“When people hear the word depression, many people think (or) simply feel it means feeling sad, but depression is so much more than that. It is physical, it is emotional, and until you experience it yourself, it’s difficult to fully understand how powerful this illness can be,” said Kean. The veteran lawmaker had kept the reason for his absence private for months, saying he had underestimated how long his recovery would take.
Too bad we have to medicalize common human experience in order for it to be taken seriously.
Get help, guys, but remember people have been getting depressed and gotten better from being depressed since way before Freud and Eli Lilly.
Also, this is a pretty unsubstantial article and as such doesn’t particularly belong here. I can tell because I actually read it, which I usually don’t because they’re too long and information-packed.
It belongs here. It’s an APA article where a lead psychologist from the APA weighs in on the subject. Differences in clinical depression in men are described as well as why men may not seek help, and how having public figures speak out has led to more awareness.
It should not be excluded just because you don’t agree with it, there is plenty of substance.
I don’t disagree with it, I guess I just don’t find any of it substantially new enough to be interesting. I Don´t Want to Talk About It, a book about male presentation of depression, was a best seller in 1998. Still, doesn’t hurt to get the word out, just as it doesn’t hurt to let people know there are options outside the medical system, even if they want to start there for triage.
Considering male depression is still underreported and faces stigma, talking about it continues to be important, so I don’t understand why you don’t think the article belongs here, especially since it references a number of papers and articles that have come out long since 1998.
I disgaree that clinical depression is “medicalizating a common human experience.” It is a medical condition.
Yes, I guess the issue is if a research paper comes out confirming a consensus of the last 30 years, is it really “news” in any significant way?
I’m asking because a few weeks you ago you invited me to post my own articles, which I started doing yesterday, and the “news” requirement is a bit of a burden and actually leads me to lower-quality sources because the really ground breaking work is older; my hope is the reader will follow the breadcrumbs to the original source.
Male depression is still a problem, it remains a relevant area of continued study. New articles on old topics remain informative.
If you’re having issues finding the newest, good quality sources, I can change the rules. I’ll just ask to add a date tag to old publications.
This community was meant as a place to be able post things that would get removed from the major news coms for silly reasons, so I would be happy to expand the rules.
Sure! I’m more interested in well-written articles than I am with stuff that is just new.
I’m the same way with music. I don’t want to hear anything less than 10 years old. I appreciate the time filter greatly.
No problem. I want more diversity of media here, so thanks for adding to the community.