Forwarded from Технически работает
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
😁1😱1🕊1
Hannah Zeavin. Therapy With a Human Face
The feminization of therapy is crucial to understanding how it became both devalued and out of reach
—
«Despite the contemporary truism that psychoanalysis always blames the mother, Sigmund Freud was much more focused on the pathogenic role of the father in the mind of the child, while showing little interest in real children at all. For Anna, and others like Winnicott, analysis meant attending to the real mother—and real children—and the mental life of reproductive labor. This theoretical process began before the Second World War and was intensified by it while many fathers were away.
A strong association was forged between the practice of “the maternalists,” as historian Shaul Bar-Haim called these analysts, and the work of actual mothering. Holding became a central metaphor for the work of an analyst, and therapy became inextricably linked with domestic life. According to the psychologist and historian Janet Sayers, the maternalists thought this association between the expert care of the analyst and the non-expert labor of mothering might help mothering be taken more seriously. Instead, the entrance of women into the field, and the theoretical and practical shifts in the work of therapy that accompanied it, inadvertently laid the groundwork for the devaluation of the profession. If therapy is like mothering, why pay for it?
[…]
The rise of feminist psychology, the opening of psychoanalytic training, and the increasing dominance of women in the field occurred alongside the ongoing devaluation of talk therapy in favor of expediency and low-cost interventions like drugs, self-help, peer-help, CBT, and technology. All were poised to solve a therapeutic labor shortage that began after the Second World War and continues today. Women are one resource among many posited to address the gap.
[…]
When Nancy Fraser wrote of feminism that “the recent gains would be entwined with a tragic loss,” she was referring to the outcome of feminist agitation in the age of neoliberalism. A similar situation has occurred in women’s fight to practice the most ambitious forms of therapy. […] After fighting for access to train and treat patients, women have found that practically no one can find them or afford their hourly fee, or knows the difference between short-term treatments and therapies that offer greater depth and insight.
[…]
Devaluation has made it no easier to purchase good mental healthcare. Even as therapy becomes increasingly accepted and popular, it doesn’t receive the public investment required. Instead, potential patients are offered a vague language about wellness and self-help. Automated CBT noscripts, CBD, and micro-dosing are all deemed quick-fix equivalents to traditional therapeutic care. The feminization of the field has led to the ultimate devaluation: care without carer. »
The feminization of therapy is crucial to understanding how it became both devalued and out of reach
—
«Despite the contemporary truism that psychoanalysis always blames the mother, Sigmund Freud was much more focused on the pathogenic role of the father in the mind of the child, while showing little interest in real children at all. For Anna, and others like Winnicott, analysis meant attending to the real mother—and real children—and the mental life of reproductive labor. This theoretical process began before the Second World War and was intensified by it while many fathers were away.
A strong association was forged between the practice of “the maternalists,” as historian Shaul Bar-Haim called these analysts, and the work of actual mothering. Holding became a central metaphor for the work of an analyst, and therapy became inextricably linked with domestic life. According to the psychologist and historian Janet Sayers, the maternalists thought this association between the expert care of the analyst and the non-expert labor of mothering might help mothering be taken more seriously. Instead, the entrance of women into the field, and the theoretical and practical shifts in the work of therapy that accompanied it, inadvertently laid the groundwork for the devaluation of the profession. If therapy is like mothering, why pay for it?
[…]
The rise of feminist psychology, the opening of psychoanalytic training, and the increasing dominance of women in the field occurred alongside the ongoing devaluation of talk therapy in favor of expediency and low-cost interventions like drugs, self-help, peer-help, CBT, and technology. All were poised to solve a therapeutic labor shortage that began after the Second World War and continues today. Women are one resource among many posited to address the gap.
[…]
When Nancy Fraser wrote of feminism that “the recent gains would be entwined with a tragic loss,” she was referring to the outcome of feminist agitation in the age of neoliberalism. A similar situation has occurred in women’s fight to practice the most ambitious forms of therapy. […] After fighting for access to train and treat patients, women have found that practically no one can find them or afford their hourly fee, or knows the difference between short-term treatments and therapies that offer greater depth and insight.
[…]
Devaluation has made it no easier to purchase good mental healthcare. Even as therapy becomes increasingly accepted and popular, it doesn’t receive the public investment required. Instead, potential patients are offered a vague language about wellness and self-help. Automated CBT noscripts, CBD, and micro-dosing are all deemed quick-fix equivalents to traditional therapeutic care. The feminization of the field has led to the ultimate devaluation: care without carer. »
🕊1🍌1
Forwarded from eapotapov.am
Оказывается, по одной из версий, простуда — flu, инфлюэнца, influenza — получила своё название от предположения, cуществовашего в XIV веке, что заболевание возникает из-за неблагоприятного расположения звёзд для заболевшего человека — influenza di stelle — "влияние звезд".
Таким образом, с одной стороны, можно сказать, что инфлюенсеры в инстаграме распространяют заразу, а с другой — что звёздная болезнь действительно существует.
Таким образом, с одной стороны, можно сказать, что инфлюенсеры в инстаграме распространяют заразу, а с другой — что звёздная болезнь действительно существует.
😁12