Thats a really interesting thought. I have wondered before why women have a statistically higher occurance of depression than men. Is this part of our socially constructed roles, or is it biology? I'm not one to pin too much on biology, but I think its something worth investigating and thinking about. What if the depression and personality disorders is rooted in the whole issue of women trying to attain perfection? Maybe there isn't something wrong with our brains, maybe the constant pressure of trying to become "acceptable" for society is causing this?

I think it's got to be taken on a case by case basis. There is no way to prove the anger is caused by frustration at society limiting them.

Of course, it could be biological. Perhaps it is traceable to different hormones? They're the thing I know in biology that is definitively gendered.

There are a couple of well-written books that trace the way that psychiatric diagnosis have been used to control women since the beginning of psychiatric practice itself. Check here and here. Of course, in extreme cases, men who were not pleased with their wives for any reason could have them locked up in mental institutions during the Victorian era, and then there were many non-institutional cases such as the one described in The Yellow Wallpaper. Behavior that was considered "unfeminine" was commonly diagnosed as a disorder, and often women were "punished" with extended bedrest, not being allowed to engage in any of their hobbies, etc.

As a psychology student, I've often wondered about the gender disparity in terms of diagnosis. However, I don't think that currently these diagnosis arise from a departure from societal expectations. The symptoms that you listed do seem like those that many people experience sometimes to some degree, but in order to classify as a personality disorder they must be chronic and extreme. My theory about the lower number of male cases is lower reporting rates due to the stigma against therapy, especially for men (showing signs of emotion is "girly"… yea I know, barf.) Or perhaps men are forgiven more for these behaviors. But your idea is still worth looking into, I'll keep my eyes and ears opened. (Sorry if my post doesn't make much sense, I'm sleepy ;) )

It might have something to do with the fact that academic disciplines and diagnostic criteria relating to psychological issues were, and continue to be, developed by men. Just a thought. :)

I think with depression women are much more likely to seek help, while men tend not to because it would be a sign of weakness to have to get help with whats going on in you own head, and are much more likely to become alcoholics. I don't know much about personality disorders but a few are more socially aceptable for men to act like that.

I think you defintely are onto something. As rachel has argued, this line of reasoning is well-documented in feminist studies of madness. Following foucault, feminists have argued that one way to look at definitions of normality and propriety is to investigate the practices through which those that do not fit the bill are excluded, medicalized, and labelled deviant. As Rachel alluded to, such labels are often reserved for those not living up to societal expectations of feminity - for instance, I have read somewhere (do correct if if I'm wrong) that among the criteria for establishing if someone has a borderline personality disorder is a set of risk-seeking and destructive behaviors among which is significantly promiscuous sex and other experimenting with drugs and high-risk activities. Significantly, women are overrepresented in the group of people being medicalized as having a borderline personality disorder. In my view, such an overrepresentation calls attention to the way in which 'destructive, risk-seeking behaviors' are defined and gendered. Men get away with a lot more of those than women: A man can do dangerous sports and sleep around without threatening his status as a sane individual - a woman is easily called a slut, or, worse, as someone who has a personality disorder. I am not suggesting borderline is not a 'real' affliction. I am suggesting, however, that the criteria for the diagnosis are highly gendered and reveal much of what is understood as proper femininity and deviant female behavior.

Also, Susan Bordo in her amazing 'Unbearable Weight' (one of the best books I've read last year) has drawn our attention to the way in which typically female 'disorders' such as eating disorders and, in the 19th century, hysteria, are disorders typically exaggerating what are defined as 'feminine virtues'. In the 19th century, this was being homebound, weak, and dependent, which were significantly typical 'symptoms' of the disease. In our times, exercising control over our bodies through dieting is, again, conceived of as a desirable feminine virtue. Eating disorders emerge, then, not necesairly as individual pathologies but as complex 'crystallizations of culture' - as illustration in extremis of the pressures put on women to conform. I have suffered from anorexia for over 7 years, and I am the last to reduce anyone's individual pain to a mere symptom of our times. I do believe that each historical juncture has itw own typical pathologies: pathologies laying bare the parameters of femininity and its limitations.

Typically, disorders like hysteria and eating disorders bring with them a measure of control - once labelled 'mad', 'ill', or somehow deviant, women's protests are simultaneously given legitimacy and mystified as being individual pathologies rather than signs of all that is wrong with a particular culture. A debilitating sense of control, perhaps - yet control nevertheless. Over one's body, and the people surrounding you - a control also denied to women as they are less justified in expressing their anger and frustrations freely in a context which was and is still highly oppressive.

So I think medicalisation can work both ways; on the one hand, it may target those than do not live up to societal expectations (expressing their trauma and anger in socially unacceptable ways). On the other, the medical establishment is also quick to describe crystallizations of culture, i.e., eating disorder and formerly hysteria, as individual pathologies where in fact they are reflections of what society indeed does value in women. Both moves serve to mystify the larger oppressive structures influencing women's lives. The biological argument is one of these powerful discourses that divert attention away from societal structures of oppression to individual hormonal imbalances that can be corrected with medication or therapy.

This may sound like a conspiracy theory and of course, it isn't, really. There is no patriarchical mastermind designing ways to keep women in check. yet I do believe that there are manifold and complex medicalization practices that are in no way ever 'innocent', or untouched by the larger societal and cultural understandings of proper femininity and proper masculinity. I do recommend Bordo's book; if you want to read more, I'm sure there's plenty feminist historical writing about medicalisation practices. Reading about Breud's 'Dora' might also be interesting, as well as the Yellow Wallpaper which rachel mentioned.

"Sufferers of personality disorders are overwhelmingly female. In the case of borderline personality, the ratio is touted as 3 to 1"

Well, the diagnosis of Borderline personality disorder is certainly higher in women. However, I would also add, that out of the criteria listed above in Ziggy's post, Borderline is overwhelmingly diagnosed in women who self-harm, regardless of whether they fit any of the other criteria.

This issue is a powderkeg of other issues as well. Women are more likely to seek treatment that gets a diagnosis than men. Women are also more likely to have the types of trauma that is strongly correlated to developing these disorders.

Mental diagnosis doesn't work the same as, say, having the flu. The majority of mental problems can only be properly diagnosed if the person has shown a consistent set of these symptoms for 6 months or more to ensure it's a pattern and not some unknown, transient x-factor.

DSM-IV uses criteria based on studies -- many of which are usually cited here as evidence -- that differentiate what the "out of normal" behavior is based on the whole. And it's not the idea of being RIGHT outside average, but WAAAAAY outside average. or, considered very extreme and disruptive to social functioning.

I was diagnosed on several occasions as borderline. And it infuriated me. I've live through a lot of demeaning interactions with the medical community because I used to be a self-injurer. Being diagnosed borderline angered me in a way I'd never experienced before.

I definitely think society is uncomfortable with women being angry. Whether you get angry, there's always that patronizing, Well aren't you just an angry girl? Or the clinical labeling.

Jane Ussher has written several really, really amazing books on this. Women's Madness is perhaps my favorite book on the subject.

I'm a psyc major as well, and I actually just finished a course in Abnormal Psyc last semester. It seemed to me that for every set of female heavy disorders, there was an opposite male heavy disorder, though usually not in the same category. For instance, a lot of the personality, anxiety, and somataform disorders were very skewed to the females in the gender ration, but addictions, sexuality disorders, schizophrenia/ocd, and a select few of the personality disorders were skewed male.

So it occurred to me that while the criteria for various diagnosis might be unbiased and objective, the interpretations of patient behavior by the psychologist is not. A man and a woman presenting with the same behaviors might get different diagnosis because of the psychologists' (unconscious) bias, he'll be labeled schizotypal and she'll be labeled borderline. Part of this could be because of the preconceived notion that one is more male identified and one more female (i.e. if both have similar criteria, what's more likely statistic wise, a male borderline or a male schiztoypal?)

There's also a lot of confounding factors in this too. Such as what males are told is the appropriate way to deal with their mental anguish (i.e. get drunk, act out aggression in sports, etc) and what females are told is appropriate (i.e. get help, talk it over with friends, ruminate). One leads to addiction and aggressive behavior disorders, the other leads to depression and personality disorders.

I think the people behind the DSM-IV do try to be unbiased in their clinical descriptions and criteria. For the most part, it's the cultural lens that its read through that creates a bias. For our culture, the criteria for depression reads as things that are very feminine because of the way our culture constructs femininity. In other cultures it might not be read quite the same because of how they construct femininity.

Hi all this is my article prompted me to write on my own blog (which is new)

hope some of you will check it out

http://disembodiedvoicespeaks.blogspot.com/

The only real BPD person I knew was a male. It was more involved than simply being a complainer or not doing what society expects. There can be feelings of unreality and alternating tendancies to place others on pedestals only to figuratively kick them away a moment later. Volatile at a moment's notice. Lots of other stuff. I'm sure he suffered as much as he inflicted suffering. I'm not saying things like this are never misdiagnosed but trust me, it's not just something that was made up to keep women in their place.