Mormon Women on Drugs-The Prozac Study

Many of us are aware of the study that stated the women of Utah use Prozac more than women in any other state. This study is often used to imply that Mormon women are depressed more than other women (because many of the women in Utah are Mormon). Why are they depressed more than other women?

The connotation of all this is that Mormon women are more depressed because of the circumstances caused by their membership in the Church, including the generalized/stereotypical/predominant(?) lifestyle of wife, mother and homemaker; "[t]raditional women's roles involved with marriage and homemaking have long been cited as part of the reason for the purported depression."

I'll admit, I struggled with this a little. But I found this great article/essay that addresses this issue in part. It's quite long, so to get to the part about the Prozac study, just scroll down to the section called "Prozac-Mental Health and Mormon Women's Self-Perception."

Why did I love this so much? Because it provided alternative solid explanations/possibilities for the women of Utah being prescribed Prozac more than women of other states (this study was in 1994, so I'd like to see an updated study since it was so many years ago). Instead of blaming the "strains of patriarchy, early marriages, constant child bearing and voiceless acceptance of male dominance" of Mormonism, it offers other contributing factors like:

"socio-economic status, level of education, number of children, genetic factors determining predisposition to depression, religiosity or non-religiosity (even among Mormon women born into the faith who are non-practicing), counseling services that accompany medication and the numbers of men who might also require medication and counseling. Further, the high percentage of Prozac use might reflect a greater awareness by leaders that encourages members to seek professional therapy and medication alternatives. Finally, Mormons' abstinence from addictive substances might prompt depression sufferers to seek more legitimate forms of help."

 I found the inclusion of comments from a forum of women who used Prozac very interesting. One stated that LDS women truly 'EXPERIENCE' depression because they do not use alcohol, drink coffee and avoid other substances. 

I also recently read an article in a recent edition of Parent Magazine (I'm too lazy to go back and find the specific edition right now) that stated that women who are the most likely to suffer from depression are women with 2-3 children under the age of 5 (followed by working women who do not have reliable child care). Traditionally, Mormon women do have more children than non-Mormons and so I can see how Mormon women may suffer from depression. Not because their religion demands they have many children because it doesn't. But because taking care of young children is hard. I have a two year old. Sometimes I feel like I am being broken.

If you consider the possibilities (and facts) that Mormon women have more young children, do not use 'alternative' substances to cope with depression, and may, in fact, have access to good counsel/mental health care, is the fact that they may use Prozac more a bad thing? Do we want women to self-medicate or get professional help? To me the issue isn't whether or not Mormon are more depressed than non-Mormons (studies seem to have proven that is not to true or at least inconclusive), but about using prescription drugs to cope and the reasons behind it.

The fact is, this issue is not as simple as propaganda has made it seem. There are many contributing factors, and as cited by the research, the 'oppressive' quality of the patriarchal Church is not really one of them.

What do you think? What are your experiences?

There is much more to this that I'd like to visit, but we'll start with this for now.

Are Ads Savvy to Mormons?

The Church's new "I'm a Mormon" ad campaign isn't really news to many of us, but it was interesting to read this article showing the new 'branding' of our religion is getting noticed...and is, apparently, savvy. I never thought of our religion 'branding' itself, but I guess it is. A weird way to think about it...

What do think? Is this savvy advertising? What do you think it will achieve? Is this how you want your tithing dollars spent?

The Church has very smart people working for it, so personalizing the religion and telling the individual stories of specific members will be very effective, I think. However, I'm wonder if it will be most effective on other members of the Church or those who are already more familiar with the Church as opposed to attracting people who know nothing about it. Personally, I don't have a problem with my tithing money going towards this type of campaign because the Church does sooo much good around the world and I think that more good can be accomplished if more people understand and know more about the Church. But, I can also see how people would have an issue with it; I mean, advertising in Time Square cannot be cheap. I haven't heard any rumblings of complaint, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Romney Did Great...Could've Done Better in Morgan Interview

I thought Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney did absolutely the right thing in his sit down with Pierce Morgan earlier this month by directing questions about the Church to the Church. Romney is NOT a spokesman for the Church and he is NOT doing interviews to talk about his church. He's doing them to talk about why he is qualified to be President of the United States. I would applaud members of any other religion for also directing questions about their religion to the official spokespeople of their religion, too. That's not why they're there.

However, I can understand why people would be bothered by Romney's response to Morgan's question about whether or not Romney personally believes homosexuality is sin (sidestepping Romney's instruction to contact the Church about his religion's stance on homosexuality). He says the right thing "...as president I have to represent the interests of all people." That absolutely true and I absolutely believe Romney could do that (I'm not saying that I'll necessarily vote for him either, it depends on who enters the race).

But I thought about it a little more and asked myself: if Morgan had asked Mike Huckabee "Do you think Mormons are going to hell?" during the 2008 campaign, no doubt his answer would have been similar to Romney's, but...I would have wanted to know if he thought I was a sinner or going to hell. The given answer is totally understandable and acceptable, but not exactly satisfying. Do I think Romney should answer 'yea' or 'nay' to that question? No unless he wants to lose the election, but more importantly, he shouldn't have to.

I think a better response to that question, and one I would like to hear from Mormons more regarding this issue, goes something like this. "Look, it's not my place judge other people. My job as a Christian and a Mormon is know what I think is right and wrong and behave accordingly. My job is accept and love everyone and appreciate what they bring to the table. I'll leave the hard job, the judgement stuff, up to God." Or something along those lines. I think if I heard that answer from Romney or anyone else, I would be much more satisfied because it backs up what he's saying about representing all people.

I'm available for speech writing and political adviser positions :)

Mormon Parodies Can Be Dangerous

We are all aware of the infamous, and now award-winning, musical "Book of Mormon" on Broadway. While Mormons and non-Mormons alike have cheered the show (for different reasons), the Mormon community has also had many attack the show for being cruel, prejudicial, tasteless, and more for mocking (in the form of parody) an entire faith.

One of our defenders is John Mark Reynolds who wrote this intellectual and insightful piece that appeared in the Washington Post. As I read this article and others, a statement by Michael Otterson, Head of Public Affairs LDS Church, ran through my head: "Of course, parody isn’t reality, and it’s the very distortion that makes it appealing and often funny. The danger is not when people laugh but when they take it seriously – if they leave a theater believing that Mormons really do live in some kind of a surreal world of self-deception and illusion."

So the question is, do people take parody like this seriously? In my experience, the answer is yes. Here's the story.

History Repeats Itself...Or Never Ended

They say you must learn history in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes. Very few, including Mormons, know little about their own religious history. I am currently reading "An Advocate for Women: the Public Life of Emmeline B. Wells" by Carol Cornwall Madsen and I have learned so much about this amazing woman, the history of women's suffrage, LDS women's suffrage, the place Utah had in national politics, and prejudices in that time.

I was struck by the fact that many of the characterizations and misrepresentations of Mormon women in the late 19th and early 20th centuries are similar to what I have encountered as a Mormon of the 21st Century. True, much of the ammunition aimed at Mormons and Mormon women revolved around a fiery anti-polygamy movement, but it all boils down to religion. While I may not be a polygamist wife (as much as my husband jokes about being the guy to bring it back), I have seen similar prejudices against Mormons because of their lifestyle/religious choices/beliefs that still happening now.