I think the reason why mental health is more public these days is because it wasn't talked about and addressed.

To extend you physical injury analogy: yes, people get physically injured. People break legs, and because of the focus and progress on physical injuries, they wear a cast for a few weeks, and then - for all practical intents and purposes - the injury never happened.

Because the same attention wasn't applied to mental health, I think people realised they were surrounded by the equivalent of people dragging themselves around on the ground because of a broken leg a decade ago that never got fixed. Why would anyone do that? Either because they don't know about the treatment, or because they live in an environment where the idea of getting treatment is seen as a bad or weak or shameful thing.

> Why is it so implausible to say that practically everyone can expect to eventually have to deal with at least one significant mental injury, too?

Just like we expect to walk down the street and see the occasional person with a plaster or bandage to handle a physical injury, if you accept we all have mental injuries, why do you expect to see them handled any more privately than physical ones?

Because historically we haven't handled mental injuries as well as the physical ones. I don't completely disagree with your original points. I think depth, nuance, and accuracy of the conversation matters most of all. There is plenty of superficial, influencer-level chatter in both realms.

> Because historically we haven't handled mental injuries as well as the physical ones.

I think that's the crucial point: "because that's how we've always done it" is the only real justification I can think of for us not tackling mental struggles more head on. If we're brave enough to compassionately question the things we don't normally question, being more open about mental stuff is the right thing to do IMO.

I sometimes wonder if superficial, influencer-level chatter is an early part of the process of normalising tough conversation points. It can let people test the waters in a safe way, signalling they want to talk about this stuff without getting too deep or vulnerable, yet.

I'd say that significant mental injury is _far_ more likely than physical.

The word trauma is weighty but has a very broad application. I think most people learn about it in the context of e.g. post-traumatic stress disorder (formerly known as battle fatigue, formerly known as shellshock) and associate it with veterans coming back from the war, but it basically applies to anything that have a lasting effect on people. Could be something like parents being emotionally unavailable, childhood bullying, etc.

No, not at all, the word trauma is predominately used today as the name for a sort of "psychic damage", like that which sometimes occurs when one is severely injured but which can also occur in many other circumstances, often purely social or emotional.

Your view is representing a traditionally more masculine point of view.

A more feminine point of view is that we should shield against experiences that lead to a trauma.

What we want as a society is a democratic process, and it is heavily up for negotiation these years. It is completely fine.

Personally, my core belief is that whatever we ultimately decide on, it counts for all equivalent regardless of their gender.

> A more feminine point of view is that we should shield against experiences that lead to a trauma.

I think that's true both for physical and psychological trauma! We should generally avoid preventable injuries and try to live and work with safety in mind.

All I meant is that the phrase "[almost] everyone has experienced trauma" doesn't seem that radical or extreme to me. It seems like common sense. (And it's not the same thing as "everyone is falling apart" or something like that.)