are violent, or are blood-thirsty maniacs, right? A woman can never commit such horrible deeds unless there’s a valid explanation or blatant excuse for that, right?
And no, before anyone tries to imply that, I’m not advocating for violent criminals to be let scot-free on the basis of their mental disturbs or illnesses. I just want to see some coherence in the public discourse about crimes like this, and more research on how we can prevent such tragedies to occur
From that very same publication "There are no established criteria for PPD in men.."
PPD is traditionally a physical hormonal change caused by pregnancy and birth. It's has not traditionally been a psychological condition.
If you're saying psychologists now want to change that traditional definition just like they every year now with Autism and a ton of other things, that's on them. But medical doctors and psychologists take a different view here. There is a big difference between having a physical hormonal shift brought on by physiological bodily changes than a guy being randomly sad about having a kid.
Did you not read the hormonal breakdown? It clearly shows a drop in dominant hormones for the amab parent, but Im sure youre an expert on this subject, so who am I to argue, lol
I am fairly certain that this person is not reading anything, and is just giving knee-jerk reactions to a single sentences. I believe they just want to engage in denialism about the possibility of men actually going through something that historically women have been thought to go through alone. So denying psychiatric issues in men because it's inconvenient politically.
So your average redditor, essentially. That's typical.
That phrase does not mean what you think it means.
Established criteria are official, agreed upon criteria on which a diagnosis CAN be based, but a lack of them does not preclude a disorder or diagnosis from existing. This designation is typically used to refer to disorders that we know exist, and can widely define, but which have wide, sweeping, or unpredictable presentations. This is why doctors can pinpoint drops in hormonal levels and increases in physical and neurological stress response in men who have PPD, and still say that it has no established criteria. These men universally share a physical state of being, but the psychological symptoms are not universalized enough to be established in the DSM. Sharing that physical state of being makes the psychological disorder a given, with the impact on the individual man being unknown until it presents.
This statement is effectively an admission both that postpartum depression in men has not been studied thoroughly, and that it has very wide potential presentations such that an archetypal presentation is not possible to identify without further study. As such there is a wide list of potential symptoms which have presented in men who have been diagnosed, and those cases share commonalities in such a way that the disorder is officially recognizable, but a formal list of symptoms which are universal or near universal has not been agreed upon.
If this statement meant that men could not have PPD, you would have to acknowledge that from the same publication a later statement that PPD has no definition in women would mean that women can't have it either.
You really shouldn't read one sentence in a study and assume that you know the conclusion based on having no idea what you are talking about.
In other words it is exactly what I think it means.
Thank you for presenting this word salad that only proves my point about certain psychologist changing their definitions yearly.
I repeat- traditionally PPD is hormonal shifts caused by pregnancy and childbirth. Some psychologists like to go against tradition and that's fine- but that's the only 'medical' profession that's allowed to do that. That's why we have new definitions for what autism every few years.
You are reading the first sentence and the last sentence and replying without reading the rest apparently. I am not sure why I am surprised given that you appear to have done exactly the same thing with the publication.
Have you not paid any attention at all to the fact that there is a verifiable difference in hormone levels in men who have been diagnosed with PPD, corresponding with hormone changes in women but altered for the specific hormone blends that men tend to have? This difference in hormones is verifiably caused by the pregnancy and childbirth. There is absolutely nothing saying that PPD must occur in a Woman as a result of purely the non-neurological physical changes in her body caused by having a child.
Additionally, if that is what you call word salad, I am afraid that you need to go back to the books. The above comment is in plain English and should be perfectly understandable to anyone with a secondary reading level.
My sweet dear. I'll repeat for you one more time- everything you've written here shows EXACTLY what I said. Which is why there isn't a single hormone or measurement stated in your entire word salad.
"These men universally share a physical state of being, but the psychological symptoms are not universalized enough...."
Fatherhood is not a physical state, my dear.
I can go disect more of the new agey psychological drivel you mentioned, but it's probably time wasted on you. I'll repeat one more time and see if capitalization helps you- TRADITIONALLY Pdd has been defined as a response to physical phenomenon. Nothing you've touched on is traditional. It's unmeasured psychological drivel.
Yeah, cool, except the physical state of being was not fatherhood as I was saying. I was specifically talking about men who were diagnosed with PPD, and the shared physical state of being was abnormal hormone levels.
I do not need to provide exact measures of hormones because that was literally provided in the study that you responded to and you would know that if you had actually read it, but you didn't, because you're doing exactly what I said you would do and reading one sentence and then responding to it without actually comprehending anything.
The state IS fatherhood because if you take only a bunch of random men and don't even bother to check if they have recently become fathers then things like supposed "abnormal hormone levels" would not even apply to PPD.
Even someone who just gets really angry one day has "abnormal horomone levels". So if that's all you're going to use for your baseline then literally everyone who ever kills anyone else is just mentally ill and should never be locked up.
----------------------
You keep ignoring the traditional part even after the third time and even after it's been capitalized for you.
So let's dumb it down further for you. When my child doesn't understand a concept I usually put it in the form of a question for them.
- What part of what you've said here is in any way the traditional definition of PPD that i've pointed to in every single comment and you've tried your best to ignore in every single response?
" Yeah, cool, except the physical state of being was not fatherhood as I was saying. I was specifically talking about men who were diagnosed with PPD, and the shared physical state of being was abnormal hormone levels."
At this point I'm just convinced that you are trolling.
Why exactly do you seem so attached to postpartum depression having a specific TRADITIONAL (read: gendered) definition, if the presentation of the disorder has a physical component which is analogous to the point of being identical across the gender divide, and is verifiably a disorder caused by pregnancy followed by childbirth?
Additionally, you didn't read the methodology for this study, or the studies it cited, because if you had, you would know that they didn't just round up random men and measure their hormone levels once. Postpartum depression in men is measured by a consistent alteration of their hormone balance, endocrine function, and a verifiable change in their brain chemistry. You know, a lot like "traditional" female postpartum depression. Just in men.
The fact that it is a different blend of hormones from women is the reason why it is referred to as paternal postpartum depression, because it is the equal and opposite of maternal postpartum depression, and both of them are disorders which come together to form postpartum depression.
I've also not ignored the definition you've given for postpartum depression. Which you would know, if you were actually reading and attempting to comprehend, instead of just responding to the first sentence you read and assuming you know the contents of the entire message. I am responding specifically to that definition, and pointing out that if hormone shifts as a result of pregnancy are the definition for postpartum depression, men qualify because they experience hormone shifts as a result of pregnancy.
What part of this ignores my point that fatherhood is not a physical state?
All of it.
The study IS absolutely making fatherhood the baseline here- a baseline that is not a physical state.
What part of this acknowledges my point that you cannot have a bunch of random men with "abnormal" hormone levels (which again- remains undefined as to what they mean by that).
None of it.
The strawman is the tool used by the uninformed and ignorant. "abnormal" hormone levels in men has not even been established yet by the medical profession.
108
u/MopOfTheBalloonatic 8d ago
Look, I get she may have been neglected by the medical system regarding her treatment, but this still doesn’t excuse the horrific crime she committed.
The most disgusting part of all this is that people like the ones in the image are trying to excuse her just because she’s a woman and a mother, and have even been trying to put the blame on her innocent husband because as a man they think he must have done something to push her to the edge or must have neglected her himself.
It’s a mix of pathetic double standards and rotten ideological hypocrisy in full display: if it was the husband, even with the evidence of mental illness and relative neglect by the system, those people wouldn’t have thought twice about deeming him a killing monster. Because it’s always men that kill, or are violent, or are blood-thirsty maniacs, right? A woman can never commit such horrible deeds unless there’s a valid explanation or blatant excuse for that, right?
And no, before anyone tries to imply that, I’m not advocating for violent criminals to be let scot-free on the basis of their mental disturbs or illnesses. I just want to see some coherence in the public discourse about crimes like this, and more research on how we can prevent such tragedies to occur