A clinical approach to the impact of patriarchal values on psychological functioning of Turkish women

Bu makale Türk kadınlarının toplumdaki güncel yerini ilişkisel psikoanalitik açıdan incelemektedir. İstatistiklerden anlaşılacağı üzere, Türk kadınları, erkekler ve toplum tarafından uzun yıllar boyunca fiziksel, cinsel ve duygusal anlamda baskı altında tutulmuş ve şiddet görmüşlerdir. Ataerkil Türk toplumunda kadının yerini korumak amacıyla yasalarda olumlu değişiklikler yapılsa da, bu değişikliklerin günlük hayatta ne kadar uygulandığı ve bireyler tarafından ne kadar içselleştirildiği büyük bir soru işaretidir. Günümüzde geleneksel Türk kadını tarihsel olarak süregelen baskının altında ezilmeye devam etmektedir. Orta sınıf ve çalışan modern kadınlar ise iş hayatı, aile, ve ilişkilerin dengeli ve sağlıklı bir şekilde yürütülmesinde yaşanan sorunlar ve süper kadın idealinin yarattığı baskı altında ezilmektedir. Kadının nesneleştirilmesi ise yaşanan sorunlardan bir başkasıdır. Dolayısıyla Türk toplumunda hem geleneksel hem de modern kadınlar evde ve işyerinde çifte mesajlar almakta ve sıkıntı yaşamaktadırlar. Bu makalede belirtilen klinik vakalar ataerkil toplum yapısına bağlı olarak Türk kadınının yaşadığı güncel sorunları ve bu sorunların yol açtığı depresyon, endişe ve yeme bozuklukları gibi psikolojik sıkıntıları betimlemeye yardımcı olmaktadır. Makale bu sorunları, etkilerini, ve Türk kadınının toplumdaki statüsünü yükseltmeye yardımcı olabilecek önerileri tartışmıştır.

Ataerkil değer yargılarının Türk kadınının psikolojik işlevselliğine etkileri: Klinik bir yaklaşım

This article examines the current status of Turkish women from a relational psychoanalytic perspective. Statistics indicate that Turkish women have been historically oppressed and discriminated by the Turkish men. The patriarchal nature of the society is a major reason that have led to perpetuation of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of the Turkish women, especially in the rural areas. Even though the regulations and recent laws ameliorated the discrepancy between the rights of Turkish women and men, the findings of practical applications of these laws suggest that changes in the legal system are not truly internalized by the society. Women are still subjected to various forms of oppression, including objectification. In addition, working women aspire to be superwomen as they attempt to excel at multitasking at work, home, and relationships, which often has an overwhelming effect on women. It appears that both traditional and urban women receive double messages at home, relationships, and work and suffer in multiple domains of life. Clinical cases discussed in this paper help to illustrate the psychological difficulties, such as depression, anxiety, and eating disorders, Turkish women experience due to the patriarchal nature of the society. Implications and recommendations that would potentially have a positive impact on elevating the status of Turkish women were discussed.

___

  • Aksoy F. (1996). Kadın erkek ilişkilerinde davranış problemleri. In Arat N. (Ed.), Kadın Gerçeklikleri. İstanbul: Say: 87-101.
  • Akyüz A., Kugu N. Doğan O. & Özdemir L. (2002). Domestic violence, marriage problems, referral complaints and psychiatric diagnosis of the married women admitted to a psychiatry outpatient clinic. Yeni Symposium, 40: 41-48.
  • Altuğ A., Elal G., Slade P. & Tekcan A. (2000). The Eating Attitudes Test (EAT) in Turkish university students: relationship with sociodemographic, social and individual variables. Eating and Weight Disorders, 5:152-160.
  • Arat Y. (1989). The patriarchal paradox: Women politicians in Turkey. New Jersey: Associated University.
  • Arat Y. (1995). 1980’ler Türkiye’sinde kadın hareketi: Liberal Kemalizm’in radikal uzantısı. In Arat N. (Ed.), Türkiye’de Kadın Olgusu. İstanbul: Say: 75-95.
  • Atabek E. (1989). Kışkırtılmış Erkeklik, Bastırılmş Kadınlık. İstanbul: Altın. Aycan Z. & Eskin M. (2005). Relative contributions of childcare, spousal support, and organizational support in reducing work–family conflict for men and women: The case of Turkey. Sex Roles, 53: 453-471.
  • Ayçiçeği-Dinn A. & Kağıtçıbaşı C. (2010). The value of children for parents in the minds of emerging adults. Cross-Cultural Research, 44: 174-206.
  • Bernard J. (1972). The Future of Marriage. New York: Bantam Books.
  • Borden W. (2008). Contemporary Psychodynamic Theory and Practice. Chicago: Lyceum Books.
  • Bowlby J. (1969). Disruption of affectional bonds and its effects on behavior. Canada's Mental Health Supplement, 59: 12.
  • Brown J. K. (1997). Agitators and peace-makers: Cross cultural perspectives on older women and the abuse of young wives. In Sev’er A. (Ed.), A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Wife Abuse. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen: 79-100.
  • Capaldi D. M. & Clark S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female partners for at-risk young men. Developmental Psychology, 34: 1175–1188.
  • Çelikel F. C., Cumurcu B. E., Koç M., Etikan I., & Yücel B. (2008). Psychologic correlates of eating attitudes in Turkish female college students. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 49: 188-194.
  • Chappell C. & Heiner R. (1990). The intergenerational transmission of family aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 5: 135-152.
  • Cindoğlu D. & Toktaş Ş. (2002). Empowerment and resistance strategies of working women in Turkey: The case of 1960-70 graduates of the girls' institutes. European Journal of Women's Studies, 9: 31-48.
  • Cui M., Durtschi J. A., Donnellan M. B., Lorenz F. O. & Conger R. D. (2010). Intergenerational Transmission of Relationship Aggression: A Prospective Longitudinal Study. Journal of Family Psychology, 24: 688-697.
  • Duxbury L. E. & Higgins C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 60-74.
  • Elal G. (2003). Abnormal eating attitudes and disorders in Turkey: Feminine attractiveness or liberal modernity? In Ruggiero G. M. (Ed.), Eating Disorders in the Mediterranean Area. New York: Nova Biomedical: 57-78.
  • Elmacı N. & Oto R. (1996). Vardiyalı çalışan kadınların iş sorunları ve aile ilişkileri. In Arat N. (Ed.), Kadın Gerçeklikleri. İstanbul: Say: 69-86.
  • Engel B. (2005). Breaking the Cycle of Abuse. New Jersey: John Wiley. Fredrickson B. L. & Roberts T. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21: 173-206.
  • De Beauvoir S. (1973). The Second Sex. New York: Vintage.
  • Doltaş D. (1995). Batıdaki feminist kuramlar ve 1980 sonrasi Türk feminizmi. In Arat N. (Ed.), Türkiye’de Kadın Olgusu. İstanbul: Say:51-73.
  • Güler N., Tel H. & Özkan-Tuncay F. (2005). Kadının aile içinde yaşanan şiddete bakışı. Çukurova Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 27: 51- 56.
  • İlkkaracan I. (1998). Kentli kadınlar ve çalışma yaşamı. Bilanço, 98: 285-302.
  • Jaffee S. R., Caspi A., Moffitt T. E. & Taylor A. (2004). Physical maltreatment victim to antisocial child: Evidence of an environmentally mediated process. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113: 44–55.
  • Kağıtçıbaşı C. (1981). Value of children, women’s role and fertility in Turkey. In Abadan-Unat N. (Ed.), Women in Turkish Society (pp.). Leiden: Brill: 74-95.
  • Kağıtçıbaşı C. (2010).Türkiye’de kadın ve eğitim. In Durudogan H., Goksen F., Oder B. E. & Yukseker D. (Eds.), Türkiye’de Toplumsal Cinsiyet Çalışmalari. Istanbul: Mas: 9-19.
  • Kağıtçıbaşı C. & Ataca B. (2005). Value of children and family change: A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54: 317-337.
  • Kandiyoti D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender and Society, 2: 274-290.
  • Karataş S., Şener U. & Otaran N. (2008), Kadın Sığınma Evleri Klavuzu. Ankara: Başbakanlık Kadının Statüsü Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları.
  • Kiesler D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal cycle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90: 185-214.
  • Kugu N., Akyüz G., Doğan O., Ersan E. & İzgic F.(2006). The prevalence of eating disorders among university students and the relationship with some individual characteristics. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40: 129-135.
  • Kwong M. J., Bartholomew K., Henderson A. J. Z. & Trinke S. J. (2003). The intergenerational transmission of relationship violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 17: 288–301.
  • Levy A. (2005). Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. New York: Free Press.
  • Miller J. B. & Stiver I. P. (1997). The Healing Connection. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • McClellan S. & Hamilton B. (2010). So Stressed: The Ultimate Stress-Relief Plan for Women. New York: Free Press.
  • Mocan-Aydın G. (2000). Western Models of Counseling and Psychotherapy within Turkey: Crossing Cultural Boundaries. The Counseling Psychologist, 28: 281-300.
  • Nelson E. C., et al. (2002). Association between self-reported childhood sexual abuse and adverse psychosocial outcomes: Results from a twin study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59: 139–145.
  • O’Neill M. & Güler F. (2009). The not so new Turkish women: A statistical look at women in two Istanbul neighborhoods. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 11: 157-173.
  • Orford J. (1994). The interpersonal circumplex: A theory and method for applied psychology, Human Relations, 47: 1347-1375.
  • Özcan Y. Z., Üçdoğruk Ş. & Özcan K. M. (2003). Wage differences by gender, wage and self employment in urban Turkey. Journal of Economic Cooperation, 24: 1-24.
  • Safran J. D. (1990). Towards a refinement of cognitive therapy in light of interpersonal theory: I. theory. Clinical Psychology Review, 10: 87-105.
  • Safran J. D. & Muran J. C. (2000). Negotiating the therapeutic alliance. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Sever A. & Erkan R. (2004). The dark faces of poverty, patriarchal oppression and social change: female suicides in Batman, Turkey. Retrieved from: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/17541/1/Dark_faces.pdf Straus M., Gelles R. & Steinmetz S. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
  • Sullivan H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Tolaymat L. D. & Moradi B. (2011). U.S. Muslim Women and Body Image: Links Among Objectification Theory Constructs and the Hijab. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58: 383-392.
  • Turkish Statistical Institute. (2006). Aile yapısı araştırması, 2006. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from: http://www.tuik.gov.tr:80/AltKategori.do?ust_id=13.
  • Turkish Statistical Institute. (2008). Kadina yönelik aile içi şiddet istatistikleri. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from:http://www.tuik.gov.tr/kadınasiddetdagitim/kadin.zul.
  • Turkish Statistical Institute. (2009). 1923-2009 Statistical Indicators. Retrieved January 10,2011,from: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/yillik/Ist_gostergeler.pdf.
  • Yaşar M. R. (2007). Depresyonun kadınlaşması. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17: 251-281.
  • Young I. M. (1990). Throwing like a girl and other essays in feminist philosophy and social theory. IN: Indiana University Press.
  • Yüksel N. (1998). Dirençli Depresyonların Tedavisi. Klinik Psikiyatri Dergisi, 1(2): 115-119.
  • Walster E., Aronson E., Abrahams D. Rottman L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4: 508-516.
  • Williams L. J. & Anderson S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601–617.
  • Winnicott D. W. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34: 89-97.
  • Winnicott D. W. (1960). The theory of the parent-child relationship. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41: 585-595.
  • Winnicott D. W. (1965). The theory of infant-parent relationship. In Maturational processes and the facilitating environment. London: Hogarth: 17-55.
  • Wooley S. C. & Wooley O. W. (1980). Eating Disorders: Anorexia and Obesity. In Brodsky A. M. & Hare-Mustin R. (Eds.), Women and Psychotherapy. New York: Guilford: 135-158.